The Grand Canyon: Canyon Formation and Erosion

It's important to understand TC's position. He's not arguing that he has evidence for rapid lithification, he's merely arguing that your evidence for slow lithification is weak. It's somewhat similar to the "Life on Mars" meteorite fiasco. Those who objected were not claiming that there wasn't life on Mars, but only that the meteorite evidence had been misinterpreted and therefore wasn't positive evidence for life on Mars. So TC isn't saying slow lithification doesn't happen, but only that you haven't shown that that is what happened in the Grand Canyon.But even though TC's position is not without validity, one can only use the "This by itself is not sufficient evidence" approach so many times. After you've been presented enough pieces of evidence it is no longer valid to treat each item individually and independently, for they soon begin to weave into a tapestry that presents a pretty clear picture of geologic history. And this bears on what I think so many are finding frustrating in TC's approach. Not only does he refuse to see the picture in the tapestry of evidence, but he has no tapestry of his own to present, as he readily admits.So the bottom line here, I think, is for those debating with TC to realize it is unlikely that he will be convinced by the evidence. He will continue to individually refuse to accept each piece of evidence presented. But what you *can* do is present, in summarized and brief form, all the evidence for slow lithification. In other words, don't make your goal convincing TC, but rather building a solid case for the onlookers. I'm no expert, but I would think areas to cover would be radiometric information about age of layers, particularly across the same layer, the way grain sizes change across layers due to changing local conditions, indications of heat, actual laboratory studies of how pressure, heat and water affect cementation, geological examples of lithification in process, and so forth.TC, I know you say you have no evidence for rapid lithification, but the same adivce applies to you. You should look into all the areas I mentioned above, which of course could not possibly be a complete list.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Rapid lithification is a follow-up problem to the rapid deposition problem. As there has been no solid support for the creationist (flood?) view that the sedimentary strata were deposited in a very short period of time, it seems totally pointless to argue over whether or not the strata could "fast lithify".Moose------------------
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 03-11-2003]

There are other points that can reasonably be made.For instance in the case of the Martian meteorite the investigations were still going on and while the evidence looked good at the time, it would certainly be appropriate to wait for more data. However unless we are dealing with a controversial or new area of science it is reasonable to accept expert opinion.Secondly there is a difference between personal skepticism and dictating to others what they should believe. If TC's attachment to Flood geology is his reason for skepticism then it is inappropriate to insist - as he implicitly does - that others should share his skepticism. Indeed even giving that reason would be an admission of bias which is perhaps why no reason has been given. But that is not a reason for me to change my views in the slightest. If he wants me to withdraw then he needs to raise genuine doubts, which he has not done.This is the sticking point. If he wishes to say that the claim has not been proven to his satisfaction then he may of course do so. He may even have a case (although he has yet to present one). However he will not allow me the equivalent freedom, demanding instead that I withdraw the statement even though he gives no real grounds to do so.

quote:

---

It's important to understand TC's position. He's not arguing that he has evidence for rapid lithification,

---

I noticed that. It seems that he simply rejects the argument that lithification of a rock sequence (in virtaully all likelyhood) is a very time-consuming process without any reason for doing so.

quote:

---

...he's merely arguing that your evidence for slow lithification is weak.

---

But the point is that he will never see our evidence in any other way. The amount or quality of expert opinion, references and common sense is immaterial. I think this is the most frustrating part for most of us.

quote:

---

It's somewhat similar to the "Life on Mars" meteorite fiasco. Those who objected were not claiming that there wasn't life on Mars, but only that the meteorite evidence had been misinterpreted and therefore wasn't positive evidence for life on Mars. So TC isn't saying slow lithification doesn't happen, but only that you haven't shown that that is what happened in the Grand Canyon.

---

The logic here is that for TC to make any sense at all, EVERY formation has to lithify rapidly. Not just one, or a few or even half. All of it. And he has only a 4000 year time-frame.

quote:

---

But even though TC's position is not without validity, one can only use the "This by itself is not sufficient evidence" approach so many times.

