Jump to content


Photo

The Grand Formation...


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

#1 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

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

Posted 24 February 2007 - 06:58 PM

Whats really interesting is that we can argue about how long it took for the Grand Canyon to form.

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. .

#2 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 25 February 2007 - 05:37 AM

Whats really interesting is that we can argue about how long it took for the Grand Canyon to form.

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. .

View Post


Trilobyte, you haven't cited any sources. Please fill us in on where you found the original material so that we can all enjoy it.

#3 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 25 February 2007 - 02:11 PM

If one has a cross section of the grand canyon and compared it to Mt St Helens, you seem to be implying that you get the same result. I would bet that the process of canyon forming can be determined by the evidence found on the ground. E.g. I would bet that volcanic and erosion leave clues.

#4 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

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

Posted 26 February 2007 - 12:57 AM

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

#5 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 February 2007 - 01:45 PM

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

View Post


If only it were that simple.

You are making a mistake in logic, if you presume that, because some canyons can be formed rapidly, all canyons are formed rapidly, is that your argument? If it is not your argument, then what is your purpose in comparing the two different canyon forming events?

The facts are that Mt St Helens was a violent event, a characteristically different event from the formation of the grand canyon.

Take a look at the closed topic on the grand canyon and you will see a picture I posted that shows the cross sectional layers of grand canyon. Now, with out any research at all on Mt St Helens I will make a prediction that the geography of the is quite different, (even is one ignores the volcanic evidence). One is carved by a river over long periods of time, while the other is not.

#6 Guest_kega_*

Guest_kega_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 February 2007 - 04:11 AM

If only it were that simple.

You are making a mistake in logic, if you presume that, because some canyons can be formed rapidly, all canyons are formed rapidly, is that your argument?  If it is not your argument, then what is your purpose in comparing the two different canyon forming events?

The facts are that Mt St Helens was a violent event, a characteristically different event from the formation of the grand canyon.

Take a look at the closed topic on the grand canyon and you will see a picture I posted that shows the cross sectional layers of grand canyon.  Now, with out any research at all on Mt St Helens I will make a prediction that the geography of the is quite different, (even is one ignores the volcanic evidence).  One is carved by a river over long periods of time, while the other is not.

View Post


Are you saying the grand canyon wasn't formed when a lake burst its banks?

#7 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 February 2007 - 02:17 PM

Are you saying the grand canyon wasn't formed when a lake burst its banks?


Well kega I’m glad you asked me for my opinion, because as of yet no one has discussed the exact processes that formed the grand canyon. Currently it has been confined to a general statement of formed over a long time.

Two events are necessary,

a. The deposition of the sedimentary layers (certainly very long periods of time)
b. The erosion of those layers (less time than the deposition)

The lake you refer to is “lake Bidahochi” it certainly played a part. According to this LINK
there are two scenarios:

At this point there are at least two popular theories which describe what happens next:

Around 20 million years ago the Colorado River begins to carve into the Grand Canyon at its eastern end, Marble Canyon, and probably exiting via Kanab Canyon.

At 17 million years ago the Colorado Plateau begins to uplift and causes the river to cut deeper.

Around 5 million years ago the uplift ceases and another river working its way northward along the San Andreas fault and eastward along the western Colorado Plateau captures the Colorado River.

OR


Around 35 million years ago the Kaibab Plateau begins to uplift and diverts the ancestral Colorado, which was already established on a course very similar to that of today, to the southeast. The cut-off western portion, now named the Hualapai Drainage System, contines to drain the western region.

About 12 million years ago the Colorado's path to the sea is blocked and a huge lake, Lake Bidahochi, is formed.

Eventually the Hualapai cuts back through the southern portion of the plateau and recaptures the Colorado. Lake Bidahochi is drained and becomes the Little Colorado River.


This is the lake I presume you are refering to, yes?

Posted Image

#8 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

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

Posted 02 March 2007 - 04:36 PM

If only it were that simple.

You are making a mistake in logic, if you presume that, because some canyons can be formed rapidly, all canyons are formed rapidly, is that your argument?  If it is not your argument, then what is your purpose in comparing the two different canyon forming events?

The facts are that Mt St Helens was a violent event, a characteristically different event from the formation of the grand canyon.

Take a look at the closed topic on the grand canyon and you will see a picture I posted that shows the cross sectional layers of grand canyon.  Now, with out any research at all on Mt St Helens I will make a prediction that the geography of the is quite different, (even is one ignores the volcanic evidence).  One is carved by a river over long periods of time, while the other is not.

View Post



YIKES..It sems as if Chance is claiming that all canyons take millions of years to form.

I mentioned the lakes..that are no longer there...and the "soft" sediment deposited by the flood..the model works Chance.Posted Image

#9 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 05 March 2007 - 02:54 PM

chance>
If only it were that simple.

You are making a mistake in logic, if you presume that, because some canyons can be formed rapidly, all canyons are formed rapidly, is that your argument?   If it is not your argument, then what is your purpose in comparing the two different canyon forming events?

