Jump to content


Photo

The Grand Formation...


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

#21 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 18 April 2007 - 01:11 PM

Chance, I never said that the mini grand canyon was as complex as the Grand canyon...this seems to be some sort of strawman argument you added to the argument.
I just pointed out that water can easily gourge out a canyon.

The different layers of the grand canyon represent different stages/time periods of the flood. The waters increasing, depositing sediment..then receeding, then increasing etc.

In fact the often smooth transition from one layer to the next with no wear is an excellent indication that the one layer was deposited very shortly after the previous.

#22 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 18 April 2007 - 02:02 PM

Chance, I never said that the mini grand canyon was as complex as the Grand canyon...this seems to be some sort of strawman argument you added to the argument.
I just pointed out that water can easily gourge out a canyon.


I am well aware of your position of this, you previously stated

trilobyte>
The bottom line is....rapid canyon formation is possible. That's a fact.


No doubt, but, there is more to it than just that. The inference is that the rapid formation of the mini Grand Canyon is some sort of evidence that the Grand canyon also formed rapidly, do you deny this?

I bring your attention to the title of this thread The Grand Formation..., A live Labortory for all to watch and learn. And the opening post:

trilobyte>
But the YEC's have a huge advantage.

Mt. St Helens proves rapid canyon formation is possible.

The model works in a similar fashion to the real life methods that formed the gourge that now contains the Toutle River.

Geologist have discovered the remains of three large lakes near the present day Grand Canyon which aid in our understanding of how the Grand Canyon was believed to have been formed. Before the rocks had a chance to harden completely these large lakes, the Grand Lake (Canyonlands Lake) Hopi Lake and the Vernal Lake drained through the area and rapidly gorged out the Grand Canyon.....similar to what happened at Mt. St Helens when the "little Grand Canyon" was formed rapidly. .

(my bold)

So, given those opening statements I feel justified that you are indeed, trying to infer that the formation of the Mini Grand Canyon is evidence that the same/similar process occurred in the Grand Canyon. If this is not your position, I request that you clarify it in your next post please.

#23 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 22 April 2007 - 06:41 AM

Yes, I believe that the little grand canyon and the Grand Canyon were formed under similar instances.
They both formed quickly by flowing water cutting thhrough not yet hardened material.

The science is there. It has been demonstrated to be feasable.

#24 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 22 April 2007 - 01:39 PM

Yes, I believe that the little grand canyon and the Grand Canyon were formed under similar instances.


Ok then. In that case I wait for your comments to my posts #19 and 20. Specifically, the explanation for the layering found in the Grand Canyon.

They both formed quickly by flowing water cutting thhrough not yet hardened material.



Could you expand upon this a bit further please. Are you of the opinion that the Noachian flood deposited all the material and it was eroded while still soft? Was all the sediment soft, or just the area we now call the Grand Canyon? It might help if you added time dates to your original time line, to help clear up what is proposed to happen and when.


The science is there. It has been demonstrated to be feasable.

What is your source of the science you claim to have, is there a link I can read?

#25 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 22 April 2007 - 09:03 PM

Yes it was all still soft. It wasn't mud.

If the events which happened at Mt St. Helens did so 3000 years ago and the uniformatarian geologist visited the same gorge in todays time they would more than likely figure that the gorge was carved out by a flow of water. This part would be accurate, except the uniformatarian geologist would also *assume* a very large amount of time (millions of years) was required to carve out the gorge.

#26 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 22 April 2007 - 09:13 PM

