299 replies to this topic

[assist24]

I hand the thinking cap back to you. Regardless of whether we understand it perfectly or not is irrelevant. We can demonstrate similar activity in a sandbox.

We can?

So if we take a child's plastic pool, fill the bottom few inches with a flat layer of sand, fill the rest of the pool with water, then poke a hole in the side we will get gooseneck meanders that loop back 180 deg. forming in the sand?

Why do we never see such a 180 deg. reversal phenomenon on a mud flat when the tide goes out?

[Adam Nagy]

Do you like comparing apples to oranges? BTW, as for your poor tide analogy if you go to a location on the beach where there is an inlet you can usually find miniature canyon type formations. I believe what CTD said about scaling up or down could hold the answer to variation. I don't know but weird things are known to happen on different scales. Seriously though, Goosenecks does not simply declare a slow meandering river and you know it. If you compare a satellite image of Mississippi river and the San Juan River, it's night and day. Those rivers did not form under the same conditions.

I'm considering running a scale test myself. A pool with sand on the bottom, poking a hole in the side, would be a horrible test because the breach wall would be the clue not just the fact that it's draining. This is why the mini Grand Canyon at Mt St Helen is so valuable. It demonstrates these variables in real life.

If your abstract reasoning skills are what I think they are and not what you've demonstrated so far. I have a feeling that you do get it. Now you say why aren't they exactly like Goosenecks State Park? The only place, in the world, that is exactly like Goosenecks State Park is Goosenecks State Park. We can demonstrate the principle but if you won't be happy until we can do a scale test that imposes itself perfectly on the features at Goosenecks State Park, when scaled up, you're only kidding yourself.

[assist24]

Do you like comparing apples to oranges? BTW, as for your poor tide analogy if you go to a location on the beach  where there is an inlet you can usually find miniature canyon type formations.

Do you ever find gooseneck 180 deg. switchbacks in an inlet at the beach?

I believe what CTD said about scaling up or down could hold the answer to variation. I don't know but weird things are known to happen on different scales. Seriously though, Goosenecks does not simply declare a slow meandering river and you know it. If you compare a satellite image of Mississippi river and the San Juan River, it's night and day. Those rivers did not form under the same conditions.

No kidding. One has meanders deeply incised into solid rock, the other has non-incised wandering meanders (another geologic term) in a shallow topsoil flood plain.

I'm considering running a scale test myself. A pool with sand on the bottom, poking a hole in the side, would be a horrible test because the breach wall would be the clue not just the fact that it's draining. This is why the mini Grand Canyon at Mt St Helen is so valuable. It demonstrates these variables in real life.

Do we see any gooseneck 180 deg. switchbacks in Mt. Saint Helens runoff?

If your abstract reasoning skills are what I think they are and not what you've demonstrated so far. I have a feeling that you do get it. Now you say why aren't they exactly like Goosenecks State Park? The only place, in the world, that is exactly like Goosenecks State Park is Goosenecks State Park.

Er...no, there are hundreds if not thousands of incised meandering rivers with 180 deg. switchbacks in the world, and most have no "bursting lake" water source. Goosenecks just happens to be one of the more spectacular. Would you like me to show you some?

We can demonstrate the principle but if you won't be happy until we can do a scale test that imposes itself perfectly on the features at Goosenecks State Park, when scaled up, you're only kidding yourself.

OK then, demonstrate the principle of how gooseneck 180 deg. switchbacks are formed by turbulence in flowing water and I'm all yours!

PS. Please don't get irritated because I keep asking for details, I'm just trying to stimulate thought for both of us. For me this is not serious, just a fun web diversion - a couple of guys kicking different ideas around.

Do they still sell Olde Frothingslosh ("the pale stale ale with the foam on the bottom!") in Pittsburgh?

[Adam Nagy]

OK then, demonstrate the principle of how gooseneck 180 deg. switchbacks are formed by turbulence in flowing water and I'm all yours!  

Who is in a better position here? When will uniformitarianism demonstrate how it formed over millions of years?

...Oh... and Ad Hoc hypothesis need not apply unless you want to expose your own special pleading.

BTW, please share these other rivers that you think defy the flood model. Make sure to share their exact location so we can look at the surrounding topography if it's warranted. I rather enjoyed looking at the surrounding features of Goosenecks, it strengthened my faith.

