Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flood not the Cause of the Grand Canyon -- Not a Biased Opinion
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 151 of 215 (210357)
05-22-2005 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by roxrkool
05-20-2005 9:21 AM


Re: Plateau Formation
Rox writes:
And again, which formations represent pre- and post-flood strata?
Coal beds are the last preflood strata in my opinion. Post-flood formations would be the loess hills, as I have pointed out in Message 48. In the context of the Grand Canyon layers, the Kaibab formation is due to marine life which died due to the water drying up.
Randy writes:
Are you saying that the footprints in the Coconino Sandstone were made before the sand that forms the sandstones was deposited?
There is sand below the footprint, and sand above. We see the tracks because the sand above has eroded away. The sand below was deposited before the tracks were made, and the sand above was deposited just after the tracks were made.
Randy writes:
Were they made before the Hermit Shales that underlying the Coconinos were deposited?
Were they made before the Redwall limestone that underlie layers that underlie the Hermit shale were deposited?
Coal beds are sometimes near the surface of the Colorado plateau. You are basing all your questions merely from the strata seen in areas exposed by erosion.
Erosive forces may not be able to erode off the buried preflood forests. If you dig right under the footprints, you are probably going to see coal beds, not hundreds of feet of the Hermit shale and Redwall limestone.
This message has been edited by peaceharris, 05-22-2005 07:59 AM
This message has been edited by peaceharris, 05-22-2005 08:04 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by roxrkool, posted 05-20-2005 9:21 AM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Randy, posted 05-22-2005 8:42 AM peaceharris has not replied
 Message 155 by roxrkool, posted 05-22-2005 11:53 PM peaceharris has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 152 of 215 (210361)
05-22-2005 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by peaceharris
05-22-2005 7:55 AM


Re: Plateau Formation
quote:
Coal beds are the last preflood strata in my opinion. Post-flood formations would be the loess hills, as I have pointed out in Message 48. In the context of the Grand Canyon layers, the Kaibab formation is due to marine life which died due to the water drying up.
Don't most YECs claim that Coal was made by the flood? There are dinosaur tracks in late Cretaceous coal in Western Colorado and Eastern Utah. Are you saying that everything before the late Cretaceous is Preflood?
Cretaceous Coal
quote:
There is sand below the footprint, and sand above. We see the tracks because the sand above has eroded away. The sand below was deposited before the tracks were made, and the sand above was deposited just after the tracks were made.
Falsifying the notion that the sand was deposited by a global flood.
quote:
Erosive forces may not be able to erode off the buried preflood forests. If you dig right under the footprints, you are probably going to see coal beds, not hundreds of feet of the Hermit shale and Redwall limestone
If you dig under the footprints in the Coconino Sandstones you find more sandstone until you get to the Hermit Shale. If you dig under the Hermit Shale you find the Supai group. If you dig under the Supai group you find the Redwall Limestone. If you dig under the Redwall Limestone you find the Mauv Limestone if you dig under the Mauv Limestone you will find the Bright Angel Shale and so on. The Colorado river has exposed all these layer in the Grand Canyon so why would you not find them as you did down from the Coconinos.
Your claims make no sense at all. Further, seismic surveys of the Canyon area do not show the coal beds you are expecting.
Seismci Surveys
Now, how were there animals around to make the tracks in the Coconios after the lower layers amounting to thousands of feet of sediments were deposited and how could animals make tracks under water deep enough to deposit 10,000 cubic miles of sand in formations that look like dunes and how could the tracks be formed in those dunes as they were being deposited by the water? You have not answered these questions. Can you or would rather just not think about the fact that the tracks show the absurdity of the claim that the Coconino Sandstones are flood deposits?
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by peaceharris, posted 05-22-2005 7:55 AM peaceharris has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 153 of 215 (210423)
05-22-2005 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by peaceharris
05-22-2005 6:59 AM


