TEMPORARY: So how did the GC (Geological Column) get laid down from a mainstream POV?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I have no time to respond here, though there really is nothing new. All I can do is ask for evidence of a flood and that catastrophic drainage of a lake stranded by the flood actually cut the canyon. So far, you have failed. "

​

--Mainstream Geology has also failed... Again:

​

--I've got a great idea, when someone gives me an extensive reply, I'm just going to say that I don't have the time and just parrot the same point all over again!

---

WEll, excuuuuse me! Besides, I'm not parroting. I write my own stuff. You know, know all the stuff you have ignored regarding cyclothems and flowering plants, etc. Why should I repeat myself over and over again?

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 06-20-2002]

"WEll, excuuuuse me! Besides, I'm not parroting. I write my own stuff. You know, know all the stuff you have ignored regarding cyclothems and flowering plants, etc. Why should I repeat myself over and over again?"
--Yes I know you weren't parroting, I was referring to another unfortunate group, we don't get to many of them in here I don't think. Also, The simple answer to your question is...its completely, and utterly irrelevant! the Deposition of a cyclothem sequenced pair or when the presence of flowering plants comes in, has absolutely no relevance the the issue which has been attempted discussed here as the formation of Grand Canyon National park area and its vicinity.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-20-2002]

"Well, you could start by explaining the FACT that flowering plants, their pollen, roots, twigs and leaves, are not found in strata older than Cretaceous. This is just one of many facts that you cannot credibly explain under your scenario, whereas evolution does so very nicely."
--See my last post, [I havent] a care in the world [in this thread]about the depositional characteristics in the stratigraphy of the Geologic Column. This is not the issue at hand and I don't think you want to be side-stepping. Feel free to come back to our original argument when you wish.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-20-2002]

Thanks for pointing out the kaibab.org website, it is a great resource. The following link will take you to a map of the canyon with links to many more detailed maps and photographs. http://www.kaibab.org/gc/maps/gcmapx.htm. You can spend a long time there.You said earlier (Message 91):

quote:

---

--No, I have focused on the erosional issue because that is what you have addressed and argued against. I have no problem with going into other issues you may see for the formations, just don't rush into them when we haven't cleared out the issue of erosion.

---

I do not think that you can clear up the erosion issues without taking into consideration how the rocks got there in the first place. By considering deposition and erosion separately, you will run the risk of having contradictory explanations. For instance:1. There are eolian and water-deposited layers intermixed throughout the entire several hundred feet of the Supai Group. The eolian deposits are from the water deposited layers drying, becoming lithified and then being eroded by wind with the resultant sand redeposited, and relithified. This happened repeatedly. How do you reconcile your rapid erosional model with the facts of the Supai deposition?
2. There are more than a hundred and fifty lava flows from the Kaibab Volcanic Field cascading over the North Rim and down into the canyon. At least a dozen of these flows definitely dammed the river for some period of time. A lake formed upstream of each dam, which took some time to fill with water and more time to fill with sediment. When each lake had filled completely with sediment, the water could flow unimpeded again, and rapidly eroded a new river channel through the remnants of the lava dam. http://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/gc_canyon.html If you add up the times necessary to fill each of these lava dammed lakes with water and sediment you get upwards of 4000 years. That is assuming that they happened in rapid succession of each other (the best case scenario for your model). Now how does your rapid erosional model account for the sequential volcanic damming of the river and the times required for the lakes to fill and begin to overflow, breaking down the dams?
3. How does your scenario account for the portions of the canyon through granite? How was the granite deposited during the flood and then how did it get eroded so deeply in such a short time period.
4. How do you account for buttes and temples. Were they soft or hard when eroded. If soft then why did they not collapse during the catastrophic emptying of your hypothetical lake? If hard then why do they not exhibit the signs of being eroded by fast moving water (i.e. smooth sides)?Some questions strictly on erosion you need to be able to answer are:1. How come the GC does not look like any of the examples of rapidly eroded canyons caused by catastrophic emptying of large bodies of water?
2. How were the side canyons formed at right angles to the flow of water from your hypothetical lake? How can they look similar to the GC, cut the rocks the same way, yet be not be in the direction of flow of the event that formed the GC?
3. How come the buttes and temples mentioned in 4 above are not oriented toward the flow of water from your lake?I applaud your efforts to date, but these are pretty basic questions that you need to answer before your model can be taken seriously.Good luck,Joe T. (NOT the one that posts on talk.origins — sucker took my screen name - grrr!)

