Wired: How to Date the Grand Canyon: Go With the Flow

[Baggins]

Cite your source, buddy.

Douglas Adams is offended.

:o I thought I was being original.

Did Douglas Adams say that first?

 

[AintNoMonkey]

:o I thought I was being original.

Did Douglas Adams say that first?

You must have subconsciously channeled him.

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
Douglas Adams


http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/douglasada107514.html

 

[lemmings]

Of course. The worry is that you can not take it.

What if I say the ages are related to the time of cave formation, but not related to the Grand Canyon at all?

They did not date the caves, they where dating the rocks within the caves that formed by erosion. This erosion could only have been caused when the river level was at the appropriate elevation.

 

[Molal]

The conditions during the flood year can't be duplicated. Simply great pressure, I believe from separatind continents, was released and smashed into everything. The water or the water with sediment or some other combination easily pressurized the sediment into rock of different sorts here or there.
Pressurizing with heat is how sediment is turned into rock according to geology today. Just a long time with great weight.
We say the exact same method or somewhat the same did it instantly.
Neither one of us can test our hypothesis.
Yet our idea fits better what is observed. Likewise faauna/flora that was caught up in the sediment is now fossils in the rock.
You can't say there wasn't enough pressure because the pressure we suggest would be greater then the pressure you suggest for your idea.
Rob byers

Evidence your claim Robert. Please provide peer reviewed published data to evidence your claim.

So, pony up the data.

 

[juvenissun]

They did not date the caves, they where dating the rocks within the caves that formed by erosion. This erosion could only have been caused when the river level was at the appropriate elevation.

Did they date the cave deposit? That IS one method to date the cave.

The cave is NOT made by river erosion. They are limestone caves and were made by groundwater dissolution. One can find A LOT of caves in the limestone formations of the Grand Canyon.

 

[Molal]

Of course. The worry is that you can not take it.

What if I say the ages are related to the time of cave formation, but not related to the Grand Canyon at all?

That's not a refutation.

Provide some evidence. I keep asking for evidence and you provide none. Why? Why can't you provide evidence? If you provide evidence, we as geologists, scientists can peer review it and provide expert opinion.

It's as though you have something to hide.....

 

[juvenissun]

That's not a refutation.

Provide some evidence. I keep asking for evidence and you provide none. Why? Why can't you provide evidence? If you provide evidence, we as geologists, scientists can peer review it and provide expert opinion.

It's as though you have something to hide.....

There will be no evidence for you, even I have it.

Take my opinion or not, it is up to you. You are welcome to debate it. Why do I have to prove my idea by other peoples' work?

If you don't like what I said, don't read. I am not writing it only for you. If you can not debate my idea. then close your mouth.

 

[thaumaturgy]

There will be no evidence for you, even I have it.

Ridiculous.

Take my opinion or not, it is up to you. You are welcome to debate it. Why do I have to prove my idea by other peoples' work?

Have you ever worked as a scientist? Have you ever had to defend a thesis? A dissertation?

If you have to ask that question "Why do I have to prove my idea by other peoples' work?", I think we know you haven't ever had to work as a scientist or defend a scientific idea.

I might also ask if you've ever read a scientific article. Again, the fact that you had to ask "the question" indicates maybe you haven't.

If you don't like what I said, don't read.

You know, I think everyone would like to learn more about why you say what you say. But, if you can't support your own claims or even reference the fundamentals behind them, then why on earth do you even speak them?

What possible good do they do anyone if even you don't have reason for anyone to believe they are valid????

I am not writing it only for you. If you can not debate my idea. then close your mouth.

Believe me, everyone here would love to "debate" your idea (that's why we are here). But you have to present it as a supportable claim.

What if I were to claim: "Jesus wasn't real". And when you asked why I proposed that, I just waved my hands and said "You can either accept what I say or just shut up!"

When asked for evidence for my claim I simply wave it off again, saying "Any grad student can look up the details if they are really interested."

How irrational and stupid would this "debate" become?

If you don't believe your own hypotheses enough to muster even a basic defense of them, why don't you take your own advice?

...close your mouth.

 

[Molal]

There will be no evidence for you, even I have it.

Take my opinion or not, it is up to you. You are welcome to debate it. Why do I have to prove my idea by other peoples' work?

If you don't like what I said, don't read. I am not writing it only for you. If you can not debate my idea. then close your mouth.

