|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The total lack of any alignment of the canyon with a tectonic fault line is evidence against this big crack model Faith is espousing. The concept came from this cross section
The canyon is cut into the south side of the rise shown clearly in the diagram, up and over the strata. The rise has been identified as the Kaibab uplift in many discussions here. The uplift obviously occurred according to the cross section, after all the strata were in place. Since there was another mile or two of strata above the current rim of the Grand Canyon, which is agreed to by standard geology, and evidenced by the Grand Staircase to the north and the butte to the south, the rise would have put strain on the uppermost strata high above the current rim. That's how the cracks developed in my scenario. Two miles above the current rim. And since this is going on just at the beginning of the draining of the Flood waters, it seems logical that the water, soon laden with chunks of strata, would have widened and deepened the cracks until they became a channel for the recedeing water that eventually became the Grand Canyon. You have to account for those extra miles of strata in your scenario too. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. Wobbly outlines enclose the higher elevations, red circles along the rim give an idea of the relative widths of the areas north and south compared to the Grand canyon for the same 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. 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. Except that all the evidence of actual tectonic cracking doesn't support this scenario, there is no existing tectonic fault line along the Grand Canyon, while almost all the actual tectonic fault lines run perpendicular to the canyon. The Coconino plateau is the same as the Kaibab, just cut off by the canyon.
Well, this is what I've got so far. And as usual it is full of evidence ignoring speculation and fact free fantasy. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
And since this is going on just at the beginning of the draining of the Flood waters, it seems logical that the water, soon laden with chunks of strata, would have widened and deepened the cracks until they became a channel for the recedeing water that eventually became the Grand Canyon.
The canyon's sinuous shape is not dictated by fractures or any other rock structure. Period.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Faith writes:
You've never explained how tectonic forces could push around some strata without affecting adjacent strata. Tectonic upheaval occurs pushing a lot of rocks around at least three miles below the surface of the water at this point...So now we've got the whole stack being pushed up in this one area and cracks form in the upper layers. Why do you think this an appropriate analogy? Here's a much better analogy. Not perfect, but much better. Take a stack of rubber mats like this:
Now tilt the three or four mats at the bottom without affecting the mats above. It can't be done. Now grab the mat at the bottom and yank it out. This can't be done, either.
And I also mentioned in Message 156 a real bona fide official certified geologist's comment that the Laramide Orogeny lifted the land without tilting the strata. Here's what you said in Message 156:
Faith in Message 156 writes: At 11:50 or so he's saying that the Laramide Orogeny -- ie one aspect of that tectonic event I think was a major single event that split the continents and did a lot of other things I describe in my scenario +-- lifted up the land WITHOUT TILTING IT. So all you people who keep objecting to my saying that's what happened with the tectonic pressure that formed the Kaibab Uplift can stop saying it. Dr. Karl Karlstrom likely misspoke when he said the Laramide Orogeny was responsible for the uplift of the region.The Laramide Orogeny was responsible for the Rocky Mountains (and much else), but not for the current elevation of the region. Elevating the region, from the Rocky Mountains (which when originally formed were at a lower elevation) through the states to the east and right out through the Great Plains, came later. You also apparently misunderstand what you're wrong about regarding tilting. Everyone knows the region uplifted without much tilting. Where you're wrong is thinking the Supergroup layers were originally horizontal when the Paleozoic layers were deposited atop them, and then they tilted while not affecting the overlying Paleozoic layers. That's impossible. The Kaibab Uplift is unrelated to the Laramide Orogeny - they occurred tens of millions of years apart in time. The Kaibab Uplift also occurred much after the general elevation of the region. When Dr. Karlstrom was talking about uplift he meant the general uplift of the region, not the later Kaibab Uplift.
Well, if it's now acceptable for presentations of supposedly known science to treat things they can't know as fact but remember the point is that they act like they ARE fact and that's the problem. I think the real problem is that you've got an aversion to facts, particularly when they don't conform to your personal Biblical interpretations.
But certainly it ought to be acceptable for a mere creationist like me to simply describe what seems to me to be the best scenario to account for the Flood and don't yet have what I think of as fact, just hypotheses. Ideas unconnected to facts are just imagination.
