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

[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.

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?

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.

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?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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!

---

You still don't get it. Erosion cannot deposit sediments. These are different processes in different areas. My point is that you complained earlier that I was mistaken in saying that you misunderstand geological processes. I simply am putting this up as supporting evidence that you indeed do not understand geology.

quote:

---

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!

---

There are plenty of erosional plains, such as much of the northern Canadian Shield. There are also plenty of depositional plains such as the Atlantic coastal plain. One thing is for sure, and that is that they have been flat for as long as there have been humans around to observe them. I understand there are some perfectly flat plains in Texas for instance that have been that way since at least human occupation. Ever been to the midwestern US? Some awfully flat plains there.

quote:

---

I realy don't see why one can't get meander in soft sediments.

---

You can, but that's not the point. High energy environments don't produce them. The Grand Canyon was at one time a shallow gradient meandering stream. Not exactly what one would expect from a rushing torrent. So, how do you explain this?

quote:

---

You can't just state some long age dogma, what is the reason?

---

I do not. I am simply making evidentiary observations. Your theory needs to explain them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"So, how do you explain the meander loops in the Grand Canyon?"

​

--Meandering as well as steepness would have been causes of both slow and rapid flows. slow flow would have been characteristic of flood water abating, though rapid flows would have been produced post-flood when the majority of the canyon would have been carved cataclysmically. This is similar as I argued it a couple months ago in another Flood thread.

---

Please explain. How does 'slow flow' related to abatement of the flood produce meanders? Do you have modern examples? Wouldn't it be easier to say that they formed in a way similar to modern meanders? Where is base level in this scenario?Could you also please amplify a little more on how the canyon walls would stand if they are composed of recently (one year old) deposited sediments that are, by definition, water saturated? Do you have examples of thousand foot cliffs composed of sand and mud anywhere in the world?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, thank-you for the correction in terms on erosion. But I think it's clear that the ultimate phenomonon of layered beds has a two fold mechanism: (i) erosion and (ii) a depositional environment, regardless of geobable (which I am enjoying learning BTW so keep correcting me).

---

Hmm, my sedimentary rocks book says very little about weathering. I suppose you think they should rewrite all the text books.

quote:

---

Do you really know if your plains are producing strata that look like those in the Grand Canyon or do you just assume it? I'm just raising the question.

---

It's a pretty good guess, based on fossil and textural evidence. Obviously, it takes time to produce rocks from the sediments.

quote:

---

Becasuse of soft sediments it's possible that the regression was slow enoug ht ogenerate meander andfast enough to carve it out. I'm not claiming anything other than plausibility.

---

Well, I can't keep you from having it both ways, but it really doesn't make sense based on rock strength. Meandering systems are almost by definition slightly erosional and/or slightle depositional. Steep canyons and coarse sediments don't really fit into the scenario.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I was recently surprised to learn the MSH carved canyons out of existing hard rock as well as new sediments.

---

Then you might be even more suprised to find that these were not 'hard' rocks. You really need to read some non-creationist websites.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Please explain. How does 'slow flow' related to abatement of the flood produce meanders? Do you have modern examples? Wouldn't it be easier to say that they formed in a way similar to modern meanders? Where is base level in this scenario?"

​

--What do you mean by 'base level'? And actually, yes its beginning formation did form in a ways similar to modern meanders, the Mississippi is a great example.

---

Base level is the level to which erosion can occur. Below that you generally get deposition. So the retreat of the flood was a slow event taking thousands of years to develop a mature stream profile? This is what you are saying.

quote:

---

"Could you also please amplify a little more on how the canyon walls would stand if they are composed of recently (one year old) deposited sediments that are, by definition, water saturated?"

​

--Lithification, and pressures would have 'squeezed' water out of higher pressurizes areas of the grand canyon sediments. And they arent just one year old, they could be hundreds.

---

Well if the rocks had suffered lithification and high pressures, the wouldn't be soft any more, would they?

quote:

---

"Do you have examples of thousand foot cliffs composed of sand and mud anywhere in the world?"

​

--Forming? Nope, its kind of like the big bang, only happens once (not exactly correct but that's beside point). But yes there are ones in other places in the world. The Blue mountains of austrailia, and the Waimea Canyon may be considered. I'm not sure about Waimea Canyon though.