Where is the exhumed river bed located exactly, also? I couldn't find that specific feature on Google Earth.

Assist24, I'm a pretty easy going guy myself but I'll keep most of that in the coffee shop. When I'm on these threads I'm intent on helping believers see through the evolution smoke and mirrors because that's what people are here for.

If I cast a net and catch an atheist for Christ on the way, praise Jesus! Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath, the conversions are His problem not mine. I'll stick to being obedient by abiding in the Truth and leave the results to Him.

[assist24]

Who is in a better position here? When will uniformitarianism demonstrate how it formed over millions of years?

Sadly I have to say the OE folks, because they have developed a detailed model for incised meander formation and successfully tested it, both in the lab and against real world formations. I already supplied several links to the modeling and testing upthread.

BTW, please share these other rivers that you think defy the flood model.

WHAT flood model? I haven't seen a detailed model (or even a non-detailed one) at all here, despite having asked repeatedly.

Make sure to share their exact location so we can look at the surrounding topography if it's warranted. I rather enjoyed looking at the surrounding features of Goosenecks, it strengthened my faith

Why don't you start with the incised meandering part of the Powder River in the Colombia Basalt field I already provided. You get that one, the rest will be cake.

Where is the exhumed river bed located exactly, also? I couldn't find that specific feature on Google Earth.

It's in the Cedar Mountain Formation near Green River, Utah. Don't have the exact lat. & lon.

Assist24, I'm a pretty easy going guy myself but I'll keep most of that in the coffee shop. When I'm on these threads I'm intent on helping believers see through the evolution smoke and mirrors because that's what people are here for.

If I cast a net and catch an atheist for Christ on the way, praise Jesus! Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath, the conversions are His problem not mine. I'll stick to being obedient by abiding in the Truth and leave the results to Him.

Whatever floats yer boat, but do try not to let your zealotry get in the way of your rational thinking.

[Adam Nagy]

Whatever floats yer boat, but do try not to let your zealotry get in the way of your rational thinking.

It hasn't yet.

[Adam Nagy]

I already supplied several links to the modeling and testing upthread.

Well, just consider this guy underwhelmed.

[CTD]

I want to address one more point of contention as well. The idea that the river was either carved out of soft mud or hard rock is a faulty dilemma. Couldn't it have been some thing softer then what we see today a concoction of soft rock that was still curing and settling relative to what we see today but not mud.

There's even more to it than that. Curing can take place under water. It's all a matter of which cementing agents are involved.

http://www.cement.or...basics_faqs.asp

Portland cement is a hydraulic cement which means that it sets and hardens due to a chemical reaction with water. Consequently, it will harden under water.

What's this wonderful material made of?

Materials that contain appropriate amounts of calcium compounds, silica, alumina and iron oxide are crushed and screened and placed in a rotating cement kiln. Ingredients used in this process are typically materials such as limestone, marl, shale, iron ore, clay, and fly ash.

Lithification and curing are not simply drying out, as we are often led to believe. You can take a pile of sand, wet it, and let it dry. The result will not be sandstone; you will still have a pile of sand. The primary consideration is the presence of cementing agents.

[Adam Nagy]

CTD,

I've been trying to decide what a good scale test would consist of. Maybe talcum powder and thanks to your above mentioned addition a little flour to bind the concoction. Wet it and form it into a basin then let it dry. Afterwords, add water to the basin until it breaches the rim. I think I would have to maybe add some high frequency vibration to simulate earthquake conditions. What do you think? My brother has a machine shop so we could probably make a nice scale test. I even considered using something thin like alcohol to partially overcome the mismatched scale viscosity of water.

[CTD]

CTD,

I've been trying to decide what a good scale test would consist of. Maybe talcum powder and thanks to your above mentioned addition a little flour to bind the concoction. Wet it and form it into a basin then let it dry. Afterwords, add water to the basin until it breaches the rim. I think I would have to maybe add some high frequency vibration to simulate earthquake conditions. What do you think? My brother has a machine shop so we could probably make a nice scale test. I even considered using something thin like alcohol to partially overcome the mismatched scale viscosity of water.

I'm not sure what you're testing for there. If it's a simple erosion scenario from the top down, I think you'll be disappointed.

I don't want to discourage you; rather I'd say you need to plan carefully or be prepared to spend a lot of time. I'm confident there's lots to be learned.