Re: Plateau Formation
Percy writes:
Are you no longer claiming that the layers exposed on the sides of the Grand Canyon are local river deposits?
Some of the layers, such as the Tapeats sandstone and Bright Angel shale, shown in Message 77, are local river deposits.
One of the concerns that I've stated a couple times now is that you're giving the appearance of ignoring rebutals. Your idea that the Tapeats and Bright Angel layers are local river deposits has been rebutted several times. The Grand Canyon is one of the most studied geological formations in the world. If the Tapeats and Bright Angel layers stop just a short distance from the Grand Canyon walls then we would already know this. If you want to continue pushing this idea, then please offer some evidence indicating these layers are local to the Grand Canyon.
Percy writes:
Does this mean that you now accept that those layers extend for miles in all directions?
The top layers, such as the Kaibab, Toroweap, Coconino and Hermit extend for miles, in all directions quite horizontally were laid down during the flood. But the Tapeats sandstone detected by oil holes, coal beds and bitumens reflect the pre-flood topography of the area.
This has all been rebutted before. All the layers of the Grand Canyon extend for miles in all directions. There are no coal beds at the Grand Canyon. The Colorado river has eroded all the way down to bedrock, and not a single one of the layers is a coal bed. The bitumens in the Tapeats found in oil bore holes are the same bitumens found in the Tapeats at the Grand Canyon. They're microscopic amounts found between quartzite grains and aren't visible to the naked eye. They're an extremely minor component of the Tapeats, and they're only mentioned in oil company documents because they're an indicator for oil deposits. I said all this in an earlier post, it would be nice if you would respond to it at some point.
I do not think that the strata of the Colorado plateau is different in neighbouring states, so I don't see any reason to start another thread.
But then you're just ignoring evidence. Here, once again, is the diagram showing the layers of the Grand Canyon extending for miles northward into Cedar City, Utah:
You can see that there are no coal layers. There is coal in Arizona, but it isn't near the Grand Canyon. Here's a map from the DOE from a document titled State Coal Profile: Arizona. Notice that the coal is in a region to the east of and separate from the Grand Canyon:
Coal beds are formed from forests. The fact that the footprints are seen in the roofs of coal mines imply that the animals were making these tracks after their habitat was partially buried by the flood.
None of the tracks found in layers of the Grand Canyon were underlayed by a coal mine or by coal strata. No one has any objection to arguments based upon coal layers, except that there must at least be coal layers present to make such arguments. There are no coal layers in the strata of the Grand Canyon, or anywhere nearby.
In Message 146,
Percy writes:
And there are fossils unique to some layers, such as the molluscs of the Kaibab, that are not found in any of the lower levels.
You need to be more specific here. Molluscs have been observed in the bright angel shale.
I think you must be mistaken. The Bright Angel layer is thought to predate molluscs by just a bit, and I can find no source mentioning molluscs in this layer. Since the Bright Angel doesn't predate the origin of molluscs by very much, it certainly isn't impossible that one day primitive molluscs will be found in it. But to my knowledge no molluscs have been found in the Bright Angel thus far. The absence of a fossil mix resembling those of higher layers is more evidence against your idea that these are local river deposits.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by peaceharris, posted 05-22-2005 6:59 AM peaceharris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Randy, posted 05-22-2005 6:42 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 156 by peaceharris, posted 05-23-2005 4:25 AM Percy has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 154 of 215 (210431)
05-22-2005 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Percy
05-22-2005 5:48 PM


Re: Plateau Formation
Actually there are some primative molluscs and some braciopods found in the Bright Angel Shale but the dominate fossils are trilobites. I don't think there are any marine fossils found in the Hermit shale and certainly none are found in the Coconino Sandstones.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 05-22-2005 5:48 PM Percy has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 155 of 215 (210472)
05-22-2005 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by peaceharris
05-22-2005 7:55 AM