I'm not a scientist, I'm not selling a magazine and I'm not in any position to mystify the public. You've described your ideas, you admit you have no evidence, so I'd say you're done.
When I say the initial breaking up of the uppermost strata were probably loose sediment I expect a person of minimal intelligence to recognize it as logical and likely since there couldn't possibly be any evidence for such an event. You first said, "As it starts draining the uppermost layers break up." Tomorrow it'll be something else.
I have no idea what made the draining of the Flood possible... Why do you think it possible?
...so I mentioned what I think some creationists have argued, that the sea floor dropped, on the idea that water had been released from beneath the floor in the "fountains of the deep" to cover the earth, and when it drops into the vacuum left, the water has room to fill up the oceans. So all we have to do to check this possibility is look for a big underground reservoir of water with a volume several times that of the ocean. Given all the offshore drilling, given all the seismic studies, how do you imagine we've managed to miss finding it yet?
Five months of draining of, let's say, five miles of water is a lowering of water level of about an inch and a half per minute. Does that really sound like enough to etch canyons to you? The water acquires force when it has obstacles in its path and lower levels that open up as it recedes. This is a cockamamie idea. Water levels dropping at only 1.5 inches/minutes is not going to generate enough flow to carry sediments no matter what you do. But responding anyway, so if now you need obstacles to amplify the force of flow, that means you're back to chucks of strata instead of loose sediments. You need to make up your mind and stick with one story.
If you follow the scenario you will come to the point where water is pouring into the cracks and then into the canyon. It's impossible to follow the scenario because it keeps changing. You make up some crazy idea, then you refuse to give it up until finally even you can see how goofy it is, then you make up some other crazy idea. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I didn't say anything about fractures, just cracks in the strata high over it that became the channel for the flood water to cut the canyon when it got down to that level..
I would like your answer to the post about the layered mountain though.
Message 284 Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: No they don’t have to be exposed and cleaned off. And there won’t be anything living there when the sediment lithifies because it is deeply buried. That shouldn’t be hard to understand. Yet somehow you keep failing to do that.
To become a rock in the geo column it's going to have to be cleaned off because so many of those contacts are clean and tight. What do you imagine needs cleaning off? They're just sediments. About contacts, some are sharp, some aren't. Strata are not uniform in composition, particularly terrestrial strata. Here's a description of the Claron Formation from Wikipedia:
quote: It talks about floods across plains spreading mud, cobbles and silt. Where it mentions channelized conglomerates it means stream or river channels that eventually filled with cobbles (pebbles and stones), silt and mud
If things are living way above this lithifying rock, on what I would assume would be normal soil with normal plants and normal hills and valleys and other normal features of an actual landscape, there is no way it will ever become a rock in the geo column, but it has to become a rock in the geo column because that's what we actually see that supposedly points to the landscape. These are usually lowland/coastal areas, so there aren't going to be any valleys. Low areas will fill with water and become ponds and lakes which will gather sediments. Eventually they fill in and move elsewhere, as will rivers and streams. Hills aren't likely to be preserved in the geologic record because they stick up from the landscape and experience the most erosion, eventually disappearing. Soil isn't likely to be preserved, either. Usually it ends up as sediments in ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, swamps, lagoons and seas.
You can't leave it buried with animals romping on it,... Animals romp on the surface. Should the surface accumulate sediments and form a new surface, animals will romp on that. Sediment accumulation rates are, on average, very slow. Animals are in no danger of being buried.
Somehow you've got to have an actual rock with other rocks on top of it,... Strata begin as sediment deposited on the surface and only become rock after becoming deeply buried.
...and that can't possibly happen while anything is living in any of those "time periods." You are absolutely correct. While animals and plants are living on the soil and sediments of the surface, the soil and sediments will not turn to rock. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I didn't say anything about fractures, just cracks in the strata high over it that became the channel for the flood water to cut the canyon when it got down to that level..
AFAIK, cracks are fractures.
I would like your answer to the post about the layered mountain though.
I responded. Those are eroded continental lakebeds composed mostly of volcanic ash. They are not laterally extensive and are not mountains, they are badlands.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thank you.
