Jump to content


Photo

National Geographic Entertains Spill-over


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

#41 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 November 2009 - 04:59 PM

Water also has the habit of going underground when that is the easiest path to take.  So it can under-cut mountains if the topography makes it so.

View Post


SO that's the theory now Java :lol: Sorry, I was just thinking about what the Grand Canyon would look like if it had been "Under-cut". Do you have any pictures of canyons that were under-cut by rivers? And,did any of these canyons resemble the cuts/sides and edges of the Grand Canyon?

#42 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 11 December 2010 - 05:11 AM

If the river took millions of years to cut the canyon. Then the to of the canyon has been exposed to the weathering elements for millions of years, right?

Why do the horizontal lines from that erosion still exist? Millions of years of rain and weather should have worn away the horizontal wear to leave only vertical wear proving the millions of years that it took for that river to make the canyon. Problem is, that is not what we see.

In fact, the horizontal wear at the top is almost as deep cut as they are at the river level. Does weather wear just stop in the canyon? Did it quit raining for millions of years? I don't think so. I would post some pics that show the comparisons of the top and bottom of the canyon, but I'm not on my pc tonight. So here is a youtube video instead that shows the samething.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gsVeh1Ft1TY&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gsVeh1Ft1TY&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

So do you evolutionists believe that the horizontal wearing can last for millions of years against the elements?

View Post


If the river took millions of years to cut the canyon. Then the to of the canyon has been exposed to the weathering elements for millions of years, right?

Why do the horizontal lines from that erosion still exist? Millions of years of rain and weather should have worn away the horizontal wear to leave only vertical wear proving the millions of years that it took for that river to make the canyon. Problem is, that is not what we see.

In fact, the horizontal wear at the top is almost as deep cut as they are at the river level. Does weather wear just stop in the canyon? Did it quit raining for millions of years? I don't think so. I would post some pics that show the comparisons of the top and bottom of the canyon, but I'm not on my pc tonight. So here is a youtube video instead that shows the samething.


There are multiple non-correct geologic assumptions being made here in my opinion. The erosional surfaces at the top of the canyon and the bottom of the canyon are all relatively young in terms of geologic time. Material has been continuously removed from all surfaces through the period of time during which the canyon was created. You appear to think the surfaces at and near the top of the canyon to be the very same ones that existed when the canyon started to form. I don't think this would be considered to be correct even from a YEC point of view if you accept the work of Steve Austin involving Mt. St. Helens ash deposits. While I do not think his work a very good analogue for the creation of the Grand Canyon, YECs tend to think so. At any rate, what he found is not consistent with what you seem to be postulating.

What you are terming "horizontal wear" and claiming is about the same in the strata at at the top and bottom of the canyon is caused by differential erosion of rock beds that are less resistant to erosion than the ones above and below them. Therefore the more resistant beds stand out in relief in comparison. It is not that some beds show "horizontal wear:" and others do not. The horizontal aspect is a result of the concept of "original horizontality" and a result of factors involved in deposition or later cementation and not the case you are attempting to make. Your comment about wearing away the "horizontal wear" appears to be based upon an assumption that there are two erosive processes in work, one that created the "horizontal wear" which is in fact simply erosion of a nearly horizontal bed of rock, and then a later process that would act to remove the results of that erosion. What we have in fact is really one cycle of erosion, that wears away some rocks to a greater degree than others. Such features near the top of the canyon were formed long after the river eroded to a lower level.

The video is somewhat incomprehensible, but your post has allowed me to figure out what it is saying due to context. But as with what you posted, it makes some of the same mistaken assumptions about erosion.

The "rains" and other erosive actions have taken their toll on the top of the canyon, and the amount caused by rain is probably similar to that in deeper parts of the canyon. But making a claim that if millions of years are involved that the erosive action of rains at the top would be greater than at the bottom is false. In fact it would have more effect on the sides of the canyon in terms of total erosion than at the top.

