|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age of Grand Canyon and Cave Speleothems | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I have a friend to thank for originally bringing this information to my attention.
From Just a moment... Science 7 March 2008:Vol. 319 no. 5868 pp. 1377-1380 DOI: 10.1126/science.1151248 Age and Evolution of the Grand Canyon Revealed by U-Pb Dating of Water Table-Type Speleothems(a) by Victor Polyak*, Carol Hill and Yemane Asmerom
quote: (Note that they are not talking about biological evolution, but the gradual development of the canyon by geological processes.) Also How to Date the Grand Canyon: Go With the Flow | WIRED
quote: Here is creationist Kent Hovind and his (bad) argument(b) for how the Grand Canyon was made:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze5A2pua1E4 The dating information above says two things that invalidate the creationist concept that the canyon was formed by flood waters in a few days or weeks as the water drained away, slicing into and through the ridge:
The evidence that the canyon formed from west to east is independent of the validity of Uranium-Lead dating, it just depends on the measured levels of Uranium and Lead without any age calculation:
We can also discuss the validity of Uranium-Lead dating with reference to:
Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? Enjoy (a) - Speleothem Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
speleothem any of the crystalline deposits that form in a solution cave after the creation of the cave itself. These deposits are generally composed of calcium carbonate dissolved from the surrounding limestone by groundwater. Carbon dioxide carried in the water is released as the water encounters the cave air; this reduces the water's capacity to hold calcite in solution and causes the calcite to be deposited. These deposits may accumulate to form stalactites, stalagmites, flowstone, helictites, cave pearls, and many other formations. Deposits formed along ceiling cracks may produce drip curtains or draperies that may then reach the floor to become walls. Speleothems may grow in pools to form the nodular encrustations of cave coral or the natural dams that continually elevate themselves through accretion of calcite. The pure white of the calcium carbonate is often tinted with hues of red, yellow, and gray and may even be translucent. The growth rate of speleothems is highly variable due to seasonal variations in the rate of flow, carbon dioxide content, and other factors. Caves owe most of their beauty and much of their interest to these secondary growths. (b) - Note that I have shown in previous threads why Hovind's explanation is bogus and doesn't work by his own argument that water does not flow uphill -- where the Grand Canyon crosses the ridge is not the lowest point of the ridge, but up on a slope between two lower points, so if he was correct then the canyon would be in a different location. Edited by RAZD, : link Edited by RAZD, : x10 Edited by RAZD, : title Edited by RAZD, : added definition for speleothem Edited by RAZD, : englsby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
We can also discuss the validity of Uranium-Lead dating with reference to:
Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? quote: And in relation to the OP we can also focus on the accuracy of Uranium-Lead dating techniques: From Radiometric Dating Radiometric DatingA Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens
quote: Note that lead loss from the speleothems would result in younger age errors, so the corrected results would be older. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The reason is simple: the ridge that is supposedly breached during run-off from the flood is LOWER to the south and the north of the canyon location.
Here is the objective empirical data that you can see with your own eyes: Google Maps (Linking to the map does not work, so you will need to click on the link above. Make sure it shows "Terrain" to indicate the topology.) The dark areas are higher than the lighter areas. According to Hovind (and physics) water does not willingly flow uphill, so it would have flowed over one of the lower sections of the ridge (north or south) and the canyon would be in a different location. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From Speleothems - DesertUSA
quote: From Paleoclimatology: Speleothems
quote: And, as we have seen in the OP, the thorium decays into lead, so Uranium-Lead dating can also be used. The Uranium inclusion can thus be used to accurately date when any particular layer of the speleothem was formed. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Faith,
There is no way I'm going to be participating much in this sort of thread because of its technical level beyond a comment or two. ... An opportunity to learn. Will you take it?
... I just want to say that I think the creationists are missing something about the depth of the Flood or the height from which the water would have poured into the Canyon at the end of the Flood and what they're missing could answer the observation that the canyon is cut into a mounded area that is higher than the surrounding area. So you agree that water does not flow uphill, that Kent Hovind is mistaken in his video.
