Summations Only

Remember to lock your valleys--don't help a good river go bad.

I've given up trying to deal with all the things said in all your posts. Once it was said that a river is going to be FORCED to cut more deeply into an uplift I just gave up on anything making sense at all.I understood your drawings Percy. This makes NO sense. Rivers do not try to maintain some supposed preferred level by cutting deeper into rock. It's unbelievable to me that anyone would say such a thing. Rivers "seek their own level" is an old saying, but it means they run to ground that is at their own level or lower, they do NOTHING with higher ground except run off it, unless their banks keep them in a certain channel, but the reason they follow the channel is that it is lower than the banks. If higher ground rises in front of them they are either forced to become a deep pool until they find a new outlet over the obstacle, or they back up until they find an outlet in that direction. That's what dams do.The creation of barriers is also what creates meanders. The river deposits build up along the banks under certain circumstances forcing the river more and more in a new direction until it makes a complete hairpin turn.For the same reason they will run down the bottom of canyons once they find their way into one, because that's the lowest level around. The canyon had to already BE there though, rivers do NOT cut great canyons. Sigh.Actually the idea that rivers cut INTO rising rock is the sort of thing that people say when they're high on dope, and it usually provokes a fit of hilarity followed by a fit of the munchies. Only on Planet Hallucinogenia. \
And you can prove this of course.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Gosh I just got through writing a post that includes the illustration of dams. So what are YOU trying to say here? There is no dam in your sketches Percy. Whatever you are trying to say it's not about what happens with dams. All you've got in those sketches is a channel that keeps getting deeper as the land rises on both sides, that is NOT an illustration of a dam.Yes water moves faster when it has a lot of pressure behind it such as the great depth of water that builds up behind a dam, the pressure then forcing it through a small outlet, but that has NOTHING to do with your drawing or the situation of a river supposedly being FORCED TO CUT THROUGH ROCK in a normal riverbed which is what your sequence of sketches illustrates.Only on Planet Hallucinogenia.A few centimeters of uplift isn't going to act like a dam or interfere with the water at all, but serious uplift WOULD act as a dam and DEFLECT THE WATER AWAY FROM THE COURSE IT WAS ON. Even over its banks and down the south slope of the uplift away from its former east-west direction.As for the great volume of water I think cut the GC creating meanders I've said over and over and over nad over again that the huge rush of water CUT THE CANYON, it was NOT A RIVER, it was water that rushed into ALL SIDES OF THE CANYON, yes like Niagara, and AFTER it had drained away there was water that still flowed in a channel at the very bottom of the canyon, NOW A RIVER, no longer the great rush of water, and RIVERS CUT MEANDERS, great cataracts do not.But I've come to realize this is Planet Hallucinogenia and nothing here has to make sense. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The meanders we see in deep channels (still not as deep as the GC itself for pete's sake and nothing you've said accounts for THAT from your bitty little river) -- anyway, THOSE deep meanders where we see a river at the bottom of cliffs in the shape of the meander, were created when the river was much bigger and deeper and faster but still a river, running in one direction as a unit. The river that is there now wouldn't have cut that depth, just as the Colorado River wouldn't have cut the Grand Canyon.You guys all need to check into rehab.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm talking about the river that supposedly cut the canyon BEFORE THE CANYON EXISTED, a couple miles above the current canyon bottom when nothing existed but a little river in a riverbed. It would then have been a river running in a whole plain area, and THAT's when rivers change course all the time, that's what I'm talking about. Getting it to run exactly where the canyon was eventually to be cut, especially with the land rising up with slopes perpendicular to its east west course, should be recognizable as a major challenge to its EVER getting into the canyon groove.Once it's at the bottom of a canyon a river is going to stay within the walls of the canyon but Percy even agreed that it took a billion years of the strata all building up before the uplift began to occur and the little river began to slowly slowly cut into it, was FORCED to cut into it yet.

Well, this would be an excellent argument against the canyon being formed by magical processes not involving the river and then the river finding its way to the canyon. But it doesn't seem to be much of an argument against the formation of the canyon by real processes. "Getting it to run exactly where the canyon was eventually to be cut" ... yeah, and how did I manage to step exactly where I was eventually going to leave a footprint? What a mindblowing coincidence that was, eh?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Then later on I guess they sober up and say: "We can see erosion happening. We know for certain that rivers erode rock. And yet obviously rivers can't erode rising rock, what were we thinking?"That's how it goes down in Opposite World, anyway. But back in our universe, rivers cut through rock without caring whether or not it's undergone uplift; and so in our universe people don't have to get high to understand that.

Yeah but that river did NOT cut the Grand Canyon and I'm saying how. Your foot DID leave the footprint.Can anybody here hum the tune to "Hallucinogenia Uber Alles?"

We're all learning the tune but only you know the words.When you have time, perhaps you could explain what the heck you think you're talking about. You could start by reconciling the stuff you've written about rivers with the fact that the Colorado does in fact flow into the Grand Canyon. How, in your universe, did it find its way to just the right spot?

Wow, you're really pleased with yourself about the Hallucigenia thing, aren't you? So pleased in fact you're gradually using it to replace the meager arguments you've offered up to now. Anyway, in the above quote you seem to be trying to claim that great cataracts cut the canyon and the meanders were produced by rivers later on. You seem not to have understood the picture RAZD posted showing that the ENTIRE CANYON is meandering, not just the river channel at the bottom. So how did your fantasy Flood cut that meandering canyon? Don't tell me; this is another one of those minor details you keep giving yourself permission to ignore.

quote:

---

I've given up trying to deal with all the things said in all your posts. Once it was said that a river is going to be FORCED to cut more deeply into an uplift I just gave up on anything making sense at all.