The facts are that Mt St Helens was a violent event, a characteristically different event from the formation of the grand canyon.

Take a look at the closed topic on the grand canyon and you will see a picture I posted that shows the cross sectional layers of grand canyon.  Now, with out any research at all on Mt St Helens I will make a prediction that the geography of the is quite different, (even is one ignores the volcanic evidence).  One is carved by a river over long periods of time, while the other is not.

trilobyte>
YIKES..It sems as if Chance is claiming that all canyons take millions of years to form.

(my bold)

!!! I think you need to re-read my statement above, pay particular attention to the bolded! I was actually asking you to clarify your position !

I mentioned the lakes..that are no longer there...and the "soft" sediment deposited by the flood..the model works


Please explain what “works” with some reasonable detail, (the picture does not explain your POV). i.e. In your explanation please explain how the Mt St Helens event is comparable to the formation of the Grand canyon.

#10 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 18 March 2007 - 02:35 PM

Re all claims that the “mini grand canyon” proves rapid canyon formation is possible.


I would wager that the “mini grand canyon” that is often reported as ‘devastating to old earth interpretations” of the grand canyon will look remarkably like this image from the USGS web site, Mt St Helens section.
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov

Posted Image

This is a picture of the volcanic ash eroding rather rapidly as it is not bound together very strongly like sedimentary rock.
Note the complete absence of layering like that found in sedimentary rock. The outward remembrance to the grand canyon starts and finishes in that they are both gorges cut by flowing water.

Even the most armature observations (just by the pictures) you can easily tell that the two terrains are worlds apart in formation.

#11 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

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

Posted 15 April 2007 - 06:21 AM

Interesting...the picture above looks similar to the Grand Canyon. It even has a small "river" flowing down the middle of it.

Of course no one would suggest that the small trickle of water seen in the picture carved out that "gorge".

But you suggest the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon????????

It's obvious that a large amount of water carved out both...quickly...while the sediment was still soft.

#12 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 April 2007 - 02:06 PM

a. Interesting...the picture above looks similar to the Grand Canyon. It even has a small "river" flowing down the middle of it.

b. Of course no one would suggest that the small trickle of water seen in the picture carved out that "gorge".

c. But you suggest the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon????????

d. It's obvious that a large amount of water carved out both...quickly...while the sediment was still soft.

(my paragraphing)

Re.a looks can be deceiving! Outward appearance does not infer the same processes were involved.

Re-Shape

Besides, the outward appearances are in reality, quite different. The Grand canyon has ‘true’ layering’ the soft muddy canon does not. There is much meandering in Grand Canyon where the Colorado has changed its course. A single flood event will not do this, the flow will be much more linier as the water flows down hill. No geologist would be fooled by the geology of the ‘mini grand canyon’.

Re.b Of course not, the fast flow has done much of the erosion, but notice what the small trickle has done, take a close look. Do you see that when slowed down there is a miniature canyon in the mini canyon! The shape of this has much more in common with the real Grand canyon, here the water has to follow the path of least resistance, it begins to meander. By contrast the ‘mini grand canyon is much straighter.

Re.c yep no doubt about it, a retreating flood cannot turn around corners.

Re.d Absolutely not, the difference in the type of formation is significantly different in shape.

And we have not even got into what the layers are made of, what is contained within them! Which will be consistent with old earth and inconsistent with a young earth.

#13 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

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

Posted 15 April 2007 - 05:16 PM

The meanders were formed before the dam broke and let the massive flood of water flow...channeled by the meanders.

#14 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 April 2007 - 07:27 PM

A. The meanders were formed before the dam broke
B.  and let the massive flood of water flow...channeled by the meanders.

(my paragraphing)

Re.a Dam, what dam? What formed the meanders? Are you proposing some method where meanders can form underwater (under the Noachian flood) I don’t see how this is possible as it is ‘supposedly’ the sediment building era, yes?

Re.b As the Noachian flood retreats, the erosion of the Grand canyon cannot even begin until there is some concentrated erosion (i.e. the Colorado river), while the flood is in force, the land beneath is silting up and protected. To cut a canyon you need the erosion to be in a specific area, a very large flood will just roll over the top, erosion wont even begin until levels drop and ‘relative flow’ between (the now ‘solidified’) rock and the surface water (and even then it wont be concentrated into a specific channel, until the levels drop below the highest point). Does a submerged submarine feel a storm on the surface?

#15 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

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

Posted 16 April 2007 - 07:10 AM

Chance, the dam broke and spilled the lakes into the ALREADY formed meanders.

The meanders formed as water at a much lower rate leaked out of the lakes and eroded the not quite hard landscape.

When the dam finally broke, the rushing waters were then confined to the already established meanders, only widening and deepening them.

#16 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

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

Posted 16 April 2007 - 07:11 AM

See post 8 for the lakes and position of the dam.