The debate is about the evidence, not your idea. You cannot publish your idea...you have to support it with evidence.

Each time someone refutes your claim, they provide evidence - usually peer reviewed, or simple math - then you come back with yet another idea with no evidence.

For the lurkers - this is a classic example of a bad debate tactic. I have evidence, but I'm not showing it to you. This means the debater has no evidence and that the debater cannot provide evidence for their assertions. In other words, they simply disagree.

 

[flatworm]

Why do I have to prove my idea by other peoples' work?

You don't. You can go ahead and replicate all the original research from scratch, if you want. Let me know when you've got it all published.

 

[Molal]

The debate is about the evidence, not your idea. You cannot publish your idea...you have to support it with evidence.

Each time someone refutes your claim, they provide evidence - usually peer reviewed, or simple math - then you come back with yet another idea with no evidence.

For the lurkers - this is a classic example of a bad debate tactic. I have evidence, but I'm not showing it to you. This means the debater has no evidence and that the debater cannot provide evidence for their assertions. In other words, they simply disagree.

I posted this before I wrote it.....

 

[RobertByers]

To everybody about rock formation that sees it as a slow process.
it all comes down to data and interpretation and then the ability to weight the evidence or test the whole matter by the scientific method.
In both creationist and evolutionist ideas there is not a ability to repeat the conditions.
We can not repeat the great pressurized flowing water/sediment and you can not repeat long time processes. I think also you need more then this long time faith to even make a arguement in the first place.


By the way this deep water thing is not recreating the flood conditions of pressureized moving water/sediment and no doubt other concepts going on. Mud at the floor of the deep is not a equal analagy in any way with the great movements during a great mass of water being shoved by moving continents and other events. It just ain't.

It is more reasonable that sediment turned into rock is a instant event, perhaps like making cement, i don't know, then your long untestable ideas.
Just looking at sedimentary rock shows such a obvious associate of sediment and moving water with sorting and currents that to see it as sediment in static water is just not true.
It is the lack of a power sorce that has made many ernest geologists miss the true origin here.
Any sedimentary rock book just teaches clearly about ordinary water dynamics and extra ordinary pressuring to cement particles together, in between the lines.

if sediment can be turned into rock slow then it shopuld going on somewhere right now?
In the end we are both frustrated to prove our points by lack of a idea to test them. So its interpretation on presumptions.
Rob Byers

 

[Baggins]

THIS MAKES MORE SENSE IF IT IS READ AFTER POST 74

To everybody about rock formation that sees it as a slow process.
it all comes down to data and interpretation and then the ability to weight the evidence or test the whole matter by the scientific method.

Oh dear, this going to turn into those " if you weren't there you can say" threads isn't it, the sort that not only means that science is wrong but so is Christianity.

It is a good job scientists don't listen to stuff like this but go out and experiment and look at evidence which is a witness to events they were not there to see.

Actually it is quite easy to experimentally recreate the conditions of pressure and heat that exist at depth and form sediments into rock in the lab. These experimental results can then be compared to real world examples that are created everytime a drilling rig drills down through a sedimentary pile.

What Robert doesn't realise, because he is uneducated in the earth sciences, is that the processess that go towrds making rock out of sediment are very well understood and are hardly cutting edge science. They are so basic that I don't think I have even seen a YEC question them before.

They, like Robert believe that they flood can produce rock almost instantaneously, which is obviously rubbish, but they don't go on to say that the process then stopped as Robert does as this is obviously non-sensical even to them. The same processess that they say formed rock still exist, we haven't got rid of pressure for example, so therefore rock must still form.

I have no clue as to why Robert would deny obvious reality like that, it is even beyond the pale for other YECs.

In both creationist and evolutionist ideas there is not a ability to repeat the conditions.

You may not be able to envisage how you recreate conditions, but that is a failure of your imagination and intelligence, it is actually quite easy.

All you need to know is the composition of the sediment ( which can ge gleaned from drilling ), and the conditions of pressure, heat and saturation which act on the sediment. Then you need a lab and a box a machine to put it under pressure and a machine to heat it up.

Bingo! recreation of what is occuring at depth.

We can not repeat the great pressurized flowing water/sediment

You could quite easily model it if you had the imagination and intelligence to do it. I'm not sure you would like the results though

and you can not repeat long time processes.