I believe an analysis of the north-south elevations of that region from the GS to the GC suggests that the layers that climb from the level of the Kaibab, which forms the rim of the GC, to the top of the GS to the north, were also originally present over the GC, extending for hundreds of square miles over that whole region at that depth. All that depth of strata was no doubt accumulating or standing in water for some long period of the Flood and probably still doing so when the canyon was cut, or it could have been starting to recede by that point. In either case I think the additional depth of strata above the area explains how rushing flood water would have cut the canyon because at the time the water WAS higher than the current canyon which was the result. Which is invalidated by two things: First, the physical geology of the Grand Canyon -- it's shape and the objects in it (spires etc) -- are not observed to occur in ANY overflow erosion, from the scablands to the dikes in New Orleans (Katrina). Channeled Scablands - Wikipedia Second, the timing of when the parts of the canyon formed was from the west end to the east end, when all overflow erosion observed is from the top of the dike down the face , cutting deeper and forming the exit end last. You are free to experiment with sand piles and take pictures if you disagree.
As I've argued on the Creationist Road Trip thread ... Note that the experiment in the video, of pouring water on sand created a gully similar to the scablands, rather than the Grand Canyon and that the erosion started at the top and proceeded then to cut deeper with the last erosion at the bottom, with braiding at the end.
... I believe the cutting of the canyon began with the cracking of those upper layers, caused by the stress of the uplift which the diagrams suggest to me was caused by the volcanic eruption directly beneath the canyon. The eruption appears to have been mostly contained underground, resisted by the weight of the stack above, displacing the lowest strata which form the Grand Unconformity, also forming the Vishnu schist and the granite under the canyon itself. First, this is not an "eruption" but an uplifting: Geology of the Grand Canyon area - Wikipedia
quote: This is another instance of using proper terminology to describe what is meant. There were eruptions (at least 13 lava dams are known), but the process of lifting up the Colorado Plateau is not an eruption. Remember too that you claim that volcanic activity only started after the flood. Second, the physical shape of the Grand Canyon does not conform to this kind of process. When we see cracks in the surface crossing rivers we see the river being redirected by the crack to proceed along the crack and follow its shape. We do not see that in the Grand Canyon. Curiously, there are fault lines in the Grand Canyon, but they run north-south rather than east-west and they do NOT show any spreading with rock material falling into the faults, as would have occurred with your proposed "cracking under stress" explanation.
quote: If what you claim were true then these north-south faults would have been spread and filled with rubble, so the fact that this did NOT occur invalidates your idea. Again, you are free to experiment, placing wet sand over a balloon and then inflating the balloon to simulate your "volcanic" action ... and observe the crack pattern. See if you can get this pattern:
The idea is that the stress of the uplift from that underground eruption cracked the uppermost layers of the strata directly above, which, again, at that time were a mile higher/deeper than the present rim, corresponding to the same strata that remains in the GS. As the cracks opened chunks of the upper strata caved into them and water poured into them, carving out the canyon to a great width and then depth. This pouring and caving-in had to have happened over some fairly long period as the canyon was being carved out. This is also invalidated by the evidence for the timing of when the different parts of the canyon formed. Read the evidence of the speleothems for the relative time of formation (Message 1).
... in the GS. ... Please don't use abbreviations that are not defined in the thread (or don't use them at all) as this can be confusing to new readers.
These upper strata are much higher than the current rim so we're talking a huge amount of debris-filled rushing water from ABOVE the area because of all the strata breaking up, before it finally carved out the current canyon. I could draw a picture of it but I wouldn't know how to get it to you. Which means that there is no reason for the Grand Canyon to exist at all -- all the land would have eroded away. Again, I refer you to experimenting with sand and water to see if you can replicate what you imagine occurred. In addition, you now have an imaginary process to remove all this covering sediment in a way that does not form any canyons or scabland type patterns at the lower elevations that they have mysteriously uncovered. And you need to explain where all that material went. (Perhaps it dissolved into the air?)
