Grand Canyon Disproves Creationism

[Job 33:6]

I made a long post about this in another thread.

If you look at rocks deposited by the eruption and even those eroded, you can see that they are all pyroclastic, breccias and volcanic ash. Much different than rocks of the Grand Canyon

Catastrophism. Mount St. Helens volcano made a small
scale version of the grand canyon in a very short time,
complete with many layers.

Water follows the path of least resistance. During flooding,
main channels can get blocked by moving debris, causing
side channels or turns where the ground is softer.

.

 

[Job 33:6]

Amount of water isn't a problem.

First, I think the world was very different pre-flood.
Not only no mountains, but the whole planet was smaller.
Look up expanding earth videos on Youtube.

Second, there is plenty of water for the earth as it is now,
minus the mountains, which were pushed up afterward.
Study: Deep beneath the earth, more water than in all the oceans combined

And we don't want to just make stuff up on the fly. Maybe the mountains were tall, maybe short. Maybe the planet was smaller, maybe animals on the ark were babies and eggs to save room, maybe the koalas swam 500 miles to Australia. Maybe animals super evolved. Maybe this happened, maybe that.

The old earth side has a consistent story that matches evidence. Young earthers don't seem to know what they believe and often contradict eachother and sort of "make stuff up on the fly".

If someone demonstrates that your point doesn't make sense, you can't keep imagining new and elaborate explanations for things when you don't have evidence for them.

 

[Dale]

I made a long post about this in another thread.

If you look at rocks deposited by the eruption and even those eroded, you can see that they are all pyroclastic, breccias and volcanic ash. Much different than rocks of the Grand Canyon


.

I assume that you're talking about Mt. St. Helen.

Thanks.

 

[Job 33:6]

I assume that you're talking about Mt. St. Helen.

Thanks.

Correct.

This really bothers me. You hear that stuff, "oh canyons formed around mt st helens after the 1980 eruption, so of course all these layers elsewhere in the world could form quickly."

But, its deceptive because they dont really go into detail about it.

Here is a quote I just got from answers in genesis

"What astonished them were features such as the 25-feet-thick deposit that consisted of thousands of thin layers. In school, I was taught that you assume layers like this were laid down at the rate of perhaps one or two a year. Then you could estimate how long it took for such a deposit to form, perhaps even millions of years. However, this 25-feet-thick series of layers was formed in less than one day—perhaps even just three hours."

But there is no mention of what these layers are.

http://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/ger_ic88_mount_st_helens_pt1.pdf
https://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1789/report.pdf

If you read from page 26 and on, you can read about the rocks around mt st helens. And theres a really expansive and rich history behind this volcano, but you really would just never know if you listened to these organizations like AIG.

And in this document, theres a more clear analysis. You see discussions about the rock types, pyroclastic flows, breccias, andesites, lahars, cobbles, chunks, debris, dacite etc.

When you see minerals broken in sharp edges, this is caused by explosive events.

You also have volcanic ash and things that can erode away quickly and easily by high energy explosive action.


But the world at large doesnt consist of volcanic deposits like breccais and dacite and volcanic ash. And the Grand canyon is much different.

Shales, sandstones, limestones, schist, dykes, angular unconformities, disconformities

And even these groups mentioned, like the supai group, these are facies, they are a collection of various rocks in specific orders that tell a story. There are specific fossil assemblages associated with these groups as well. But all of it is lost, the story, the history, the information is all lost in trying to dumb it down by comparing it to a volcanic eruption.

I am typically a mild mannered person, but as a geologist, this presses my buttons when i hear stuff like this.

taking a deep breath and moving on now...

And i think what makes it hard is that, I wonder if they are purposefully being deceptive in their articles, or if they are genuine. Why dont they talk about this? And further, we all Love Christ dearly in our hearts, but people shouldn't have to be intellectually dishonest to show that love.

 

[Dale]

Correct.

This really bothers me. You hear that stuff, "oh canyons formed around mt st helens after the 1980 eruption, so of course all these layers elsewhere in the world could form quickly."

But, its deceptive because they dont really go into detail about it.

Here is a quote I just got from answers in genesis

"What astonished them were features such as the 25-feet-thick deposit that consisted of thousands of thin layers. In school, I was taught that you assume layers like this were laid down at the rate of perhaps one or two a year. Then you could estimate how long it took for such a deposit to form, perhaps even millions of years. However, this 25-feet-thick series of layers was formed in less than one day—perhaps even just three hours."

But there is no mention of what these layers are.

http://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/ger_ic88_mount_st_helens_pt1.pdf
https://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1789/report.pdf

If you read from page 26 and on, you can read about the rocks around mt st helens. And theres a really expansive and rich history behind this volcano, but you really would just never know if you listened to these organizations like AIG.

And in this document, theres a more clear analysis. You see discussions about the rock types, pyroclastic flows, breccias, andesites, lahars, cobbles, chunks, debris, dacite etc.

