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

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"In any case what's wrong with my detailed scenario I proposed - that the canyon continued to collapse until it was hard enough, eventually leaving a sharp edged canyon?"

---

Just what is your procedure for lithification such that the entire sequence, including sediments at the top became just as lithified ast those at the bottom? How can a "rock" (in this case, as sediment) be lithified as it is eroded? How long did this take? Once a soft sediment begins to run, you won't stop it until the slope has achieved it's own natural profile, which in this case, would be virtually flat.

quote:

---

--I would hypothesize that the formation of the Grand Canyon would have technically been a post flood event in the majority the the cataclysm. Sediment would have all been deposited and as water abated it may have left a slight indentation in the soft sediments. Some lithification would have then taken place and some time after the flood waters would have broken through a flood deposited lake (great lake?) and carved out the grand canyon.

---

So now the sediments are partly lithified, eh? Still doesn't work. You need to have rocks that can support vertical walls in some cases. There are lots of bona fide rocks that cannot do this. They are simply too weak. If these sedimenst were exposed by erosion prior to (full) lithification how did they become lithified just sitting at the surface? If I leave a pile of sand in my yard for a thousand years, it will still be a pile of sand.

Edge, you write off our scenrio very quickly. It's also possible that there is detailed support for our scenario in the details too. I don't expect a vast flood to deposit exactly the same layers over entire continents. But, boy, they come pretty close to traversing across US states. I'm fully aware that layers come and go horizontally. I really don't have a problem with that.The 'undisturbed sea-floors' I'm referring to the fact that the layers don't look lived in. Apart from burrows which we put down to one-off escape routes (supported by the lack of mixing in the sediments) the layers, at least in Grand Canyon, are remarkably devoid of evidence of habitats that we see on any shelf floor today. And I posted a mainstream ref that supported this if you read it.The paleocurrent issue. When I say different I'm obviously comparing epeiric seas to modern shelves - that was the issue we were discussing! The paleocurrents do no support the idea of placid epeiric seas. The data supports catastrophic inundation far better.I'm fully aware that there are unconformities throughout the geological column. But if you go to the vast layers I'm talking about (eg in the Grand Canyon) there are hardly any major ones. There are only a handful that could point to a period of non-depositon and erosion. The relief at the formaiton boundaries are generally trivial. What I was actually talking about was no evidence of unconfomrities within the formations - this of course makes sense, many sequences are defined as appearing between unconfromities. The point is these sequences really do tell the story of continuous periods of deposition. The Grand Canyon strata above the angular unconfromity tell the story of about 8 periods of continuous deposition. It's within the sequences that I am talking about lack of unconfromities (and even between these formations the relief is minimal or even non-existant).

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-30-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Edge, I thought a lot of the MSH layering was formed by mudslides and ash?[/QUOTE]Yes, ash can actually weld and produce "hard" rock in a matter of hours. Generally, water lain sediments do not do that.Possibly, but the fracture would be of a different nature. Normally, a soft sediment cannot hold a fracture open or maintain a distinct weakness in a fault zone. You are grasping as straws, TB.

TC - the difference between what you are saying and I am saying is only an issue of extent. Whether it happened in the last part of the 400 days or 10 years later doesn't make that much difference. Either way the sediments would have been soft allowing for rapid erosion. I guess in your scheme you can argue for enough time for the layers to harden sufficiently - you might be right. My only constraint is whether there is enough water then. Either scenario is plausible IMO.And the deep fracture mentioned by Edge is a very good reason to explain why the Grand Canyon is where it is regardless of whether one is an old or young-earther.

edge - I'm talking about subsidence and runaway erosion. I don't need the fracture to actually appear at the surface. You just need to 'seed' the gully via a depression, give it a water source and it will form no questions asked, following the route of the fracture generated depression.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, you write off our scenrio very quickly.

---

Yes, because it does not explain the details at all. Not even close.

quote:

---

It's also possible that there is detailed support for our scenario in the details too. I don't expect a vast flood to deposit exactly the same layers over entire continents. But, boy, they come pretty close to traversing across US states.

---

And your point is? In case you don't know it there are eolian deposits and carbonate platforms that can cover several states. This is not evidence for a flood. I don't expect individual formations to do this either, but there should be some geological model that shows a single event that covered the entire earth.

quote:

---

I'm fully aware that layers come and go horizontally. I really don't have a problem with that.

​

The 'undisturbed sea-floors' I'm referring to the fact that the layers don't look lived in. Apart from burrows which we put down to one-off escape routes (supported by the lack of mixing in the sediments) the layers, at least in Grand Canyon, are remarkably devoid of evidence of habitats that we see on any shelf floor today. And I posted a mainstream ref that supported this if you read it.

---

As I remember there are footprints, and various fossils in the GC rocks that show active habitats. Perhaps you could repost the reference.

quote:

---

The paleocurrent issue. When I say different I'm obviously comparing epeiric seas to modern shelves - that was the issue we were discussing! The paleocurrents do no support the idea of placid epeiric seas. The data supports catastrophic inundation far better.

---

Do you really think that there are no currents on the modern continental shelves?

quote:

---

I'm fully aware that there are unconformities throughout the geological column. But if you go to the vast layers I'm talking about (eg in the Grand Canyon) there are hardly any major ones.

---

There are some. What is your point?

quote:

---

There are only a handful that could point to a period of non-depositon and erosion.

