Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(1)
Message 76 of 427 (791060)
09-09-2016 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
09-09-2016 9:01 AM


Re: On Meanders
quote:
It's cut wider at the top and then narrower toward the bottom, showing that the river was very big when the meander was first being cut.
Someone doesn't understand how basic erosion works. That river could have been *smaller* when it started cutting and the walls would still slope back like that.
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 09-09-2016 9:01 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by edge, posted 09-09-2016 6:16 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 77 of 427 (791061)
09-09-2016 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
09-09-2016 9:53 AM


Re: On Meanders
Normal meanders:
They form on flat terrain. So did the one in the Grand Canyon pictured above. But that one cut very deep. What's the difference? Volume of water perhaps?
Meanders form in low-gradient (slope) topography, near base level. They are considered to represent a mature stage of stream development because erosion has operated to a point where there is limited vertical relief (i.e., no mountains). Typically, they form in broad plains or piedmonts near sea level. examples occur all over the world, but most of us are familiar with the Mississippi River meanders in the mid-continent area of the United States. They usually do not form deep canyons because they cannot erode below base level.
Now in case anyone hasn't noticed, the Colorado River, in the Grand Canyon is not near sea level. This suggests that the region has been uplifted since the formation of meanders.
What does uplift do? It causes high relief and a lowering of base level. This allows the stream to down cut in a geologically rapid way. A modern example would be the progress of the Niagara Falls as it works its way upstream forming a gorge.
So, the morphology of the canyon shows two stages:
1. Mature stream with meandering course.
2. Youthful stream with high gradients and active erosion.
The meandering pattern was established long before and guided the down cutting of what we see now as the Grand Canyon. And that is why they are called 'incised' meanders.
The width of the canyon has little to do with stream erosion per se. It is caused by the fact that the rocks cannot support vertical walls and will recede farther and farther outward as the canyon gets deeper. Think of trying to cut a narrow trench in sand or soil. Without retaining walls, you cannot do it.
So, Faith wants this to be one catastrophic drainage event. It turns out that we have an example in the Lake Missoula floods which are a 'break-out' event that resulted in the channeled scablands in Washington state.
Unfortunately for Faith, the scablands look nothing like what we see in, or around, or above the Grand Canyon. For one, there are no meanders. That type of flow regime simply does not produce meanders. Braided streams, perhaps, but no meanders.
The other item I'd like to address is the 'soft-but-not-too-soft' state of the Grand Canyon rocks during erosion. Basically, we know that the rocks had to have a fairly high competence to maintain a mile deep canyon. This would not be possible if the rocks were not completely lithified prior to erosion of the canyon. Furthermore, we can see some straight side canyons that had to be controlled by fractures and faults which could not be maintained in a soft sediment that some YECs say made up the stratigraphy.
If Faith's scenario were correct we've wasted a lot of time an money shoring up trenches for workers at construction sites over the years. However, I'm pretty sure that they appreciated the safety factor.
There are a lot more interesting factors to consider in the formation of streams and canyons. One thing to remember that they are all evolving and all geologically temporary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 09-09-2016 9:53 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 78 of 427 (791062)
09-09-2016 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ThinAirDesigns
09-09-2016 6:10 PM


Re: On Meanders
Someone doesn't understand how basic erosion works. That river could have been *smaller* when it started cutting and the walls would still slope back like that.
In fact, I think that most people don't understand that. When people say that a stream is 'underfit' for its valley, my professor used to say that 'all streams are underfit.' The walls have to fall in and that changes the rate of erosion in the stream. It creates another dam or restriction which is eventually burst and then the stream resumes its 'normal' flow. Most erosion is probably episodic.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 09-09-2016 6:10 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 09-09-2016 6:21 PM edge has not replied
 Message 80 by jar, posted 09-09-2016 6:22 PM edge has replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 79 of 427 (791063)
09-09-2016 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by edge
09-09-2016 6:16 PM


Re: On Meanders
The walls are always attempting to reach their particular angle of repose (which of course varies with material).
JB
Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by edge, posted 09-09-2016 6:16 PM edge has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 80 of 427 (791064)
09-09-2016 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by edge
09-09-2016 6:16 PM


Re: On Meanders
edge writes:
Most erosion is probably episodic.
And may also be positional; during one episode there will be deposition upstream of a damming event with minor erosion down stream followed by major erosion down stream after the dam bursts.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by edge, posted 09-09-2016 6:16 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by edge, posted 09-09-2016 6:34 PM jar has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 81 of 427 (791067)
09-09-2016 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by jar
09-09-2016 6:22 PM


Re: On Meanders
And may also be positional; during one episode there will be deposition upstream of a damming event with minor erosion down stream followed by major erosion down stream after the dam bursts.
All kinds of complications. For instance, along Clear Creek out of Denver there are hanging gravels on the canyon walls from when the stream was up there. I understand that some in the area have placer gold.
But your point is that streams are complex and often very old. It's kind of hard to discuss in a message board forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 09-09-2016 6:22 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 09-09-2016 6:42 PM edge has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 82 of 427 (791068)
09-09-2016 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by edge
09-09-2016 6:34 PM


Re: On Meanders
edge writes:
But your point is that streams are complex and often very old. It's kind of hard to discuss in a message board forum.
And the additional point that changes do leave evidence and as you point out above, from that evidence supported conclusions can be formed.
How the Grand Canyon formed and the Colorado Plateau was formed and raised is not simply assumptions, not simply interpretations but rather conclusions based on an overwhelming body of disparate evidence from a variety of sciences that all support the same explanation.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by edge, posted 09-09-2016 6:34 PM edge has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 83 of 427 (791069)
09-09-2016 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
09-09-2016 2:51 AM


This sort of claim needs to be supported since I have no idea WHAT "evidence" you are talking about. I have no problem explaining the Grand Canyon by the Flood and don't see why anyone else would.
You have no problem 'explaining' things because you don't know enough about the evidence to know what is wrong with your explanations. You never make any attempt to vet your own explanations by checking whether they explain all that can be seen. Glen, unfortunately for his own psyche, was confronted with the evidence because of his work, and his education. Glen was not free to label stuff he did not like as illusion as you do.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 09-09-2016 2:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 09-09-2016 10:02 PM NoNukes has not replied
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 09-09-2016 10:56 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 84 of 427 (791072)
09-09-2016 10:01 PM


The context is getting lost here, as so often happens. Exactly how the meander was cut is less important than the fact that it wasn't cut by the rushing water of the receding Flood as PaulK assumed I meant. That first great volume of water would have cut down through strata and carved out the canyon. It should have been a huge amount of water that also cut the Grand Staircase and scoured off the Kaibab plateau as it got down to the level of the current rim of the canyon, also the other flat areas around the csnyon. It was on such a flat plateau that the meander formed, from water left over from the receding Flood but settled down to a river running across a plateau. This is AFTER the cataracts that would have cut the canyon proper.
Those still look like water level lines on the walls of the meander to me, similar to lines on the walls of a reservoir in a drought. But who cares, it's not the important thing.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2016 1:06 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2016 1:11 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 85 of 427 (791073)
09-09-2016 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by NoNukes
09-09-2016 8:04 PM


Glenn seems to have accepted way too much OE theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2016 8:04 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 86 of 427 (791075)
09-09-2016 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by NoNukes
09-09-2016 8:04 PM


I realized I have more to say about your charming post.
You ASSUME Glenn was reading the evidence accurately; you ASSUME his judgment was the most reasonable judgment possible. On the basis of your ASSUMPTION you criticize me for NOT agreeing with your assumptions. All you are saying is that he's right, and somehow you know he's right and that makes me wrong, and since I am a YEC I have no rignt to have an opinion about his judgments.
When he talks of the Grand Canyon as taking a long time to form he's simply fallen for the OE explanation. What EVIDENCE told him it took a long time to form? There is no reason at all to think it took such a long time and every reason to recognize that the Flood is enough to account for a rapid carving of the canyon.
I judge your opinions as incompetent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2016 8:04 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2016 3:35 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 87 of 427 (791077)
09-09-2016 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by dwise1
09-09-2016 3:10 PM


Uh, just where did anyone "concede it's findable by YEC methods"? Rather, what I've been seeing them say is that a YEC who follows standard geological practice would be able to find oil. Nothing about YEC methods being useful in that endeavor.
Relative dating isn't standard geological practice for finding oil. And knowing the lay of the buried rocks ought to be a no-brainer whatever your theory.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by dwise1, posted 09-09-2016 3:10 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by dwise1, posted 09-10-2016 12:37 AM Faith has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 88 of 427 (791078)
09-09-2016 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by NoNukes
09-09-2016 1:54 PM


NoNukes writes:
while operating under a YEC paradigm" does not seem to mean applying YEC assumptions, but simply not worrying about how old stuff was while searching for oil, and while continuing to believe the earth was young. It does not seem to mean that assuming a young earth was the least bit helpful in finding oil.
Exactly. Being YEC won't help you find oil.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2016 1:54 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(3)
Message 89 of 427 (791080)
09-10-2016 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
09-09-2016 11:04 PM


DWise1 writes:
Uh, just where did anyone "concede it's findable by YEC methods"? Rather, what I've been seeing them say is that a YEC who follows standard geological practice would be able to find oil. Nothing about YEC methods being useful in that endeavor.
Relative dating isn't standard geological practice for finding oil. And knowing the lay of the buried rocks ought to be a no-brainer whatever your theory.
Excuse me, but you just completely avoided the issues. And you lifted my statement out of context in typical deliberately lying creationist fashion. Is this your admission that you are deliberately lying?
Let us leave that dilemma for a moment.
The entire question of what I had said concerned whether YEC methods were usable. Well, are they? Nothing in your "reply" says anything one way or the other. I stated that "a YEC who follows standard geological practice would be able to find oil." And that there is " Nothing about YEC methods being useful in that endeavor."
You say, "Relative dating isn't standard geological practice for finding oil." And yet that is exactly what the other members you want to claim as supporting your position are saying. So you claim what they say as supporting your position while at the same time denying that everything and anything they say has nothing to do with finding oil. So then which is it???? Is it A or is it B? You are trying to claim both. So then how does that not constitute lying on your part?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 09-09-2016 11:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 09-10-2016 8:33 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 90 of 427 (791081)
09-10-2016 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
09-09-2016 10:01 PM


Redundant message hidden. --Admin
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Hide content.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 09-09-2016 10:01 PM Faith 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