Flood not the Cause of the Grand Canyon -- Not a Biased Opinion

To Rox and Jar,My feelings are sort of in the middle on this one. I agree that at first glance Peace's proposals have reached the farcical level and that this warrants suspicions that he must be pulling our leg, that he couldn't possibly be serious, but I think he is. As I often say, I don't think we should host nonsense discussions here at EvC, so I feel under no obligation to be tolerant of those who, for whatever reason, seem unable to carry forward a rational examination of the evidence. On the other hand, for the duration of their time here I still think we should treat them politely. I grant that I possess my own weaknesses in this area, but that doesn't prevent me from bringing this up.--Percy

Don't knock it, this is bloody hilarious as the flood scenarios get more and more elaborate On another note, this is a brilliant way to learn about geology - so thanks for the free teaching!

Percy,I feel as you do - I think Peace is being honest. We haven't quite reached the point of complete nonsense, but I must admit it seems we are headed in that direction.My experience has been that once YECs exhaust their knowledge base, they turn to the most ridiculous assertions. In addition, they start breaking the evidence down to its tiniest constituents and then argue the bits and pieces in order to ignore the big picture - which they can't explain.This is how YECs wish science worked:Can huge waves form huge ripples? Sure.
Can organisms leave underwater tracks? Yes.
Can water sort sediment? Of course.
Does clay flocculate under certain natural conditions? Yes.Woo hoo!!! Then we have evidence for Noah's flood!Who cares that those huge ripples look EXACTLY like modern sand dunes and show evidence of subaerial exposure in the way of terrestrial animial tracks, rain drop impressions, frosted and spherical quartz grains, root casts, etc.? Who cares that other than similar shape, there is nothing that suggests the Cononino, Navajo, Entrada, and all the other aeolian deposits were deposited by water? WHo cares that no YEC has ever been able to explain how limestone, or chert, or diatomite, or chalk, or a whole host of other rocks can form from flood waters?Who cares that all the tracks observed in these 'supposed' aeolian deposits lood exactly like terrestrial insects, reptiles, mammals, etc? Who cares that NOT ONE IN SITU MARINE fossil OR trace fossil has EVER been found in these aeolian deposits?Who cares that the Hermit Shale is not 100% clay particles, but rather clay interbedded with variably sized sand and silt lenses and beds so it's obvious the entire formation is not the result of sorting/grading?WHO CARES????I do.

This is indeed getting beyond loony. Percy's pointed out that easy experimetnal investigaation belies this claim, but even that should not be necessary. The size of the boundary layer if the surface were smooth is going to be a few times, maybe ten times, the size of a sand grain, or smaller. The distance over which the velocity is effectively zero is going to be 10 to 100 times smaller than that. Since the roughness of the surface is on the same order, the real boundary layer will be much thinner than it would be on a smooth surface, much smaller than a sand grain.You have an unfortunate habit of posting stuff about which you know nothing.

I believe that the Bright Angel shale and Tapeats were not deposited by the flood.They are deposits of the river which cut through the canyon.Take a look at the photo on message #77. The boundaries are marked for the Bright Angel shale/ Tapeats sandstone. Compare this with the photo on message #27: The boundary of the Hermit shale/ Coconino sandstone which was deposited during the flood.Since you think that the layers at the bottom of the canyon are not deposited by recent floods, what happened to the debris deposited by the river? Very often the footprints are made much lower. Tracks have even been found in the Hermit shale below, implying that the animals began walking uphill even while the flocculated silt and clay were being deposited.
refer: TAXONOMY AND ICHNOFACIES OF PERMIAN TETRAPOD TRACKS The hunters know that the tracks were made recently. They know old tracks wouldn't last, hence they are hopeful that their hunt would be a success.

quote:

---

I believe that the Bright Angel shale and Tapeats were not deposited by the flood.

---

Of course they weren't but then none of the other sedimentary units in the Grand Canyon were either.

quote:

---

They are deposits of the river which cut through the canyon.

​

Take a look at the photo on message #77. The boundaries are marked for the Bright Angel shale/ Tapeats sandstone. Compare this with the photo on message #27: The boundary of the Hermit shale/ Coconino sandstone which was deposited during the flood.

---

Please, this was thoroughly refuted. Your total misinterpretation of a photograph doesn't change the fact that the Tapeats Sandstone and Bright Angel shale and all the other layers I listed underlie the Hermit Shale and Coconinos over broad regions of the Colorado plateau. What do you think the Hermit Shale and Coconino Sandstones are sitting on for gosh sakes. Do you think the river somehow shoved solid sedimentary rock layers under other layers over the entire length of the Canyon. Did you pay any attention to roxrkool's posts? Did you look at the sesmic stratigraphy of the canyon. Do you have even the faintest understanding of the geology of the Colorado Plateau or of geology in general? Apparently not.

quote:

---

Very often the footprints are made much lower. Tracks have even been found in the Hermit shale below, implying that the animals began walking uphill even while the flocculated silt and clay were being deposited.