I suppose I had a somewhat unique game as a child. Used to find people who watered their lawns on schedule. Eventually, a slow stream of water would be produced in the gutter, making its way toward the storm drain. I used to build dams out of sticks, grass, dirt, pebbles - whatever was handy. Scale was limited because I wasn't allowed to play in the street, which I interpreted as the asphalt.

Now the shapes mud takes (dirt turned out to be the least leaky material) when the dam is breached are identical to the shapes of the various hills (mesa, butte, etc.) one sees out west. Scaling isn't even an issue; they match perfectly. When I got older and they told me dirt and sand piled up over the years, and the wind shaped it so... I was unconvinced. When I later discovered flood geology, I just essentially said "there you go. It's obvious." It's such a perfect fit I didn't see how anyone could think differently for an instant. But then it occurred to me that not everyone builds dirt dams...

Investigating the canyons may be a little more difficult. The flow of trickling water on a flat surface is unpredictable. If you arrange your surface properly, you can largely dictate the initial course it will take.

Dealing with muds & pastes of different consistencies will produce different results. Another problem is how to contain the mud while allowing water to escape. The flow of streams within the mud itself is probably the most important issue. An ideal model would freely permit caverns to form if the consistency is right.

I can see such experiments going on for quite a while, employing various combinations at different levels. Could be a lot of fun if you set it up right. But if you're just out to get a quick answer from a short-term project, I think you'll be disappointed. If you don't think it'll be a fun project, and worth spending a few years, I wouldn't bother.

You also need to recall that the "top" of the Grand Canyon wasn't the top surface when the water began to flow. Higher layers were there, but they were almost entirely washed away. Their remnants are the features which match the results I obtained when my dams were washing away.

Scaling won't be much of an issue for you, except when it comes to water velocity. I'd recommend controlling the volume and tilt, and letting the water do its own thing.

[Adam Nagy]

I think it would be fun and I have access to all kinds of cool equipment to make different types of basins. I could make one with scissoring halves to produce fault fracture lines or sliding halves depending on what kind of fault line action I want.

Maybe I could make a basin that will allow me to first stratify the layers and then make canyons... well... that might be a little too elaborate.

[CTD]

Sound like it'd be a blast. The cool part is, even if you don't produce your own versions of the canyons we're discussing, you should take pictures and compare them to other canyons and features. You're almost certain to get some matches to something somewhere after a few tries.

Getting the right cements will require homework. Quicklime could be a real two-edged sword, for example.

Harden up your rocks too much, and you might need to sandblast (or just replace) your basin.

Multiple stream models have my imagination. I'd like playing with them.

[Adam Nagy]

I think the meanders at Goosenecks State Park would be a unique feature to attempt to duplicate. The nature of that section of the river is one of a kind. I can't wait for God to give us a rerun of how it formed. There is enough evidence that we discussed right in this thread to show that the breached reservoir is a better conclusion then the millions of years meander. I want to share one more set of pictures to show how the slow meandering river for that feature would be impossible and how that river, for it's vast majority is indicative of a rapid drainage event:

 breach_wall_01.JPG   181.61KB   9 downloads  low_angle_01.JPG   122.53KB   11 downloads

When you look at these pictures, keep in mind that these are the same area at different perspectives and the arrows represent the same things in both views:

1. Red Arrow - pointing back to Goosenecks formation which is out of frame

2. Green Arrow - direction of river flow

3. Blue Arrows - Higher elevation cliff walls

Okay, now that you have yourself oriented please consider what we are looking at. The river flows through an area that was severely raised relative to the area that the Goosenecks meanders cuts through as indicated by the blue arrows.

This means one of two things. The uniformitarianism view would have us believe that the cliffs marked with blue arrows were magically there before the river started meandering through that valley. If they weren't the river would have flowed up hill for millions of years. However, the YE view would say that this represents a breach and a drainage pattern. Which one better fits the evidence?

Also, keep in mind that the area in the blue oval shows the place that the canyon, and therefore river, suddenly straighten out into long straight stretches of river.

We basically, have one odd feature (Goosenecks formation) followed by all the hallmarks of a rapid drainage pattern. Even that odd feature more correctly defies those that would pretend it was always a slow meandering river and my prior explanation still stands without competition except for blind refusal to see all the things that I have painstakingly pointed out to paint a proper picture.