---

I see that these have been refuted above. So, do you have any other examples? It should be possible to have them, after all it's simply a matter of material strengths and geometry. Maybe you could be the first to demonstrate this phenomenon. I know a lot of geotech managers who could save a lot of money thanks to you.Another question. If the canyon was cut in soft sediments, how did the canyon walls then lithify, as they were exposed to the surface? What cause the pressures and cementation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Base level is the level to which erosion can occur. Below that you generally get deposition. So the retreat of the flood was a slow event taking thousands of years to develop a mature stream profile? This is what you are saying."

​

--Not really, what I am saying is that as Flood waters abated, it would have created this meandering valley, ...

---

It would have? How do you know this? Or is this just another example of wishful thinking?

quote:

---

... this would not have taken thousands of years to develop, though it would have been slow.

---

This is an interesting observation. How do you know this? Why are you so much more knowledgeable about stream development than people who have studied it for entire careers? Remember, you only have a year-long flood to work with.

quote:

---

As flood waters abated, it would have left a reservoir which later would have burst accounting for the grand canyon.

---

How do you know this? You are simply making up a story here not dealing with facts. Give us some facts.

quote:

---

"Well if the rocks had suffered lithification and high pressures, the wouldn't be soft any more, would they?"

​

--Exactly

---

So then we are NOT dealing with soft sediments! I wish you would make up your mind.

quote:

---

"I see that these have been refuted above. So, do you have any other examples? It should be possible to have them, after all it's simply a matter of material strengths and geometry. Maybe you could be the first to demonstrate this phenomenon. I know a lot of geotech managers who could save a lot of money thanks to you."

​

--Bah, I just made some guesses, I didn't and still do not see the significance.

---

Of course you don't. You have not dealt with the range of geological problems that the real world has to deal with every day. People die in trenches that are cut in soft material.

quote:

---

Of course you may wish to refer to the numerous other canyons surrounding the actual grand canyon. I'm not sure that I would be 'demonstrating a new phenomena', I would just be showing you more examples of what would be interpreted in the conventional mainstream to have taken hundreds of thousands of years to carve through river erosion and land slide slope features.

---

There is a reason for that. It is because there is evidence to support the mainstream view.

quote:

---

"Another question. If the canyon was cut in soft sediments, how did the canyon walls then lithify, as they were exposed to the surface? What cause the pressures and cementation? "

​

--They had already significantly lithified prior the 'canyon' formation.

---

Once again you depart from you main point that the canyon was cut in 'soft sediments.' How far are you willing to retreat before you come back to the mainstream position?

quote:

---

Cause of pressures (process of compaction) would have been the masses of sediments.

---

Where does this pressure come from. Remember, erosion has already exposed you canyon walls.

quote:

---

Cementation would have been caused by precipitation of mainly calcites, dolomites, oxides, anhydrites, etc. ...

---

Can you demonstrate where eolian sands exposed at the surface have attained the state of cementation necessary to form the cliffs at Arches, for instance?

quote:

---

... most of the precipitation may have been caused by desiccation, which resulted from compaction.

---

Again you have not addressed where this compaction came from after the canyon had been eroded. Any compaction would have lead to slumping and retreat of the canyon walls. I also think you misuse the term 'dessication.'

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"It would have? How do you know this? Or is this just another example of wishful thinking?"

​

--No, it isn't wishful thinking. It is using a reasonable topography created by whatever mechanism (uniform or catastrophic process) in pre-canyon formation and apply known hydro-mechanics to how water will abate and what formation it may create in the process.

---

I don't have much time to address your model. Let's just say that it depends upon major assumptions that are not justified by any evidence. We know of no lakes that were stranded by abating flood waters in the geological record. I do not see how they could be drained by a mature stream nearly at base level in a short period of geological time. You still have not addressed how shallow sediments in the canyon wall have become lithified to the same degree as deeper units. How do they lithify while exposed at the surface by erosion? They should have filled in the canyon. You have not addressed the importance of uplift. You have not addressed the issue of fossil and other evidence for emergent land throughout the time of your flood. You have focussed on the erosional issue at the expense of the rest of the geology. Sorry, TC, this dog won't hunt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"We know of no lakes that were stranded by abating flood waters in the geological record."

