|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: TEMPORARY: So how did the GC (Geological Column) get laid down from a mainstream POV? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Moose, the pre-flood sediment would come from catastophic weathering of the creation day 3 event.
I was recently surprised to learn the MSH carved canyons out of existing hard rock as well as new sediments. I am using 'actualism' in exactly the same sense as you would. I believe each particle followed newtonian paths from their beginning to resting places regardless of the God having instigated things through, eg, accelerated radioisotopic decay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Catastophic weathering??? Isn't that like a catastrophic collision involving two turtles running into each other? Sounds like you're piling on miracles! What about that actualism?
Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Maybe I'm missing something here, but wouldn't the land emerging rapidly from the sea be considered a catastrophic weathering event?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
From the sites geoglossary:
http:///WebPages/Glossary_Geology.html Or the more direct jump:
http:///WebPages/Glossary_Geology.html#W quote: Actually, you can learn a lot of geology, just reading this glossary. I just copied it to my computer. May print it out later. Moose (soon to be Dean of Admissions, Whatsamatta U) ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Hmm, my sedimentary rocks book says very little about weathering. I suppose you think they should rewrite all the text books.
quote: It's a pretty good guess, based on fossil and textural evidence. Obviously, it takes time to produce rocks from the sediments.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Then you might be even more suprised to find that these were not 'hard' rocks. You really need to read some non-creationist websites.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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. "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. "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. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wehappyfew Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"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.[/QUOTE] [/b]Pressure acting on unlithified mud and lime... without confining pressure on all sides... would instantly turn the mud into a slurry, which would flow like... well... like a mudslide. Your understanding of lithification is lacking. quote: Blue Mountains: "Sydney basin rocks are the most obvious when you look at the canyons and cliff lines, and make up the majority of the rock types present in the Blue Mountains. These rocks range in age from 290 to 230 million years old. There are three main layers to the Sydney basin rocks. These include: marine shales and mud stone at the bottom, coal measures, from which oil and coal was mined during the early development of the mountains. Above the coal measure layer is the most visible rock type of all, sandstone... ...capped with basalt, part of an ancient lava flow which occurred 14.6 to 17.7 million years ago. These basalt caps are all that remain of a vast sheet that once covered the majority the mountains, but has now almost all been eroded away. " The question posed was... how could waterlogged sand and mud form a cliff? Well, I don't think you can argue that these sediments were waterlogged after being covered with flood basalts. Therefore the canyon was cut AFTER the sediments lithifed, and AFTER the basalts cooled. You have found an example of a canyon that water erosion alone cannot explain. Basalt is almost totally impervious to water. Chemical erosion is necessary to break down the tough igneous matrix. Plus lots of time. The best combination is a lush vegetative cover, lots or moisture, and a deep topsoil. These produce lots of humic and carbonic acid to break down the rock. In a Flood, you get plenty of water, but not the other two, thus no chemical erosion to speak of... certainly not in a year. The Flood waters would just run off. Waimea Canyon: "Formed by deep incision of the Waimea River into tholeiitic and post-shield alkalic lavas of the Waimea Canyon Basalt"
http://www.wsu.edu/~reiners/tour/wc.html Notice the canyon cutting into the Makaweli member visible in the cross-section at the bottom. "The Makaweli and Olokele members are MOSTLY tholeiitic basalts that are thick and ponded... " I think you'd have a hard time finding a tougher, more resistant rock to carve a canyon into in a short period of time using only the erosive power of rainwater. These two examples are the exact OPPOSITE of a canyon cut into soft, unlithified sediment... [This message has been edited by wehappyfew, 06-06-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Pressure acting on unlithified mud and lime... without confining pressure on all sides... would instantly turn the mud into a slurry, which would flow like... well... like a mudslide. Your understanding of lithification is lacking."
--I think we need some detail before we go further. There are some things we need: -[1] - Estimated Quantities of cementation materials linearly at the Grand canyon. -[2] - The mathematics behind the rate of cementation/lithification according to depth/pressure, heat, and by quantity of cementation material. "Well, I don't think you can argue that these sediments were waterlogged after being covered with flood basalts. Therefore the canyon was cut AFTER the sediments lithifed, and AFTER the basalts cooled. You have found an example of a canyon that water erosion alone cannot explain. Basalt is almost totally impervious to water. Chemical erosion is necessary to break down the tough igneous matrix. Plus lots of time. The best combination is a lush vegetative cover, lots or moisture, and a deep topsoil. These produce lots of humic and carbonic acid to break down the rock. In a Flood, you get plenty of water, but not the other two, thus no chemical erosion to speak of... certainly not in a year. The Flood waters would just run off.--After these observations, the Blue mountain erosions must be a post-flood event. "Notice the canyon cutting into the Makaweli member visible in the cross-section at the bottom. "The Makaweli and Olokele members are MOSTLY tholeiitic basalts that are thick and ponded... " I think you'd have a hard time finding a tougher, more resistant rock to carve a canyon into in a short period of time using only the erosive power of rainwater. These two examples are the exact OPPOSITE of a canyon cut into soft, unlithified sediment..."--Yes, they both evidently represent post-flood formations. --The other section for the previous quotes an observer may need: http://www.wsu.edu/~reiners/tour/intro.html ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: Well if the rocks had suffered lithification and high pressures, the wouldn't be soft any more, would they?