Re: Plateau Formation
Peace writes:
rox writes:
And again, which formations represent pre- and post-flood strata?
Coal beds are the last preflood strata in my opinion. Post-flood formations would be the loess hills, as I have pointed out in Message 48. In the context of the Grand Canyon layers, the Kaibab formation is due to marine life which died due to the water drying up.
So the Kaibab is the last formation to be deposited by flood waters - or should I say,receding waters.
Which one is the bottom-most formation that represents the first to be laid down by flood waters?
Okay, if the Kaibab is the last formation to be deposited by [receding] flood waters, what is responsible for depositing the rest of the Grand Staircase? Which, in the northern Colorado Plateau near Bryce Canyon and Zion, is comprised of up to 12 formations (top to bottom):
12. Claron Fm. -- divided into the White Limestone Member (Tcw) and Pink Limestone Member (Tcp):
White Limestone Member White, light-gray, or tan, fine grained to microcrystalline, thick-bedded to massive, cliff-forming limestone with local thin bedded purplishgray mudstone interbeds.
Pink Limestone Member Pale-pink, red, paleorange, and tan, very fine-grained, thin- to thick-bedded limestone, argillaceous limestone, and dolomitic limestone with sparse thin interbeds of gray or tan
calcareous mudstone and a basal conglomerate locally. Forms fluted cliffs, columns, spires, hoodoos and steep slopes.
11. Wahweap/Kaiparowits Fm. -- Upper 50-100 feet consist of light-gray to white, fine- to coarse-grained, cross-bedded
sandstone and conglomeratic sandstone. Lower 600 feet is buff to light-brown, hard, fine-grained, lenticular sandstone interbedded with gray to tan mudstone, thin beds of light-gray or white, siltstone and very fine-grained sandstone.
10. Straight Cliffs Fm. -- White to light-gray, thickbedded, massive, fine- to coarse-grained cross-bedded
sandstone containing lenses of conglomerate, buff, tan and light-brown, very fine- to fine-grained sandstone with interbedded gray to tan mudstone, carbonaceous shale and thin coal.
9. Tropic Shale -- Gray to olive-gray marine shale with thin, very fine-grained sandstone beds, thin beds of tan bentonitic clay and a basal limestone concretion zone, contains marine fossils.
NOTE: Bentonitic clays are the result of devitrified volcanic ash layers - from volcanic eruptions.
8. Dakota Fm. -- Interbedded buff to light brown
sandstone, gray to tan mudstone, dark carbonaceous mudstone and coal.
7. Entrada Sandstone -- separated into three members deposited in sabkha and eolian environments. The upper division consists of the Romana Sandstone which was deposited in marginal marine and eolian environments.
6. Carmel Fm. -- Limestone, tan and gray; sandstone and siltstone, banded pink and gray; gypsum; and fine-grained
sandstone.
5. Navajo Sandstone -- Sandstone, white, gray, yellow, tan, pink, medium to fine grained, cross-bedded increasingly toward the top, eolian deposit.
4. Kayenta Fm. -- Mudstone, reddish brown, siltstone, and sandstone representing stream deposition.
3. Moenave Fm. -- Sandstone, mauve, overlying reddishbrown siltstone and mudstone, stream channel and floodplain
deposits.
2. Chinle Fm. -- Shale, mauve, gray,and white, weathered to clay on exposure, with sandstone and limestone lenses;
overlying the Shinarump, a light tan conglomeratic sandstone.
1. Moenkopi Fm. -- Siltstone and mudstone, red and redbrown, with many gray gypsiferous shale beds in the upper part
and two limestone members in the lower part.
0. KAIBAB FM.
Bryce Canyon Geology - PDF doc
Zion Geology - PDF doc
Your dilemma is to explain how post-flood conditions are depositing the same types of laterally extensive rocks (e.g., limestone, shale, sandstone, etc.) as the raging flood waters. Because most of those rocks you see above, don't just occur in the Colorado Plateau region - the Dakota Formation is also found in the Front Range near Denver.
As for coal deposits, it's obvious you haven't really looked at the stratigraphic distribution of coal. There isn't just one layer of coal, there are many.
In Kansas for example, all those black lenses are coal beds/seams:
In the Colorado Plateau, for Cretaceaous aged rocks ONLY, see Figure 8:
Cretaceous coal deposits in selected areas of the Colorado Plateau
Coal occurs in various stratigraphic positions throughout geologic time, not just once, or in nearby associations. You need to rethink this position a bit more.
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-23-2005 01:22 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by peaceharris, posted 05-22-2005 7:55 AM peaceharris has not replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 156 of 215 (210507)
05-23-2005 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Percy
05-22-2005 5:48 PM


