Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YECs, how do you explain meandering canyons?
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 43 (176065)
01-12-2005 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by TrueCreation
01-03-2005 8:03 PM


Re: Walt Brown's Grand Canyon Stuff
Hi TrueCreation,
{ADDED BY EDIT--BIG OOPS!--THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS INCORRECT IN THAT IT IS WALT BROWN, NOT NECESSARILY ANSWERS IN GENESIS, THAT POSITS A POST-FLOOD GRAND CANYON FORMATION DUE TO THE SQUIRRELS AND THE LEGEND (That's why I couldn't find the article at AnswersInGenesis.org }
I can't seem to find the online article now, but somewhere in AnswersInGenesis.org's archives there is an article explaining that the separation of the albert and kaibab squirrel populations requires that the canyon formed after enough time had elapsed after the Flood1 for the parent squirrel population to have become established on both sides of what is now Grand Canyon.
Apparently there is also a American Indian (Navajo?) legend about the Canyon forming.
These two lines of evidence (though one is anecdotal) have apparently convinced Answers In Genesis that the Canyon was formed several centuries after the Flood. Since Answers in Genesis has a broad realm of influence in the Creationists' thinking, I concluded that many Creationists do not posit the receding Flood as having created the Canyon.
Those two lines of evidence (though the one is anecdotal) plus the fact that it seems hard to imagine the rock could have lithified enough during the receding stages have convinced me, at this time, that the canyon formed centuries after the Flood.
However, I will not say that it did NOT happen that way.
--TheLiteralist


1Added by edit (TheLiteralist)
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 01-12-2005 00:44 AM
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 01-12-2005 05:35 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by TrueCreation, posted 01-03-2005 8:03 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by NosyNed, posted 01-12-2005 2:20 AM TheLiteralist has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 32 of 43 (176082)
01-12-2005 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by TheLiteralist
01-12-2005 12:42 AM


Re: Walt Brown's Grand Canyon Stuff
Those two lines of evidence (though the one is anecdotal) plus the fact that it seems hard to imagine the rock could have lithified enough during the receding stages have convinced me, at this time, that the canyon formed centuries after the Flood.
However, I will not say that it did NOT happen that way.
This is interesting. I didn't know that some influential creationist organizations had started to give up on the flood as the cause for the grand canyon.
It is also interesting that again a creationist won't actually come down firmly on something. That is very common.
You do understand that the believers in the genesis stories were the original researchers in the geology. They have had more time than the "non-genesis" side but still haven't gotten a coherent idea of what they think happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-12-2005 12:42 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-12-2005 5:39 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 43 (176116)
01-12-2005 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by NosyNed
01-12-2005 2:20 AM


Re: Walt Brown's Grand Canyon Stuff
Ned,
I was wrong! Please note my correction in Message 31 above. I don't know Answers In Genesis's position...I was mixing up websites in my mind
--TL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by NosyNed, posted 01-12-2005 2:20 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
diggerdowner
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 43 (181384)
01-28-2005 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by TheLiteralist
12-18-2004 10:13 PM


Re: A simple answer.
Ain't no simple answers!
Don't forget how all that sediment got there- before the Colorado started cutting. Don't leave out the Green River. Seems it had a different kind of life span and origin.
Did a once and former Sea drain here? How old/deep were these sediments behind the dam?
DD
This message has been edited by diggerdowner, 01-31-2005 13:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-18-2004 10:13 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-06-2005 3:45 AM diggerdowner has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 43 (183410)
02-06-2005 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by diggerdowner
01-28-2005 2:05 PM