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. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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, this would not have taken thousands of years to develop, though it would have been slow. As flood waters abated, it would have left a reservoir which later would have burst accounting for the grand canyon. "Well if the rocks had suffered lithification and high pressures, the wouldn't be soft any more, would they?"--Exactly "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 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. "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. Cause of pressures (process of compaction) would have been the masses of sediments. Cementation would have been caused by precipitation of mainly calcites, dolomites, oxides, anhydrites, etc. most of the precipitation may have been caused by desiccation, which resulted from compaction. ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-09-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: It would have? How do you know this? Or is this just another example of wishful thinking?
quote: 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: How do you know this? You are simply making up a story here not dealing with facts. Give us some facts.
quote: So then we are NOT dealing with soft sediments! I wish you would make up your mind.
quote: 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: There is a reason for that. It is because there is evidence to support the mainstream view.
quote: 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: Where does this pressure come from. Remember, erosion has already exposed you canyon walls.
quote: 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: 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.'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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. "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."--Right, I only have a year long flood to deal with. Here is a simple rendering on my hypothesis for the meandering formation as water abates: Not to scale: --The amount of meander in this image is a bit exadurated.-- [1] & [2] - As water abated, small depressions would have filled with water. This one shown[1] is a larger one. As water depth decreased this depression would fill with water, shortly after spilling out creating a meandering from[2] through its slow speed progression down a low declination plane. -- [3] - This is a larger form, a lake which its contents would be held until a later date. --If there is a problem with this hypothesis that the much more knowledgeable about 'stream development' in this case would know, I'd like to see this problem. "How do you know this? You are simply making up a story here not dealing with facts. Give us some facts."--You wouldn't happen to know the location of a nice topographical map of the grand canyon formation and surrounding vicinity would you? I could then produce a more detailed model which could then apply to known topography rather than a hypothesis on how such a canyon would be formed. "So then we are NOT dealing with soft sediments! I wish you would make up your mind."--We are dealing with both soft and consolidated coherent hardness. See below for more detail on lithification. "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."--I'm not worrying about whether people are going to die in these trenches during formation, but whether it works or not. And what are the geological problems associated with grand canyon being unique? "There is a reason for that. It is because there is evidence to support the mainstream view. "--Great, that is nice, however. This is by interpretation, if you have evidence that can only be interpreted as taking millions of years or are problematic for a relatively rapid formation this should be posted. In your words, diagnostic evidence is needed here. "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? Where does this pressure come from. Remember, erosion has already exposed you canyon walls. 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.'"--I am not incorrect in my use of desiccation, and I will explain the answer for the above as well. Here is an illustration on the lithification process: --As you can see, compaction, analogously opposite to the principle of isostasy in geophysics, through linear depth stratigraphic pressures cannot attain a state of equilibrium, but is subject to a factor of depth. An example is that it has been estimated that deposits of clay-sized particles, buried to depths of 3,000 feet, have been compacted to about 60 percent their original volume [Leet Et al. 1965].--As would be a direct result from compaction, desiccation would force out water that originally filled the pore spaces of water-laiden sediments. In this process precipitation of cementation minerals are left to convert these unconsolidated minerals into consolidated, coherent rock. As it is in the lower portion of the illustration, these processes progression is built with the factors of depth and time. --Knowing this, the meandering formation would have taken place in the above soft sediments. Later in time the catastrophic formation of the 'canyon', of grand canyon would be formed through lower more consolidated sediments. In this scenario, another possibility is that through the canyons formation, Mesozoic+ Sediments would have been washed away due to a lack in consolidation. "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?"--I don't understand your question, I believe the 'arches' are the meanderings in the grand canyon is what your talking about. Though I am not sure why your question is specific toward lithification of eolian sands, and toward the arch cliffs rather than other sediments, or other other non-arch characteristics in the Grand Canyon. --Along with the topography of the grand canyon and a wide surrounding area, local geologic columns on the linear depths of the Mesozoic and Cenozoic sediments may be important in different surrounding areas. ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-10-2002] [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-10-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I don't have much time to address your model."
--Please do when you find it. "Let's just say that it depends upon major assumptions that are not justified by any evidence."--I already know of one, and that is that I am not using direct topography of today. I was not meaning to do so, I am simply making a predictive model and seeing if it may successfuly apply to the Colorado canyon formations. If there are others which I have not considered, spill the beans. --I have addressed the questions you asked and if you wish to dissect them further, then respond to them. "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. "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? "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. "They should have filled in the canyon. "--Nope. "You have not addressed the importance of uplift. "--You mean that kaibab uplift? Yup there was a kaibab uplift which effected the formation similarily. "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. "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. --Please see my last post if you haven't gotten the chance to read or reply as of yet, you asked questions, I responded with potential answers. ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-12-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024