Your model doesn't need lots of time.

It is possible to interpolate results as well, you know that pressure and temperature increase incrementally with depth ( in many cases ) so extrapolation of results garnered over weeks or months isn't difficult or outlandish.

I think also you need more then this long time faith to even make a arguement in the first place.

This is all turning out to be one long argument from ignorance isn't it?

You cannot conceive how anyone could possibly do this, therefore it can't be done.

Has it ever occured to you that you may lack the imagination or education to do these things but others might not?

Let me guess; not for a minute has this crossed your mind has it?

And if it did you dismissed it because you know better than all the hundreds of thousands of geologists who have ever worked on practical problems. You know better than the oil companies who pay people to research things that you say don't happen.

You just know better even though you are ignorant of the field of earth sciences.

By the way this deep water thing is not recreating the flood conditions of pressureized moving water/sediment and no doubt other concepts going on.

I don't see why not, it isn't hard to build a working model of flood conditions, these days you don't even need a large tub fullof water in a lab, you can do it all on computer quite easily.

Mud at the floor of the deep is not a equal analagy in any way with the great movements during a great mass of water being shoved by moving continents and other events. It just ain't.

So much ignorance in one paragraph. I think I have shown quite adequately why this is a failure of your imagination and education and not a failure of science.

It is more reasonable that sediment turned into rock is a instant event,

Not it isn't

perhaps like making cement,

You can't make cement underwater.

i don't know,

Correct

then your long untestable ideas.

They are not untestable, they are tested often, every time we drill a hole.

Just looking at sedimentary rock shows such a obvious associate of sediment and moving water with sorting and currents that to see it as sediment in static water is just not true.

Well apart from desert sandstones that cover much of Northern Europe in the Devonian and Permo-Triassic, apart from chalks that cover much of the Northern Hemisphere in the Cretaceous and need calm warm waters to form and show that they had these conditions for millions of years, apart from Carboniferous coal measures which show many repeated cycles of swamp and sea inundation. Apart from evaporites that form when seas are evaporated. Apart from limestones, all igneous rocks, metamorphic rocks etc etc, you get the picture.

Again what is lacking in your analysis is any education in earth sciences.

It is the lack of a power sorce that has made many ernest geologists miss the true origin here.

Power source for what? The earth is driven by massive external and internal power sources, You may have noticed the external one, it is called the sun. The internal one is nuclear reactions in the earth's core.

Any sedimentary rock book just teaches clearly about ordinary water dynamics and extra ordinary pressuring to cement particles together, in between the lines.

Have you ever read a sedimentary geology text book? I don't recall being expected to read between the lines of text books when I was at University.

Extra-ordinary water pressure isn't enough to cement sedimentary particles together as the pelagic oozes atthe bottom of subduction trenches shows.

If you think that a flood can produce much greater pressures than this you need to show your maths.

if sediment can be turned into rock slow then it shopuld going on somewhere right now?

We've been through this it is. The fact that you cannot observe it doesn't alter that fact. The laws of physics haven't been suspended therefore it is inevitable that heat and pressure will continue to form sedimentary rocks in areas of sedimentary deposition.

In the end we are both frustrated to prove our points by lack of a idea to test them

I'm not, you might be frustrated by your lack of imagination, I can imagine quite clearly how to test the theorries of lithification, in fact I don't need to imagine it all I can read scientific papers on the subject.

.

So its interpretation on presumptions.

For you yes, for us no, we have evidence

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

There will be no evidence for you, even I have it.

Take my opinion or not, it is up to you. You are welcome to debate it. Why do I have to prove my idea by other peoples' work?

If you don't like what I said, don't read. I am not writing it only for you. If you can not debate my idea. then close your mouth.

The trouble with your stance is that it does not lead to any discussion on any scientific topic bar one. This is because it’s all based on your imagination; so you may ask, what is the relevant topic of decision based on your posts.

Your state of mind: Insane or sane.

 

[juvenissun]

The trouble with your stance is that it does not lead to any discussion on any scientific topic bar one. This is because it’s all based on your imagination; so you may ask, what is the relevant topic of decision based on your posts.

Your state of mind: Insane or sane.

It is NOT my imagination. It is my reason. So, if one is capable, the reason is debatable. The reason becomes an imagination to people who do not understand it and do not know how to respond to it.