The canyon as it now exists is cut into an area higher than the surrounding areas to north and south because of the same uplift caused by the volcano beneath the canyon, but it's a mile lower than the original level of the strata laid down in that area. So if it was originally topped by that other mile of strata and all that water in which the whole thing was standing rushed into the cracks formed by the stress of the eruption, the difference between its CURRENT elevation and the surrounding lower areas doesn't tell you anything about what really happened. Imagination is a wonderful thing. Grounded in evidence, it is even better. What you have now proposed means that the water would not flow in this direction at all but would have found another lower outlet that is not part of the uplift (SE for example). You have also avoided all the information from the speleothems for timing of the various parts of the canyon. Science explains all the evidence. It may take a while for the evidence to sink in, but the evidence that the earth is old, billions of years old is as powerful, if not more so, as the evidence that the earth is roundish (an oblate spheroid) and orbits the sun along with the other planets. Curiously, last night I viewed four moons of Jupiter through a telescope. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : addendum Edited by RAZD, : adddeddby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Dr Adequate,
Native lead isn't soluble, but what about lead carbonate, which is? Couldn't you get some of that in such an environment? (I don't know, my chemistry is not that good.) That would not be isotope specific, so they could rule it out by checking the lead isotopes. Radiometric Dating
quote: If all three agree then we can have high confidence that it was little lead carbonate contamination. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : splngby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Faith, dance away, dance away.
Well he's not saying it flows uphill, he thinks it flowed into the canyon from the east from water from the standing lakes he points out, flowed along the bottom of the canyon. I think that's perfectly reasonable, but I also think there's a problem with the overall idea that the current uplift was there at the time or that the canyon was there at the time. The attempt to explain how the water went over the rise as going over the top of a dam is not impossible but also it's maybe not necessary to think of it that way. So in other words you are saying that he is wrong, but you can't bring yourself to say that he is wrong.
I think when it occurred a great disturbance, the volcanic eruption beneath the area, created the uplift ... Definitely it was an uplifting but I think the explanation for that is the volcanic eruption beneath the canyon, which also nicely explains the basement rocks there. Again, that is not an eruption: you are misusing the word. An eruption occurs when lava or ash comes out through the surface. In addition, the uplift in this area is caused by plate tectonics: Tectonic uplift - Wikipedia
quote: The plate tectonics make the area ripe for possible volcanic action.
Actually it's less a terminological problem than the usual paradigm clash. No, Faith, it is a terminology problem: Types of volcanic eruptions - Wikipedia
quote: It's certainly easy enough to imagine how all that could have been formed in the Grand Canyon if you have any interest in doing so. The original cracking over the ridge area, the uplift area, which appears as a rounded mound on N-S elevations, would have determined the original shape of the canyon with its side canyons. ... Imagine all you want, but you don't end up with spires, you get broad open U shaped channels rather than V shaped channels. If your imagination does not fit the facts, then it is useless conjecture at best.
... Nothing like that occurred in the scablands or Katrina. And nothing like the erosion pattern that occurred in the scab-lands, or the breaching of levees by Katrina, or any other time an earthen dam has been over-topped, has occurred in the formation of the Grand Canyon -- thus the evidence shows that the canyon formation has not been affected by over-topping flow.
Yes I need to think about that but I'm not sure it matters for my particular thoughts here which end of the canyon "formed" first. The water would have entered from all sides at once as I see it, most obviously if the strata were still standing in Flood water, but even if the lakes above were the source of the water that widened it. What matters is whether or not your fantasies explain the evidence for when and how the canyon formed. All you are doing is adding more fantastic behavior without regard for the actual evidence that exists.
I thought that "experiment" was perfectly idiotic as an attempt to explain what would have occurred on the scale of the canyon. ... Of course you would: it invalidates your belief/s. This is predictable behavior due to cognitive dissonance theory.
... But actually my theory here would answer it anyway. If the force of the uplft created cracking down that whole area that became the canyon then the water had openings to run into. It wasn't just flat land that the water ran over and supposedly cut a gully in. The opening of cracks in the upper strata would have given it paths to follow and would also have broken up the strata in such a way that huge chunks of it would have fallen inward along with the rushing water and done the abrasive work of widening and deepening the cracks, scooping out huge chunks of the lower strata as well as the whole mass tumbled inward and downward until the Kaibab was utterly denuded. Repeat: there are North-South faults that are still active, they were not opened up and filled with rubble nor were they used as drainage paths for your conjecture\fantasy, and as such your fantasy could not have occurred. Do you understand that this invalidates your "cracking" model?