​

--If I am not mistaken, the reservoir which is the source of these waters is mainly attributed to Grand lake. And I am not sure if there is a way to see direct evidence for it catastrophically giving way. But you should keep in mind that the current hypothesis on the grand canyons formation for the mainstream are just good guesses.

---

Grand Lake was left by receding flood waters? How do you get this?

quote:

---

"I do not see how they could be drained by a mature stream nearly at base level in a short period of geological time."
--Giving way catastrophically?

---

Won't do it. The mature drainage system takes a long time to develop and occurs near base level. If there was a catastrophic drainage there would have been an immature stream profile.

quote:

---

"You still have not addressed how shallow sediments in the canyon wall have become lithified to the same degree as deeper units. How do they lithify while exposed at the surface by erosion?"

​

--Yes I have actually, that is if you read my segment on lithification. I explained that these shallow sediments currently exposed in the grand canyon may have still been under the weight of Triassic+ sediments. As well as later continued lithification after the catastrophe would continue to harden these sediments if any more were to take place. And in fact at this time lithification would have been just as easy a process as if there were 2000meters of sediments weighted on them because of evaporation.

---

The problem is that there was a canyon there. That means air not rock overlying the sediments adjacent to the canyon.

quote:

---

"You have not addressed the issue of fossil and other evidence for emergent land throughout the time of your flood."

​

--what do you mean 'emergent land' and explain how this is relevant.

---

I mean how do you get non-marine sediments including evaporites, sand dunes, swamps and fluvial deposits in the middle of a flood?

quote:

---

"You have focussed on the erosional issue at the expense of the rest of the geology."

​

--No, I have focused on the erosional issue because that is what you have addressed and argued against. I have no problem with going into other issues you may see for the formations, just don't rush into them when we haven't cleared out the issue of erosion.

---

But you can't just ignore everything else!Check that, maybe you can...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Grand Lake was left by receding flood waters? How do you get this?"

​

--Grand lake is the natural source for the Colorado river. Any depression would have filled with water as the flood abated. While cannot give it a conclusive value as it is difficult to locate lithologic and hypsography mappings for Grand lake, I have the impression that it is a likely and reasonable candidate.

---

Actually, Grand Lake is mostly formed by a dam. It is a reservoir. Before that there was probably a smaller lake formed by glacial moraines.

quote:

---

"Won't do it. The mature drainage system takes a long time to develop and occurs near base level. If there was a catastrophic drainage there would have been an immature stream profile."

​

--A mature drainage system would have formed as flood waters abated, this would not have taken long to develop, please see my post previous to my last and my next comment. There would not have been an immature stream profile.

---

You must know better than most of the sedimentologists I know then.

quote:

---

"The problem is that there was a canyon there. That means air not rock overlying the sediments adjacent to the canyon.

​

--I think you are still misunderstanding what I have attempted to emphasize on. I cannot illustrate everything for you though here is another quick rendering:

​

(snip)

---

Then you are basically saying that the canyon was cut in hard rock. Good, maybe we are getting somewhere. Now actually go back and figure how long it takes to develop a mature drainage system, uplift the whole thing and then erode the canyon in hard rocks. Two thousand years? You stretch my credulity. If that were the case we would see erosion occurring at a much faster rate today.

quote:

---

"I mean how do you get non-marine sediments including evaporites, sand dunes, swamps and fluvial deposits in the middle of a flood?"

​

--You get a non-marine deposition. If you would like to give a more clarified example we could discuss it in more detail.

---

Good, then there was always some emergent land upon which to deposit the non-marine sediments. I'm glad you are coming around to the mainstream side.

quote:

---

"But you can't just ignore everything else!

​

--I can't ignore everything else, I have full agreement with you on that. I am simply constructing a model for the canyon formation, not the sedimentology.

---

But then you are ignoring the sedimentology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Actually, Grand Lake is mostly formed by a dam. It is a reservoir. Before that there was probably a smaller lake formed by glacial moraines."

​

--Grand lake technically isn't a reservoir but a non-artificial lake:

---

Ah, apparently I was looking at Lake Granby thinking that Grand Lake would be obviously too small to create the kind of flood that you are thinking about. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that a catastrophic outflow from either lake has caused the Grand Canyon to be eroded.

quote:

---

--You are, however, correct on its mainstream origin. This is a nice observation, while I would still be speculative I don't think I have any trouble with this. Possibly even particularly compliant with the hypothesis.