---

Well, how many times of nondeposition and erosion and sand dunes do you want in the middle you your flood? How many are acceptable before you will admit that there really wasn't a global flood?

quote:

---

The relief at the formaiton boundaries are generally trivial.

---

We have been over this. Do you not read my posts?

quote:

---

What I was actually talking about was no evidence of unconfomrities within the formations - this of course makes sense, many sequences are defined as appearing between unconfromities. The point is these sequences really do tell the story of continuous periods of deposition.

---

Yes, many periods of continuous deposition. They are simply interrupted. This is not what your professional creationists will tell you. Do you realize how many of those websites I have read and not one of them tells you that there is erosion within the fossil record? Do you know that they do not tell you about the gaps that have been created in the record between your rapid depositional events (and slow depositonal events)?

quote:

---

The Grand Canyon strata above the angular unconfromity tell the story of about 8 periods of continuous deposition. It's within the sequences that I am talking about lack of unconfromities (and even between these formations the relief is minimal or even non-existant).

---

So, you admit that in the middle of your glodbal flood that covered the entire earth, there were 8 times that the land was above water. And you did all of his uplift and depression of the continent in one year?

Do you have any information on lithified Ignimbrite-type rock encased in these sediments? This may indicate how strongly volcanic ash and breccia had to do with it.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Do you have any information on lithified Ignimbrite-type rock encased in these sediments? This may indicate how strongly volcanic ash and breccia had to do with it.

---

I do not. But there are no ignimbrites in the Grand Canyon. I also know that other pyroclastic flows are also hot and can set up in a very short time. Besides, what are we talking about for canyon walls at MSH? A hundred feet max? And how long do you think they actually held? The comparison is not a good one but I'm sure I'll see it again.

"TC - the difference between what you are saying and I am saying is only an issue of extent. Whether it happened in the last part of the 400 days or 10 years later doesn't make that much difference. Either way the sediments would have been soft allowing for rapid erosion. I guess in your scheme you can argue for enough time for the layers to harden sufficiently - you might be right. My only constraint is whether there is enough water then. Either scenario is plausible IMO."
--I see what you mean. What is also required is the geochemical process of lithification to be a bit more rapid, what range of magnitude would be based on the length of time proposed. Carbonate Precipitation or something of the like suspended/raining down/or deposited as water abates may be plausible. Pressure is of course no trouble at all. Another interesting consideration is that the Kaibab Limestone is the top layer of the Grand canyon, which are Permian conventionally thought in the mainstream as 250 million year strata. Higher strata may have been eroded in this process [of contraction]. http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_layer.htm#kl------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-30-2002]

Edge, I have also seen mainstream refs that descibe the difficult of distinguishing eolian from aqueous depositon. Creationists have studied eolian tracks and demonstrated them to be amphibian although long agers deny it.On the undistubed nature of typucal marine strata:

quote:

---

"the ocean bottom is subject to too many disturbances to permit any kind of gradual undisturbed accumulation."
Edwin L. Hamilton: "The Last Geographic Frontier: The Sea Floor," Scientific Monthly, Vol. 85, Dec. 1957, p. 296.

---

If some (or all) creaitonist web sits are not completely honest about erosional features I apologize on their behalf. But I sand by what I am saying that in the vast beds that traverse 100s of milions of years of marine and non-marine depositons we see very few major erosional surfaces.I woudn't say there were 8 regressions. The '8' formaitons include multiple sequential marine (or non-marine) depositons. Eg, transgression/recession could be responsible for 2 formaitons or, alternatively, major formaiton boundaires could also be due to vast hydrodynamic sorting in our model too. Of the top of my head I would say the Grand Canyon region talks of about 3 marine transgression/regressions.

TC, there is no doubt by either side that there was a lot of erosion of the upper Cenozoic and Mesozoic strata at Grand Canyon which (at least the Mesozoic) can be found still in place to the ?north?.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-30-2002]

"TC, there is no doubt by either side that there was a lot of erosion of the upper Cenozoic and Mesozoic strata at Grand Canyon which (at least the Mesozoic) can be found still in place to the ?north?."
--Most certainly, I did not address it as evidence against anything, simply that this is supportive of such a run-off.------------------

"Edge, I have also seen mainstream refs that descibe the difficult of distinguishing eolian from aqueous depositon. Creationists have studied eolian tracks and demonstrated them to be amphibian although long agers deny it."
--I'm not sure that whether amphibian or not is all too important, what may matter however is how viscous the sediments were at the time of track formation. Or did I miss something in the argument?------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-30-2002]

"I do not. But there are no ignimbrites in the Grand Canyon. I also know that other pyroclastic flows are also hot and can set up in a very short time. Besides, what are we talking about for canyon walls at MSH? A hundred feet max? And how long do you think they actually held? The comparison is not a good one but I'm sure I'll see it again. "
--My question still is relevant to all these questions, including your assertions on how long they held, maybe lithified Ignimbrite-type rocks encased in these sediments are rapid though insufficient, thus making your first assertion a bit in favor of a catastrophic sequence.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I do not. But there are no ignimbrites in the Grand Canyon. I also know that other pyroclastic flows are also hot and can set up in a very short time. Besides, what are we talking about for canyon walls at MSH? A hundred feet max? And how long do you think they actually held? The comparison is not a good one but I'm sure I'll see it again. "
--My question still is relevant to all these questions, including your assertions on how long they held, maybe lithified Ignimbrite-type rocks encased in these sediments are rapid though insufficient, thus making your first assertion a bit in favor of a catastrophic sequence.

​

---

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain.