Jump to content


Photo

Geology Problems For Young Earth Creationists?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
299 replies to this topic

#161 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 18 March 2009 - 07:47 AM

That's right, no one has. 
The above  statement fits the very definition of a lie.
The above  statement fits the very definition of a lie.
Of course it is, and I even linked to it and provided excerpts.  But I never asked about the GC, I asked about the San Juan, Green, upper Colorado, and Powder River incised meanders.
You're the one who keeps bringing up the GC, not me.
:(  :blink:  :blink:
Preach unsubstantiated nonsense and ignore all questions and criticism you mean.  Have to admit you are pretty good at it.  At least Adam777 has the moxie to think originally and respond.

View Post


This whole post is the definition of an out right lie, or else your not completely understanding what we are saying. Then it might make some sense.

#162 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 March 2009 - 07:57 AM

Scott,

You're right and all contributions here are painting a valuable picture whether Assist24 wants to see it or not. This has been a fun thread and the cumulative effort is great. Of course, we aren't going to have all the answers but the OE concepts survive on shear ignorance and knee jerk orthodoxy.

#163 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 March 2009 - 08:17 AM

I've been studying the area around this exhumed river bed. First, I think what Scott says is correct and it was an assumption that we've had to nip in the butt more than once, in this thread alone. The faulty idea that all resulting features occurred at the flood.

Anytime one of you evolutionists gets this mental block just think "Lake Erie Canyon" coming soon and you'll avoid the pitfall of the bogus idea that YECs think the earth has been static since the flood.

Okay, here is an interesting view with an interesting feature:

Attached File  canyon_to_left_01.JPG   221.44KB   39 downloads

The exhumed river bed is circled on the right. Evidently this feature generates tunnel vision for OE geologists because the canyon to the left is a much more fascinating feature that tells all the same tales of a breached and emptied reservoir. The green arrow shows the direction of the river flow (more correctly, probably a creek).

I find the feature inside the emptied reservoir very interesting because it shows the attributes of the Goosenecks formation:

Attached File  Reservior_interior.jpg   238.73KB   42 downloads

What's really cool is the way the river goes around that large feature in the mid upper portion of the picture. I wonder why it did that!? This area is a train wreck and OE geologists are overwhelmed by something that may or may not be an exhumed river bed. :(

#164 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 March 2009 - 09:47 AM

I wonder how long it took this canyon to form?

Posted Image

#165 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 18 March 2009 - 12:12 PM

Let's switch this up a little and look at the exhumed river bed:

I have some initial questions about this feature.

What makes geologists so sure that this is a river bed? Is it just the shape?

Do rivers have some kind of transformational power on the rocks and soil below it to make them harder and more resilient to erosion? The last time I checked a river with a washed out bank will erode it's own basin if it gets a chance. So what is the deal with this feature?

Let's find out what kind of information is available on this feature. I still haven't found its exact location but I'm looking.

Mostly it's the unique chemical composition of the sandstone ridge (which makes it harder than the surrounding mudstone), combined with the obvious shape of a meandering river. From Wiki

An exhumed river channel is a ridge of sandstone that remains when the softer flood plain mudstone is eroded away. The process begins with the deposition of sand within a river channel (typically a meandering river) and mud on the adjacent floodplain. Eventually the channel is abandoned and over time becomes buried by flood deposits from other channels. Because the sand is porous (grain-to-grain contact leaves spaces between), groundwater flows more easily through the sand than through the mud of the floodplain deposits. 
  Minerals (typically calcium carbonate) can cement the grains together converting the loose sand into sandstone. Meanwhile, pressure from overlying sediments compresses the floodplain mud converting it to mudstone. Millions of years later, erosion can remove the softer, less cemented mudstone and leave the more resistant sandstone as a linear ridge. Thus, the local landscape where these occur is an inverted topography: what was previously low is now high, and vice versa. Exhumed channels are important indicators for ancient stream flow direction.

source


These features are called paleochannels and have been found in various places all over the world. Do a Google Scholar search on "exhumed paleochannels" and you'll get hundreds of hits. Here is more info on the ones in the Green Mountain Formation in Utah. Notice the mention of preserved goosenecked meanders here too

A NEW ARRAY OF EXHUMED PALEOCHANNELS IN THE EARLY CRETACEOUS CEDAR MOUNTAIN FORMATION, UTAH
STAPLES, Evan R, BRITT, Brooks, SORENSEN, Amanda,  Geology, Brigham Young University, S-389 ESC, Provo, UT