---

Of course not. Your scenario would accomodate any lake. The problem that you have is that now you need to show that there was a global flood that filled these highland lakes, and that there was some catastrophic outflow of the lakes.

quote:

---

"You must know better than most of the sedimentologists I know then."

​

--No I don't think I do, but please do and give an explanation why this is unfeasible, what observation is inconsistent.

---

Well it is interesting how you have alpine glaciers forming at least some of these lakes, but absolutely no evidence that there was ever any global flood covering the area. Your scenario is inconsistent with too may geological facts.

quote:

---

"Then you are basically saying that the canyon was cut in hard rock. Good, maybe we are getting somewhere. Now actually go back and figure how long it takes to develop a mature drainage system, uplift the whole thing and then erode the canyon in hard rocks."

​

--Ugh, while we are progressing, I think we still have inconsistencies in your understanding the developmental processes which are occurring in this hypothesis.

---

Fortunately, you have willing critics to help you out in this process.

quote:

---

--You need to explain to me and this thread, what creates this factor of lengthy time in the formation of a mature stream or drainage system. Ie, Why is maturity unattainable in this hypothesis and what constitutes its maturity.

---

I don't know. It may be attainable. It's just that most meandering streams we see occure near base level, which in this case appears to be the Pacific Ocean. Now not only do you have to develop a meander pattern by erosion/deposition (which we see occurring very slowly today), but then you have to create the Kaibab uplift and then erode the hard rocks (by your own admission) to the depth of the Grand Canyon. And all of this has to be done in less than 4000 years, in fact, probably about 2000 years.

quote:

---

"Two thousand years? You stretch my credulity. If that were the case we would see erosion occurring at a much faster rate today."

​

--Explain your reasoning behind this, and what of two thousand years?

---

As I said we do not see erosion at this rate today. And the 2000 years is because the GC formed, according to you sometime after the flood which was supposedly 4000 years ago. Then you have to subtract the amount of time that the canyon has been observed as a natural feature for at least a thousand years (during which it hasn't changed much, by the way). So I estimate that you really only have a 2000-year time span in which to erode the canyon.

quote:

---

"Good, then there was always some emergent land upon which to deposit the non-marine sediments. I'm glad you are coming around to the mainstream side."

​

--Not really, just knowing that I haven't a problem with seeing what actually would happen with hydraulics in a Global Flood scenario. To say that in a Global Flood, every piece of land is always or even for a majority of (catastrophic) geologic time covered entirely with water is a misrepresentation.

---

Well, then, you'll have to talk to your fellow flood believers. My understanding is that the entire world was flooded for a year and during that time, most or all of the geological record was laid down.

quote:

---

"But then you are ignoring the sedimentology."

​

--Quote:

​

No, I have focused on the erosional issue because that is what you have addressed and argued against. I have no problem with going into other issues you may see for the formations, just don't rush into them when we haven't cleared out the issue of erosion.

​

--I'm not arguing against it, you are.

---

I think I see what you are saying, but if you want me to believe that you can erode the soft and hard rocks of the GC, uplift the Kaibab Plateau and create a meandering stream pattern in something less than 4000 years, you have a long way to go. And even then, this story does not begin to address the deposition of the geological column at the GC in one year, ... or the preexisting rocks, ... or the fossil evidence... The only thing I can say is that your fanciful story relies on a lot of wishful thinking and precious little evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
I believe that the mainstream perspective is that the Grand Canyon was eroded as the plateau was uplifted over the past 2 million years (not an erosionial event initiated on an already uplifted plateau). As such, it all started as a much nearer to base level meandering stream, which became entrenched as the uplift happened.

​

Moose

---

I'm sure this is correct, though I am not current on the accepted time frame.I have little doubt, as well, that there were catastrphic erosional events by flows much larger than we see today, or that there were 'stranded' lakes which might have drained catastrophically. The point is that it took time to do all of these things including entrenching meanders in the erosional pattern. TC's scenario means that one must have series(?) of lakes stranded at near sea level, which could have happened. However, all of this must have been uplifted after a mature erosional pattern had developed, and then the river must have cut the 'hard' rock to form the youthful stream profile in much less than 4000 years. I think I am beginning to understand what TC is saying, but it still does not make sense.