The depth of those "horizontal cuts" is controlled by the relative resistance to erosion, and the present cuts we see both at the top and the bottom of the canyon are quite recent in terms of their creation. We would no more expect them to be nearly non-existent at the bottom than at the top. This once again seems to make the false assumption of a model that would claim that once rocks are exposed through erosion that their geomorphology would be locked-in with those surfaces maintained after the river eroded beyond them. Once again, it shows an author lacking in an understanding or erosion. The rocks at the top have not been exposed during the millions of years in which the canyon has been forming. The canyon was a lot narrower when the river started eroding the canyon, whether through a spill-over mode or straight erosion.The surfaces of the cliffs shown now were encased within rock that has subsequently been eroded and removed. The present surfaces came to be subject to erosion much later.

Then the video continues to make a strawman explanation of what mainstream geologists, wrongly termed "evolutionists" since evolution of life had nothing to do with this, would claim is happening. I don't know where this claim of using wind erosion as an "excuse" came from, for I think most geologists would claim that wind erosion in the canyon occurs but is a relatively minor process. Ironically the slot canyon shown at the end of the video clip is not the result of wind erosion as claimed, but by the waters in flash floods. Yes, this canyon was created by floods. However, the rocks themselves were deposited by winds.

So do you evolutionists believe that the horizontal wearing can last for millions of years against the elements?


This is about geology and not "evolution," but once again I doubt anyone with much geologic knowledge would take this question seriously for the reasons I have already given. Such "horizontal wearing" features of differential erosion have been created and destroyed multiple times as the faces of the canyon have retreated away from the bottom of the canyon through its "evolution"...if you want to apply the term because of the physical changes in the geomorphology of the canyon

#43 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 11 December 2010 - 05:18 AM

If the top portion of the Canyon was eroded away millions of years ago. Why is there only horizontal wear, and basically no vertical wear from rain etc...?

This is what vertical wear on rock looks like:
Posted Image

Notice how deep the cuts are. Now in the picture below, where is the same wear? Does horizontal wear last millions of years against rain which flows vertical?


View Post


The contrast in the two pictures is really not due to "vertical" and "horizontal" wear, but due to the relative resistance to erosion. More resistant rocks form cliffs and less resistant rocks more often form slopes. The material in the picture showing a "badlands" style of erosion are less resistant, and this results in the the slopes shown, where individual bedding is not visible as in the other picture with alternating beds of greater or less differential erosion.

#44 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 11 December 2010 - 05:48 AM

Yep, the difference between flood wear (above the water line).
And river wear (at the water line and about a foot or so above it).

But evolutionists will put on blurry glasses and claim they cannot see what we are talking about.

You want to know a test that would prove a flood created canyon? If someone would go to the canyon. Take a picture of the layers (a top portion) and blow it up to life size (the real size of each layer). Then take a core sample that is so many inches down (matching the the inches of the picture). Grind the rocky sand into just sand from the core sample. And then see if water will sort the layers in the same order already laid out in the picture. Which will prove that the layers were sorted by water, and not from the earth aging Geologic column. Because how would evolutionists explain away that water some how sorts the layers in the same order as age?

Maybe we can raise some money and send someone out to do this?

With all due respect to evolutionists...
Of course if any evolutionists wants to know the truth about this, they can also do this and see. But I think I know the answer to that question. For it is better to claim the river carved that Canyon, and sell the idea to the masses, than it is to actually prove it.

I have no fear of the truth.

View Post


Your experiment would fail miserably in sorting out in the same order even if you could remove the effects of diagenesis from the rocks involved to get true depositional grain sizes. Many of the sediments from the bottom strata would sort out the same as many from the top and you would end up with hybrid stratigraphy. Then there are the limestones where it would be a judgment call about how fine to break them up as they would have an interlocking crystalline structure. Making lime clasts out of them would allow limestone clasts to be deposited with sand clasts creating beds that had never been seen before in the canyon in terms of composition. But I have posted about this before long ago.

I think erosion just above the level of the river (as shown) probably does show its effect during high water conditions when more vigorous erosion occurs, combined with less resistant rocks at that level.

#45 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 11 December 2010 - 09:13 AM

If the top portion of the Canyon was eroded away millions of years ago. Why is there only horizontal wear, and basically no vertical wear from rain etc...? This is what vertical wear on rock looks like: Posted Image Notice how deep the cuts are. Now in the picture below, where is the same wear? Does horizontal wear last millions of years against rain which flows vertical?