Re: A simple answer.
Hi DiggerDowner,
Don't forget how all that sediment got there- before the Colorado started cutting.
I believe the sediment was laid there by Noah's Flood. Are you sure the Colorado river carved out the canyon? How do you know this?
Did a once and former Sea drain here? How old/deep were these sediments behind the dam?
Are you referring to the Grand Canyon with these questions? If you are, it has already been determined over and over again that I don't know much about the Grand Canyon formation or geology in general. However, there are Creationists who propose that the Grand Canyon is the result of a breached dam. Under this model, the sediments on both sides of the dam would have been laid down by Noah's Flood, and so, should be the same age. But, then, according to the Flood model, very, very, very few sediment layers would be older than 5000 years old.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by diggerdowner, posted 01-28-2005 2:05 PM diggerdowner has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by JonF, posted 02-06-2005 8:54 AM TheLiteralist has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 36 of 43 (183464)
02-06-2005 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by TheLiteralist
02-06-2005 3:45 AM


Re: A simple answer.
Are you sure the Colorado river carved out the canyon? How do you know this?
All of science is the best explanation that fits the known evidence. The best explantion for the Grand Canyon that fits the available evidence is that the Colorado River carved it; this is so well established that we might as well call it an established fact. Of course, it could have been sculpted by incredibly powerful three-headed polka-dotted alien beings, and that fits the evidence as well, but nobody takes it seriously. No hypothesis about the Grand Canyon is worth considering unless it explains something that "carved by the Colorado River" does not and explains absolutely everything that "Carved by the COlorado River" does at elast as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-06-2005 3:45 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-06-2005 1:37 PM JonF has replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 43 (183516)
02-06-2005 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by JonF
02-06-2005 8:54 AM


Three-headed polka dotted aliens
Hi JonF,
Well, the three-headed alien model would explain the Canyon AND perhaps those wierd circles in the cornfields. I believe several reputable papers I've read (these can generally be picked up in checkout lanes at the supermarket) have described many beings such as you posit in this rather unique model. Might be onto something there, Jon.
{just kidding )
No hypothesis about the Grand Canyon is worth considering unless it explains something that "carved by the Colorado River" does not and explains absolutely everything that "Carved by the COlorado River" does at elast as well.
Very well said! As I said, I am nearly completely ignorant of the Grand Canyon formation (and this only gets clearer everytime I type). For this reason, I only clarified what the model would predict (layers on both sides of the dam would be the same age, almost no layers older than about 5000 years) and asked questions of the fellow.
Are there any formations or features of the Grand Canyon that the "Carved by the Colorado River" Model doesn't explain well or at all? Is there anything that is "mysterious" under this model?
Also, do traditional scientist have any other ideas or models about the origin of the canyon besides the "Carved by the Colorado River" Model?
You'll probably just say, "No." But just in case...
Thanks,
--TheLit
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 02-06-2005 13:40 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by JonF, posted 02-06-2005 8:54 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by JonF, posted 02-06-2005 4:19 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 38 of 43 (183557)
02-06-2005 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by TheLiteralist
02-06-2005 1:37 PM


Re: Three-headed polka dotted aliens
Are there any formations or features of the Grand Canyon that the "Carved by the Colorado River" Model doesn't explain well or at all? Is there anything that is "mysterious" under this model?
This isn't really my area of expertise, but ...
I don't know of any features the the CBTCR {grin} model does not explain. Many creationists don't much like the fact that the CBTCR model rquires that the Colorado Plateau be uplifted slowly, by plate tectonic processes, as the canyon is being carved. That is, the top of the canyon is crrently above the headwaters of the Colorado.
Also, do traditional scientist have any other ideas or models about the origin of the canyon besides the "Carved by the Colorado River" Model?
Not everyone agrees about some details or the exact timing, but there's no serious contendor for an alternate theory. The flood-runoff theory is a non-starter, even given the lack of evidence of the existence of such a flood at all. The near-vertical walls of the Grqand Canyon show that it was carved slowly while the rock was lithified (that is, hard), unlike the approximately 45 degree walls of the "Grand Canyon of the Toutle River" (carved by runoff after the Mt. St. Helens eruption, and often cited by creationists as "proof" that the Grand Canyon could have been carved quickly). See the pictures at the end of Young-Earth Creationism and the Geology of the Grand Canyon: Part 2: The Grand Canyon. (Also the amount of material removed at the Toutle Rive is hundreds of thousands of times less than the amount of material removed to form the Grand Canyon). The pattern of the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River basin, with branched side-channels and several 180-degree turns, is totally unlike the pattern of flood runoff seen in the Channeled Scablands.
Events in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River and Evolution of the Colorado River and its Tributaries, including Formation of the Grand Canyon: Geologic History of the Grand Canyon present the mainstream theory pretty well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-06-2005 1:37 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Harlequin
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 43 (229501)
08-03-2005 10:14 PM