---

If you choose to reject things that make sense then it's no surprise that you end up believing nonsense.

quote:

---

This makes NO sense. Rivers do not try to maintain some supposed preferred level by cutting deeper into rock. It's unbelievable to me that anyone would say such a thing. Rivers "seek their own level" is an old saying, but it means they run to ground that is at their own level or lower, they do NOTHING with higher ground except run off it, unless their banks keep them in a certain channel, but the reason they follow the channel is that it is lower than the banks. If higher ground rises in front of them they are either forced to become a deep pool until they find a new outlet over the obstacle, or they back up until they find an outlet in that direction. That's what dams do.

---

It would be a pretty odd uplift that lifted the riverbed above the banks. As I've already explained the uplift is slow, the slope of the uplift causes the water to hit against the slope (that's simple geometry!) and that - with the help of any hard objects carried in the water will cause erosion. (And if you really believe that flowing water can't cut into objects that rise in front of it, then I'd like to see your explanation for the Grand Canyon !)All that is necessary is for the erosion to keep the bed low enough that the river has a course. And quite obviously the riverbed in the Grand Canyon IS low enough for the Colorado River to flow.

quote:

---

The creation of barriers is also what creates meanders. The river deposits build up along the banks under certain circumstances forcing the river more and more in a new direction until it makes a complete hairpin turn.

---

And the relevance is ?

quote:

---

For the same reason they will run down the bottom of canyons once they find their way into one, because that's the lowest level around. The canyon had to already BE there though, rivers do NOT cut great canyons. Sigh.

---

So you argue that a river flowing through a canyon MUST alter it's course as rivers usually do, but that it can't cut a course through a canyon. What's the big difference that makes the first inevitable and the second impossible ? Both come down to the river cutting it's way through rock. (And we've got an explanation of why it's easier to cut the canyon than to change course within a canyon).Not that you have an alternative to the river cutting the canyon - the meanders in the Grand Canyon were obviously cut by a river. Reality trumps your imaginings, Faith.

quote:

---

Actually the idea that rivers cut INTO rising rock is the sort of thing that people say when they're high on dope, and it usually provokes a fit of hilarity followed by a fit of the munchies.

---

Try coming up with something that makes more sense, Faith. But I guess this explains how you really came up with your ideas about angular conformities.

I don't know why this is so hard to get across.OE theory says the canyon was cut by an ordinary-sized river through a mile deep stack of lithified sediments over millions of years, the river eventually ending up at the bottom of the canyon. Same river from start to finish. I've been trying to show the problems involved in that river's even getting STARTED on such a task since it would have to cut through a rock uplift which unfortunately slopes in another direction from the direction the canyon eventually took.YEC theory, or my version of it, says the canyon was formed by a huge quantity of water rushing into cracks in the upper strata, cracks caused by the uplifting land and tectonic activity and earthquakes etc., the water laden with chunks of upper strata scouring out the entire canyon, the water eventually decreasing in volume to BECOME the river that is now at the bottom of the canyon. No river to begin with, ends up as river.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : Just trying to be as clear as possible.

But I am not addressing the river IN the canyon, I'm addressing the river before the canyon existed, which was supposedly flowing across a plain when the land started to uplift. Of course a tiny amount of uplift isn't going to make a difference but a foot or so of uplift probably would depending on the size of the river. And it seems to me it would have to DIVERT the river around it, pool its water where it encounters the uplift and other possibilities. No, not WITHIN THE CANYON, not once it is at the bottom of the canyon. I'm talking about what is supposed to have been its situation BEFORE THE CANYON EXISTED, how it would change its course as rivers tend to do on a plain, often many changes in course. As the land uplifted it simply wouldn't run where the canyon eventually was cut because the uplift doesn't slope in the right direction for that to happen. Rivers don't just tend to run east-west on a slope that tilts north-south.I tried to draw this but made so many weird mistakes I finally gave up.

quote:

---

But I am not addressing the river IN the canyon, I'm addressing the river before the canyon existed, which was supposedly flowing across a plain when the land started to uplift. Of course a tiny amount of uplift isn't going to make a difference but a foot or so of uplift probably would depending on the size of the river. And it seems to me it would have to DIVERT the river around it, pool its water where it encounters the uplift and other possibilities.

---

Which only makes sense if you ASSUME that the uplift must outpace the erosion. If the erosion keeps up with the uplift, leaving the river at the same level then it won't be diverted. As I keep explaining.

quote:

---

No, not WITHIN THE CANYON, not once it is at the bottom of the canyon. I'm talking about what is supposed to have been its situation BEFORE THE CANYON EXISTED, how it would change its course as rivers tend to do on a plain, often many changes in course.

---

You seem to be arguing against your own position here. The mainstream view has the meanders created before the canyon existed exactly as you say.

quote:

---

As the land uplifted it simply wouldn't run where the canyon eventually was cut because the uplift doesn't slope in the right direction for that to happen. Rivers don't just tend to run east-west on a slope that tilts north-south.

---

And still you fail to understand that the shape of the land doesn't matter because the river came first, and has kept its level through erosion. In the mainstream view, that erosion is what creates the canyon, so it's hardly something you can ignore.

You've got a lot of ifs in your erosion-uplift ratio, but apparently you have no problem assuming the "right" ratio against all probability, even when the river finds itself clinging to a slope that slants away from its own course. Oh well. The shape of the river, meanders and all, isn't going to be maintained through the cutting of a stack of layers a mile deep, and besides, meanders themselves often don't stay meanders, according to Wikipedia on the subject. The meanders CS showed that shaped cliffs were obviously cut when the river was a river but a very large and fast river before it settled down to the river it is today. That is, at the bottom of the canyon, not at the top.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.