Abstract: Exhumed channels have long been known from the Cedar Mountain Formation. Here, we report on approximately 30 additional exhumed paleochannel segments in the basal Cedar Mountain Formation extending roughly from Castle Dale, UT to ~20 km south of Green River, UT. Data presented here are derived from aerial stereophotograhs and preliminary field work in the area mentioned above. The channels are located in areas lacking the Buckhorn Conglomerate. The majority of the channels are located ~20 m above the Cedar Mountain-Morrison Formation contact and are underlain and flanked by silty to sandy mudstones. Preserved conglomeratic to sandy channel segments range in length from 0.1 to 2 km with widths of 2-20 m, and show a general northeastward flow direction. The longest preserved paleochannels are lightly to moderately sinuous. Several tight-radius point bar (gooseneck) complexes are exceptionally preserved and consist of nested sandstone crescents eroded to ridge and swale topography. Despite the preservation of point bars, the thalweg of the gooseneck channels are not preserved, possibly because once abandoned, the channels became oxbow lakes which filled with mudstones that were lost to erosion during exhumation. Thus, although the preserved channels suggest a dominance of low to moderately sinuous streams, it is likely that there is a bias against the intact exhumation and preservation of highly sinuous channels (oxbow lakes).

In the westernmost portion of the study area, the sandstone channels are located tens of meters above the base of the formation, are few in number, small, isolated, and surrounded by fine grained floodplain deposits. In contrast, to the east, near Green River, UT and on to Moab, UT the sandstone channels are relatively close to the base of the formation, closely spaced to amalgamated, thicker and called the Poison Strip Sandstone. We attribute these east to west fluvial architectural shifts to greater accommodation space in the western area as a function of higher subsidence rates.

source


Notice that paper is from the geology department of Brigham Young University, a hotbed of God hating atheism if ever there was one. :o

Paleochannels are of particular interest to NASA because several similar looking features have been seen on the surface of Mars

EXHUMED PALEOCHANNELS IN UTAH: INSIGHT FOR INVESTIGATION OF RAISED CURVILINEAR FEATURES ON MARS
WILLIAMS, Rebecca M.E., Planetary Science Institute, 1700 East Fort Lowell, Suite 106, Tucson, AZ

Abstract: Bifurcating ridge networks, termed ‘raised curvilinear features' (RCFs), covering areas ranging from tens to hundreds of square kilometers have been identified at nearly two hundred sites on Mars in high resolution (<100 m/pix) images. Many RCFs are interpreted as paleochannels preserved in inverted relief based on similarity to terrestrial fluvial landforms and continuity relationships with negative-relief valley networks. The global distribution of RCF locations preserves a record of the history of aqueous flow on Mars.

Exhumed paleochannels in east-central Utah have similar morphology to comparably sized, ridge landforms on Mars. The Colorado Plateau is a unique geologic setting where multiple exposures of exhumed paleochannels are preserved. Following uplift of the region in middle to late Cenozoic time, erosion by the Colorado River and its tributaries stripped away younger rock strata, revealing Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous fluvial sediments at several sites in east-central Utah. The present-day arid climate has inhibited the development of thick soil horizons and pervasive vegetative cover, both of which would obscure these sedimentary bodies. Exhumed paleochannels expose fluvial sediments and internal sedimentary structures in three dimensions.

Field work to date has focused on an extensive (spanning ~12 km) inverted paleochannel system which consists of four carbonate-cemented, sandstone-capped ridges within the Early Cretaceous Cedar Mountain Formation located 11 km southwest of the town of Green River, Utah. Morphologic and sedimentologic observations of the exhumed paleochannels are used to evaluate multiple numerical models for reconstructing paleofluvial hydrological parameters. Preliminary analysis shows a wide envelope of discharge values is generated, with the Limerinos (1970) approach producing a discharge value tending toward the center (median and mean) of the range. Although there are likely variations in the formation history between the terrestrial inverted paleochannels and the martian RCFs, including differences in cement composition and erosional agent, further study of these landforms on Earth will help elucidate the magnitude and relative timing of fluvial activity on Mars.

source

Wonder how the Flood happened to hit Mars too? ;)

More on the GRF paleochannels

Posted Image
Image 1: An oblique aerial photograph of a carbonate-cemented, sinuous inverted paleochannel segment located approximately 11 kilometers southwest of Green River, Utah.

Inversion of relief is a common attribute of landscape evolution and can occur wherever materials in valley bottoms are, or become, more resistant to erosion than the adjacent valley slopes. Multiple processes can lead to the development of relief inversion including cementation of the valley floor (e.g. ferricrete, silicrete, calcrete, gypcrete), armoring of the valley floor by coarse grains and infilling by a more resistant material, commonly a lava flow. Differential erosion removes the less resistant valley slopes and preserves the valley floor as a topographic high. Various terms have been ascribed to channels preserved in inverted relief including 'raised' channel systems, 'suspendritic drainage lines,' 'gravel-capped ridges,' 'perched wadis,' or 'wadi ridges,' and 'suspenparallel drainage'. Inverted channels have been identified in a number of locations around the world including the Arabian Penninsula, North Africa, Australia and North America. Subsequent drainage patterns develop depending on the nature of the channel floor resistant agent. For example, water parallels the margin of lava-filled paleochannels resulting in twin lateral streams. In contrast, more complex drainage patterns can develop in locations where duricrusts formed as dissolution can yield discontinuous preservation of the paleochannel as duricrust-capped mesas.

The exhumed ridge in Image 1 extends approximately 1 km in linear distance, and stands approximately 35 m above the subjacent plateau. Modern drainage is particularly well developed in the lower right portion of the image and has created a water gap at image center. The arid climate promotes sparse vegetation and inhibits soil development, two factors that enable the landform to be readily discernible in aerial images. Based on burial reconstruction models for the region, the cemented channel sediments were first re-exposed at the surface a maximum of 650,000 years ago. Illumination is from the left.

source with HUGE closeup photo


So you see Adam777, it's not just a bunch of OEs sitting around drinking beer and going "gee, what lie can we come up with to torment the YEs with today?" Geologists have thoroughly studied these things. If you want to overturn their conclusion, your new model need to explain ALL the observed evidence better than theirs.

#166 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 18 March 2009 - 01:10 PM

It seems to me the caption of the picture gives the clue. It says the river bed is carbonate cemented.

That being so, a flood explanation seems pretty easy.

The surrounding strata are laid down by water, which then reduces to a relative trickle. This trickle quickly carves a meandering bed in the soft sediments. The water contains a very large amount of dissolved carbonates which cement the channel and quickly harden.

A subsequent flood, perhaps caused by a flood remnant lake collapsing, or some other erosion, removes the surrounding soft sediment leaving the cemented river channel standing proud.

No need for any great length of time. All of these events could happen in a few years.

#167 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 March 2009 - 01:32 PM

A subsequent flood, perhaps caused by a flood remnant lake collapsing, or some other erosion, removes the surrounding soft sediment leaving the cemented river channel standing proud.

View Post

That sounds like it fits perfectly with the additional features that I pointed out! Thanks Oliver. You just offered something that may be helpful here. Look at this picture:

Attached File  ridge.jpg   225.96KB   16 downloads

That big long ridge is interesting. It looks like it was breached in several locations. If I were to put a hypothesis forward, I would say that canyon formation caused a slower and not so violent secondary flood event that would have gently exhumed that river bed.

Actually if you have a chance look up this image for yourself and take a close look and the main river channel. It looks like a broad river but it's actually water colored because it's filled with vegetation. the original river channel doesn't look like it came through that canyon wall in an aggressive manner at all.

#168 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 18 March 2009 - 01:38 PM

That being so, a flood explanation seems pretty easy.

"The Flood did it" is always a no-brainer, one-size-fits-all easy excuse, since it contains no details and explains absolutely nothing. Probably why it's so popular around here.

The surrounding strata are laid down by water, which then reduces to a relative trickle.  This trickle quickly carves a meandering bed in the soft sediments.  The water contains a very large amount of dissolved carbonates which cement the channel and quickly harden.

Then why doesn't the surrounding mudstone show the same chemical composition as the sandstone, if both were laid by the same water?

How and when did the surrounding mudstone form? Mudstone is a type of sedimentary rock formed from water laid silt or clay. Like shale, it takes time and a large overpressure from the weight of overlying sediments to squeeze the water out and allow the particles to cement together.

Rule of thumb: every ad hoc handwaving explanation thrown in the mix will create two new unexplained problems. :o

#169 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 March 2009 - 01:46 PM

Rule of thumb:  every ad hoc handwaving explanation thrown in the mix will create two new unexplained problems.   :o

View Post

The moment you recognize your own special pleading the discussion will become more interesting because all of the OE explanations are ultimately untestable, therefore relinquished to the state of a loose hypothesis and nothing more, as Scott pointed out earlier, and you never refuted... except with your attempt to pass off the popularity contest as proving the OE version as fact.