Yes, indeed, it occurred beneath the canyon area at or after the end of the Flood. So your volcanic activity could not be the cause for the uplifting of the area until "at or after the end of the Flood" (and you are already equivocating by adding "at"). You really need to think about the sequence you have proposed, because it does not logically work. Of course you could also abandon it because it is invalidated by the N-S fault lines, and the sequence of formation of different parts of the canyon, and by overall erosion pattern ... etc etc etc ... That is how science works, instead of fantasy.
What the river now follows is the end result of the grand scale carving I'm talking about. It wasn't a river that rushed into the cracks I'm talking about, it was at least a huge lake or the remaining standing water of the Flood, rushing in from all sides of the cracks and carrying chunks of the strata with it. Where? Where did it go?
I can't picture this so I have no idea really what you are claiming here. I'm aware of a fault line at the north end of the Grand Staircase which divides the strata to the south, which were apparently uplifted at the time, from a tilted unconformity made up of the same strata to the north, and parallels a magma dike that exits at the top as lava in the Clarion formation. I think that whole picture has interesting implications for explaining how the strata were laid down first, the volcanic action followed there as well as in the GC area, probably in conjunction with tectonic forces, even caused by tectonic force. You've said the area was pushed up and cracked open. These fault lines would also have opened. You've said "the remaining standing water of the Flood, rushing in from all sides of the cracks and carrying chunks of the strata with it" so these same chunks would have filled in the open N-S fault lines when they were pushed open. This did not happen, ergo your model is wrong.
The more I study the claims such as these the more my "theory" gets confirmed, but again I can't picture what you are claiming here and have to leave it for later. Classic cognitive dissonance behavior. Your concept is invalidated, falsified, trashed, but instead of acknowledging this you cling more strongly to your fantasy.
Oh I've spent a lot of time thinking about how to set up an experiment. Wet sand wouldn't have the necessary consistency but perhaps various clays and clay mixtures could possibly be used for the purpose. It would have to be laid down perfectly flat and horizontal first and then force would have to be applied from beneath in a west-east line to form the ridge in question. It would take some doing, but wet sand on a balloon, nope. Clay and sand then. There is no west-east ridge, there is a north-south ridge. You should be thinking more in terms of lifting a dome shaped area than a linear one. If you insist on linear then it should be north-south. I suggest you actually try it.
Well, the Horseshoe Bend wouldn't have occurred until the whole canyon was carved out and the rushing water full of debris had done all its work and exited, and the water itself settled down to river size -- even a huge rushing river at first before getting reduced to the river it now is, which continues to drain the same area that the lakes once occupied. (On a side point I thought his illustration of how a huge lake would be formed if the current river was dammed was very interesting.) The reduction of the cataracts to a river should certainly have occurred in the later stages -- after the great debris-laden cataracts had done the basic carving out of the canyon to more or less its current shape. At that point, when you have an actual river instead of a huge flood, there's nothing strange about how a river makes meanders. The great cataract that scooped out the canyon wouldn't make meanders, but the river that was left over after the whole catastrophe had settled down certainly could have. Amusingly, that still would not form the bend seen there.
You write progidiously long posts, RAZD. I'll try to get back to the rest later. Don't make so many silly claims and it won't take so long to reply to all of them. Or are you complaining that I can reply to all your silly claims to show how silly they are, one after the other?
Message 9: Piled up in the area to the west and south, which means southern California mostly though parts of Arizona as well perhaps, but mostly the southwest of the canyon on the path to the river's exit in the Gulf of California, where a lot of it also no doubt went, perhaps even forming the Baja peninsula, but probably elsewhere in the area as well. I haven't done a very thorough study of all that. Couldn't find out much about the geology of that area on the few occasions I did make an attempt to answer that question. More silly claims that are not worth addressing at this point until you get more specific. Are you sure they didn't just evaporate into thin air? And you still have not addressed the speleothems (Message 1):
quote: This information invalidates your base assumption, and thus everything you image from that base assumption. The earth is old: get used to it. Continuing to post falsified concepts is not a sign of scientific rational thinking. Curiously, I looked at Jupiter again last night, and the four moons that I saw before had moved, with two of them now appearing on the other side of their earlier location. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : splngby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi herebedragons, thanks
1. I am surprised that the youngest speleotherms date to 800,000 years. Why so "old"? Have they stopped forming? Or is U/Pb dating not effective at younger ages? The canyon is still eroding right? Yes the canyon is still eroding (and the uplift is still occurring, at a rate that explains the height observed over the time that the canyon has existed). The problem is finding caves with the speleothems to test, rather than just testing the latest part of the canyon.