Satellite Views
One can really see the meandering nature of the Grand Canyon and the rest of the Colorado river/canyon system using Google maps.
Dragging these images to see more terrain. One can also zoom in and out.
This message has been edited by Harlequin, 04-23-2006 03:57 PM

  
Harlequin
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 43 (305567)
04-20-2006 10:19 PM


I have nominated an image of the Goosenecks of the San Juan River discussed at the start of this thread for Wikipedia Featured Picture. Those wishing to comment on the nomination can do so by following the link.

  
Harlequin
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 43 (306151)
04-23-2006 3:55 PM


I have not added examples in a while:
The confluence of the Colorado and Green rivers:
Image source which includes a nice photo of Goosenecks from a different perspective than earlier in this thread.
Of course the question still stands: how can a YEC explain a meandering canyon. Recall the floods do not meander.

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Joman, posted 10-26-2006 2:29 PM Harlequin has not replied

  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 43 (359047)
10-26-2006 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Harlequin
04-23-2006 3:55 PM


The side canyons in the photo of the confluence of the Green River and the Colorado were obviously not cut by the meandering river.
Nor do the canyon walls down below.
And yet, they are cut down to the same level as the river.
The river flows down into a wide canyon that doesn't conform to any of the rivers flow path.
It appears that all the canyon rim features are common in their appearance and are thus not due to the river since many of them are great distances from the river.
I see no evidence here that the river produced all these terrain features. And, if it didn't then what is the cause of correspondence between the side canyons and the main river channel in that the side canyons are oriented with it, and yet not formed by it, and yet at the same time they have been cut to the same depth?
It is the same at the grand canyon. If you plot the river's beginning up at the top of the canyon you'll notice that it can't have been a meandering river at that time. It appears that only after some extensive collapse of the rims into a deepening canyon did the river begin to meander at some point.
Joman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Harlequin, posted 04-23-2006 3:55 PM Harlequin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by iceage, posted 10-26-2006 5:54 PM Joman has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 43 of 43 (359107)
10-26-2006 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Joman
10-26-2006 2:29 PM


Megaflood Features
And yet, they are cut down to the same level as the river.
And you would expect otherwise in a old river system canyon?
The rate at which a river cuts into the bedrock is directly related to the water flow rate which is related to the elevation drop of the stream flow.
Lets say for example the main river cuts thru the rock faster due to say a series of large floods in the upper main drainage region. Then the side tributaries would be left behind and an elevation discontinuity where the rivers join (ie waterfall) would occur. This particular region however would wear faster due the elevated flow rates resulting from the greater incline. Over a large period of time the two streams would tend to achieve the same level as they come to equalibrium.
Now what features would be common after a megaflood?
You would expect the presence sheer drop falls. Fine examples exists in the Pacific Northwest at Polouse Falls and Dry Canyon in Washington state. Both created by a megaflood, not the global flood, but the ice age glacial Lake Missoula flood.
Palouse Falls and Lyons Ferry Park
http://www.kidscosmos.org/kid-stuff/mars-trip-9.html
The Missoula flood was megaflood that created no meandering caynons.
It appears that all the canyon rim features are common in their appearance and are thus not due to the river since many of them are great distances from the river.
No can follow. What exactly makes you think that the common canyon features exclude the river from forming these features.
I see no evidence here that the river produced all these terrain features.
I see no evidence that the river did not!
Lets just say that if forming a canyon was crime the river here would need a very very good lawyer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Joman, posted 10-26-2006 2:29 PM Joman 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