I said the uppermost strata were cracked, not the canyon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I said the uppermost strata were cracked, not the canyon.
The Colorado River's sinuous course has no relationship to cracks in any strata. That is practically the definition of a meandering stream. And why are these rocks cracked anyway. I thought they were sort'a, kind'a soft, but not so much soft. Please describe the process of cracks forming in these rocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Colorado River's sinuous course has no relationship to cracks in any strata. That is practically the definition of a meandering stream. No idea what you have in mind here about meanders. And I'm not picturing a crack the whole length of the canyon, just over the Kaibab Uplift. Water does the work of carving the canyon.
And why are these rocks cracked anyway. I thought they were sort'a, kind'a soft, but not so much soft. Please describe the process of cracks forming in these rocks. ' Strata were laid down three miles deep or so by the Flood, two miles of it above what is now the Kaibab rim of the canyon. Strata are all underwater. They've been sitting there maybe a couple of months before the Flood starts to recede, but the uppermost would be soft. The uplift causes the upper ones to crack because they're soft. It's only about the level of the Kaibab that they are compact enough to hold together, and that's two miles beneath the uppermost layer.' The water starts at the same time the uplift is created. Whole stack is pushed upward in that area from beneath the canyon to the top of the three miles worth of strata, as indicated on the cross section, which you called the Kaibab Uplift at some time in the past. The uppermost strata on top of this three-mile stack are cracked by the strain of the uplift. You know, it forms a rise or a mound. That would strain the uppermost strata. That's what causes the cracks. And yes I would assume those uppermost strata were pretty soft because they didn't have any weight on them to consolidate them. But there would be greater and greater compaction in the layers below the uppermost ones as you go down iin the stack. The receding of the water starts breaking it all up. The uppermost ones probably break up into loose sediments but the lower down the water goes the chunkier the strata will be. It may take a month or two for it to get down to the level of the canyon but the cracks would be widening in the process. So I guess it would be a big crack in the end at the canyon level, as you say. This is in the south side of the Kaibab Uplift where the canyon forms. Can't imagine that any evidence would remain of that process after four thousand years: what evidence would you be expecting to .see? And what is the standard explanation for how the Colorado River got through the barrier of the Kaibab Uplift? My scenario has the virtue of solving that problem. Other subject: You answered one of the posts about the layered mountain but I was referring to another which you didn't answer. And please explain what it means to say that isn't a mountain but badlands. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0
|
I was interested in the use of the calcium content of the garnets found in the Vishnu Schist to determine the height of the rock above it that had provided the pressure to form the scshist and the garnets, which they determined to have been six miles. Of course they were thinking of the supposed former mountains they imagine to have existed there before the canyon. Metamophic petrology (what they are and how the rocks form) is some pretty heavy complicated stuff. It's been 40+ years since my met-pet class, and I wasn't that strong at it even then.
Garnets come in a lot of chemical varieties, depending on the bulk composition of the rock they grow in and other factors. There are end member varieties of garnets and there is also what is called "solid solution" in garnets - Garnets with compositions between the end members. Anyway, without getting into the really gory details, laboratory experiments can be done to determine the pressures and temperatures required for a certain composition metamorphic mineral to form. Apparently their variety of garnets required the pressure of 6 miles of burial.
The weight of the Paleozoic strata into which the canyon was cut has always been my explanation for the schist and the granite formed beneath the Great Unconformity, but that only comes to three miles, possibly four, not six. You know of course that I'm not giving that up in any case but it was interesting how they use the garnets. The thing is, you can't go from a high grade metamorphic rock to a low grade or unmetamorphosed rock at a contact unless that contact is either a nonconformity (like at the Grand Canyon) or a fault. What you would find is that the rocks under the greatest pressures and temperatures would be the highest grade metamorphics, and as the pressure and/or temperature decreases, the metamorphic grade of the rocks would correspondingly decrease. My analogy for your scenario would be having two pans of cake dough in the same oven. One gets baked to a near cinder and the other remains totally unbaked. Not going to happen. Which is why it's thought that a lot of rock had to be eroded off above the schist prior to the non-metamorphosed sediments being deposited. Moose Edited by Minnemooseus, : Fixed a blotch spelling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Strata were laid down three miles deep or so by the Flood, two miles of it above what is now the Kaibab rim of the canyon. What was the process, procedure, model, mechanism or method that allowed your flood to sort the strata as well as those things included in the strata in the order found in reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: So do you at least agree that this mountain was eroded out of a large area of stacked flat sediments just like those it is made of? ABE: Do you happen to recognize the mountain or the area? Would you happen to know just how much area the stacked sediments would have covered out of which the pretty mountain was eroded? I already answered this in Message 279. This is not a mountain:
Compared to actual mountains it's a low feature in the Painted Desert. It just badland stuff, though very pretty. You found the image at BlogSpot with no context, which is why you thought it was a mountain, but it actually comes from the North American Desert article at Britannica.com. You can also check out the Wikipedia article on the Painted Desert, which runs the same photo as the Britannica, and is also where that panoramic photo came from. About how mountains form, Edge has posted me some "if you think about this from a certain perspective" type stuff that I haven't had a chance to think about yet, but I think you would be best served continuing to think of mountain orogeny to be the result of plate tectonics pushing up and tilting strata, not erosion. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
edge writes: An interesting point here is that the basal sandstone of any transgressive sequence is usually composed of detritus derived from the local bedrock. In other words, the Tapeats is composed of fragments from the Precambrian crystalline rock and the GC Supergroup. And would you say also material from the Shinumo Hills, some of which survived? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Talking still about this whatever it is: If it's not a mountain I want to call it a formation but that word is used for something else so what should it be called?
Anyway, you interpret the layers in this whatever-it-is as lakebeds:
Those are eroded continental lakebeds composed mostly of volcanic ash. They are not laterally extensive and are not mountains, they are badlands. I want to avoid terms like "absurd" if possible because I know it doesn't accomplish anything. When I started using it I didn't intend it as namecalling but that's how it gets taken. I actually think it conveys something about the image to call the usual interpretations absurd but if it's only heard as namecalling it doesn't convey much. So now I feel like begging and pleading with you to see how those cannot possibly represent lakebeds. I don't suppose that would do much good either though. If I just assert that they can't be lakebeds, or whatever the topic of the moment is, you often say something like "why not?" even if I think I've already said why, or mock me as pretending to be an expert and all that. But seriously those cannot be lakebeds. Why? What I keep saying: The contacts are too sharp, the lines are too straight and flat, no lakebed is that flat, no it is not, please don't act is if you think it is. Like Percy's pictures of fields and plains, no no no, the strata are way too straight and flat, no no no, those don't work and really it should be easy enough to see that, I keep being amazed that it isn't. Everything I say becomes an insult but I can't figure out how to prevent that, I just want you to see that those straight flat layers with their very uniform-looking sedimentary content cannot possibly be lakebeds. This has got to be some spell they put geologists under in graduate school. They teach this stuff and you have to believe it and you earnestly learn it. Of course the teachers are under the spell in the first place. Whatever this object is, and I still keep wanting to call it a formation, same as I want to call the hoodoos and the monuments and the arches and the stairs of the GS and even the Grand Canyon, I need a name for it, but anyway, the most important point is the one above, that the strata cannot possibly be lakebeds, but also I have to note again that the fact that these various objects are made of strata and then eroded into their shapes is evidence against the Time Scale, for rapid deposition of the strata and for the argument I keep trying to make about how the Geological Column is over and done with. They are evidence that the strata were all laid down before the erosion occurred, or the tectonic deformation in other cases and so on. I know you want to point to the short versions of the column to refute me but don't just jump on that yet please. There's the Grand Canyon and Grand Staircase together to make up the entire column, and the William Smith cross section of England too, which I mention in Message 284. Getting this across is usually futile too because you have your different interpretations that you are so used to, and it's all official Geology so nothing I say can make much of a dent in it. Just want to post a couple other pictures of similar "formations" made of strata: From Message 2833:Picture of Entrada beneath Curtis formation, showing straightness/flatness and tight contact: Picture below: Carmel formation shows nice straight layers eroded into monuments in Goblin Valley. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024