|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: Meanders don't form from sheets of water, they form from streama running across flat areas which I pretty clearly said more than once the sheet would have split into. Check the video again. Can you point out for us where the sheets of water split into streams? The world doesn't behave any old way you want it to just to make your fantasies come true. Physics matters. Learn some. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Actually the land slowly rose (the uplift of the Colorado Plateau) and the river gradually eroded down. Land rose or water level dropped irrelevant nitpick.
As has been explained many, many times, rapidly flowing water cannot meander. I said nothing about the velocity of the water, in fact I picture a rather lazy slow movement of a wide stream of water.
I don't think it's either obvious or well known. What is the reasoning that seems obvious to you? How the canyon walls eroded is well known, and irrelevant since they have to have eroded quite a bit, producing the talus. The only question is whether the Flood originally cut the basic sloping shape or not, and that's also not important although I think it did and I gave a reasonable explanation for how it did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Surely I have a right to my own theory. Or maybe not since this is Percy Land.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Who said it's on your video?: I know it's not and I didn't watch it because I know it's not because you don't understand one thing I'm saying.
Even though I can't really study the map I answered the basic idea. As I described my scenario for RAZD it should have been clear that the elevations NOW in place had nothing whatever to do with how the canyon formed IN MY SCENARIO. This is tedious and boring since all you are doing is insisting that the standard establishment point of view is correct and if I don't accept it that means I son't understand it. Really tedious and boring. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Check the video again. Can you point out for us where the sheets of water split into streams?
Perhaps Faith could show us where a flash flood forms meanders. That might be a start. Or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Who said anything about a flash flood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Who said anything about a flash flood?
I did. Just trying to imagine your massive sheet runoff transitioning to a meandering stream. Not seeing it...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Why "massive?" At some point the water got down to the volume where streams running across the plateau could form a meander. We're talking about a great volume of water gradually decreasing. It's silly to think it couldn't have decreased to the point of forming a meander, given a huge flat area which is where meanders commonly form. It figures it would decrease to a sheet before becoming separated streams, that's the only reason for including a sheet, it's the natural transitional form from a larger volume of water to the right amount and shape to make meanders. Seems like you're arguing with a perfectly natural sequence for no good reason I can see except to find something to object to in anything I say..
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
By the way do you have any corrections you'd like to make to Message 151?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Why "massive?"
OKay, fine. Moving a two-mile deep body of water off the continent isn't massive. Fine with me.
At some point the water got down to the volume where streams running across the plateau could form a meander.
That's the point. It's not about the volume of water. It's about gradient and time to create meanders.
We're talking about a great volume of water gradually decreasing. It's silly to think it couldn't have decreased to the point of forming a meander, given a huge flat area which is where meanders commonly form.
That isn't what we see in the real world. And remember, you still don't have evidence of such a sheet flow in the first place.
It figures it would decrease to a sheet before becoming separated streams, that's the only reason for including a sheet, it's the natural transitional form from a larger volume of water to the right amount and shape to make meanders.
Except that we don't have sheet flow.
Seems like you're arguing with a perfectly natural sequence for no good reason I can see except to find something to object to in anything I say.
Actually, it seems that I'm getting bored with your whimsical notions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
By the way do you have any corrections you'd like to make to Message 151?
Other than the fact that it is only a start, no. I do have a question though, regarding gravels. If the GC sedimentary layers were kinda, somewhat slightly, more or less, not lithified when the canyon was cut, how do you get detritus from the canyon formed of extremely hard boulders in the sedimentary output of the river? I'd like to you to show us a meandering river system the forms such deposits. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I do have a question though, regarding gravels. If the GC sedimentary layers were kinda, somewhat slightly, more or less, not lithified when the canyon was cut, how do you get detritus from the canyon formed of extremely hard boulders in the sedimentary output of the river? What boulders are you talking about? I have no idea what form the broken up chunks of strata ended up in after being washed through the canyon -- but most of that would have gone over the sides lower in the canyon, not down the river from the upper part of the canyon. Why do you assume boulders?
I'd like to you to show us a meandering river system the forms such deposits. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about or what you are referring to in anything I've said. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
What boulders are you talking about?
The ones that occur in the Colorado River beds downstream from the GC.
I have no idea what form the broken up chunks of strata ended up in after being washed through the canyon
I'm sure you don't.
-- but most of that would have gone over the sides lower in the canyon, not down the river from the upper part of the canyon. Why do you assume boulders?
But all of those rocks were deposited by the flood, not? Why are they so much harder than the rocks of the Grand Canyon such that they survived hundreds of miles of river transport? But further, if the rocks of the GC were relatively soft compared to now, how did they get to be so hard just being exposed at the surface for the last 4 thousand years? Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
You are actually claiming the right to invent your own facts?
We are surely entitled to see that you are making things up, that your theory does not fit with reality as it is observed - and to say as much. And yet you deny that on the basis that you have a right to your own theory. Your rights do not extend to silencing criticism - which is the minimum you are demanding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: But the perfectly natural elements are not those that are being objected to. The perfectly natural sequence would produce braided streams, not meanders. And let us note that you are quite willing to reject perfectly natural and expected events just because they undermine your arguments:
Anyway. I don't buy the erosion theory to explain the great width of the canyon. Just a way to avoid the obvious explanation of the Flood it seems to me.
Message 163
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024