The lower lowest level of the Grand Canyon are made up of the Vishu and Zoaroaster rocks which lie below the Unkar Group and the Chuar Group. These pre-flood strata are currently in an inclined position and were raised up as the fountains of the deep opened up. The two sedimentary layers, Unkar and Chuar were deposited as ocean floor which covered the area currently known as Arizona. This sedimentary deposits had accumulated during the time between the creation of the world and the flood of Noah.
The waters of the flood advanced from Nevada through Arizona and New Mexico depositing their sediment. Evidence of this is shown when one looks at the direction of increasing sediment coarseness, direction of increasing bottom sediment and the direction of thinning of sediment cover.
As you examine the strata from nevada towards New Mexico it is possible to divide the area up into six parts. The Mauve Limestones is a lime Mud zone and was the farthest to the west(Nevada). The water here was the deepest and the slowest and consisted up a fine mud facies. The velocity was about <0.5 m/sec. Moving eastward the next exposed area is the clay mud zone of the Bright Angel Shale. This layer is made up of silt size particles that were moving at 0.5 m/sec and are the residue winnowed from the Tapeats Sandstones and the Great Unconformity. Towards the east next to be exposed is the Tapeats sandstones. The western side consist of ripples while the eastern side is sandwaves. The deposits are fine to course sand facies which were deposited in water moving at a velocity of 0.5 to 1.5 m/sec . The Tapeats sandstones to the farthest point east has a pebble zone consisting of very course pebbles and boulders. the water at this point had a velocity of appr. 1.5 m/sec.
The Great Unconformity is the result of intense scouring and erosion of the shallow fast flood waters on the pre-flood rocks. The velocity has been estimated at >2 m/sec. The above layers represent the earliest deposits as the flood waters began to advance.
Near the top of the sediment laid down by the flood waters in the early stages we find the Coconino Sandstones. The area of the sandstone exceeds 100,000 square miles and it’s volume is conservatively estimated at 10,000 cubic miles. It is believed that the the material for this layer came from the north being transported a great distance. No local source area is known. Many uniformatarians believe that the Coconino formation was made by sand that was moved by the winds from the north. The creationist have a different opinion. The slope angels of the sandwaves indicate that the sand was deposited in water rather than blown in place by wind. There is also a feature known as parting lineation which is formed on sand surfaces in flowing water and is not present in desert dunes. Studies have also shown that the size of the sand represents sand waves and not those of current desert sand dunes.
The sand in the Toroweap formation was deposited from sand eroded from the Coconino sandstone which suggest that there was substantial water currents and not a sluggish sea. It should also be interesting to note that the abrupt and flat contact of the Toroweap with the Coconino and in places an intertounging relationship between the two indicate that no long period of time separates the two. This is what the flood model would suggest. The deposits that use to have been above the Grand Canyon have been eroded away as the flood water receded. The Zion Canyon Area shows flood deposits that were not eroded as the flood waters receded.



REF. Mostly from,
Grand Canyon
Monument to Catastrophe
Edited by Steve A. Austin

#27 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 23 April 2007 - 07:48 PM

Yes it was all still soft. It wasn't mud.


What is your evidence that supports ‘soft rock’?
When and what caused it to harden?

If the events which happened at Mt St. Helens did so 3000 years ago and the uniformatarian geologist visited the same gorge in todays time they would more than likely figure that the gorge was carved out by a flow of water. This part would be accurate, except the uniformatarian geologist would also *assume* a very large amount of time (millions of years) was required to carve out the gorge.


I disagree, the formation of the mini grand canyon, is significantly different:
a. Firstly it is of volcanic origin, (the grand canyon is sedimentary) and,
b. the complete absence of any significant layering.

I don’t think a geologist would be fooled for a second.

#28 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 23 April 2007 - 07:50 PM

The lower lowest level of the Grand Canyon are made up of the Vishu and Zoaroaster rocks which lie below the  Unkar Group and the Chuar Group. These pre-flood strata are currently  in an inclined position and were raised up as the fountains of the deep opened up. The two sedimentary layers, Unkar and Chuar were deposited as ocean floor which covered the area currently known as Arizona. This sedimentary deposits had accumulated  during the time between the creation of the world and the flood of Noah. 
The waters of the flood advanced from Nevada through Arizona and New Mexico depositing their sediment.  Evidence of this is shown when one looks at the direction of increasing sediment coarseness, direction of increasing bottom sediment and the direction of thinning of sediment cover. 
As you examine the strata from nevada towards New Mexico it is possible to divide the area up into six parts.  The Mauve Limestones is a lime Mud zone  and was the farthest to the west(Nevada). The water here was the deepest and the slowest and consisted up a fine mud facies. The velocity was about <0.5 m/sec. Moving eastward the next exposed area is the clay mud zone of the  Bright Angel Shale.  This layer is made up of silt size particles that were moving at 0.5 m/sec and are the residue  winnowed from the Tapeats Sandstones and the Great Unconformity. <snip>

REF. Mostly from,
Grand Canyon
Monument to Catastrophe
Edited by Steve A. Austin

View Post


What I can glean from this is that everything below the great unconformity was deposited before the flood, and presumably the rock would be hard, yes?

Above the great conformity we have the Noachian flood deposits, and presumably soft (for a while) yes?

This should produce features showing rapid erosion above the great conformity and somewhat less below, do you agree? Yet the initial meandering path seems to have largely been consistent with erosion over long periods of time. IMO a drainage towards the sea would gently sift the uppermost layer as the level dropped, only until the water had drained to a point below the elevation of the grand canyon could erosion in earnest begin (by which time the bulk of the water will have vanished). Essentially what is needed is a volume of water, post flood, with the energy of the flood.

The particle sizes, makes no sense to me because firstly it wont account for the layering we see, in a flood we will find larger particles the further down we go, and the fine sediments settling out later towards the top. A flood will not discriminate on material that requires different mechanism, eg limestone is basically the remains of marine organisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limestone

sandstone is comprised of eroded rocky material
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandstone

shale is comprised of mud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale

So how is it possible to have 3 alternating (several times) rock forming processes? Unless this can be explained such a simple model as you have proposed is found severely wanting.


So far we have been concentrating on the basic properties of water dynamics and sedimentary processes, I have yet to begin on the fossil found, or more specifically, the conspicuous absence of fossils of ages younger than 245 million years.

#29 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 23 April 2007 - 09:04 PM

What is your evidence that supports ‘soft rock’? 
When and what caused it to harden?



Soft rock? The obvious. Why do you ask?

Wat caused it to harden? ....Time.

I'm even toying with the idea that the pyramid rocks were still slightly soft when mined...buts thats another topic.

#30 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 25 April 2007 - 03:06 PM

chance>
What is your evidence that supports ‘soft rock’? 
When and what caused it to harden?


trilobyte>
a. Soft rock? The obvious. Why do you ask?

b. Wat caused it to harden? ....Time.

c. I'm even toying with the idea that the pyramid rocks were still slightly soft when mined...buts thats another topic.


Re.a Have you ever seen soft rock? What evidence is there that such a substance (re limestone, sandstone, or shale) even exists. Sure there are sandstones that can crumble relatively easily, but has any YEC even investigated how such a substance can form, or is it just presumed to have existed, as a convenience?

Re.b Same as 'a', have experiments been conducted to see if or what can cause the hardening.

Where I’m going with this is, I would like to see if there is any active experimentation from your side of the fence. It’s all well a good saying the rock must have been soft and time hardened it, but that’s not enough, supposing time is not enough? How will you know?

#31 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 26 April 2007 - 08:54 PM

Sure, I've seen "soft rock" ...ever write your name in cement?

#32 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 29 April 2007 - 01:54 PM

Sure, I've seen "soft rock" ...ever write your name in cement?


Do you think you could make cement under water?

Notwithstanding cement, have you a response that explains the questions I posed to you in post #28, because if your theory cannot explain the layering mechanisms, you should re-evaluate it.

#33 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 29 April 2007 - 05:42 PM

Chance,
The layers were deposited during the flood. After the water drained from the area...then it hardened.

There was no need to make "cement" underwater.

#34 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 29 April 2007 - 07:50 PM

trilobyte>
The layers were deposited during the flood. After the water drained from the area...then it hardened.



Your not being consistent with your own explanation:

Firstly you stated that there are two time periods, according to you, when the rock must have hardened, below and above the great unconformity, yes?

The layers below great unconformity would have had ample time to harden before the flood yes?

So if you think the grand canyon eroded all above the great unconformity, while the rock was soft, how can you account for similar erosion on the presumably hard rock below the great unconformity (especially the granite!).

You have already discounted the retreating flood waters as the cause of the erosion and relied on a lake bursting it’s banks, but this will only work on the soft rock according to your theory, what about all the material below the great unconformity?

Still waiting for your explanation on the layering.

#35 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 04 May 2007 - 06:51 AM

Do you think you could make cement under water?

View Post


Cement will harden underwater as it sets due to a chemical reaction rather than just drying out.

I don't think you can actually mix and pour cement while underwater though.

#36 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 06 May 2007 - 11:47 AM

Your not being consistent with your own explanation:

Firstly you stated that there are two time periods, according to you, when the rock must have hardened, below and above the great unconformity, yes?

The layers below great unconformity would have had ample time to harden before the flood yes?

So if you think the grand canyon eroded all above the great unconformity, while the rock was soft, how can you account for similar erosion on the presumably hard rock below the great unconformity (especially the granite!).

You have already discounted the retreating flood waters as the cause of the erosion and relied on a lake bursting it’s banks, but this will only work on the soft rock according to your theory, what about all the material below the great unconformity?

Still waiting for your explanation on the layering.

View Post


The great unconformitywas pre-flood.

Now let me send you to a web page that explains a lot of the layering. Take your time. Watch the videos. sedimintation

#37 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 May 2007 - 02:03 PM

The great unconformitywas pre-flood.

So you stated, yet that means erosion while hard, yes? It also implies a separate sedimentation period, yes? How do you explain such?


Sedimentation follows two main principles,
a. big heavy stuff at the bottom, fine partials at the top,
b. the sorting of the principle above, is governed by the turbulence of the water.

Re the article – firstly you should summarise the article in question highlighting the points you think are relevant, the link is to support your argument only.

You should read your own article because it does not support your argument – extracts

As the water slows down, the large grains then drop out, largest to smallest, making a "pile" which grows horizontally.  Finally, the fines are the last to drop out because they require the least amount of water velocity, and thus they make up the final layer of fines on top.


Sounds familiar doesn’t it! (speed and density, rule).

So what the good M. E. Clark and H. D. Voss, seem to have concluded is what is already known, at the very best they have replicated local events such as the bend in a stream and tidal effects, nothing more. Stirring things up in a tank follows the exact same sedimentary principles, as was show by the pictures in the web page.

Much to my surprise, it became evident very quickly that liquefaction does not produce layers, it destroys them.

I do need to qualify this statement however:  liquefaction did indeed sort (more or less) the sediments by density.  However, the resulting "layers" were hardly layers at all; they blended together and if the system was to become lithified (cemented, or hardened into rock), it would be one, thick block.  If I saw these layers in the geologic record, they would be interesting and noteworthy, but I wouldn't call them layers; I would call it a layer fining upward.


So what can we gather from this? Sedimentation follows the two basic principles I stated originally, and, his experiment was limited by the material used. Finally what do you think a liquefaction process is? Do you think it is sedimentation forming? No it is the destruction of layering due to agitation see this wiki page http://en.wikipedia....il_liquefaction
To which the author admits -

Liquefaction doesn't produce layers, it destroys them.


So I am rather perplexed at how you think such experiments support your case, the entire page seem to confirm what is already known. I suggest you take the time to read the article you posted in it’s entirety, then cut an paste the bits you think support young earth, and explain why. In your reply I will require an explanation consistent with the grand canyon, fair enough?

The alternating layers of limestone need to be addressed, as do the fossils!

#38 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 07 May 2007 - 05:18 PM

The page showed that layers are made during flowing water AND formations such as the cocino sandstones were deposited by water and not wind.

The site I linked you to supports the flood. NOT a slow deposit of sediment as called for by the evo-minded.

#39 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 May 2007 - 07:50 PM

The page showed that layers are made during flowing water AND formations such as the cocino sandstones were deposited by water and not wind.


Is that what you think? Wow, I don’t think you have read it very well, at best they got separation by size, and speed of flow, so what so dramatic about that? Nothing new as far as I can see!

Do you see how limestone can form?

Do you see how you get alternating layers, like in the grand canyon?

The site I linked you to supports the flood. NOT a slow deposit of sediment as called for by the evo-minded.


So what if they claim to support the Flood, the experiments prove sedimentation mechanisms no different to that found in nature or in any sedimentation experiment (speed and density). Can you see any other conclusion in that article other than speed or density?



Have they addressed the fossils, that I fear will be a whole different problem, and one they wont be able to replicate.






Remember they are trying to replicate this (twice once above and once below the great unconformity):

20. Kaibab Limestone. brachiopods, coral, molluscs, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth
19. Toroweap Limestone. brachiopods, coral, molluscs, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth
18. Coconino Sandstone. invertebrate tracks, burrows, fossil sand dunes
17. Hermit Shale. ferns, conifers, other plants, reptiles and amphibian tracks.
16. Supai Group. (shale, limestone, sandstone) East - amphibians, reptiles and terrestrial plants. West - marine fossils.
15. Redwall limestone. brachiopods, clams, snails, corals, fish and trilobites
14. Temple Butte. Limestone. East - freshwater fish. West - marine fossils
13. Mauv Limestone. trilobites and brachiopods.
12. Bright Angel Shale. . trilobites and brachiopods
11. Tapeats Sandstone. brachiopods, and trilobite

A. PRE Noachian FLOOD, AND CREATION WEEK (Precambrian)

unconformity

Chuar Group. (10 – 6)
10. Sixtymile Formation shale.
9. Kwagunt Formation. .Shale, mudstone, some limestone. Stromatolites.
8. Galeros Formaton. Sandstone, limestone and shale. Stromatolites
7. Nankoweap Formation. Sandstone.
6. Cardenas Lava

Unkar Group. (5 – 2).
5. Dox Sandstone. sandstone, shale. Stromatolites, algae.
4. Shinumo Quartzite. sandstone.
3. Hakatai Shale. shale, sandstone.
2. Bass Formation. Limestone.. stromatolites.

unconformity

1. Vishnu, Zoroaster – Granite.1

#40 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 26 May 2007 - 11:03 AM

What if it was something simple? Is the biblical, worldwide flood (which included volcanic and tectonic activity) followed by a long duration (weeks or months) of water receding, possible?

During the flooding and receding period, currents would carry large amounts of sediment. Volcanic eruptions under the flood would cool and harden in hours, forming lifted rocky areas. The sediment would be deposited by similarity (density, particle size, etc.). This sediment (covered by water) would be soft. As the water receded it would be etched by the flows to the seas. We should find the highest elevations tend to be more rugged, as the softest materials would have been carried away. As elevation decreased the flows would loose speed, depositing more material. The areas closer to sea level should be less firm and have mild terrain.

Any planets come to mind?

Of course this does not prove the biblical account. It does argue for plausibility.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users