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Yes I know you weren't parroting, I was referring to another unfortunate group, we don't get to many of them in here I don't think.

---

Then why bring it up?

quote:

---

Also, The simple answer to your question is...its completely, and utterly irrelevant!

---

Sure. Especially since you don't have an answer, eh?

quote:

---

the Deposition of a cyclothem sequenced pair or when the presence of flowering plants comes in, has absolutely no relevance the the issue which has been attempted discussed here as the formation of Grand Canyon National park area and its vicinity.

---

Seems like the title of this thread was about the geological column being deposited. I didn't know that it had changed.But let's take a little time to look at your scenario. First you want to have a flood that deposited the bulk of the post Precambrian geological column even though there is abundant evidence that a significant portion is non-marine and even terrestrial and evaporitic. Now, this flood has to cover a relatively flat world even though we have evidence of ancient mountains, some of them thousands of feet high. Then you need to deposit thousands of feet of clastic sediments even though there is no known source. Next you need to drain the water off the continents even though it has nowhere to go. Then you have to strand a lake at near base level which then has to develop a mature drainage pattern even though you are running out of time. Then you must uplift everything, including a large lake without draining it, so that it can later catastrophically drain throught the Grand Canyon, even though there is not a trace of this drainage outside the main channel. At least you have agreed that the canyon formed in hard rock, but the rest of your story is quite fanciful.Now, you have said that your model is better than the mainstream idea of how the Grand Canyon formed. Can you please show us specific points that indicate this?I reiterate that you have said you would provide evidence for several points (here and elsewhere) such as the velocity of paleocurrents with a comparison to modern velocities, and tree fossils that cut across more than one cyclothem, and probably others. When can we expect this evidence? It seems this would be critical to the viability of your model.

"Thanks for pointing out the kaibab.org website, it is a great resource. The following link will take you to a map of the canyon with links to many more detailed maps and photographs. http://www.kaibab.org/gc/maps/gcmapx.htm. You can spend a long time there."
--Yes it is a very nice source, I have much of it book marked . However, what is as I explained earlier in some of my posts, of high priority to obtain is a lithologic vs. hypsographic map of the wide area in the Grand Canyon National park to Grand Lake Colorado and around vicinity.I have hypsography accounted for here:
-http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...yon_height3_r2_c2.gif[/URL]
-- Model : Grand Canyon [/URL]--All that is needed now is to get a layout for the exposed remaining geology of this area to contrast with hypsography. With this the exact erosional patterns that have been created can be compiled and a model for its formation can be made."You said earlier (Message 91):[Snip]I do not think that you can clear up the erosion issues without taking into consideration how the rocks got there in the first place."
--Well yes I can certainly agree. However the argument as me and edge were tackling is the formation of Grand canyon, which is the erosional characteristics of it, rather than what took place prior the cutting. It is important, I concur, to go into the deposition of the Geologic column and its stratigraphy, but that is another detail in argument which is still part of Flood Geology."By considering deposition and erosion separately, you will run the risk of having contradictory explanations. For instance:
1. There are eolian and water-deposited layers intermixed throughout the entire several hundred feet of the Supai Group. The eolian deposits are from the water deposited layers drying, becoming lithified and then being eroded by wind with the resultant sand redeposited, and relithified. This happened repeatedly. How do you reconcile your rapid erosional model with the facts of the Supai deposition?"
--Might you have an example or a cut section of the supai group which indicates the format of this intermixing through the entire several hundred feet? Or at least an illustration of this observational characteristic. Also, what is the indication of them having to lithify, erode, deposit, and then lithify again (most importantly, the indication that it has lithified prior the next deposition). I also have no problem with erosional processes weathering strata as the Geologic Column were deposited, it wasn't just a one go deposition."2. There are more than a hundred and fifty lava flows from the Kaibab Volcanic Field cascading over the North Rim and down into the canyon. At least a dozen of these flows definitely dammed the river for some period of time. A lake formed upstream of each dam, which took some time to fill with water and more time to fill with sediment. When each lake had filled completely with sediment, the water could flow unimpeded again, and rapidly eroded a new river channel through the remnants of the lava dam. http://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/gc_canyon.html If you add up the times necessary to fill each of these lava dammed lakes with water and sediment you get upwards of 4000 years. That is assuming that they happened in rapid succession of each other (the best case scenario for your model). Now how does your rapid erosional model account for the sequential volcanic damming of the river and the times required for the lakes to fill and begin to overflow, breaking down the dams?"
--Just about every geologic process including erosion you will find has a catastrophic characteristic to it in Flood Geology rather than gradualistic deposition or erosion. Conventional Uniformitarianism essentially does not even imply all gradual process but may as well contain extremely catastrophic depositions and erosional evolution. These thoughts on the many lava flows from the kaibab volcanic field are a nice consideration. You wouldn't happen to have access to information on the stratigraphic and topographic features of the existing remnants of the volcanic flows would you?--I read the link you gave, very interesting and insightful. I do not have access to Austin's book for his theory on the Canyon formation. Mine was conjured up on my lonesome, though it seems theirs is relatively similar with the possible exception of time frames and water sources. His theory on the water resource seemingly I would like to look at, I have been unable to give good detail on this because of our lack in information regarding lithologic and hypsographic mapping information for the area. I have had the hunch that grand-lake may not be sufficient in being the source of the actual canyon carving, but may be the proper proponent for stage two of the event (ie, meandering formation prior the catastrophic emptying of other reservoir(s) [See post #93]."3. How does your scenario account for the portions of the canyon through granite? How was the granite deposited during the flood and then how did it get eroded so deeply in such a short time period."
--A question, how was this statement substantiated:

quote:

---

Another curious fact about the lava dams: after each one was breached, the renewed flow of water eroded away almost all of the basaltic dam material, but very little of the harder Vishnu and Zoroaster rocks that form the wall of the Inner Gorge.

---

--Also, we have a couple thousand years of erosion after the grand canyon's formation which may account for the Vishnu Schist erosion. I may also be speculative on the speed of lithification of granite, though I wouldn't put too much confidence in that."4. How do you account for buttes and temples. Were they soft or hard when eroded. If soft then why did they not collapse during the catastrophic emptying of your hypothetical lake? If hard then why do they not exhibit the signs of being eroded by fast moving water (i.e. smooth sides)?"
--It is possible that the formation of the grand canyon may shadow the topography of the area prior the grand canyon's cutting. As I had explained back in my post #89, lithification has a function of depth and pressure. Rocks of varying resistance would have been produced by these varying elevations and 'hilly' terrain. After the second stage of its formation, this diversity in pressure would have taken more of an effect over time. Later landslides and weathering would have shaped them and disconnected most from the Grand canyon walls. And what do you mean by, and what constitutes a 'smooth side'. Why is this expected in our framework and not yours?"Some questions strictly on erosion you need to be able to answer are:
1. How come the GC does not look like any of the examples of rapidly eroded canyons caused by catastrophic emptying of large bodies of water?"
--I can predict that it is because we have a vastly different event and characteristical environmental conditions we are dealing with. But you wouldn't happen to know of another which we can compare and contrast to?"2. How were the side canyons formed at right angles to the flow of water from your hypothetical lake? How can they look similar to the GC, cut the rocks the same way, yet be not be in the direction of flow of the event that formed the GC?"
--Because of the format by which it eroded when water emptied through the grand canyon. Side canyons are most apparent in the north section of the Grand canyon than the south, seemingly austin may have something on this as one of his resources drained into the Grand canyon from a northward perspective. Latter erosion then further created the rougher terrain of the side canyons."3. How come the buttes and temples mentioned in 4 above are not oriented toward the flow of water from your lake?"
--Well they kinda do because a water resource may be contributed to a southern-ward flow from the north. As well as further latter erosion would have shaped them this way. Most buttes and temples may not show directional characteristics because their formation is not the effect of the flow of water but more because of prior terrain and pressure explained above.
--This response was compiled over a bit of time so please forgive me for the slight indication of sloppiness.--Also, as a side note, my folder which contained a series of images necessary for display in my past few posts had been deleted but has now been restored. Apparently it was done via ftp and I am not going to take the time going through my log file for the past two weeks to find an identity. I'm not to blame anyone without reason, though if it has been anyone who participates in or a spectator of this forum, this is not at all appreciated.------------------