When you see minerals broken in sharp edges, this is caused by explosive events.

You also have volcanic ash and things that can erode away quickly and easily by high energy explosive action.


But the world at large doesnt consist of volcanic deposits like breccais and dacite and volcanic ash. And the Grand canyon is much different.

Shales, sandstones, limestones, schist, dykes, angular unconformities, disconformities

And even these groups mentioned, like the supai group, these are facies, they are a collection of various rocks in specific orders that tell a story. There are specific fossil assemblages associated with these groups as well. But all of it is lost, the story, the history, the information is all lost in trying to dumb it down by comparing it to a volcanic eruption.

I am typically a mild mannered person, but as a geologist, this presses my buttons when i hear stuff like this.

taking a deep breath and moving on now...

And i think what makes it hard is that, I wonder if they are purposefully being deceptive in their articles, or if they are genuine. Why dont they talk about this? And further, we all Love Christ dearly in our hearts, but people shouldn't have to be intellectually dishonest to show that love.

As far as I can tell, creationists don't look for patterns in nature. They see no need for natural laws. To them every animal, every plant, every organism is simply a miracle. That's why they see no need for evolution, they see no need for natural laws.

Thanks for your post. I am knowledgeable about chemistry, biology and astronomy but I don't know that much about geology, so I don't always know how to respond when creationists use arguments based on geology.

 

[pat34lee]

The reason that Noah lands on Mt. Ararat is that the ancient Hebrews thought it is the largest and tallest mountain in the world. When the flood waters recede, the tallest mountain is the first to be exposed. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Only if you're creating a myth. They knew where it landed because
Noah and his family lived there. People have probably lived in that
area continually ever since. For hundreds of years, if not a thousand
or more, they could see the ark. The anchor stones are still right where
they hit ground and were cut off the ark.
Noah'sArkStones

 

[pat34lee]

But the world at large doesnt consist of volcanic deposits like breccais and dacite and volcanic ash. And the Grand canyon is much different.

Shales, sandstones, limestones, schist, dykes, angular unconformities, disconformities

Now, where are the evidences of years or centuries of erosion
between layers? Layer 10, just to pick a number at random, is
the same from one end of the canyon to the other. Same height,
same thickness. Even the canyon walls don't show the weathering
that would prove long periods of time. They are too tall and not
washed out wide enough from weathering. It's like they were laid
at the same time, during a flood possibly.

Exposed limestone material. That erodes very quickly.

 

[pat34lee]

And we don't want to just make stuff up on the fly. Maybe the mountains were tall, maybe short. Maybe the planet was smaller, maybe animals on the ark were babies and eggs to save room, maybe the koalas swam 500 miles to Australia. Maybe animals super evolved. Maybe this happened, maybe that.

The old earth side has a consistent story that matches evidence. Young earthers don't seem to know what they believe and often contradict eachother and sort of "make stuff up on the fly".

If someone demonstrates that your point doesn't make sense, you can't keep imagining new and elaborate explanations for things when you don't have evidence for them.

Why not? It's exactly what scientists do. Scrap one theory,
make another from what you learn. Talking about making
stuff up, look at the Oort cloud, dark matter and billions of
years of made up history, none of which can be proven.

 

[Job 33:6]

Now, where are the evidences of years or centuries of erosion
between layers? Layer 10, just to pick a number at random, is
the same from one end of the canyon to the other. Same height,
same thickness. Even the canyon walls don't show the weathering
that would prove long periods of time. They are too tall and not
washed out wide enough from weathering. It's like they were laid
at the same time, during a flood possibly.

Exposed limestone material. That erodes very quickly.

Did you miss the entire point of my post? Youre ignoring the fact that mt st helens consists of volcanic ash and breccias, which is nothing like geology elsewhere (except around volcanoes).

The two localities do not correlate in composition. Theyre completely different.

 

[Job 33:6]

Why not? It's exactly what scientists do. Scrap one theory,
make another from what you learn. Talking about making
stuff up, look at the Oort cloud, dark matter and billions of
years of made up history, none of which can be proven.

You bring up mt st helens which is nothing like geology as it exists around the rest of the planet, and you dont even acknowledge the fact that it is nothing like geology elsewhere.

Instead of accepting the fact that this mt st helens proposition doesnt make any sense, youre trying to move on to another topic.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Now, where are the evidences of years or centuries of erosion
between layers? Layer 10, just to pick a number at random, is
the same from one end of the canyon to the other. Same height,
same thickness.

In general, many of the layers maintain approximately the same thickness throughout the region, but locally, there are plenty of variations and structures associated with weathering can be seen between layers - paleosols (ancient soils), trace fossils (footprints, burrows, and other evidence of habitation), and sediment infill into erosional surfaces. And that doesn't even get into the very different depositional environments that are clearly indicated by the layers we see.

Even the canyon walls don't show the weathering
that would prove long periods of time. They are too tall and not
washed out wide enough from weathering. It's like they were laid
at the same time, during a flood possibly.