---

What hills were they walking up? The sediments "above" their current positions hadn't been deposited yet. Did they keep walking up hills of the flocculated silt until the sandstones were deposited? How was flocculated silt that was settling out of flood water solid enough to walk on? How were the animals neither buried by this supposedly rapdily sedimenting flocculated silt nor swept away by water deep enough to deposit the massive amount of sand in the Coconinos in waves that look like large sand dunes? How did they climb up dunes that hadn't even been formed yet to make tracks in them. You must have totally taken your brain out of gear to postulate such absolute nonsense. You seem to ignore every refutation of your posts and obviously refuse to see how absurd your speculations really are to anyone capable of logical thought on this subject.Randy

So what?The scenario described is a catastrophic world wide flood in the middle of laying down 600 feet of one of several desposits. It doesn't matter if there were other layers of foot prints lower down(though you have to explain why there would be more than one -- everything was killed in the 40 days of rain -- was it not?). There are footprints near the top. While the whole earth is under water?Those foot prints near the top were what you have been asked to explain. Pointing to ones lower down doesn't seem to do that. I think you can figure that one out yourself. Have a go at it. If this is true then I assume there will be no continuation of these layers back away from where the river has cut. They will be local deposits surrounding the river. Is that what you would say?In addition, there are 5 more formations abouve the Bright Angel and Tapeats, you neglected to explain those.PH, leaving out most of the issues and focussing on one or two (some seemly totally irrelevant) doesn't make for a complete explanation.Oops Randy beat me too it. Sorry about the duplication.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-16-2005 11:20 PM

Peace, come on now. Both the Tapeats and Bright Angel formations are solid rock. They are layered and underlie the Muav Limestone, not to mention the rest of the Grand Canyon formations. The two formations are even found in oil exploration holes no where near any river.Look at the following pictures. Do these look to you like recently eroded, unconsolidated material?Tapeats SandSTONE (water-carved unit above) Bright Angel SHALE (bottom gray rock)

[SOURCE]

If these 2 formations are found in oil exploration holes, then my hypotheses that they are due to river deposits would be falsified.Why don't you post a picture of this oil exploration hole?Previously, when I asked for a picture of known eolian cross beds, you gave pictures of sand dunes. Sand dunes are different from cross beds.Then when I asked what happened to the debris deposited by the river, you posted an article describing the Colorado river delta with a very nice photo of the river deposits. This photo proves my point that the river deposits are present in the canyon.You are supposed to be my opponent proving that the Tapeats and Bright Angel Shale are NOT due to recent debris flows.

Umm... aeolian cross-beds ARE sand dunes. Sand dunes are comprised of cross-beds. I showed you pictures of modern sand dune cross-bedding so you could see how similar they are to ancient ones like the Navajo and Coconino sandstones. Haven't found any drill logs online, but below are some descriptions of holes encountering Bright Angel Shale and Tapeats Sandstone: Peace, that picture of the Colorado River Delta is not located in the Canyon itself. It's a picture of the northern portion of the Gulf of California - the vicinity where the Colorado River used to terminate and dump its sediment load. That is where the most recent (million or so years) eroded material from the Grand Canyon went.The older eroded material is likely located in various locations around the plateau. The Grand Canyon was created through several/many stream capture events that would have diverted eroded material from one stream to another and from one delta to another.Here is a nice site that should help: Evolution of the Colorado River and its tributaries including Formation of the Grand Canyon I guess I need to take it down a notch...I've shown you how the Tapeats and Bright Angel are rocks and not unconsolidated debris, which would be the case if they were the result of recent debris flows. All you've shown are pictures of talus slopes and demonstrated the geomorphological effects of weathering on certain types of rocks. Shale almost always forms slopes/badlands and sandstone formations often form cliffs - which is what we see in the Bright Angel Shale and Tapeats.You haven't shown us anything we didn't already know or haven't seen in a million other shale and sandstone outcrops.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-17-2005 11:38 AM