"Then why bring it up?"
--It was just a little extra I stuck in there, everyone does it all the time. Also, your the one who brought him up, I just gave you my quick thoughts on him."Sure. Especially since you don't have an answer, eh?"
--Sorry edge, its actually because I'm going to stick to the topic that we started rather than branch this off into many topics of discussion in a single set of posts in one thread."Seems like the title of this thread was about the geological column being deposited. I didn't know that it had changed.
--While this is true, I initially responded to your question of how we produce meander loops in the grand canyon. If you want to carry this into another thread that's great but I'm sticking to erosion until that is covered. I guess that Joe T is who I am arguing with now though since you seemingly dissipated from the discussion on the Grand canyon's formation."But let's take a little time to look at your scenario. First you want to have a flood that deposited the bulk of the post Precambrian geological column even though there is abundant evidence that a significant portion is non-marine and even terrestrial and evaporitic."
--Yup."Now, this flood has to cover a relatively flat world even though we have evidence of ancient mountains, some of them thousands of feet high."
--You wouldn't happen to have an example with an explanation on how they showed their height?"Then you need to deposit thousands of feet of clastic sediments even though there is no known source."
--What about pre-existing rock for the 'clastic' sediments."Next you need to drain the water off the continents even though it has nowhere to go."
--Ocean basins and polar ice caps."Then you have to strand a lake at near base level which then has to develop a mature drainage pattern even though you are running out of time."
--You have yet to explain why I do not have enough time for a mature drainage formation."Then you must uplift everything, including a large lake without draining it..."
--If you mean the kaibab uplift, then this is meaningless. And if you mean the uplift of the rocky mountains, you still have to explain why it would then drain."...so that it can later catastrophically drain throught the Grand Canyon, even though there is not a trace of this drainage outside the main channel."
--Really, you haven't shown me why there isn't, and I haven't shown you why there is.

quote:

---

--Untill someone presents this type of information, it would be a bit sloppy to assert that there is no evidence for or against a catastrophic outflow from either lake which may have caused the Grand Canyon to be carved.

---

"At least you have agreed that the canyon formed in hard rock, but the rest of your story is quite fanciful."
--Please show me your reasoning for it being 'fanciful', Joe T gave it a nice shot and is a good example for you to follow."Now, you have said that your model is better than the mainstream idea of how the Grand Canyon formed. Can you please show us specific points that indicate this?"
--No, I never said that it is a better model, I said that I attempt to make it a working model."I reiterate that you have said you would provide evidence for several points (here and elsewhere) such as the velocity of paleocurrents with a comparison to modern velocities, and tree fossils that cut across more than one cyclothem, and probably others. When can we expect this evidence? It seems this would be critical to the viability of your model."
--Show me where I have said these things, I don't think I have though from a little bit of reading of Tranquilities posts, he may have.------------------

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--It was just a little extra I stuck in there, everyone does it all the time. Also, your the one who brought him up, I just gave you my quick thoughts on him.--Sorry edge, [/b]its actually because I'm going to stick to the topic[/b] that we started rather than branch this off into many topics of discussion in a single set of posts in one thread.[/QUOTE]Whatever you say, TC.

quote:

---

Seems like the title of this thread was about the geological column being deposited. I didn't know that it had changed.

​

--While this is true, I initially responded to your question of how we produce meander loops in the grand canyon. If you want to carry this into another thread that's great but I'm sticking to erosion until that is covered. I guess that Joe T is who I am arguing with now though since you seemingly dissipated from the discussion on the Grand canyon's formation.

---

Whatever you say, TC. The topic then is not how the geological column was laid down. I must have been overmedicated to think so.

quote:

---

"But let's take a little time to look at your scenario. First you want to have a flood that deposited the bulk of the post Precambrian geological column even though there is abundant evidence that a significant portion is non-marine and even terrestrial and evaporitic."

​

--Yup.

---

That's all you have to say? How about some details? Are you saying that the ebb flows on your surges were so deep that there was time to place evaporites in low valleys including some below sea level? And there was time for them to dessicate? All in one year, eh? LOL!

quote:

---

"Now, this flood has to cover a relatively flat world even though we have evidence of ancient mountains, some of them thousands of feet high."

​

--You wouldn't happen to have an example with an explanation on how they showed their height?

---

Ancestral Mount Lassen. The ramparts suggest a peak of about 14,000 feet high, but has been gone for all of recorded history. How about the Appalachians? Metamorphic rocks suggest a much higher range prior to recorded history. Where did these mountains go? What about all of the felsic ash flow tuffs in the geological record? Did they not erupt from volcanos?

quote:

---

"Then you need to deposit thousands of feet of clastic sediments even though there is no known source."