[assist24]

I think it would be fun and I have access to all kinds of cool equipment to make different types of basins. I could make one with scissoring halves to produce fault fracture lines or sliding halves depending on what kind of fault line action I want.

Maybe I could make a basin that will allow me to first stratify the layers and then make canyons... well... that might be a little too elaborate.

You might save some time by contacting these guys first

United States Department of Agriculture Hydraulic Engineering Research Unit

About the Research Unit

The Hydraulic Engineering research Unit has been in continuous operation since it was established in 1940. A large gravity flow water supply and ample land area makes the laboratory unique among hydraulic laboratories. The Unit's laboratory occupies 40.5 hectares (100 acres) of open land with sufficient slope so that the fall required for experiments can be obtained. Water for experiments is drawn from adjoining Lake Carl Blackwell at rates from a trickle flow up to 3.7 cubic meters per second (130 cubic feet per second). Canals and pipelines convey the flow to the experiments. The laboratory has four model buildings where indoor experiments are conducted. The laboratory's southern location permits outdoor experimentation almost year-round.

Research Areas include:

Sediment Control
Headcut Erosion
Specific Model Studies
Dam Breach Processes
Concentrated Flow Erosion

link

There are also similar hydraulic labs in many large colleges and universities across the country. I'd be surprised if Carnegie Mellon Department of Civil Engineering didn't have something like this for its students.

The thing is, Civil and Mechanical engineers have been modeling and testing this stuff for over 70 years. There are tons of existing studies and research already available. You can request it if you know specifically what you're looking for. Stuff like this from the USDA Stream Systems Technology Center.

Knickpoint behavior in noncohesive material: a laboratory study.
Brush, Lucien M. Jr. and Wolman, M. G.  1960.
Bulletin of the Geological Society of America.  71:59-74.

Abstract:  Short oversteepened reaches were molded in the beds of model channels formed in well-sorted, noncohesive sands 0.67 mm and 2 mm in diameter.  In each run of the experiment a fall of 0.1 foot in a length of 1.0 foot was provided.  The over-all slopes of the channels upstream and downstream from the oversteepened reach were made equivalent and ranged from 0.0012 to 0.0088.  The abrupt break in the profile at the head of the oversteepened segment constituted a knickpoint.  Progressive changes in the position of the knickpoint and in the slope of the oversteepened reach were measured during runs in which discharge, over-all slope, and particle size were varied independently. In every run, the slope of the water surface and the slope of the bed below the knickpoint decreased with time.  As the knickpoint moved upstream, the channel directly above the knickpoint first steepened and narrowed.  Following the initial steepening, the slope became progressively less.  At the lower end of the oversteepened reach, sediment eroded from above was deposited as a dune, which advanced downstream and caused the channel to widen and locally to steepen.  Following the passage of the dune, the slope again flattened. For runs with identical initial (over-all) slopes, discharge, and widths, the slope below the knickpoint decreased faster in the channel of finer sand.  The rate of change of slope in the oversteepened reach below the knickpoint depends upon the magnitude and the rate of change of erosion along this reach which, in turn, depends upon the magnitude and the rate of change of the sediment transport along the reach.  If the rate of transport is great, the oversteepened slope below the knickpoint is reduced rapidly.  Analysis of the data indicates that the higher the ratio of the oversteepened slope to the average slope the more rapid the rate of decrease of the oversteepened slope.  These results are comparable to changes observed in natural stream channels following meander cutoffs.  The laboratory experiment confirms the observation that upstream migration of knickpoints accompanied by undiminished slopes does not occur in noncohesive, homogeneous bed material.  Several hypothetical cases are discussed in which it is assumed that resistant material is present in the channel profile

and

Three-Dimensional CFD Modeling of Self-Forming Meandering Channel.
Olsen, Nils Reidar B.  Journal of Hydraulic Engineering.  2003 129(5):366-372.

Abstract:  A three-dimensional CFD model was used to compute the formation of the meandering pattern in an initially straight allubial channel.  The numerical model was based on the finite volume method using and unstructured grid with dominantly hexahedral cells.  The k-e model was used to predict turbulence and the SIMPLE method was used to comupte pressure.  The sediment transport was calculated and the grid was altered during the computation as channel erosion and deposition caused wetting and drying.  The model was tested by comparing results from physical model studies carried out at Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, Colo.  The results showed successfully the replication of many of the meander characteristics, including secondary currents, cross-sectional profiles, meander planform, meander wavelength, downstream meander migration, and chute formation.