#17 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 April 2007 - 01:39 PM

But your not explaining anything, in post #8, your sum comment is

I mentioned the lakes..that are no longer there...and the "soft" sediment deposited by the flood..the model works


So you haven’t really given us a model have you! how about a time line, like:

Noachian flood
Soft rock (rock is soft?)
Hard rock (how does it turn hard)
Flood departs, etc with some dates

Can infer that some portion of the Grand Canyon was cut before and some after, the departure of the flood, yes? So from the link below where do you place that dividing line?

From LINK

Posted Image

#18 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

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

Posted 16 April 2007 - 02:50 PM

This is a simple timeline I dug out earlier.

STRATA AS RELATED TO THE STAGES OF THE FLOOD.
**********************************
POST FLOOD
Bryce Canyon Area
(Cenozoic) Brian Head Fm.
Wasatch Fm.
**********************************
LATE FLOOD
Zion Canyon Area
(Mesozoic) Kaiparowits FM.
Straight Cliffs SS. (Grey Cliffs)
Tropic FM.
Dakota FM.
Carmel FM.
Navajo SS. (White Cliffs)
Kayenta FM.
Moenave FM. (Vermilion Cliffs)
Chinle FM.
Shinarump MBR.
Moenkopi FM.
************************************
EARLY FLOOD
Grand Canyon
(Paleozoic) Kaibab LS. (Canyon Rim)
Toroweap FM.
Coconino FM.
Hermit SH.
Supai Group.
Redwall LS.
Temple Butte LS.
Mauv LS.
Bright Angel SH. (Tonto Platform)
Tapeats SS.
***************************************
PRE-FLOOD AND CREATION WEEK
Grand Canyon
(Precambrian) Chuar Group.
Unkar Group
Vishnu,Zoroaster

#19 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 April 2007 - 02:12 PM

This is a simple timeline I dug out earlier. <snip list>


Thanks for that, this shoud make discussion on whats what, much easier.

All righty then, here we go. I’ll address you post in a number of replies, this one will be what we can agree upon just by observing.

First lets compare your list of the grand canyon to the mini Grand Canyon picture in post #10, What hits you first is the almost complete absence of layers, what minor layering there is, is a reflection of rapid depositing of a largely homogeneous substance, (plus moisture content, perhaps a slight difference in volcanic ejecta over the period of eruption). But basically is all the same soft stuff.

Now, for comparison take a look at the website below, LINK, at the bottom of that page is this depiction of the canyon.

Posted Image

I think you can agree that there is several orders of magnitude of an increase in the complexity of the Grand Canyon, in comparison to the Mini Grand Canyon.

Note the base of the Grand canyon is actually carving it’s way through granite, everything above is sedimentary rock, stacked in very neat and distinct layers, something not explainable by rapid deposition like a Noachian flood. There’s no evidence of a global calamity here, it is a very ordered, sedimentation processes (lots of them), and a flood will not give you the layering we see here, it’s a physical impossibility.

#20 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 April 2007 - 07:44 PM

trilobyte>
This is a simple timeline I dug out earlier.


Ok, time to have a look at your time line in detail.

The paragraphing numbers represent the layers, Youngest layers (#20+) on top, oldest (#1) on bottom.

I’ve taken the liberty of formatting your list a little so as its a bit more compatible, for comparison purposes.



STRATA AS RELATED TO THE STAGES OF THE FLOOD.

D. POST FLOOD Bryce Canyon Area (Cenozoic)

Brian Head Fm.
Wasatch Fm.

C. LATE FLOOD Zion Canyon Area (Mesozoic)

Kaiparowits FM.
Straight Cliffs SS. (Grey Cliffs)
Tropic FM.
Dakota FM.
Carmel FM.
Navajo SS. (White Cliffs)
Kayenta FM.
Moenave FM. (Vermilion Cliffs)
Chinle FM.
Shinarump MBR.
Moenkopi FM.

B. EARLY FLOOD (Paleozoic) {chance. From this point and older, direct correlation between your list and the one I posted is possible, numbered 1 – 20. Type of layer is bolded, fossils found are Italics}.

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

My comments/questions re paragraphs A - D.

A. pre Noachian Flood (1 – 10) – you will note the very different types of layers, in the following sequence - granite, shale, sandstone, sandstone, lava, sandstone, shale, shale. I have to ask what mechanism has deposited such an intricate mix of sedimentary rock, and embedded such a poor representation of post creation life?

B. Early Noachian flood (11 – 20) – the sequence of layers this time is, sandstone, shale, limestone, limestone, limestone, shale, sandstone, shale, shale, sandstone, limestone, limestone. Again what mechanisms do you propose can lay down this sequence, while the earth is flooded. This being the most violent period in earths history, with much death, how is it that nothing much more evolved than fish and amphibians has left it’s mark?

C. LATE FLOOD Zion Canyon Area (Mesozoic) - Clarification is required, is this a separate flood to the Noachian flood?

D. POST FLOOD Bryce Canyon Area (Cenozoic) - Clarification is required, is this a separate flood to the Noachian flood?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users