​

--What about pre-existing rock for the 'clastic' sediments.

---

They are underwater (remember... the flood).

quote:

---

"Next you need to drain the water off the continents even though it has nowhere to go."

​

--Ocean basins and polar ice caps.

---

Why didn't it go there before, then? The ice caps are miniscule in this issue.

quote:

---

"Then you have to strand a lake at near base level which then has to develop a mature drainage pattern even though you are running out of time."

​

--You have yet to explain why I do not have enough time for a mature drainage formation.

---

Because if there is no drainage and then you have to run water off the table, so to speak, you do not have a meandering system. It has to develop. It takes time. You don't have very much with all of the other things that have to happen.

quote:

---

"Then you must uplift everything, including a large lake without draining it..."

​

--If you mean the kaibab uplift, then this is meaningless. And if you mean the uplift of the rocky mountains, you still have to explain why it would then drain.

---

No. You have to have a lake with a meandering outflow system that is near base level... the sea. Then you have to uplift the lake and drainage system withou spilling any in order to develop a youthful canyon in the GC rocks. This takes time, and your supply is growing very short.

quote:

---

"...so that it can later catastrophically drain throught the Grand Canyon, even though there is not a trace of this drainage outside the main channel."

​

--Really, you haven't shown me why there isn't, and I haven't shown you why there is.

---

Show us where the scablands are around the GC. Then we can talk. Rapid drainage of lakes leaves behind characteristic features. I know of none around the GC.

quote:

---

"At least you have agreed that the canyon formed in hard rock, but the rest of your story is quite fanciful."

​

--Please show me your reasoning for it being 'fanciful', Joe T gave it a nice shot and is a good example for you to follow.

---

See above. Your time has run out. You have no evidence that supports your origin to the exclusion of known processes.

quote:

---

"Now, you have said that your model is better than the mainstream idea of how the Grand Canyon formed. Can you please show us specific points that indicate this?"

​

--No, I never said that it is a better model, I said that I attempt to make it a working model.

---

You said that the facts support your model better. To me that makes it a beter model. Do you wish to restate your earlier assertion.

quote:

---

"I reiterate that you have said you would provide evidence for several points (here and elsewhere) such as the velocity of paleocurrents with a comparison to modern velocities, and tree fossils that cut across more than one cyclothem, and probably others. When can we expect this evidence? It seems this would be critical to the viability of your model."

​

--Show me where I have said these things, I don't think I have though from a little bit of reading of Tranquilities posts, he may have.

---

Whoever. I can't play the "I didn't say that" game. You and TB have basically proposed the same theory. So where's the data?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[snip]
[b]
1. There are eolian [I have since learned that Aeolian is the preferred spelling] and water-deposited layers intermixed throughout the entire several hundred feet of the Supai Group. The eolian deposits are from the water deposited layers drying, becoming lithified and then being eroded by wind with the resultant sand redeposited, and relithified. This happened repeatedly. How do you reconcile your rapid erosional model with the facts of the Supai deposition?"--Might you have an example or a cut section of the supai group which indicates the format of this intermixing through the entire several hundred feet? Or at least an illustration of this observational characteristic. Also, what is the indication of them having to lithify, erode, deposit, and then lithify again (most importantly, the indication that it has lithified prior the next deposition). I also have no problem with erosional processes weathering strata as the Geologic Column were deposited, it wasn't just a one go deposition. [/QUOTE][/b]
I don’t have the time for a detailed response to your entire post. Also you should know that I am not a geologist, just a dumb assed engineer with a layman’s interest in the C/E debate and specifically in geology. You should probably take that into consideration when evaluating anything I have to say that is not referenced.
You can try here for a detailed mainstream description of the depositional environments responsible for the strata that make up the walls of the Grand Canyon. I would check some of his references for the information you are seeking.
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand.htm
A couple of quotes from that website:

quote:

---

Above the Watahomigi Formation lies the Manakacha Formation (150-300ft). The Manakacha primarily consists of quartz sandstone, with intercalated layers of mudstone. Of special interest within the Manakacha are layers of cross-bedded, reversely graded sandstone laminae referred to as "climbing translatent strata." Blakey writes that "climbing translatent strata are thin laminae, generally less than several millimeters thick, that display reverse grading within each lamina. Each lamina displays the migration record of a single wind ripple (Hunter 1977) and, as such, is a powerful indicator of eolian deposition" (p. 154). While cross-bedded sandstone can and does form subaqeously given the right environment, no marine sandstones are known contain these structures, which can be observed forming today in dune environments, and nowhere else. At least three units within the Manakacha Formation are thought to have been formed by subarial, eolian processes

​

The Hermit Formation overlies the Esplande Sandstone It consists of, variously, ripple marked sandstone, occasional outcrops of eolian sandstone, carbonate rich lime, and mudstone. Blakely notes that "The bulk of the Hermit in eastern and central portions of the Grand Canyon consists of weak, ledge-forming, silty, faintly ripple laminated sandstone and slope-forming mudstone. Generally, ten to fifteen cyclic alternations of these units are present" (p. 177). These cycles may be related to tectonic or climatic changes, which have produced similar sequences in easily-datable Cenozoic deposits.

---

One of your questions was: Also, what is the indication of them having to lithify, erode, deposit, and then lithify again (most importantly, the indication that it has lithified prior the next deposition). We have several layers of sandstone on top of which are cross-bedded Aeolian deposits. How can we have the cross bedded deposits unless the underlying material is hard? Also one might ask, what is the source of this wind deposited sand? The most reasonable source is erosion of the sandstone layers. This is confirmed due to the similarity to the underlying water deposited sandstone. How do we know that it is wind deposited sand? See above for one reason, another is that there are geochemical, grain size and mineralogical analyses that are used to identify Aeolian sand. One of the geologists here can steer you to more details on the techniques I’m sure. [QUOTE][b]
"2. There are more than a hundred and fifty lava flows from the Kaibab Volcanic Field cascading over the North Rim and down into the canyon. At least a dozen of these flows definitely dammed the river for some period of time. A lake formed upstream of each dam, which took some time to fill with water and more time to fill with sediment. When each lake had filled completely with sediment, the water could flow unimpeded again, and rapidly eroded a new river channel through the remnants of the lava dam. http://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/gc_canyon.html If you add up the times necessary to fill each of these lava dammed lakes with water and sediment you get upwards of 4000 years. That is assuming that they happened in rapid succession of each other (the best case scenario for your model). Now how does your rapid erosional model account for the sequential volcanic damming of the river and the times required for the lakes to fill and begin to overflow, breaking down the dams?"--Just about every geologic process including erosion you will find has a catastrophic characteristic to it in Flood Geology rather than gradualistic deposition or erosion. Conventional Uniformitarianism essentially does not even imply all gradual process but may as well contain extremely catastrophic depositions and erosional evolution. These thoughts on the many lava flows from the kaibab volcanic field are a nice consideration. You wouldn't happen to have access to information on the stratigraphic and topographic features of the existing remnants of the volcanic flows would you? [/QUOTE][/b]
Indeed the formation of lava dams and subsequent breaching of the dams would in my mind be catastrophic events. The thing you need to take into consideration is that these were sequential events. Your model needs to reflect this. Did this all happen during one catastrophe or during multiple catastrophic floods? If one flood then I think that you have problems reconciling the data. If many then you need to identify some diagnostic feature that would indicate that this happened. (See later links about the Washington State Channeled Scablands.) Sorry, can’t help you on your data request. I recommend that you chase down some of the references used in some of the links I provided. [QUOTE][b]
--I read the link you gave, very interesting and insightful. I do not have access to Austin's book for his theory on the Canyon formation. Mine was conjured up on my lonesome, though it seems theirs is relatively similar with the possible exception of time frames and water sources. His theory on the water resource seemingly I would like to look at, I have been unable to give good detail on this because of our lack in information regarding lithologic and hypsographic mapping information for the area. I have had the hunch that grand-lake may not be sufficient in being the source of the actual canyon carving, but may be the proper proponent for stage two of the event (ie, meandering formation prior the catastrophic emptying of other reservoir(s) [See post #93]. [/QUOTE][/b]
What catastrophe did the canyon carving? According to your model the flood deposited the stuff. Some unknown process caused it to lithify more rapidly than current geology would expect. Then I thought the lake emptying was the event that caused the canyon formation. You had a little stream that began with a little canyon, but why wasn’t that little canyon wiped out by the catastrophe of the lake emptying? I would think that is the most likely scenario. (See later links about the Washington State Channeled Scablands.) [QUOTE][b]
"3. How does your scenario account for the portions of the canyon through granite? How was the granite deposited during the flood and then how did it get eroded so deeply in such a short time period."--A question, how was this statement substantiated: [/QUOTE][/b]
Go to your kaibab.org site and look at the map. A good portion of the canyon is through granite. In face that section is called granite canyon. [QUOTE][b]
--Also, we have a couple thousand years of erosion after the grand canyon's formation which may account for the Vishnu Schist erosion. I may also be speculative on the speed of lithification of granite, though I wouldn't put too much confidence in that. [/QUOTE][/b]
I’m not sure that talking about the lithification of granite is correct. Lithification is defined in the evcforum geology glossary as: The processes by which sediment is converted into sedimentary rock. These processes include cementation and compaction. Granite is not sedimentary rock. A good place to learn a little bit about granite and the problems it causes for YEC interpretation of geology is here: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/miracle.htm. Maybe this can be your next project.
[snip]
[QUOTE][b]
"Some questions strictly on erosion you need to be able to answer are:
1. How come the GC does not look like any of the examples of rapidly eroded canyons caused by catastrophic emptying of large bodies of water?"--I can predict that it is because we have a vastly different event and characteristical environmental conditions we are dealing with. But you wouldn't happen to know of another which we can compare and contrast to? [/QUOTE][/b]
The scablands of Washington State are an example of what happens when you have a large lake catastrophically empty. This looks nothing like the Grand Canyon. http://ewu63562.ewu.edu/map.htm has a relief map of the channeled scablands. The following link has a nice space shuttle pic.
http://www.l3-lewisandclark.com/ShowOneObject.asp?SiteID=33&ObjectID=287
From that link:

quote:

---

The agents of removal were gigantic floods originating from a huge glacial lake in northern Idaho and Montana. The lakeLake Missoulaformed behind ice dams near modern Lake Pend Oreille in Idaho and extended back into western Montana. During cold periods the ice sheet advanced southward, forming the ice dam. The waters of the Clark's Fork River then created a lake behind the dam. When the lake became deep enough, the ice dam floated off its foundation and collapsed, unleashing catastrophic floods that ripped enormous channels through the loess and rock of the Columbia Basin.

---

[QUOTE] [b]
"2. How were the side canyons formed at right angles to the flow of water from your hypothetical lake? How can they look similar to the GC, cut the rocks the same way, yet be not be in the direction of flow of the event that formed the GC?"--Because of the format by which it eroded when water emptied through the grand canyon. Side canyons are most apparent in the north section of the Grand canyon than the south, seemingly austin may have something on this as one of his resources drained into the Grand canyon from a northward perspective. Latter erosion then further created the rougher terrain of the side canyons. [/QUOTE][/b]
I’m sorry, but this seems right hand wavy to me. From this map http://www.kaibab.org/gc/maps/gcmap.htm it seems to me that there are quite a few side canyons on either side of the main canyon.[snip]Sorry you lost your files. I’m enjoying the conversation, but will be an infrequent contributor. If I do not answer for some time (or at all) it is because of life instead of lack of interest. Good luck in your studies.Joe T. (not the one currently posting on talk.origins)

I'll be continuing this conversation on Grand Canyon erosion, as well as Geologic column deposition, I am currently writing a paper for a Davidson Fellows submission so bare with me. I'll give an update here, so if your interested in what the topic will be: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=14&t=57&p=7--On a more 'on topic' note for this thread, edge, how would you like our conversation to go about now? The title of this thread and the motivation for the direction of our argument seemingly is becoming a problem. Would you like this topic to switch over to general grand canyon geology with an emphasis on GC deposition? Then we may have to create a new thread for the actual formation.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-11-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--On a more 'on topic' note for this thread, edge, how would you like our conversation to go about now? The title of this thread and the motivation for the direction of our argument seemingly is becoming a problem. Would you like this topic to switch over to general grand canyon geology with an emphasis on GC deposition? Then we may have to create a new thread for the actual formation.

---

Makes not difference to me. This thread is probably defunct anyway since it is so long. Anyone joining in is a a great disadvantage in having to read the whole thing. I frequently lost track of a thread anyway. Time for some new threads around here anyway.