View Post


Ikester, the picture that looks like a mountain I believe is actually an Indian Temple of some sorts that was erroded over a period of about 1,000 years. A documentary on the National Geographic talked about this. It was funny that most people in the immediate area believed that they were mountains. Of course this may not be it, but it sure looks like it.

#46 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 17 December 2010 - 09:10 PM

There are multiple non-correct geologic assumptions being made here in my opinion. The erosional surfaces at the top of the canyon and the bottom of the canyon are all relatively young in terms of geologic time. Material has been continuously removed from all surfaces through the period of time during which the canyon was created. You appear to think the surfaces at and near the top of the canyon to be the very same ones that existed when the canyon started to form. I don't think this would be considered to be correct even from a YEC point of view if you accept the work of Steve Austin involving Mt. St. Helens ash deposits. While I do not think his work a very good analogue for the creation of the Grand Canyon, YECs tend to think so. At any rate, what he found is not consistent with what you seem to be postulating.

What you are terming "horizontal wear" and claiming is about the same in the strata at at the top and bottom of the canyon is caused by differential erosion of rock beds that are less resistant to erosion than the ones above and below them. Therefore the more resistant beds stand out in relief in comparison. It is not that some beds show "horizontal wear:" and others do not. The horizontal aspect is a result of the concept of "original horizontality" and a result of factors involved in deposition or later cementation and not the case you are attempting to make. Your comment about wearing away the "horizontal wear" appears to be based upon an assumption that there are two erosive processes in work, one that created the "horizontal wear" which is in fact simply erosion of a nearly horizontal bed of rock, and then a later process that would act to remove the results of that erosion. What we have in fact is really one cycle of erosion, that wears away some rocks to a greater degree than others. Such features near the top of the canyon were formed long after the river eroded to a lower level.

The video is somewhat incomprehensible, but your post has allowed me to figure out what it is saying due to context. But as with what you posted, it makes some of the same mistaken assumptions about erosion.

The "rains" and other erosive actions have taken their toll on the top of the canyon, and the amount caused by rain is probably similar to that in deeper parts of the canyon. But making a claim that if millions of years are involved that the erosive action of rains at the top would be greater than at the bottom is false. In fact it would have more effect on the sides of the canyon in terms of total erosion than at the top.

The depth of those  "horizontal cuts" is controlled by the relative resistance to erosion, and the present cuts we see both at the top and the bottom of the canyon are quite recent in terms of their creation. We would no more expect them to be nearly non-existent at the bottom than at the top. This once again seems to make the false assumption of a model that would claim that once rocks are exposed through erosion that their geomorphology would be locked-in with those surfaces maintained after the river eroded beyond them. Once again, it shows an author lacking in an understanding or erosion. The rocks at the top have not been exposed during the millions of years in which the canyon has been forming. The canyon was a lot narrower when the river started eroding the canyon, whether through a spill-over mode or straight erosion.The surfaces of the cliffs shown now were encased within rock that has subsequently been eroded and removed. The present surfaces came to be subject to erosion much later.

Then the video continues to make a strawman explanation of what mainstream geologists, wrongly termed "evolutionists" since evolution of life had nothing to do with this,  would claim is happening. I don't know where this claim of using wind erosion as an "excuse" came from, for I think most geologists would claim that wind erosion in the canyon occurs but is a relatively minor process. Ironically the slot canyon shown at the end of the video clip is not the result of wind erosion as claimed, but by the waters in flash floods. Yes, this canyon was created by floods. However, the rocks themselves were deposited by winds.
This is about geology and not "evolution," but once again I doubt anyone with much geologic knowledge would take this question seriously for the reasons I have already given. Such "horizontal wearing" features of differential erosion have been created and destroyed multiple times as the faces of the canyon have retreated away from the bottom of the canyon through its "evolution"...if you want to apply the term because of the physical changes in the geomorphology of the canyon

View Post

I'm a little confused here. Are the "bedding planes" between the layers being attributed to horizontal erosion? Juliennes work showed that dessication had this effect. If the particles were segregated in current, then there are horizontal planes of different densities, or hardness, depending on the sediment type and grain sizes. There is also diagenesis, as Geode said. I believe this makes the indented areas more susceptible to erosion even in a young earth model. Or if they are of different crystalline composition, parts will erode slower.