Re: Plateau Formation
Percy writes:
You can see that there are no coal layers.
Please stop using that diagram of the Grand Staircase to prove your point. I have already lost count of the number of times you have used that diagram.
According to A Preliminary Assessment of Energy and Mineral Resources within the Grand Staircase, there is coal.
"In addition to the data contained in Blackett (1995), which includes coal intercepts from more than 170 drill holes ..." - quote from that Assessment.
170 drill holes have coal intercepts.
Do you think that the person who drew that diagram bothered to see the strata from a single drill hole.
Percy writes:
There is coal in Arizona, but it isn't near the Grand Canyon. Here's a map from the DOE from a document titled State Coal Profile: Arizona. Notice that the coal is in a region to the east of and separate from the Grand Canyon:
You have misunderstood that map.
That map is mainly concerned with surface coal. They haven't produced from deep underground coal beds. Whether coal is at the surface or deep underground depends entirely on the preflood topography of that area.
"After 1970 the output of coal in Arizona increased markedly. This was due to the opening of two large surface mines ... "
- quote from State Coal Profile: Arizona
Roxrkool writes:
As for coal deposits, it's obvious you haven't really looked at the stratigraphic distribution of coal. There isn't just one layer of coal, there are many.
Are you saying that from a single drill hole, more than 1 layer of coal has been observed?
Roxrkool,
In my opinion, the maximum thickness of a single coal bed is about 450 feet, since this is the height of the tallest trees. If there has been more than 1 layer of coal, there should either exist
1) Coal beds thicker than 450 feet
or
2) Multiple layers coal with sand/shale/limestone.. etc in between them.
Can you give me an observation from a single drill hole proving either of these scenarios?
Roxrkool writes:
Coal occurs in various stratigraphic positions throughout geologic time, not just once, or in nearby associations. You need to rethink this position a bit more.
So now you also have begun to use diagrams to prove your point? Any Tom, Dick and Harris can draw a diagram. Please use observations from a single drill hole. 6000 feet holes have been dug, so you don't have any excuse for not using observations from holes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 05-22-2005 5:48 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 05-23-2005 7:19 AM peaceharris has replied
 Message 158 by roxrkool, posted 05-23-2005 10:44 AM peaceharris has not replied
 Message 162 by FormalistAesthete, posted 05-24-2005 11:33 AM peaceharris has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 157 of 215 (210521)
05-23-2005 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by peaceharris
05-23-2005 4:25 AM


Re: Plateau Formation
peaceharris writes:
Please stop using that diagram of the Grand Staircase to prove your point. I have already lost count of the number of times you have used that diagram.
But I've had no trouble keeping count of the number of times you've responded to it. That would be zero.
The diagram is a representation of the gathered geological evidence that all the layers of the Grand Canyon, excepting the Supergroup, extend for miles in all directions and are not local to the Grand Canyon. You ignored this evidence, so I continued to post it. I call your attention to rule 4 of the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
You still haven't addressed this evidence from the point of view of the extent of the Grand Canyon layers, so expect to see it again.
You were arguing that tracks in layers like the Coconino were evidence of the flood because the tracks are underlain by coal layers. But there is no coal layer beneath the Coconino or any of the other layers of the Grand Canyon.
According to A Preliminary Assessment of Energy and Mineral Resources within the Grand Staircase, there is coal.
The Grand Staircase is in Utah while the Grand Canyon is in Arizona, but since it's mostly the same layers I guess we can include the Grand Staircase. So, do you have any evidence of coal layers underlying tracks at the Grand Canyon or the Grand Staircase? Keep in mind the topic, that the Grand Canyon is not evidence of the flood. You're supposedly arguing that the Grand Canyon *is* evidence of the flood. Your evidence for tracks underlain by coal layers comes from geographic strata in Colorado that are not present at the Grand Canyon or the Grand Staircase. You'll have to open another thread to discuss that evidence.
In my opinion, the maximum thickness of a single coal bed is about 450 feet, since this is the height of the tallest trees.
This is irrelevant to the topic, but I just had to comment. The thickness of coal beds has nothing to do with the height of trees.
So now you also have begun to use diagrams to prove your point? Any Tom, Dick and Harris can draw a diagram. Please use observations from a single drill hole. 6000 feet holes have been dug, so you don't have any excuse for not using observations from holes.
The above was a response to Rox, but what has this to do with your argument that animal tracks at the Grand Canyon are underlain by coal layers? If you have no evidence of this you should drop it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by peaceharris, posted 05-23-2005 4:25 AM peaceharris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by peaceharris, posted 05-24-2005 4:24 AM Percy has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 158 of 215 (210543)
05-23-2005 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by peaceharris
05-23-2005 4:25 AM