2. The evidence seems rather convincing that the canyon formed west to east rather than the more expected direction of east to west. But if it did, wouldn't we find significant deposits of material form the east canyon in the western canyon? Is this the case? We should expect sediment transport along the river in either case.
3. I do not have access to the original article, but did they publish the data from all the points they measured? It would be interesting to create a map that used that data to show the progression of canyon formation over the suggested time frame. Neither do I, so we will need someone with access (Coragyps?). That would be a fun map to make.
4. Is there any evidence of such an enormous lake at the top of the canyon that could have breached the plateau? Such a huge lake would have left evidence! It seems that I remember reading something about marine (or at least aquatic) deposits in the west. There were glacial lakes, but I am not sure of the location and extent. Explore Glacial Lake Missoula and the Catastrophic Ice Age Floods This one was responsible for the scab-lands drainage. The ones I can find are north of the Canyon and have drainage patterns that don't involve the canyon. The closest I found is Lake Bonneville (Bonneville salt flats?)
quote: The purported lakes in Hovind's video (Hopi and Grand Lakes) ONLY appear on creationist sites. Made up? Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again herebedragons,
I was thinking more like sediment deposition in the lower canyon with upper canyon sediment. Sort of like this: If east to west; young sediments (from the east) would be deposited in young formations (in the west). If west to east; young sediments (from the east) would be deposited in older formations (in the west). Does that make sense what I am asking?? My understanding is that the whole canyon is eroding, so there would be little opportunity for deposition until you come out the end. Also see CD210: Colorado River's delta You would want to look on the floodplain just below the canyon,. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Faith,
Apparently I got caught up in the parts about the young earth in the first message and overlooked that the whole thing was intended to relate to the speleothems so I shouldn't continue to pursue this topic. It's tempting but I won't. I really didn't want to get deeply into it anyway. ,... In other words the evidence from the speleothems remains uncontested. while it invalidates both a young earth model and claims that the Grand Canyon was formed by flood outflow.
... So carry on. Thanks, I will. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Coragyps,
I figured you'd come through. Thanksby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Coragyps,
I signed in and went toJust a moment... and also downloaded the PDF. Thanks. Two different dating methods were used on each speleothem: (1)238U/206Pb and (2) 235U/207Pb. The dates derived, while slightly different, are within the margins of error for each one. I was also thinking that just the existence of these speleothems presents an additional problem for creationists: IF the canyon was carved by flood drainage, then the caves occurred after the flood. The speleothems have to be deposits after the caves were formed, so they too occurred after the flood. The youngest speleothem is 0.8 million years, and it is at the top end of the canyon. IF there has been no change in radioactive decay rates since the flood, then the canyon is OLD, way too old for the YEC model. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Topic is Grand Canyon age data provided by speleothems.
The data refutes YEC models for:
I may figure out a few more wrinkles, but that should be enough for now. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi NoNukes, Taq, ooh-child, and Coragyps,
NoNukes: As I drove into work today, I heard a story on NPR discussing revisions to dating of the Grand Canyon. Apparently, some kind of helium dating technique when applied to soil samples from the canyon produces dates of about 70 million years, whereas the canyon has previously been thought to be only a few million years old. ooh-child: This is the article I read yesterday: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html "The canyon isn’t 6 million years old, they say, but more like 70 million The speleothems date the most recent erosion being 0.8 million years and the oldest at 17 million years. These are uranium-lead dates (two methods) taken on speleothems formed underwater in caves along the canyon walls. These can be taken as minimum dates, because the caves need to form before the speleothems can form, however they do need to be underwater to form, which means water levels of the canyon need to be higher than the caves.
Taq: My first reaction is that they are dating the age of the sediments that make up the walls of the canyon. I don't think there is a problem with the canyon walls being much older than the river system that cut through them. That certainly would seem to be a possibility. Tectonic activity with the uplift could also cause fracturing that would allow easier escape paths for Helium. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : addedby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024