Don't you think that if any of that 70+ years of research had turned up a way for a rapidly emptying lake to form structures that look identical to river carved incised meanders, someone somewhere would have spilled the beans?

[Adam Nagy]

Don't you think that if any of that 70+ years of research had turned up a way for a rapidly emptying lake to form structures that look identical to river carved incised meanders, someone somewhere would have spilled the beans?

We just did an exhaustive fly through of the San Juan River, explanation and all, and now it's going to start turning into a popularity contest? I'm not overly concerned that one feature is highly unusual, when all the surrounding topography tells quite a different tale then the one super imposed by a millions of years meander. I'll just trust the replay God gives us will clear up the issue. I'll just bank on the rest of the evidence to indicate that we have the right idea because the rest of the evidence screams something totally different then a river formed by the same forces as... say the Mississippi.

How come the river straightens out, into long relatively straight runs, right where the breached dam model predicts that it would?

 Big_Over_view.jpg   195.4KB   16 downloads

[Adam Nagy]

...someone somewhere would have spilled the beans?

As for the establishment just following the evidence where it leads... the movie Expelled, among countless others, does a great job revealing how we have a scientism gulag in the world today that cherishes its orthodoxy on broad worldview issues much more than any evidence that opposes their evolutionary presuppositions with its millions and billions of years, the chance/time god, if you please.

[assist24]

We just did an exhaustive fly through of the San Juan River, explanation and all, and now it's going to start turning into a popularity contest? I'm not overly concerned that one feature is highly unusual, when all the surrounding topography tells quite a different tale then the one super imposed by a millions of years meander. I'll just trust the replay God gives us will clear up the issue. I'll just bank on the rest of the evidence to indicate that we have the right idea because the rest of the evidence screams something totally different then a river formed by the same forces as... say the Mississippi.

Just north of the Goosenecks in Utah is Canyonlands National Park, which has a very similar geology (Honaker Trail Formation, etc.) and includes deep cut incised meandering canyons of the Colorado and Green rivers. Oops! They have 180 deg. switchbacks too, but they flow the in a completely different direction as the San Juan!

Here is a great interactive Flash map of the place from the US National Park Service. It has tons of good info on the geologic history of the area.

Canyonlands National Park

Click the "show rivers" to see a great look at the switchback meanders.

How come the river straightens out, into long relatively straight runs, right where the breached dam model predicts that it would?

As pointed out in the study of the area I already provided, the slope of the reach determines the amount of sinuosity in the meanders. In other words, water flows faster and straighter downhill when the slope is steeper. Are you going to claim that gravity only works for your new model but not for other models?

Also, notice in the Colorado and Green river examples there are cases of switchbacks, then a straight run, then more switchbacks. How do you suppose that happened?

Have to admit, it really is precious to see a guy with no geology training at all think he can overturn 70+ years of on the ground detailed study by professional geologists just by looking at a Google satellite photo. I can't wait until we get to the Powder River in the basalt fields.

Happy St. Paddy's Day Adam777, hope you have a good one!

[Adam Nagy]

Oops!  They have 180 deg. switchbacks too, but they flow the in a completely different direction as the San Juan!

Nothing like the Goosenecks feature. By the way, that area looks like it was devastated by a flood as well.

[Adam Nagy]

Have to admit, it really is precious to see a guy with no geology training at all think he can overturn 70+ years of on the ground detailed study by professional geologists just by looking at a Google satellite photo.

If Charles Darwin could do it while dreaming in the belly of a boat after observing a few finches and reading a day dream book by Charles Lyell then why not? I'm hardly alone and there are lots of people rethinking their position. Evolution is not on the strong footing it used to be but you can pretend otherwise if you want.

I have a worldview that has not just weathered 2000 years of scrutiny but has triumphed again and again. Evolution has a worldview that is crumbling after less then 150 years of intermittent fad acceptance.

Edit: ...and don't forget severe revision and new ad hoc constraints.

I'll take the truth over a culture's chronological snobbery any day.

See you on the other side.

[assist24]

Oops!  They have 180 deg. switchbacks too, but they flow the in a completely different direction as the San Juan!

Nothing like the Goosenecks feature.

Really?

Green and Colorado River meanders, Canyonlands National Park







Maybe if I looked at them from Google Earth they'd look different.