Re: Plateau Formation
Peace writes:
Are you saying that from a single drill hole, more than 1 layer of coal has been observed?
Roxrkool,
In my opinion, the maximum thickness of a single coal bed is about 450 feet, since this is the height of the tallest trees. If there has been more than 1 layer of coal, there should either exist
1) Coal beds thicker than 450 feet
or
2) Multiple layers coal with sand/shale/limestone.. etc in between them.
Can you give me an observation from a single drill hole proving either of these scenarios?
First of all, no one cares about your opinion. Show us some evidence instead.
Second, if your research has led you to believe that coal seams are related to height of vegetation, you need to do much more research.
Third, as you can see from drill hole data, coal seams/beds are indeed separated by various lithologies. Blocks along the holes represent different lithologies, grain sizes, depostional environments, etc.
Look at:
Figure 7 from Geologic Overview and Resource Assessment of Coal in the Kaiparowits Plateau, Southern Utah Assessment
Figure 16 from A Summary of Coal Distribution and Geology in the Kaiparowits Plateau, Utah Assessment
In fact, perhaps you should thoroughly read National Coal Resource Assessment: Geologic Assessment of Coal in the Colorado Plateau: Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.
And if you're feeling froggy, plot all those coal-bearing formations on a stratigraphic section - coal occurs in beds/layers, often separated by hundreds of feet and in different aged rocks. Although in the Colorado Plateau area, most economic coal-bearing rocks are Cretaceous in age.
Peace writes:
So now you also have begun to use diagrams to prove your point? Any Tom, Dick and Harris can draw a diagram. Please use observations from a single drill hole. 6000 feet holes have been dug, so you don't have any excuse for not using observations from holes.
lol
Yeah, and I suppose any Tom, Dick, or Harry can't draw a well log? Don't be obtuse.
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-23-2005 10:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by peaceharris, posted 05-23-2005 4:25 AM peaceharris has not replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 159 of 215 (210788)
05-24-2005 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Percy
05-23-2005 7:19 AM


Re: Plateau Formation
Percy writes:
The above was a response to Rox, but what has this to do with your argument that animal tracks at the Grand Canyon are underlain by coal layers? If you have no evidence of this you should drop it.
The tracks have been found at Canyon De Chelly, near Chinle. This area has surface coal, which proves that the animal tracks were not made after 1000 feet of sand was deposited. The tracks were made after their habitats were partially buried.
Refer:
1) Chinle Formation
2) Canyon De Chelly
According to the Museum of Northern Arizona, "The fossil research collections are well represented by Paleozoic invertebrates from the Grand Canyon area, Triassic vertebrates from the broadly exposed Chinle Formation, a large fossil trackway and footprint collection from both the Permian Coconino Sandstone and the Triassic Moenkopi Formation... "
According to Grisda, there are "Numerous trackways from the Permian De Chelly Sandstone near Monument Valley, Arizona."
Here's a photo of exposed coal in the Chinle Formation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 05-23-2005 7:19 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Randy, posted 05-24-2005 5:36 AM peaceharris has not replied
 Message 161 by Percy, posted 05-24-2005 7:27 AM peaceharris has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 160 of 215 (210792)
05-24-2005 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by peaceharris
05-24-2005 4:24 AM


Re: Plateau Formation
quote:
The tracks have been found at Canyon De Chelly, near Chinle. This area has surface coal, which proves that the animal tracks were not made after 1000 feet of sand was deposited. The tracks were made after their habitats were partially buried
Do you think these are the only ones.
In 1918 Lull described trace fossils from the Coconino Sandstones that he collected near the Hermit Trail in the Grand Canyon. Subsequently C. W. Gilmore of the U.S. National Museum carried out more detailed work....describing both vertebrate and invertebrate tracks. In these studies he described 10 genera and 17 species.
From L. T. Middelton et al. Coconino Sandstone in Grand canyon Geology, 2nd Edition by S. S. Beus and M. Morales p 165-179.
You have still not addressed the question of how the tracks formed in dunes that were being deposited in water deep enough and moving fast enough to distrubute thousands of cubic miles of sand over a wide area, let alone how it happened after at least a significant portion of the underlying layers were deposited by a worldwide flood.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by peaceharris, posted 05-24-2005 4:24 AM peaceharris has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 161 of 215 (210803)
05-24-2005 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by peaceharris
05-24-2005 4:24 AM