---

Are you saying that a point can be valid without any means of support? Well, I guess it could be a valid question, but I hardly characterize TC as being here to ask questions with the purpose of learning anything.

quote:

---

After you've been presented enough pieces of evidence it is no longer valid to treat each item individually and independently, for they soon begin to weave into a tapestry that presents a pretty clear picture of geologic history.

---

Thank you for putting it so well.

quote:

---

And this bears on what I think so many are finding frustrating in TC's approach. Not only does he refuse to see the picture in the tapestry of evidence, but he has no tapestry of his own to present, as he readily admits.

---

Exactly. I'm not really sure why this thread was even started.

quote:

---

So the bottom line here, I think, is for those debating with TC to realize it is unlikely that he will be convinced by the evidence. He will continue to individually refuse to accept each piece of evidence presented. But what you *can* do is present, in summarized and brief form, all the evidence for slow lithification. In other words, don't make your goal convincing TC, but rather building a solid case for the onlookers. I'm no expert, but I would think areas to cover would be radiometric information about age of layers, particularly across the same layer, the way grain sizes change across layers due to changing local conditions, indications of heat, actual laboratory studies of how pressure, heat and water affect cementation, geological examples of lithification in process, and so forth.

---

I'm not sure some of these would work. But part of the problem is that this is a pretty specialized area. I'm also not sure that anone here really wants to do the reasearch to accomplish what you say. Personally, the lack of a counter argument on TC's part is very telling in itself and I think most lurkers are pretty well aware of his methods and his level of understanding.

quote:

---

TC, I know you say you have no evidence for rapid lithification, but the same adivce applies to you. You should look into all the areas I mentioned above, which of course could not possibly be a complete list.

---

Hope you have better luck than the rest of us. I would like to have just on example of the conditions under which a GC representative rock type would lithify rapidly. I would like to know just where such conditions occur and what type of rocks would be produced. Then we could have a reasonable discussion. When one player refuses to show his cards it isn't a very fun game.

"By analogy, several units in the GC sequence that have similar lithologies to the Gulf Coast sediments. Or are you saying that we have to actually have seen the sediments lithify?"
--I'm not saying that we had to watch them lithify. What you would need is to know exactly what the cause was that those sediments which have been deposited in the gulf over such a period have not lithified. And then contrast with that seen in the geologic column where there must have been similar conditions, therefore, a problem with time constraints on lithification.
--There are abundant examples, I'm sure, of sediments of the same age as those seen in those deep gulf sediments which are lithified, while those in the gulf are not. There must be some reason (or many reasons) why those in the gulf have not lithified and those somewhere else have."Because, if some of them don't, a young earth is out the window."
--Yup, but I still never made the assertion, I don't know whether all of the sediments in the Geologic Column must have lithified slowly, let alone rapidly."Good, then you agree that the GC sequence took a long time to lithify. I am glad we cleared that up."
--No, You said lithification in general, you didn't give any factors to the progression of the process, nor was your comment addressed to that lithification which the Geologic Column has systematically gone through. That the GC sequence took a long time, let alone a short time, to lithify has not been substantiated."Whoa! I just had to check the title of this thread. So, why are you throwing out this red herring? All along, I've been assuming that you were on topic. Please try to focus a little better in the future..."
--Red herring? I have no idea what you are talking about.-------------------

"Good, what are those conditions? Where do we find them? Why would you expect them to last for the entire length of the GC sequence?"
--I don't know, I don't know, and I don't know. This is my problem, and is also why I don't claim that I can even explain it. As percy has correctly layed out, I am not able to give support, I am just looking for that which is against rapid lithification of the Geologic Column or some constituent since that was the initial claim."Just 'happens to be,' eh? Well, what a wonderful world full of coincidences you must live in."
--Well if the unlithified gulf deposit you are talking about was 3 ft. deep, it wouldn't be of the same degree of significance you give it for sediments at 11,000 ft not being lithified now would it?-------------------