How does a student lead to any "discussion" in a classroom? Very simple: ask question.

 

[juvenissun]

The trouble with your stance is that it does not lead to any discussion on any scientific topic bar one. This is because it’s all based on your imagination; so you may ask, what is the relevant topic of decision based on your posts.

Your state of mind: Insane or sane.

It is NOT my imagination. It is my reason. So, if one is capable, the reason is debatable. The reason becomes an imagination to people who do not understand it and do not know how to respond to it.

How does a student lead to any "discussion" in a classroom? Very simple: ask question.

 

[Molal]

To everybody about rock formation that sees it as a slow process.
it all comes down to data and interpretation and then the ability to weight the evidence or test the whole matter by the scientific method.

Not surprisingly, I agree. But if one utilizes this idea, then one must follow the evidence.

In both creationist and evolutionist ideas there is not a ability to repeat the conditions.

This is untrue. Conditions can be re-created in a lab. But, even if we could not re-create environments, the conclusion would still be the same - rocks requires time for lithification.

We can not repeat the great pressurized flowing water/sediment and you can not repeat long time processes. I think also you need more then this long time faith to even make a arguement in the first place.

Again, you know this is incorrect. how about aeolian deposits? How about loess? How about limestone, oolitic limestone? I simple perfunctory look at the world will show you that your statement is incorrect.

By the way this deep water thing is not recreating the flood conditions of pressureized moving water/sediment and no doubt other concepts going on. Mud at the floor of the deep is not a equal analagy in any way with the great movements during a great mass of water being shoved by moving continents and other events. It just ain't.

Simply "it just ain't" doesn't cut it. Provide some peer reviewed published evidence to suggest why "it just ain't". I submit that you are wrong on this point. Oceanic ooze is a perfect example of why your assertion is wrong.

It is more reasonable that sediment turned into rock is a instant event, perhaps like making cement, i don't know, then your long untestable ideas.
Just looking at sedimentary rock shows such a obvious associate of sediment and moving water with sorting and currents that to see it as sediment in static water is just not true.

Again, you simply wrong. Some sandstones are cemented with calcium carbonate. Take some, drop some acid on it. It will bubble and remove the calcium carbonate. The sand grains in the sandstone will fall off your hand specimen. Why? Because the cementing material has been removed. The sandstone was lithified with calcium carbonate cementing the grains together deposited from groundwater flowing through the sandstone.

This can be observed in limestone quarries today. Piles of loose limestone aggregate will lithify itself over 2 years when left out in the rain.

It is the lack of a power sorce that has made many ernest geologists miss the true origin here.
Any sedimentary rock book just teaches clearly about ordinary water dynamics and extra ordinary pressuring to cement particles together, in between the lines.

Power source?

if sediment can be turned into rock slow then it shopuld going on somewhere right now?

It is going on right now. We can observe the process is some areas, we can observe the process from drill cores.

In the end we are both frustrated to prove our points by lack of a idea to test them. So its interpretation on presumptions.
Rob Byers

No-one is frustrated. Geologists know well how sedimentary material lithifies. it is not a secret and it can be observed easily in the field. I suggest, that if you wish to persue geology as a hobby you partake in some geology field trips. I regularly teach a few trips throughout the year at local amateur geology clubs. It is fun and exciting and it will enable you to understand geology at its finest - in the field.

 

[Athrond]

to who might know:

Under which conditions does mammilary coatings form, and how long does it take?

I can't seem to find it on google.

Athrond

 

[thaumaturgy]

it all comes down to data and interpretation and then the ability to weight the evidence or test the whole matter by the scientific method.

The scientific method isn't limited to "whatever you can imagine as maybe sorta an idea you came up with all on your own completely free of any physical or chemical constraints".

You have to use the actual data at hand.

I highly recommend you take:

Geology 1
Petrology
Sedimentology
Stratigraphy

Maybe then you'll have some data to work with.

In both creationist and evolutionist ideas there is not a ability to repeat the conditions.
We can not repeat the great pressurized flowing water/sediment and you can not repeat long time processes. I think also you need more then this long time faith to even make a arguement in the first place.

I believe that is your hope that we can't recreate these things. Of course we do know how rocks cement and lithify.

And what's even more amazing is we know how fast water moves through rocks to carry the cementing compounds.