I would imagine that if the smaller lighter particles on the bedding planes are truly a result of segregation in current, then supporting experiments could be done to show that they are more susceptible, causing indentation or separations in the strata or laminae.

In the old model, Geode would indeed find it normal that the sides of the canyon have eroded many times. He is however stating an assumption. This is a story that has been created, as no one saw it erode many times. However, this view dethroned the view that the Bible was actual history in the nineteenth century. This by no means determines truth though. An I would think a wise man should always side with revelation, rather than speculative hypothesis.

There is no sediment there to prove the slow scenario. So it is a hypothesis with no evidence. It makes sense in an old model, and those who fall in line with the standard model have those presuppositions.

A water gap model can put it in a young earth model, which is not unrealistic. But, of course, it would take a magnificent amount of water to cut the canyon.

Basically, one has to rule out Noah's flood. Then the canyon being cut by water becomes impossible. If one count's the flood as a fairytale, then you have no means to create the gap. And if the sediments had already indurated, then it becomes the more difficult. But, if the ocean floors raised and "spilled" their sediments onto the continents, then the sediment was plastic, and more easily eroded.

#47 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:38 AM

I'm a little confused here.  Are the "bedding planes" between the layers being attributed to horizontal erosion? Juliennes work showed that dessication had this effect.  If the particles were segregated in current, then there  are horizontal planes of different densities, or hardness, depending on the sediment type and grain sizes. There is also diagenesis, as Geode said.  I believe this makes the indented areas more susceptible to erosion even in a young earth model.  Or if they are of different crystalline composition, parts will erode slower. 

I would imagine that if the smaller lighter particles on the bedding planes are truly a result of segregation in current, then supporting experiments could be done to show that they are more susceptible, causing indentation or separations in the strata or laminae.

In the old model, Geode would indeed find it normal that the sides of the canyon have eroded many times.  He is however stating an assumption.  This is a story that has been created, as no one saw it erode many times.  However, this view dethroned the view that the Bible was actual history in the nineteenth century.  This by no means determines truth though.  An I would think a wise man should always side with revelation, rather than speculative hypothesis.

There is no sediment there to prove the slow scenario.  So it is a hypothesis with no evidence.  It makes sense in an old model, and those who fall in line with the standard model have those presuppositions.

A water gap model can put it in a young earth model, which is not unrealistic.  But, of course, it would take a magnificent amount of water to cut the canyon. 

Basically, one has to rule out Noah's flood.  Then the canyon being cut  by water becomes impossible.  If one count's the flood as a fairytale, then you have no means to create the gap.  And if the sediments had already indurated, then it becomes the more difficult.  But, if the ocean floors raised and "spilled" their sediments onto the continents, then the sediment was plastic, and more easily eroded.

View Post


I'm a little confused here. Are the "bedding planes" between the layers being attributed to horizontal erosion? Juliennes work showed that dessication had this effect. If the particles were segregated in current, then there are horizontal planes of different densities, or hardness, depending on the sediment type and grain sizes. There is also diagenesis, as Geode said. I believe this makes the indented areas more susceptible to erosion even in a young earth model. Or if they are of different crystalline composition, parts will erode slower. 


Julien used a very limited range of sediment type and grain size. I think only two sizes. I really don’t know what his conclusions are in terms of desiccation as the subject was brushed by very rapidly in the video Drama in the Rocks where there was some mention of desiccation partings or joints. An attempt was made to say that these are the features seen in stratified rocks instead of actual bedding planes. However, quite often there are concentrations of shell or other fossil material at bedding surfaces that would not fit in this model at all. It is also true that “hard grounds” are sometimes found representing a depositional surface that is more lithified than sediments above and below, but these are not due to desiccation. The other problem with applying Julien’s experiments here is one of clinoform deposition that does not seem present in the pictures from the Grand Canyon. But accepting either what I am saying or what you are saying about the erosion, it would be by a means of differential erosion of the rocks and not caused only by relatively horizontally moving water. As such the "grooves" are in fact quite modern at either the bottom or top of the Canyon, dating to the same time of creation. In fact they continue to be created as we speak.