Re: Plateau Formation
peaceharris writes:
Percy writes:
The above was a response to Rox, but what has this to do with your argument that animal tracks at the Grand Canyon are underlain by coal layers? If you have no evidence of this you should drop it.
The tracks have been found at Canyon De Chelly, near Chinle.
Chinle is in eastern Arizona about 150 miles from the Grand Canyon. If you would like to discuss fossils tracks at the Chinle Formation then open a new thread. The focus of this thread is the Grand Canyon, and we can open it to the Grand Staircase, too, since the same layers are represented at both places. Your picture of the Chinle Formation shows Mesozoic layers, and there are no Mesozoic layers at the Grand Canyon.
Your argument is that the fossil tracks that appear in some of the layers of the Grand Canyon were underlain by coal beds. But there are no coal beds in the layers of the Grand Canyon. Citing coal deposits elsewhere is irrelevant. If you have no evidence of coal beds at the Grand Canyon then you must drop this argument.
We're still waiting for your answers on many other issues. How did the Colorado deposit sediments beneath a mile of geologic layers? What evidence do you have that some layers of the Grand Canyon do not extend for miles in all directions? How do animals leave tracks underwater in strata that are in the process of formation? You've left other open questions, too, but those are the ones that come to mind right now.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by peaceharris, posted 05-24-2005 4:24 AM peaceharris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by peaceharris, posted 05-25-2005 7:03 AM Percy has replied
 Message 200 by peaceharris, posted 05-31-2005 7:04 AM Percy has not replied

  
FormalistAesthete
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 215 (210851)
05-24-2005 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by peaceharris
05-23-2005 4:25 AM


Re: Plateau Formation
"In my opinion. the maximum thickness of a single coal bed is about 450 feet, since this is the height of the tallest trees. If there has been more than 1 layer of coal, there should either exist
1) Coal beds thicker than 450 feet"
This statement has me totally perplexed. It seems to require that trees remain standing after they die and remain standing even after the conversion to coal, even AFTER they are buried under subsequent layers of sediment. If that were the case, wouldn't there be voids in coal beds equal in size to the gaps between trees in a forest?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by peaceharris, posted 05-23-2005 4:25 AM peaceharris has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by PurpleYouko, posted 05-24-2005 12:27 PM FormalistAesthete has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 163 of 215 (210855)
05-24-2005 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by FormalistAesthete
05-24-2005 11:33 AM


Re: Plateau Formation
Makes me wonder how thick a peat bog can get, seeing as how the average height of a single peice of living moss is about a half inch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by FormalistAesthete, posted 05-24-2005 11:33 AM FormalistAesthete has not replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 164 of 215 (211060)
05-25-2005 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Percy
05-24-2005 7:27 AM


Re: Plateau Formation
Percy writes:
But there are no coal beds in the layers of the Grand Canyon.
Here's how Lucy Bryan described her hike to the Canyon bottom:
"Within an hour, we were standing on the banks of the Colorado River. It was huge -- more than 30 feet across -- and surrounded by sheer cliffs the color of coal."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Percy, posted 05-24-2005 7:27 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Randy, posted 05-25-2005 8:27 AM peaceharris has not replied
 Message 167 by Percy, posted 05-25-2005 9:55 AM peaceharris has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 165 of 215 (211077)
05-25-2005 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by peaceharris
05-25-2005 7:03 AM


Re: Plateau Formation
quote:
Here's how Lucy Bryan described her hike to the Canyon bottom:
"Within an hour, we were standing on the banks of the Colorado River. It was huge -- more than 30 feet across -- and surrounded by sheer cliffs the color of coal."
This hike descended to Monument Creek. The cliffs being described as the color of coal are almost certainly the Vishnu Schists which are black and are exposed at Monument Creek. Using a hiker's description of the color of a cliff to try to substantiate coal where hundreds of trained geologists have not found coal is not going to get you very far here.
Please tell us how animal tracks formed in the Coconino Sandstones as they were being deposited by a global flood that had just deposited at least a signifcant fraction of the lower layers.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by peaceharris, posted 05-25-2005 7:03 AM peaceharris has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Randy, posted 05-25-2005 8:35 AM Randy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024