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

"I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain."
--You switched it over and avoided my question by saying that you know that they are not present in the Grand Canyon. You also made statements regarding the implications of Ignimbrite-type rocks being the reasoning for the speedy lithification for Mount Saint Hellens. And also that it woulnd't be a good example because it didn't hold out for long(?) as well as comparing their size.------------------

TC - good point. The flatness of the Grand Canyon plateaus supports catastrophic run-off too rather than miscellaenous low energy events which would have carved out gullies etc.

​

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]TC - good point. The flatness of the Grand Canyon plateaus supports catastrophic run-off too rather than miscellaenous low energy events which would have carved out gullies etc.[/QUOTE]Hmm, so high energy environments wouldn't produce channels... I guess you haven't seen the channeled scablands from the outlet of glacial Lake Missoula.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain."
--You switched it over and avoided my question by saying that you know that they are not present in the Grand Canyon. You also made statements regarding the implications of Ignimbrite-type rocks being the reasoning for the speedy lithification for Mount Saint Hellens. And also that it woulnd't be a good example because it didn't hold out for long(?) as well as comparing their size.[/QUOTE]Right they are not. At least not in with the main sedimentary sequence. I said that is possibly the reason why. And, as far as I know, erosion has widened and sloughed in the walls of the canyon at MSH. The point remains, MSH is not an analog to the GC. You have not been able to show any reason why we should accept it as one.

That logic doesn't follow from my statement Edge. What is true is that low energy will not generate sheet erosion. High energy can presumably do both sheet erosion and gullies as we can see from the geological column.

"Right they are not. At least not in with the main sedimentary sequence. I said that is possibly the reason why. And, as far as I know, erosion has widened and sloughed in the walls of the canyon at MSH. The point remains, MSH is not an analog to the GC. You have not been able to show any reason why we should accept it as one."
--I wasn't trying to show reasoning why we should accept it as an analog to the GC. You stated that 'I do not [have any information on lithified Ignimbrite-type rock encased in these {MSH} sediments]. But there are no ignimbrites in the Grand Canyon'. My point is just as I said, 'This may indicate how strongly volcanic ash and breccia had to do with it[the rate and strength of the lithification which took place at MSH]'. I am not saying that we need some ash deposits for rapid lithification. See post #39.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
That logic doesn't follow from my statement Edge. What is true is that low energy will not generate sheet erosion. High energy can presumably do both sheet erosion and gullies as we can see from the geological column.

---

Who said there was sheet erosion? I presume you are talking about the modern land surface. Since you brought it up, maybe it would be good to get a definition of high and low energy. We see lots of flat surfaces generated by active surficial erosional processes.So, how do you explain the meander loops in the Grand Canyon?

"That logic doesn't follow from my statement Edge. What is true is that low energy will not generate sheet erosion. High energy can presumably do both sheet erosion and gullies as we can see from the geological column."
--As well as these strata ( > Permian ) may have not been lithified sufficiently due to lacks in pressure or chemistry. Which would have made these strata easilly eroded contrary to lower strata ( < Permian ). Further preventing anomales such as gullies.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--I wasn't trying to show reasoning why we should accept it as an analog to the GC. You stated that 'I do not [have any information on lithified Ignimbrite-type rock encased in these {MSH} sediments]. But there are no ignimbrites in the Grand Canyon'. My point is just as I said, 'This may indicate how strongly volcanic ash and breccia had to do with it[the rate and strength of the lithification which took place at MSH]'. I am not saying that we need some ash deposits for rapid lithification.

---

Well, you are quite right, then. Certain volcanic deposits can lithify readily and give the appearance of hard rock. However, I still wonder how long the walls of the MSH canyon really did hold. I also suggest that you resist the notion to make this comparison so readily in the future. There are a few differences between proximal volcanics and shelf sedimentation, as well as major differences in scale.

Edge, your flat surface erosion that you see - I doubt you see it across US state sized surfaces depositing 1000s of feet of sediment? And do you expect the newly carved flat surface to then sit there for a million years without vast gullies forming, waiting for the next period of sheet erosion/deposition?By low energy I guess I mean low flow rate and volume.Grand Canyon presumably represents the transition from sheet erosion to non-sheet erosion as the water volume/energy decreased. Meander is simply due to the path of least resistance isn't it?

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, your flat surface erosion that you see - I doubt you see it across US state sized surfaces depositing 1000s of feet of sediment?

---

Hold it. Let's stop right here and analyze this statement. You complained earlier that I have mistakenly characterized your statements as misunderstandings. However, look at this sentence. You are saying that 'flat surface erosion' cannot deposit thousands of feet of sediment. This statement makes no sense whatever. How do you expect me to address your posts when they consist of this nonsense? When I make an attempt you accuse me of diverting attention or somesuch.

quote:

---

And do you expect the newly carved flat surface to then sit there for a million years without vast gullies forming, waiting for the next period of sheet erosion/deposition?

---

If it is near the current base level, yes.

quote:

---

Grand Canyon presumably represents the transition from sheet erosion to non-sheet erosion as the water volume/energy decreased. Meander is simply due to the path of least resistance isn't it?

---

The erosional phase of formation of the GC shows a transition from low energy, mature, fluvial environment to a high-energy, youthful stream. This has been caused by uplift of the Colorado Plateau in the last few million years. Meanders are a characteristic of mature valleys such as the Mississippi River or the lower reaches of the Yukon. How do you explain this for the GC?

Edge, no, I wasn't saying that 'flat surface erosion' can't deposit 1000s of feet. I was doubting that you could show me a non-marine example in operation today. This is just a misunderstanding Edge - we have to both remember that we are coming fom opposite directions!Newly eroded plain? Well I can't see why you would expect a neat plain to stay uneroded for millenia. Where are they today? Any flood plain today is either recently deposited or heavily eroded!I realy don't see why one can't get meander in soft sediments. You can't just state some long age dogma, what is the reason?

Some reading material for TB:The Geologic Column
and its Implications for the Flood
Copyright 2001 by Glenn Morton
[Last Update: February 17, 2001]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/Note: Glenn Morton was a prominent YEC, active in the ICR. He has now left his YEC beliefs behind.As a side note - My personal stash of C vs E links can be found at:
http://www.lakenet.com/~mnmoose/evlnkalt.htmI don't deny that there is a pro-evolution bias in this links collection.Have a nice dayMoose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Thanks a million Moose. I've read a lot of them before but I'll check them out. They wouldn't mention paleosoils by any chance would they? . . . and dinosaur footprints? No comment on my points?

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-31-2002]

No, but this one does: http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htmCheersJoe Meert