"Not sure of all the possible arguments, but the one I am making is that we know that it takes a long time for recent sediments that we have drilled through to become lithified. Bill has backed this up by pointing out how slow dewatering develops overpressures and delays lithification.By analogy it would seem that similar conditions occurred for thick sequences such as the Grand Canyon sequence."
--Good, and I have pointed out that this is significant. But I'm sure there is much more to it than simply applying this to the GC. Can someone elaborate on the phenomena or direct me to an accessable source which does?"On the other hand TC has not given any analogs or other evidence of rapid lithification of a signigicant rock sequence."
--Right, I'm in a bad position(not sarcastic).-------------------

"As there has been no solid support for the creationist (flood?) view that the sedimentary strata were deposited in a very short period of time, it seems totally pointless to argue over whether or not the strata could "fast lithify"."
--There have only been hints that it couldn't though as well. But, true, I have nothing in my arsenal which would support any assertion that the rapid lithification of the GC is entirely plausible. Of course I'm not ignorant enough to leave it at that. If I can find the appropriate resources or obtain thorough enough explanations (or both) regarding evidences which may be unequivocal toward either notion, that would be very nice. I do have access to a nice library and if they have good resources, am not daunted by the idea of reading up on the subject.------------------

quote:

---

"By analogy, several units in the GC sequence that have similar lithologies to the Gulf Coast sediments. Or are you saying that we have to actually have seen the sediments lithify?"

​

--I'm not saying that we had to watch them lithify. What you would need is to know exactly what the cause was that those sediments which have been deposited in the gulf over such a period have not lithified.

---

You have been given one reason. They cannot dewater rapidly enough. In fine-grained sediments,that can take long periods of time. We find these in both the Gulf Coast and the Grand Canyon examples.

quote:

---

Then contrast with that seen in the geologic column where there must have been similar conditions, therefore, a problem with time constraints on lithification.

---

This is done.

quote:

---

--There are abundant examples, I'm sure, of sediments of the same age as those seen in those deep gulf sediments which are lithified, while those in the gulf are not.

---

Then give us examples.

quote:

---

There must be some reason (or many reasons) why those in the gulf have not lithified and those somewhere else have.

---

There probably are and those conditions have existed at many placed in modern sediments and in the geological record.

quote:

---

"Because, if some of them don't, a young earth is out the window."

​

--Yup, but I still never made the assertion, I don't know whether all of the sediments in the Geologic Column must have lithified slowly, let alone rapidly.

---

Then you agree it is likely that the sediments took a long time to lithify.

quote:

---

"Good, then you agree that the GC sequence took a long time to lithify. I am glad we cleared that up."

​

--No, You said lithification in general, you didn't give any factors to the progression of the process, nor was your comment addressed to that lithification which the Geologic Column has systematically gone through. That the GC sequence took a long time, let alone a short time, to lithify has not been substantiated.

---

YOu have been given examples and reasons. Why do you ignore them?

quote:

---

"Whoa! I just had to check the title of this thread. So, why are you throwing out this red herring? All along, I've been assuming that you were on topic. Please try to focus a little better in the future..."

​

--Red herring? I have no idea what you are talking about.

---

And since you do not reference this statement, I cannot help you. YOu probably made some irrelevant statement...

quote:

---

"Good, what are those conditions? Where do we find them? Why would you expect them to last for the entire length of the GC sequence?"

​

--I don't know, I don't know, and I don't know. This is my problem, and is also why I don't claim that I can even explain it. As percy has correctly layed out, I am not able to give support, I am just looking for that which is against rapid lithification of the Geologic Column or some constituent since that was the initial claim.