#170 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 18 March 2009 - 01:47 PM

"The Flood did it" is always a no-brainer, one-size-fits-all easy excuse, since it contains no details and explains absolutely nothing.  Probably why it's so popular around here.

It's popular because it is what God tells us happened. Therefore any extensive water-deposited strata are likely to be laid down by the flood.

Then why doesn't the surrounding mudstone show the same chemical composition as the sandstone, if both were laid by the same water?

Why does one have to spell out the obvious for evolutionists?

The water in the river was laden with carbonate. The earlier episode of laying down the surrounding strata less so.

How and when did the surrounding mudstone form?  Mudstone is a type of sedimentary rock formed from water laid silt or clay.  Like shale, it takes time and a large overpressure from the weight of overlying sediments to squeeze the water out and allow the particles to cement together.

View Post


It is your assumption that time (lots of it, I suppose) and a large overpressure are necessary. It was always the assumption that coal and oil needed thousands/millions of years to form, but we now know that is not correct. Is 4000 years sufficient time? If not, how many years are needed? How do you know?

#171 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 18 March 2009 - 01:56 PM

The moment you recognize your own special pleading the discussion will become more interesting because all of the OE explanations are ultimately untestable, therefore relinquished to the state of a loose hypothesis and nothing more, as Scott pointed out earlier, and you never refuted... except with your attempt to pass off the popularity contest as proving the OE version as fact.

You didn't read one single word of that research I provided on paleochannels, did you? :o

#172 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 March 2009 - 02:05 PM

You didn't read one single word of that research I provided on paleochannels, did you?   :o

View Post

The detail of those stories are exquisite but they're still ad hoc hypothesizing and you know it...

#173 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 18 March 2009 - 02:25 PM

Why does one have to spell out the obvious for evolutionists?

The water in the river was laden with carbonate.  The earlier episode of laying down the surrounding strata less so.

I'm not an "evolutionist", I'm here to discuss geology. But please, spell it out for me anyway. How much carbonate? And where did the carbonate suddenly come from? You said the original channel was carved by the same water that had reduced to a trickle, remember? But since you're making it up as you go I should expect you'd forget parts of it. :o

It is your assumption that time (lots of it, I suppose) and a large overpressure are necessary.  It was always the assumption that coal and oil needed thousands/millions of years to form, but we now know that is not correct.  Is 4000 years sufficient time?  If not, how many years are needed? How do you know?

No assumptions, it's based on empirically made measurements of the properties of soils, experiments that geologists and soil management people have been doing for decades.

So how did the mudstone form, and how long do you think it took? Days? Months? Go on, make a SWAG.

#174 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 March 2009 - 02:48 PM

I'm not an "evolutionist"

View Post

So you don't believe in evolution?

#175 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 18 March 2009 - 03:13 PM

Here's another much larger example of an exhumed meander, this one made from a mix of basalt and solidified lahar material.

Stanislaus Table Mountain in N. California. It's big, 40 miles long, 1/4 mile wide. This view was shot from an airplane. During the gold rush miners dug numerous tunnels under the formation, unearthing many Miocene animal fossils.

Posted Image

Posted Image

To top it off, the whole area is dotted with settlements and artifacts of the Miwok and paleo-indian tribes. Evidence of their continuous habitation dates back to 8000 BCE, confirmed with multiple independent dating methods (radiocarbon (C14), thermoluminescence (TL), infrared stimulated luminescence (IRSL).

Even AIG says C14 dating is good all the way back to the Flood (2400BCE I'm told), so that severely limits the post-Flood erosion time to just a few years.

How did this thing form?

#176 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 18 March 2009 - 03:29 PM

I'm not an "evolutionist", I'm here to discuss geology.


Oh no. Geological timescales were stretched out to accommodate evolution. Evolution is the thing that has driven the entire dating game since Lyell. (See An Old Earth is the Heart of Evolution) You can't get away with disclaiming the rest of the package.