I would imagine that if the smaller lighter particles on the bedding planes are truly a result of segregation in current, then supporting experiments could be done to show that they are more susceptible, causing indentation or separations in the strata or laminae.


Your eyes are a lot better than mine if you can tell different grain sizes from the picture, and could that be fine grained limestone in places? If so it is not at all analogous to Julien's sediments.

In the old model, Geode would indeed find it normal that the sides of the canyon have eroded many times. He is however stating an assumption. This is a story that has been created, as no one saw it erode many times. However, this view dethroned the view that the Bible was actual history in the nineteenth century. This by no means determines truth though. An I would think a wise man should always side with revelation, rather than speculative hypothesis.


I actually see this as continual erosion over a long period of time creating the present walls of the canyon, not that it was eroded many times. Just because nobody is present to observe something it does not mean that a concept is not grounded in evidence. In thsi case there are multiple lines of evidence. in support of creating the canyon long after many of the rocks were deposited and that the erosion has taken place over a long period of time. We can observe the continued erosion of the canyon today which is more consistent with a standard model than one involving a flooding event that is basically a one-time deal. I am not aware that concepts of the formation of the Grand Canyon had anything to do with impacting the Bible as a source of history. It is a source of human history, but plainly is was not meant to be a source of the geologic history of the earth. What is present in the account of creation of teh earth is short and sketchy, and told in a broad sense. If it was meant to be used the way it is by YECs, I think God would have ensured that a more detailed account was written and preserved.

There is no sediment there to prove the slow scenario. So it is a hypothesis with no evidence. It makes sense in an old model, and those who fall in line with the standard model have those presuppositions. 


There is the sediment that makes up the walls of the canyon, and with all the complexities of lithologies, marine and non-marine units, wind-blown and water lain sediments and unconformities it could only form through a period of vast time. It is a hypothesis with considerable evidence. It makes sense to those willing to take all the evidence into account with an interpretation that integrates that evidence instead of stressing some items out of context, such as the work of Steve Austin does.

A water gap model can put it in a young earth model, which is not unrealistic. But, of course, it would take a magnificent amount of water to cut the canyon. 


One could create a water gap in rocks in a young earth model, but not a canyon of this size and depth. But the young earth model fails in other ways as it cannot explain the multitude of depositional events that took place that have volcanic interspersed as well.

Basically, one has to rule out Noah's flood. Then the canyon being cut by water becomes impossible. If one count's the flood as a fairytale, then you have no means to create the gap. And if the sediments had already indurated, then it becomes the more difficult. But, if the ocean floors raised and "spilled" their sediments onto the continents, then the sediment was plastic, and more easily eroded. 


It is really a speculative hypothesis to jump to the conclusion that the flood of Noah as accepted by YECs is the only possible way that the canyon could be created. It may in fact have been created in part by flooding events, but to a YEC the rocks have to first be deposited by the flood and then eroded away. It is not impossible to create the canyon without Noah’s flood given the great amount of time available in the standard model and the Colorado River and its erosive power combined with the wasting of the slopes of the canyon by other erosive processes to create the canyon. There is evidence in the rocks themselves of induration then erosion followed by later deposition over already indurated rocks. The lava present was not formed underwater and it is also hard. It would not be plastic when flood waters hit it. If the sediments were spilled onto the continents fossils found in living positions would not be present. We would find a jumble has of fossil debris. So much for Steve Austin’s nautiloids being of use to you in your model. But you really have had to stretch here to claim that all the sedimentary units (including the volcanics) had to be plastic so as to allow them to be eroded. They would not even have time to become plastic in your model. They are hard and indurated now. In your model the canyon would have cut through plastic sediments to create the canyon we see today. When did the rocks harden? What is the mechanism? We don’t have the usual mechanisms in this scenario.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users