Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,578 Year: 2,835/9,624 Month: 680/1,588 Week: 86/229 Day: 58/28 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 196 of 877 (834168)
05-31-2018 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Faith
05-31-2018 3:18 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
One thing that made no sense in the video was the idea that the river carries away the debris from the erosion that is the explanation given for for the widening of the canyon. Since the river only runs in one narrow path through that wide area, which is some eighteen miles at its widest, how is it going to pick up the debris over that whole area?
It seems to me that when rocks fall off a cliff they land at the bottom. When more rocks fall off, they don't just stack on top of the old ones, but they roll forwards - resulting a slope towards the river. Eventually - like those machines in the arcade you put pennies in, some debris falls into the river and is carried away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 05-31-2018 3:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 05-31-2018 4:03 PM Modulous has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 197 of 877 (834169)
05-31-2018 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Percy
05-31-2018 9:52 AM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow still epic fail
It is so wearying dealing with this constant refusal to grasp what I'm saying. What I'm saying is SO simple. A tsunami is a wall of water not a thin sheet running across a flat plain.
Here's what I'm picturing again: By the time the water is at that stage in my scenario, which I thought I described pretty clearly so that any nonsense about a tsunami would be clearly inapplicable, the Flood is almost completely drained away. Anything like tsunami stage is long since past. I'm simply trying to picture the stages it would have gone through to supply just the right amount of water for it to meander as streams do across flat plains. I don't even care if it ever becomes a sheet, I'm just trying to picture the likely stages to get it to the meander stage and a thin sheet seemed like a likely stage, but it doesn't matter.
The flat plateau is there after all the strata above have been washed away and now there's still some water running across it, a lot of it I'm figuring having already exited over the sides of the opening canyon . The Kaibab plateau is a large flat limestone area to the north of the canyon running east to west along it for some distance. Meanders form on flat surfaces and Marble canyon in somewhere in that area.
After the water of the Flood has mostly disappeared there's still a stream there to form the meander. It is really not hard to account for these features in the Flood scenario. There is no point in making up conditions that would prevent it such as your tsunami scenario since there is no need for anything like that to be happening. The water drains away, a long crack is becoming a canyon into which a lot of the water has flowed already, and cut it out to some width to the west, a thin sheet of water becomes thin streams that form a meander to the east that becomes a river that runs through the canyon,. All I can do is imagine how it could have happened. If something doesn't work then something else will.
Just for reference here's a satellite image of the area showing the Kaibab plateau on the north side of the canyon. Incidentally on the south side the Kaibab limestone was washed away leaving the Coconino sandstone called the Coconino plateau. Such broad expanses of sedimentary rock certainly suggest to me the washing effect of a lot of water. So The Flood washed down to the Kaibab limestone on the north side and down to the Coconino on the south.:
And if Marble Canyon isn't strictly on the Kaibab Plateau, who cares, for a meander to form there has to be a flat plain one way or another.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Percy, posted 05-31-2018 9:52 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Percy, posted 05-31-2018 8:24 PM Faith has replied
 Message 204 by edge, posted 05-31-2018 10:04 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 198 of 877 (834170)
05-31-2018 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Modulous
05-31-2018 3:55 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
It seems to me that when rocks fall off a cliff they land at the bottom. When more rocks fall off, they don't just stack on top of the old ones, but they roll forwards - resulting a slope towards the river. Eventually - like those machines in the arcade you put pennies in, some debris falls into the river and is carried away.
They'd have to roll at least nine miles to get to the river if the river ran through the middle of it, and if you look at that area of the canyon it's full of buttes and other mounds of eroding strata that would make it difficult for any rock falling off the outer wall to get anywhere near the river even if it was all downhill.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2018 3:55 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2018 4:43 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 201 by Percy, posted 05-31-2018 5:44 PM Faith has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 199 of 877 (834172)
05-31-2018 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Faith
05-31-2018 4:03 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
They'd have to roll at least nine miles to get to the river if the river ran through the middle of it, and if you look at that area of the canyon it's full of buttes and other mounds of eroding strata that would make it difficult for any rock falling off the outer wall to get anywhere near the river even if it was all downhill.
I'm not suggesting a rock would fall and roll for miles. That would seem unlikely indeed! The slope however, gives rain a direction to flow - towards the river. It would take small bits of stone, sand or mud with it towards the river. The stuff at the edges of the river gets pushed in and taken away. Occasionally rocks at the edge of the river have their support washed away and they fall in - but the banks are kept 'fuelled' by the miles of dirt and rock behind it being transported by wind and rain.
I would imagine it would take a long time for much of the cliff fall to make it to the river at its widest point

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 05-31-2018 4:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 200 of 877 (834174)
05-31-2018 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Modulous
05-31-2018 2:24 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
I saw the video a number of years ago and thought the animation of incision and recession was a particularly helpful visualization, it's happening at Niagara Falls right now, but it struck me as an exceedingly unlikely origin for the Grand Canyon, so when it resurfaced in this thread I thought I'd do a little checking into how well this possibility has fared in the geological community. Don't bother reading this if it doesn't interest you. It's just something I've felt like doing for a while, and this was a good opportunity.
The geologist the video featured who advocated the incision and recession origin was John Douglass of Paradise Valley Community College. The idea was originally presented at a 2000 Symposium and was published with co-author Norman Meek as Lake-Overflow: An alternative hypothesis to explain Grand Canyon incision and development of the Colorado River. He hasn't published on the topic since, nor at all since 2010. The idea apparently originated with Eliot Blackwelder in his 1934 paper Origin of the Colorado River.
Checking Google Scholar for references, the Douglass/Meek paper has been cited by 56 related articles. A number of papers were published on the topic, primarily based out of the University of Arizona and the Arizona Geological Survey. The idea seemed to evolve, coming to stress incision downstream from the canyon and not in the canyon itself. The most recent paper listed was published in 2010, and I guess after that enthusiasm waned. A 2012 article at Live Science (Grand Canyon Carved by Flood? Geologist Says No) seems to confirm this possibility:
quote:
Dickinson hopes at least to lay to rest one hypothesis: That an ancient lake carved the canyon through a cascading series of waterfalls. A favored concept for two decades, "I don't think it's a valid story, and my main purpose is to dismantle it," Dickinson said of his new study, published Dec. 13 in the journal Geosphere.
...
Plus, there's the problem of the Kaibab uplift, a pinch in the Colorado Plateau where the rocks swell up due to underground folding. Sitting near the head of the Grand Canyon, the Kaibab uplift is a 650-foot (250-meter) barrier that any prehistoric lake or river must have carved through before dropping down into the future gorge. The preserved lake beds show water levels were never high enough to cross the uplift, Dickinson said.
Dickinson's paper was published in 2013: Rejection of the lake spillover model for initial incision of the Grand Canyon, and discussion of alternatives. The reasons it cites for rejecting the idea were that the lake never achieved appreciable depth, the elevation isn't compatible with lake spillover, multiple river canyons are present, the timing of drainage reversal wasn't right, and a couple others.
Not that a non-geologist's ideas on detailed research matter, but the reasons I never liked the incision idea were based simply on the geology of the canyon. The Colorado River passes through an uplifted region, something that could only happen if uplift and downcutting occurred gradually and simultaneously. Rapid incision requires that the river already be present.
The Dickinson paper also mentions elevation concerns. The elevation problem seems like it should have been obvious in the Douglass/Meek paper, since Figure 2 positions the hypothesized lake adjacent to the Kaibab upwarp, and the lake water wouldn't have been able to flow uphill. The Kaibab uplift occurred around 6 MYA, and Dickinson says that even before the uplift that Hopi Lake (the lake of the Douglass/Meek paper) had insufficient elevation to feed water into the region.
According to Wikipedia (Colorado River: Origin and Development) the region around the western Grand Canyon used to drain north, though they don't know to where. They do say that that the ancestral river system was land locked. Something had to have happened to connect this ancestral upper Colorado to the lower Colorado, and they do mention possible involvement of a breakout of a lake or river, but not rapid incision. Whenever and however the upper and lower Colorado joined, the formation of the part of the Grand Canyon that is now deepest and most spectacular in the Kaibab uplift was already well underway.
Also, the Douglass/Meek paper postulates a lake in order to provide a prodigious water flow, but as the Colorado makes clear annually, no lake is required for a prodigious flow, though of course modern controls and draws upon the water have rendered the river much more tame than in the past.
Also, the Grand Canyon is 18 miles wide at its widest point. This could only be due to a braided river spread across a plain that downcut into the plateau in at least two places and probably more, as is evident from the multiple plateaus situated in mid-canyon. Simultaneous incision by rapid flow in multiple braids seems most unlikely. I think the Dickinson paper is alluding to this issue when it mentions multiple river canyons.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2018 2:24 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by edge, posted 05-31-2018 10:36 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 06-01-2018 6:02 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 8:34 AM Percy has replied
 Message 225 by Modulous, posted 06-01-2018 2:37 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 385 by Faith, posted 06-06-2018 8:44 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 201 of 877 (834176)
05-31-2018 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Faith
05-31-2018 4:03 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Faith writes:
They'd have to roll at least nine miles to get to the river if the river ran through the middle of it, and if you look at that area of the canyon it's full of buttes and other mounds of eroding strata that would make it difficult for any rock falling off the outer wall to get anywhere near the river even if it was all downhill.
You're thinking of this situation:
And you're wondering how grains, pebbles and rocks eroded from that canyon face way off in the far distance ever find their way to the Colorado River there in the foreground.
First know that rain and wind and collisions with other debris and freeze/thaw cycles break these erosive products into smaller and smaller pieces. And realize that gravity always causes them to seek the lowest point.
Water also seeks the lowest point, flowing continuously downward until it reaches a lake or sea. Flowing water carries sediments. Even relatively low energy water can carry small grains of sediment, and the higher the energy of the water the larger the sediments it can carry. When the Colorado rages in the spring it can carry 10 ton boulders.
Now look in the lower left 20% of the image. See that stream flowing into the Colorado? It carries sediments. From exactly where we can't tell, but the canyon is full of streams and creeks, many that probably only flow seasonally, but that's how most sediment eventually reaches the Colorado.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 05-31-2018 4:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Faith, posted 05-31-2018 6:22 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 202 of 877 (834178)
05-31-2018 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Percy
05-31-2018 5:44 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Sure, streams will work, thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Percy, posted 05-31-2018 5:44 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 203 of 877 (834181)
05-31-2018 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Faith
05-31-2018 3:55 PM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow still epic fail
Faith writes:
It is so wearying dealing with this constant refusal to grasp what I'm saying. What I'm saying is SO simple. A tsunami is a wall of water not a thin sheet running across a flat plain.
And yet that's exactly what the video shows, a thin sheet of water running across a flat plain.
You didn't watch the video, did you. You only have to watch about 30 seconds of it to clearly see that it shows a thin sheet of water running across a flat plain. Here's the video again, still positioned at the exact right spot:
Watch the video for 30 seconds. Click the "full screen" icon so you can see it clearly. Judging by the buildings and low structures it encounters, it's maybe 5 feet high.
Here's what I'm picturing again: By the time the water is at that stage in my scenario, which I thought I described pretty clearly so that any nonsense about a tsunami would be clearly inapplicable, the Flood is almost completely drained away. Anything like tsunami stage is long since past. I'm simply trying to picture the stages it would have gone through to supply just the right amount of water for it to meander as streams do across flat plains. I don't even care if it ever becomes a sheet, I'm just trying to picture the likely stages to get it to the meander stage and a thin sheet seemed like a likely stage, but it doesn't matter.
So in other words, you're changing your story again. Maybe there was a thin sheet of water (and who knows how thick "thin" is), maybe there wasn't, it doesn't matter.
What you need is for the flood waters to recede and become a slow flowing low energy stream capable of meanders that can still somehow erode a canyon a mile deep and 18 miles wide in only a few months, even though the water is far too low in energy to do any meaningful erosion or to carry away that huge volume of sediment. Good luck with that. You don't need science, you need magic.
The flat plateau is there after all the strata above have been washed away and now there's still some water running across it, a lot of it I'm figuring having already exited over the sides of the opening canyon.
This isn't very clear or consistent. Why is water "running" across the plain now that the channel that will eventually become the canyon is present, and why would water running in a channel like the "opening canyon" be exiting over the sides? This all sounds like very energetic water. In your previous paragraph you were imagining water lazy enough to form meanders.
The Kaibab plateau is a large flat limestone area to the north of the canyon running east to west along it for some distance.
The deepest and widest part of the Grand Canyon is located in the southernmost part of the Kaibab Plateau.
Meanders form on flat surfaces and Marble canyon is somewhere in that area.
Marble Canyon, which is a pretty long stretch of the Colorado River just like the Grand Canyon, is not located in the Kaibab Plateau, but I believe it's pretty flat in that area, too.
After the water of the Flood has mostly disappeared there's still a stream there to form the meander. It is really not hard to account for these features in the Flood scenario.
Again, water of low enough energy to form meanders cannot perform downcutting, not even in soil let alone rock.
It couldn't even downcut into your impossible soft rock that miraculously turns to rock upon drying.
By the way, since you believe the sedimentary rocks were wet and malleable after the flood and only became hard by drying, why is it that the rock beneath the Colorado is just as hard as the rock everywhere else in the canyon?
There is no point in making up conditions that would prevent it such as your tsunami scenario since there is no need for anything like that to be happening.
You said a flat sheet of water, which is precisely what that video shows. The difference is that the Japan Tsunami of 2011 was real while everything you say is made up, such as flat sheets of water running across landscapes and turning into streams. You essentially conceded it was made up just a couple paragraphs ago when you said it didn't matter one way or the other.
The water drains away, a long crack is becoming a canyon...
Now it's a crack? When are you going to get your story straight? What caused the crack?
...into which a lot of the water has flowed already,...
How could there be a lot of water flowing when it is slow enough to create meanders?
...and cut it out to some width to the west,...
What does "cut it out" mean? Do you mean eroded? If so, what happened to the crack?
...a thin sheet of water becomes thin streams that form a meander to the east that becomes a river that runs through the canyon.
Now you're back to the thin sheet of water again? Is it necessary to your scenario or not? Make up your mind.
All I can do is imagine how it could have happened. If something doesn't work then something else will.
In other words everything you say is made up, and when even you can't deny it anymore you'll change your story.
Incidentally on the south side the Kaibab limestone was washed away leaving the Coconino sandstone called the Coconino plateau.
Kaibab limestone is the top layer throughout most of the Coconino Plateau.
Such broad expanses of sedimentary rock certainly suggest to me the washing effect of a lot of water.
Sure, but was it a lot of water over a short or long period of time? Whatever your answer, how do you know?
So The Flood washed down to the Kaibab limestone on the north side and down to the Coconino on the south.
Again, no. Kaibab Limestone is the top layer to the south, too.
And if Marble Canyon isn't strictly on the Kaibab Plateau,...
It not only isn't strictly on the Kaibab Plateau, it isn't on the Kaibab Plateau at all.
...who cares,...
Not you, certainly. Caring about facts has never been your strong point.
...for a meander to form there has to be a flat plain one way or another.
There also has to be slow low energy water, but which unfortunately for your scenario is incapable of significant erosion.
You've once again made it through an entire post without saying almost anything true.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 05-31-2018 3:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 05-31-2018 11:39 PM Percy has replied
 Message 216 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 8:52 AM Percy has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 204 of 877 (834185)
05-31-2018 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Faith
05-31-2018 3:55 PM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow still epic fail
Just for reference here's a satellite image of the area showing the Kaibab plateau on the north side of the canyon. Incidentally on the south side the Kaibab limestone was washed away leaving the Coconino sandstone called the Coconino plateau.
Actually, the Kaibab crops out abundantly south of the canyon extending into the Coconino Plateau and south of Flagstaff.
Such broad expanses of sedimentary rock certainly suggest to me the washing effect of a lot of water.
It suggests to me that the Kiabab Limestone is the uppermost unit resistant to erosion. The overlying Mesozoic formations are generally less lilthified.
So The Flood washed down to the Kaibab limestone on the north side and down to the Coconino on the south.:
Actually not, though the Kaibab does form a regionally erosion-resistant unit.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 05-31-2018 3:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 05-31-2018 11:59 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 205 of 877 (834186)
05-31-2018 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Faith
05-31-2018 3:18 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
One thing that made no sense in the video was the idea that the river carries away the debris from the erosion that is the explanation given for for the widening of the canyon. Since the river only runs in one narrow path through that wide area, which is some eighteen miles at its widest, how is it going to pick up the debris over that whole area?
Without getting into the mechanics of erosion, it can be simply stated that the rock layers of the canyon have variable strength. The amount of weaker rocks such as the Supai and the Hermit will dictate the average slope of the canyon walls. Some rocks are cliff-formers while weaker ones are slope-forming. If the canyon cut a single rock type the walls would not have that stepped appearance and would be more even.
The action of material raveling, sliding and washing and toppling down the slopes is called mass-wasting. This process transports and breaks up the rock mass as it enters the stream channel (even in dry channels). Then when the flash-floods occur or a temporary dam breaks, the boulders are tossed about like toys and transported down the stream.
As I might have said here earlier, it is my opinion that uplift does not create mountains ... erosion does that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 05-31-2018 3:18 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Percy, posted 06-01-2018 5:06 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 206 of 877 (834187)
05-31-2018 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Percy
05-31-2018 5:10 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Not that a non-geologist's ideas on detailed resarch matter, but the reasons I never liked the incision idea were based simply on the geology of the canyon. The Colorado River passes through an uplifted region, something that could only happen if uplift and downcutting occurred gradually and simultaneously. Rapid incision requires that the river already be present.
It's just a matter of erosion keeping pace with uplift (or exceeding it). I've mentioned this before, but if anyone is interested in what happens when erosion fails to keep up with uplift, just check out Unaweep Canyon. It's a canyon the crosses a mountain range (Uncompahgre Uplift), with small streams flowing in opposite direction, but practically no real river at all. The river that was there could not erode fast enough and was eventually captured by neighboring, fast-eroding streams.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 05-31-2018 5:10 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 207 of 877 (834191)
05-31-2018 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Percy
05-31-2018 8:24 PM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow still epic fail
I did watch the video finally, yes. I'd seen many like it before. That is not a thin sheet of water, that is a battering ram of water that picks up and carries vehicles and boats and houses. A thin sheet would be a few inches at most.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Percy, posted 05-31-2018 8:24 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Percy, posted 06-01-2018 5:27 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 208 of 877 (834193)
05-31-2018 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by edge
05-31-2018 10:04 PM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow still epic fail
Just for reference here's a satellite image of the area showing the Kaibab plateau on the north side of the canyon. Incidentally on the south side the Kaibab limestone was washed away leaving the Coconino sandstone called the Coconino plateau.
Actually, the Kaibab crops out abundantly south of the canyon extending into the Coconino Plateau and south of Flagstaff.
OK but that is not shown on the photo. I'm interested in the fact that there are these two separate flat surface areas on either side of the canyon, where one of the geo column layers in each case was exposed over a large area.
Such broad expanses of sedimentary rock certainly suggest to me the washing effect of a lot of water.
It suggests to me that the Kiabab Limestone is the uppermost unit resistant to erosion.
Yes, or in my scenario what was left after a couple of miles of sedimentary layers above it washed off.
The overlying Mesozoic formations are generally less lilthified.
And in my scenario that's because they are wet and higher and less compacted.
So The Flood washed down to the Kaibab limestone on the north side and down to the Coconino on the south.:
Actually not, though the Kaibab does form a regionally erosion-resistant unit.
I agree, I just think it got to that point by a different process than you do. And I'm not sure why you don't describe the Coconino plateau in similar terms since it forms quite a large plateau as well.
By the way is the Kaibab Uplift the same as the Kaibab Plateau?
I realized the plateau rises toward the canyon so I can't have a meander running across it. I have to rethink the meander because it apparently isn't in the Kaibab plateau but farther to the east, on the other side of the Kaibab monocline. It still has to be formed by water running across a plateau but not the same location, and I can't find a clear reference to that area. I'm trying to look at RAZD's diagram but truly it is hard for me to make out what's on it. It looks like areas marked out by a heavy dark line but what areas I can't tell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by edge, posted 05-31-2018 10:04 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 06-01-2018 5:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 209 of 877 (834194)
06-01-2018 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by RAZD
05-30-2018 7:24 AM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow epic fail
I am looking at your diagram and I think I get the gist but I really can't distinguish light from dark green. All the drawn-in lines just look like thick dark lines. But I get the general idea that the arrows mark lower areas where you'd expect water to run while the circles areas are higher.
The darker green is higher than the lighter green, the dark green outlines would be the topographic level dividing dark from light.
So IF the canyon is formed by catastrophic flood flows draining the purported WWF, then:
Why are there no canyons in either the northern path following lower elevations, or the southern path following lower elevations?
I've been trying to figure out exactly where the Kaibab uplift occurred because as I've been putting it all together it was the formation of that uplift that cracked the strata that started the canyon forming. .We start with sedimentary layers stacked two miles above the current canyon rim, still underwater. Tectonic upheaval occurs pushing a lot of rocks around at least three miles below the surface of the water at this point.
This pushes up the land called the Kaibab Uplift, and I suppose the whole Colorado Plateau is also being pushed up, but the Kaibab uplift is the higher area into which the Grand Canyon is cut. Its rising puts strain on the uppermost strata which are less consolidated than the lower strata - the deeper you go the more compaction you get. So now we've got the whole stack being pushed up in this one area and cracks form in the upper layers.
The tectonic movement coincides with the start of the draining of the Flood, maybe because of the sea floor dropping as some have suggested. The water level starts going down. But it's a pretty slow process, takes five months or so as I recall to completely drain away.
As it starts draining the uppermost layers break up. Maybe they are mostly loose sediment at this point. The sides of the cracks formed over the Kaibab Uplift fall inward into the cracks as they widen. After a while there is a pretty wide crack there or maybe many cracks, whose sides are falling inward. At some point the water starts moving laterally toward the deepening sea. Strata start to be exposed but they are still not compacted enough to hold together very well so they keep breaking up and now start washing with the draining flood water toward the oceans. The cracks over the Kaibab Uplift keep widening and falling into themselves as it were.
The strata are harder, more compacted, the lower we go, they become chunks breaking up instead of loose sediments. Chunks are falling into the crack over the Kaibab Uplift causing even greater widening. After some time, a month? Two months? we are down to the level of the Kaibab limestone and it's pretty well compacted from the weight that had been above it. a very wide crack has formed on the south side of the Kaibab Uplift which keeps widening as water is running all around and past it and through it and so on headed to lower areas wherever they are. We're still mostly looking at an expanse of water everywhere though strata to the north in the Grand Staircase area are holding together better though breaking up into cliffs and that should be visible, but overall it's a lot of water still, it's just lower now and it's moving in various directions. As it keeps getting lower the cracks widen and eventually form the canyon. The Kaibab plateau becomes visible, and the Coconino plateau and the bottom of the crack becomes a channel for a lot of stuff that keeps the canyon widening and stuff falling into it. The rim is higher than the land around but there's enough debris=laden water channeling into it to keep it forming.
Something like that.
Why does water flow from the Kanab Plateau south to the Colorado River via Kanab Creek, which starts lower than the north rim, instead of the path shown by black arrows north of the canyon?
Why does water flow from the Coconino Plateau north to the Colorado River via Meadow Creek which starts lower than the south rim, instead of the path shown by black arrows south of the canyon?
Does catastrophic flood drainage flow go magically uphill?
I think it's because the uplift created crackis for the water to flow into creating the canyon that the water went there, but it would also have drained in the direct of the arrows at the same time. The Kaibab Plateau is bordered on the east by the Kaibab monocline down which which water would flow east. I don't know what's going on in the Coconino plateau area.
Creationists claiming the Grand Canyon is due to catastrophic flood drainage got some 'splainin' to do.
Well, this is what I've got so far.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by RAZD, posted 05-30-2018 7:24 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Percy, posted 06-01-2018 9:06 PM Faith has replied
 Message 287 by RAZD, posted 06-02-2018 5:49 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 210 of 877 (834195)
06-01-2018 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by edge
05-31-2018 9:23 AM


Re: Still as weirded out by historical science as ever
This is why we recognize both lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy in geology. They are not the same things.
You didn't know that, did you? And you will never understand it either. All you have is uninformed blather.
It figures you'd have to do something to make the situation somewheat less absurd. But the fact remains that you've got a huge flat slab of rock covering a huge area where you thnk there used to be an ancient landscape with ancient forms of living things, and that is impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by edge, posted 05-31-2018 9:23 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-01-2018 3:53 AM Faith has replied
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 06-01-2018 9:59 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