---

You mean, then, that your assertions are completely unsupported. In that case, I consider it astounding that you would bring them up here. Did you think you'd just get a pass on this?

quote:

---

"Just 'happens to be,' eh? Well, what a wonderful world full of coincidences you must live in."

​

--Well if the unlithified gulf deposit you are talking about was 3 ft. deep, it wouldn't be of the same degree of significance you give it for sediments at 11,000 ft not being lithified now would it?

---

No, and that's the whole point. You need to be able to explain this set of thick, unlithified sediments while at the same time holding to your thesis that rocks of the Grand Canyon sequence have lithified rapidly. I suggest you send up a white flag on this one.

quote:

---

"Not sure of all the possible arguments, but the one I am making is that we know that it takes a long time for recent sediments that we have drilled through to become lithified. Bill has backed this up by pointing out how slow dewatering develops overpressures and delays lithification.By analogy it would seem that similar conditions occurred for thick sequences such as the Grand Canyon sequence."

​

--Good, and I have pointed out that this is significant. But I'm sure there is much more to it than simply applying this to the GC. Can someone elaborate on the phenomena or direct me to an accessable source which does?

---

What phenomena?

quote:

---

"On the other hand TC has not given any analogs or other evidence of rapid lithification of a signigicant rock sequence."

​

--Right, I'm in a bad position(not sarcastic).

---

It is the normal and sensible tactic for creationists to drop a thread such as this. Why do you refuse to do so? This makes no sense. Are you applying for the job of Iraqi Information Minister?

"What phenomena? "
--Overpressure and its effects on consolidation, dessication, and ultimately, lithification.--I never made it suggestive that I would drop this thread. I have discontinued some of the discussion because of the obvious direction this thread was going--no regrets there. I have found some wonderful resources which may be highly useful in the return of this topic though. I will do some analysis and provide the board with my thoughts soon.-------------------Geoscience - http://www.oysi.promisoft.net[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-20-2003]

quote:

---

You mean, then, that your assertions are completely unsupported. In that case, I consider it astounding that you would bring them up here. Did you think you'd just get a pass on this?

---

--No because I never made such an assertion. The assertions I have made in this thread, I will support or withdrawl, but not ones which I havent made.

quote:

---

No, and that's the whole point. You need to be able to explain this set of thick, unlithified sediments while at the same time holding to your thesis that rocks of the Grand Canyon sequence have lithified rapidly. I suggest you send up a white flag on this one.

---

--no reason to put up a white flag by this logic. All this means is that there are factors to the progression of lithification--a systematic process which is dependent on environmental conditions.-------------------Geoscience - http://www.oysi.promisoft.net[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-20-2003]

quote:

---

--no reason to put up a white flag by this logic. All this means is that there are factors to the progression of lithification--a systematic process which is dependent on environmental conditions.

---

I was assuming we could dismiss the idea that the section lithified rapidly just because it was a thick pile of sediments. As I remember that was all you offerred. I'm open to suggestions. Why not propose some such process and we'll see how it flies?[This message has been edited by edge, 05-22-2003]

quote:

---

I was assuming we could dismiss the idea that the section lithified rapidly just because it was a thick pile of sediments.

---

--What ever suggested that such an assumption could be valid? I certainly never suggested it.

quote:

---

As I remember that was all you offerred.

---

--I didn't offer this.

quote:

---

I'm open to suggestions. Why not propose some such process and we'll see how it flies?

---

--What I propose is merely for further research, I had nothing to begin with to support any pre-conceived idea or speculation of mine. I never asserted that lithification is not a difficulty in young earth geology. However, many claims have been made that it is. If the latter assertion does not have alloted for it a supporter, I will leave this discussion where it is until further information can be presented. If I am the only one interested in delving into the literature to look for those answers, fine with me--this just wasn't the original intent of the thread.--[Notice] - Sorry, still trying to readapt to the workings of evcforum posting.. consider this a TrueCreation post.-------------------[This message has been edited by AdminTC, 05-22-2003]