Many of the rocks exposed in the Grand Canyon are highly resistant to weathering, and so tend to form vertical cliffs. There are, however, quite a few slope-forming units that weather much more easily. Also, I don't know where you get the idea that the Grand Canyon isn't wide. It does vary a bit, but it is up to 18 miles wide at some points.

Exposed limestone material. That erodes very quickly.

Wrong. Limestone is one of the more durable rocks out there - there's a reason why it's a popular building material.

 

[Job 33:6]

To clarify on limestone, it is relatively durable. Compared to something like quartize it isnt as durable, but it is rock none the less. Hence why you have limestone cliffs and beds like the white cliffs of dover that have been around for as long as we have witnessed, battered by the ocean and standing perfectly fine. Thats mostly for @pat34lee

And limestone often is made of shells. Shells arent as durable as some harder rocks, but shells are durable none the less. Especially if you have a layer of limestone hundreds of feet thick, this isnt something that just dissolves like toilet paper.

 

[pat34lee]

Did you miss the entire point of my post? Youre ignoring the fact that mt st helens consists of volcanic ash and breccias, which is nothing like geology elsewhere (except around volcanoes).

The two localities do not correlate in composition. Theyre completely different.

Did I argue that they were different? They are just similar in some ways, quick depositing
of material, then just as quick canyon formation by flood water.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Did I argue that they were different? They are just similar in some ways, quick depositing
of material, then just as quick canyon formation by flood water.

We've established that the Mt. St. Helens example includes both layers deposited quickly and a canyon that was formed quickly. However, we've also established that the reasons for that are volcanism. The layers formed quickly due to (geologically) rapid eruptions of large quantities of volcanic material (ash, cinders, etc), and those materials also erode quickly, especially when they don't have much time to cement into rock (aka "lithify"). Additionally, we have established that the Grand Canyon is not made up of volcanic ash and other ejecta, so therefore Mt. St. Helens cannot be used as an example of either rapid formation or rapid erosion for the Grand Canyon because they were not formed through the same processes.

 

[Job 33:6]

You know, a bowl of cereal being dropped on the floor can quickly deposit flakes onto the ground too, perhaps we should draw that analogy while we are at it.

 

[pat34lee]

To clarify on limestone, it is relatively durable. Compared to something like quartize it isnt as durable, but it is rock none the less. Hence why you have limestone cliffs and beds like the white cliffs of dover that have been around for as long as we have witnessed, battered by the ocean and standing perfectly fine. Thats mostly for @pat34lee

And limestone often is made of shells. Shells arent as durable as some harder rocks, but shells are durable none the less. Especially if you have a layer of limestone hundreds of feet thick, this isnt something that just dissolves like toilet paper.

Quick chemistry question:
What do you get when you add CO2 to H2O?

 

[pat34lee]

Many of the rocks exposed in the Grand Canyon are highly resistant to weathering, and so tend to form vertical cliffs. There are, however, quite a few slope-forming units that weather much more easily. Also, I don't know where you get the idea that the Grand Canyon isn't wide. It does vary a bit, but it is up to 18 miles wide at some points.

And with that tiny river running through it, no less.
How did that cut 18 miles wide and in short enough
time to leave the banks mostly vertical?

 

[pat34lee]

Something about the White Cliffs of Dover is bugging me.

"The Chalk Sea lasted for approximately 30 million years (Ensom 1998) which was enough time for billions of coccolithophores shells to be deposited on the seafloor (Gallois 1995). One thing that makes the chalk so unique is the near “absence of terrigenous material” (Chatwin 1960). This is due to the fact that land was a great distance away from the depositional environment (Chatwin 1960). Also, the land had to have been fairly flat and would not have had a good mechanism with which to bring detrital matter out to the open sea (Rayner 1967). The chalk is especially unique because it has the greatest outcrop area of any formation in England (Rayner 1967)."
Chalk is a substance that is composed of____

Does that sound correct to you?
To me, it sounds like they're missing sea currents and floating debris.
And no, I don't think it could last 30 million years without anything
disturbing the purity of the chalk, like earthquakes or volcanoes.
I think the chalk formed in a short period of years, probably before
the flood, rather than after. At no time since would it have a perfect
environment in which to grow.

 

[Job 33:6]

Quick chemistry question:
What do you get when you add CO2 to H2O?

As I've said before, water doesnt go out of its way to target areas that it has not been. A river doesnt say "oh, theres some limestone a quarter mile from here, I'll meander in that direction!"

The river at the bottom of the grandcanyon for example, it doesnt climb the valley walls to get back to layers of limestone that it has already eroded through. And so however many hundreds or thousands of feet thick areas of limestone there are residing in the canyon, they arent subjected to major erosive forces.

Still haven't heard you acknowledge this one either^

 

[Job 33:6]

perhaps we should ask ourselves how long it would have taken the colorado river to erode through schist and granite at the base of the canyon, talk about a long time...