But please, spell it out for me anyway.  How much carbonate?  And where did the carbonate suddenly come from?  You said the original channel was carved by the same water that had reduced to a trickle, remember?  But since you're making it up as you go I should expect you'd forget parts of it.  :o

I didn't actually say it was carved by the same water, Mr Cleverclogs, since that would have required it to go round in a circle somehow. I mean only that there was a lot of water-borne sediment that became the mudstone; that ceased and there was only a river, which clearly contained carbonates. Since this is merely a speculation based on the caption of a picture you showed, I have no idea what might lie upstream. In the scenario of the flood, huge changes took place for a year, so it might well be that the carbonates were newly exposed or deposited after the mud was laid, or the one source existed all the time and was hugely diluted in the mud-laying event, but concentrated in the one river afterwards. Insufficient data.

The point of my post was simply to suggest a mechanism from the data you supplied.  You were trying to make out that no young-age mechanism was possible.

View Post



#177 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 18 March 2009 - 03:55 PM

Oh no.  Geological timescales were stretched out to accommodate evolution.  Evolution is the thing that has driven the entire dating game since Lyell.  (See An Old Earth is the Heart of Evolution)  You can't get away with disclaiming the rest of the package.


What am amazingly uninformed thing to say. Christian naturalists like Hutton, Lyell, and Cuvier were arguing for an age much older that Biblical long before OOS was published, in some cases before Darwin was even born. Investigations and calculations as to the actual age of the Earth weren't feasible until the mid to late 1800's. The search for an accurate age was driven by geologists, not evolutionary biologists. It's just scientific consilience that older geologic ages happen to dovetail nicely with the evolutionary evidence.

I didn't actually say it was carved by the same water, Mr Cleverclogs, since that would have required it to go round in a circle somehow.  I mean only that there was a lot of water-borne sediment that became the mudstone; that ceased and there was only a river, which clearly contained carbonates.  Since this is merely a speculation based on the caption of a picture you showed, I have no idea what might lie upstream.  In the scenario of the flood, huge changes took place for a year, so it might well be that the carbonates were newly exposed or deposited after the mud was laid, or the one source existed all the time and was hugely diluted in the mud-laying event, but concentrated in the one river afterwards.  Insufficient data.


Like I said, you were making it up as you go. :o

  You were trying to make out that no young-age mechanism was possible.

No, not at all. I was merely pointing out that your particular ad hoc explanation still had holes big enough to drive a semi through.

#178 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 18 March 2009 - 06:40 PM

I believe it has pretty much been explained, as in how even the geologist make it up as they go... which is actually what they are doing in the first place, and is what anyone who wasn't there to see it happen would be doing anyways. That's a fact for anyone trying to explain some type of formation they didn't see.

Now, evolution worshipping geologist will slap 20 million years onto the formation, and all evolution worshipping wannabe geologist willl tell Creationist to disprove this supposed 20 million year build up. Well, there is a problem with this, because the 20 million year build up ad hoc story, is the best explanation the evo-worshippers could come up with, therefore they think it should be considered the top dog, especially when they actually have time machines... So why should creationist waste their time on trying to disprove something that hasn't even been proven???

Anyways, I see no reason how a formation like that could not have formed in a matter of weeks... A locamotive only takes a matter of minutes, sometimes seconds to explode from steam build up. So, I truly do believe that the science behind the heated water molecules disproves the need for 20 bagillion years... Yes, I believe the time god is most definetely not needed.

Also, I don't believe in carbon dating, you simply cannot just pick up a rock, put it in a machine, and get your desired date... Which is EXACTLY what these evolutionist worshipping geologist are claiming to do. I don't believe this at all, never have, and probably never will.

#179 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 March 2009 - 07:44 PM

This Feature in California is pretty puzzling but I think the River that overfloweth explanation leaves many unanswered questions. Maybe someone else has some ideas:

Attached File  Califirnia_Exhumed_River_Channel.jpg   170.15KB   10 downloads

#180 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 18 March 2009 - 08:58 PM

This Feature in California is pretty puzzling but I think the River that overfloweth explanation leaves many unanswered questions. Maybe someone else has some ideas:

Here is another NASA paper that describes the Table Mountain in a bit more detail, in the context of remotely identifying similar features on Mars. There's a brief mention of the Green Mountain Formation exhumed channels too.

The Stanislaus Table Mountain: Observations of a Lava-capped Inverted Paleochannel for Interpretation of Inverted Paleochannels on Mars
Burr, D. M.; Williams, R. M. E.
40th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, (Lunar and Planetary Science XL), March 23-27, 2000

Abstract: Inverted fluvial features on Mars may form through a variety of processes. Investigations into a lava-capped paleochannel on Earth provide observations that aid in distinguishing among formation mechanisms and assessing paleochannel preservation.

full article (pdf)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users