Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I see a meandering canyon, and the process of meandering is rather well understood. So what is the question, and how is the flood hypothesis that you likely propose better at answering it than conventional geology?
The hard rocks of various types in the Grand Canyon are very different from the unconsolidated tephra that makes of the "layers" around St. Helens. There was some layering as the result of the pyroclastic flow, this causes layers of different sizes of the same type of rock. I have been to St. Helens twice since the eruption and the tephra is so unconsolidated you can dig into it with your bare hands. I don't think would get far with that on the Coconino sandstones, Redwall limestones or Hermit Shale or any of the other rock layers of the Grand Canyon. Much of the "layering" that is seen around St. Helens arose from either the lahar or diverted water cutting through poorly consolidated tephra from previous eruptions over the last 30,000 years or so.
Here is a link to a webpage on St. Helens stratigraphy and tephra
Mt. St. Helens stratigraphy
The attached pictures are some I downloaded from the web and not my own but they do show the lahar layering and it is easy to see how different these layers are from those in the Grand Canyon.
The formation of rocks over time can be seen as layers.So, the pyroclastic flow deposited the layers within few hours. One of my question is were they sedimentary layer, or just volcanic particles? And what about the canyons that were formed near the toutle river? How did that happen? Thank you answering these questions, I am not sure so I ask. Thanks =)
Except that in the Grand Canyon is was actually eroding rock and not unconsolidate material so soft that you can dig it up with your bare hands (I have done it) so I think that at least the kinetics will be many orders of magnitude different.The problem is not on how long does it take to build up the rock layers, but is on how fast could the water erode out the canyon, no matter what is the rock made of.
Do you think the erosion of the valley at Mt. St. Helens proceeded as a gradual peeling of the sediment downward from the top layer? I don't think so. Erosion does not go that way. There might be a similarity between the erosional process between the Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon, regardless the rock material.
Sandstones have a wide range hardness so I am not sure if you are correct and the Zoraster Granites are very hard rocks. But you should think. The Grand Canyon is clearly an equilbrium drainage basin. Side canyons that have not been blocked by lava flows or landslides enter at the level of the main canyon. As such it took time to form. It could not have been formed in a single global flood 4,500 years ago. Do you think that some of the layers of the Colorado Plateau were deposited by the flood of Noah? If so which ones?(Think: why does the inner gorge of the Grand Canyon has a much steeper slope? The schist is not that harder than sandstone.)
We know that God, Himself handled the orogenic profile of this earth.
Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
And mother nature kept her grubby hands off.
I don't believe the Colorado River eroded the Grand Canyon.Hi AV1611VET
Would you say that the Colorado River today, as it slowly erodes the bottom of the Grand Canyon, is subservient to God's plans, and carrying out its part in fulfilment of them?
Cheers
S.
I don't believe the Colorado River eroded the Grand Canyon.Sophophile said:Would you say that the Colorado River today, as it slowly erodes the bottom of the Grand Canyon, is subservient to God's plans, and carrying out its part in fulfilment of them?
I believe the Grand Canyon was either caused by the Flood, or by the pulling apart of the continents shortly afterward.
IOW, the Grand Canyon came first, then the Colorado River.
I have no idea.Thanks AV1611VET, but you didn't answer the question.
Would you say that the Colorado River today, as it slowly erodes the bottom of the Grand Canyon, is subservient to God's plans, and carrying out its part in fulfilment of them?
S.
Think: why does the inner gorge of the Grand Canyon has a much steeper slope? The schist is not that harder than sandstone.
So, the pyroclastic flow deposited the layers within few hours. One of my question is were they sedimentary layer, or just volcanic particles? And what about the canyons that were formed near the toutle river? How did that happen? Thank you answering these questions, I am not sure so I ask. Thanks =)
Sorry Mark but Steve Austin aka Stewart Nevins is a proven liar.I don't have a lot of interest in geology but I found this when I was considering my approach to the subject of origins:
Radioisotope dating conveys an aura of reliability both to the general public and professional scientists. The best "proof" for millions of years of earth history in most people's minds is radioisotope dating. But is the method all it's cracked up to be? Can we really trust it? The lava dome at Mount St. Helens provides a rare opportunity for putting radioisotope dating to the test.
"Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really a Million Years Old?"
The fact is that when it comes to this kind of testing I don't trust the results. My question has always been, 'what sets the radiometric clock back to zero years'. I never really pursued the subject because, frankly, it didn't interest me. I was more into genetics and fossils, there are at least some tangible evidence to consider.
I have no idea.Sophophile said:Would you say that the Colorado River today, as it slowly erodes the bottom of the Grand Canyon, is subservient to God's plans, and carrying out its part in fulfilment of them?
Except that in the Grand Canyon is was actually eroding rock and not unconsolidate material so soft that you can dig it up with your bare hands (I have done it) so I think that at least the kinetics will be many orders of magnitude different.
Sandstones have a wide range hardness so I am not sure if you are correct and the Zoraster Granites are very hard rocks. But you should think. The Grand Canyon is clearly an equilbrium drainage basin. Side canyons that have not been blocked by lava flows or landslides enter at the level of the main canyon. As such it took time to form. It could not have been formed in a single global flood 4,500 years ago. Do you think that some of the layers of the Colorado Plateau were deposited by the flood of Noah? If so which ones?
If God is in control of nature as you have shown, then please don't try and convince me that He sent the Colorado River to forge the Grand Canyon.Therefore, Psalm 90 is not a Biblical argument against the slow formation of the Grand Canyon by natural forces.
Once again, and let's make this plain as day:
The Grand Canyon came first, then the Colorado River.
The very Documentation that shows God in control of nature also shows God in control of time; and if you think the Colorado River had time to forge the Grand Canyon at God's command, then you must think it hyper-forged it, eh?
Because the upper parts of the canyon were exposed long before the lower parts and thus have been subject to erosion for much longer? What do I win?
If so, the slope should be the same and continuous all the way down to the river.
Evolutionists? Evolution has nothing to do with this subject. It is geology. You can find a lot of refutations of YEC nonsense about the flood on the OEC website Answers in CreationThis subject is too hard for me. I will just learn it from you guys. But I do know for one thing: If Mt. St. Helens canyons did not occur without having meandering at the bottom, which it doesn't, the evolutionists would come to conclude that these canyons were form rapidly, because no meandering. However, if this had not happen they would have concluded otherwise because they already knew the canyons were form rapidly. See....They shift the goalpost.
Evolutionists? Evolution has nothing to do with this subject. It is geology. You can find a lot of refutations of YEC nonsense about the flood on the OEC website Answers in Creation
To justify your complaint about shifting goalpost you would have to find an actual example of a canyon that is known to have formed rapidly with lots of meanders.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?