We know an awful lot about how rocks are made. It isn't a mystery. Except to Creationists and YEC who like to keep it a mystery so they can continue coming up with ridiculous hypotheses that are in no way related to the data.

By the way this deep water thing is not recreating the flood conditions of pressureized moving water/sediment and no doubt other concepts going on. Mud at the floor of the deep is not a equal analagy in any way with the great movements during a great mass of water being shoved by moving continents and other events. It just ain't.

And you know this HOW? Oh, yeah, if you had to deal with the actual details of the physics of:

1. Moving gigantic continental plates so quickly that you "disturb" 3-mile deep water

2. Actions of moving water columns under pressure on fine-grained sediments

you might actually have to think about what the data actually shows.

It is more reasonable that sediment turned into rock is a instant event, perhaps like making cement, i don't know,

Well, considering we know quite a bit about cement, pozzolanic reactions, and how it is often different from many of the rocks we see (and in some cases similar!), I'll just assume you think equating all rocks to cement and how you would "dry" such a huge stack of cement instantly is a "good idea".

Maybe if you actually looked at rocks (not just cement in the parking lot) you'd have some ground proofing.

Lithification isn't always just cementation. Although cementation of grains often occurs. But again, you need to deal with the details.

Let's remember the YEC's big caveat:

i don't know,

Yet strangely enough, they never take the time to learn from their lack of knowledge. They just keep positing hypotheses.

It's all fun and no work for the YEC. Unlike what scientists have to do.

then your long untestable ideas.
Just looking at sedimentary rock shows such a obvious associate of sediment and moving water with sorting and currents that to see it as sediment in static water is just not true.

Indeed sediment is usually laid down by water. But not always. There are aeolian deposits.

But do remember, there's a LOT of detail in the size of the sediment and the structures you see in the sediment.

I recommend you take a look at rocks some time.

It is the lack of a power sorce that has made many ernest geologists miss the true origin here.

Have you ever been outside? I mean, on earth? There's plenty of power to run the rock cycle. And it happens every single instant of every single day here on earth.

Pay a visit some time. It's often called a "dynamic planet"!

Any sedimentary rock book just teaches clearly about ordinary water dynamics and extra ordinary pressuring to cement particles together, in between the lines.

if sediment can be turned into rock slow then it shopuld going on somewhere right now?

As Baggins has pointed out, he does that very thing.

In the end we are both frustrated to prove our points by lack of a idea to test them. So its interpretation on presumptions.
Rob Byers

No, Rob. You seem to be frustrated by your lack of experience and knowledge of geology. We are frustrated by the fact you don't seem to understand geology but want to pontificate on it nonetheless.

It isn't enough to just come up with the idea, you have to have a workable detailed explanation for it. Otherwise you are just blowing hot air.

You are allowed to make any interpretation you want. But an informed interpretation is always going to be vastly superior to "just so stories".

 

[RobertByers]

To the three posters here that posted to me. lots of stuff.

You all are telling me, Shocking, that you revreate in the lab how lthification (sp) of sediment into sedimentary rock has happened.
Well then if so it must of been a fast thing. So it shows creationism models accurate. Otherwise how could you have the time to show time is a part of the recipe?

Evidence for your claims on sediment into rock has not been presented here. Only bore results of a moment in time and presuming a process is going on. not evidence it is. Creationism predicts relic or aborted stages in lithification from the flood year. I would add in episodes after.

We've had a good discussion but you guys still see field evidence thru your geology school lens. Not what is acyually there i insist.

Even if, I don't see it yet, there is right now somewhere weight pressing down on sediment and actually creating a few inches of rock it would be a coincedence of the area. A few thousand years since the flood has not the time, in a stable pace, to make rock by your theories.
Perhaps somewhere it is but you didn't show it.

If you make sandstone in the lab well thats fine with creationism. We welcome quick rock. Thats the point.

I still see geology has missed the obvious point in the field. They don't see what the first answer should be when seeing sedimentary rock of any type or depth laying about. This is sediment suddenly turned into rock , with all flora/fauna, by a great pressure . The forse that rounded up the sediment also compacted it.
I believe geology didn't think this because WHAT possible pressure could there be in nature. Also other reasons.

No I can't prove my ideas in the lab. Neither do you . I insist.
Why are you saying you test your ideas in the lab?

It comes down to evidence of what happened and what could happen aside from the eyewitness account in scriture.
Robert Byers