The Bright Angel and Tapeats layers extend for miles and miles in all directions from the Grand Canyon. Here's a diagram, definitely click to enlarge this one: The Grand Cayon is on the extreme right. Even enlarged you can't read the identifying text on the layers, but the Tapeats is the bottomost layer, and the Bright Angel is just above. To get an idea of the scale of the diagram, Cedar City on the far left is about 120 miles from the Grand Canyon. These layers are found not only by exploration holes, which is an expensive way of measuring the extent of layers, but also by seismic analysis, which is much faster and less expensive.Notice on the left side of the diagram the many layers in the mountains above Cedar City that sit on top of the Kaibab layer. The Kaibab is the topmost layer at the Grand Canyon, but these other layers originally overlay the Kaibab at the Grand Canyon, too. It is the great weight of these additional layers that helped turn the Kaibab layer from loose sediments into rock. Over millions and millions of years the overlying layers were eroded away, leaving only the Kaibab at the Grand Canyon site. But as at Cedar City, there are many places where these layers were not eroded away and still exist. At the Grand Canyon, the Colorado River is an instrument of net erosion, not net deposition. Over time the sides of the Grand Canyon gradually erode away, and the eroded material eventually finds its way to the river where it is carried away. About creatures walking uphill, why do you think you know this? The article you cite makes no such claims, and the Loma Linda article you cited earlier makes no sense.I think you must be having trouble visualizing the scenario you're proposing. How long are you proposing it took the flood waters to rise? The layers in the Grand Canyon are about a mile deep. Even if we say the flood waters gradually rose for 200 days, that's about a yard of material deposited per day. That material has to come from someplace, so the water is flowing, but it isn't flowing so fast that sediment doesn't drop out of the water, so the sediment must be spread through a large volume of water so that the flow can be slow, so the water must be deep. It doesn't have to be real deep, but certainly much deeper than the height of the creatures whose tracks have been found. Shallow water delivering that much sediment would be moving too fast to deposit anything, and would sweep away creatures rather than allowing them to leave tracks.The other issue whose significance you seem to be missing is that you have land creatures running around at the beginning of the flood while the Tapeats is being deposited, but they're not leaving any tracks and they somehow manange to survive for the next 200 days traipsing around in all this water until while the Kaibab is being deposited they finally tire of their uphill struggle (but finally leave footprints, underwater no less) and then are at last swept away.Yet another issue whose significance you are missing is the impossibility of leaving tracks in anything that is being deposited at the rate of a yard a day. I again suggest the experiment of attempting to leave footprints in sand underwater by organizing a trip to the seashore this summer.You also have to somehow account for all the layers above the Kaibab that, while not present now at the Grand Canyon, once overlayed it, as we can see at Cedar City. There were once hundreds and hundreds of feet of layers above the Kaibab at the Grand Canyon. Where did they go?Also, you're still ignoring all the evidence that the Coconino was deposited by eolian processes, which includes not only the way the layer was deposited, but the fact that only fossils of land creatures and plants have been found in the layer - not a single marine fossil has ever been found there.--Percy

In my opinion, the oil holes represent the true strata of the Colorado plateau. According to the description from the boreholes, we have to dig through ~5000 feet and the Tapeats is about ~200 feet thick.The Coconino sandstone is about ~500 feet. In other words, based on undisputable observation, the Coconino sandstone is significantly thicker than the Tapeats sandstone.But if you judge based on what you see beside the river, the 'Tapeats Sandstone' is observed from mile 60 to mile 260 of the Colorado river. The Coconino sandstone is much smaller and is only observed from mile 4 to mile 7.Refer:
http://www.arizonahandbook.com/river2.htm
http://www.arizonahandbook.com/river4.htmSo if you assume that the river slope is roughly constant, and the strata are roughly horizontal, it is easy to see that observations based on the exposed canyon which has been cut by the river is deceptive. I haven't seen crossbeds in known eolian sand dunes.Here's a picture of a known eolian sand dune: Here's the picture of the cross beds at the Coconino: In my opinion, the crossbeds from the Saunton beach resemble the Coconino sandstone much better:

Yes. Looking at cross-sections is deceptive - it's called apparent thickness. The more beds are inclined, the thicker they appear. True thickness is taken normal to the beds.So do you concede that the Tapeats and Bright Angel formations form the base for most of the Grand Canyon (and other) region? Hmmm... I thought I had posted a few pictures of modern aeolian cross-beds, but I didn't not see them...OH! They're in a link here: Nebraska sand dunesand WHite Sands dune systemCheck out the illustrations of the dune sections. Plenty of cross-bedding there. Well, except for the significant difference in size (30' vs 4") and I'm not sure how many horizontal layers (of comparable thickness) are found in the Coconino and in your example. Also, I'd have to check out the Saunton beach sands under a microscope to see how the grains compare to the Coconino grains, but yeah, they're 'similar.'This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-17-2005 11:37 PM

Just because the sand detected in the oil wells and the sand by the Colorado river are called 'Tapeats sandstone', these are not due to the same formation.Dry ground appeared on the 3^rd day, and the land produced vegetation (Genesis 1). The ‘Tapeats sandstone’ detected from the boreholes could be this primordial sand.Then there was the Coconino sandstone, which was due to the flood. The ‘Tapeats sandstone’ by the Colorado river is the sand deposited by the river.The altitude of different portions of this region prior to the flood can be determined based on the depth of the coal beds found in this region, since coal beds are due to the forests which were buried during the flood. Coal has the same chemical composition as wood.Within the monument, coal beds are found at the surface around the margins of the Kaiparowits Plateau and extend into the subsurface to depths of nearly 6,000 feet. — quote from the source you supplied.Your pictures of Nebraska sand dunes is again a circular argument. Nebraska has experienced flooding and strong winds. I have previously supplied a photo of loess hills in Nebraska. Here's a link which proves that Nebraska was once in water:
File not found | School pf Natural Resources | University of Nebraska-LincolnThis message has been edited by peaceharris, 05-18-2005 03:39 AMThis message has been edited by peaceharris, 05-18-2005 03:43 AM