TEMPORARY: So how did the GC (Geological Column) get laid down from a mainstream POV?

"In any case what's wrong with my detailed scenario I proposed - that the canyon continued to collapse until it was hard enough, eventually leaving a sharp edged canyon?"
--I would hypothesize that the formation of the Grand Canyon would have technically been a post flood event in the majority the the cataclysm. Sediment would have all been deposited and as water abated it may have left a slight indentation in the soft sediments. Some lithification would have then taken place and some time after the flood waters would have broken through a flood deposited lake (great lake?) and carved out the grand canyon. Went something like that in my last argument on the Grand canyon which led down to an argument from mark24 on lithification, yet to be addressed again.------------------

Do you have any information on lithified Ignimbrite-type rock encased in these sediments? This may indicate how strongly volcanic ash and breccia had to do with it.------------------

"TC - the difference between what you are saying and I am saying is only an issue of extent. Whether it happened in the last part of the 400 days or 10 years later doesn't make that much difference. Either way the sediments would have been soft allowing for rapid erosion. I guess in your scheme you can argue for enough time for the layers to harden sufficiently - you might be right. My only constraint is whether there is enough water then. Either scenario is plausible IMO."
--I see what you mean. What is also required is the geochemical process of lithification to be a bit more rapid, what range of magnitude would be based on the length of time proposed. Carbonate Precipitation or something of the like suspended/raining down/or deposited as water abates may be plausible. Pressure is of course no trouble at all. Another interesting consideration is that the Kaibab Limestone is the top layer of the Grand canyon, which are Permian conventionally thought in the mainstream as 250 million year strata. Higher strata may have been eroded in this process [of contraction]. http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_layer.htm#kl------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-30-2002]

"TC, there is no doubt by either side that there was a lot of erosion of the upper Cenozoic and Mesozoic strata at Grand Canyon which (at least the Mesozoic) can be found still in place to the ?north?."
--Most certainly, I did not address it as evidence against anything, simply that this is supportive of such a run-off.------------------

"Edge, I have also seen mainstream refs that descibe the difficult of distinguishing eolian from aqueous depositon. Creationists have studied eolian tracks and demonstrated them to be amphibian although long agers deny it."
--I'm not sure that whether amphibian or not is all too important, what may matter however is how viscous the sediments were at the time of track formation. Or did I miss something in the argument?------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-30-2002]

"I do not. But there are no ignimbrites in the Grand Canyon. I also know that other pyroclastic flows are also hot and can set up in a very short time. Besides, what are we talking about for canyon walls at MSH? A hundred feet max? And how long do you think they actually held? The comparison is not a good one but I'm sure I'll see it again. "
--My question still is relevant to all these questions, including your assertions on how long they held, maybe lithified Ignimbrite-type rocks encased in these sediments are rapid though insufficient, thus making your first assertion a bit in favor of a catastrophic sequence.------------------

"I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain."
--You switched it over and avoided my question by saying that you know that they are not present in the Grand Canyon. You also made statements regarding the implications of Ignimbrite-type rocks being the reasoning for the speedy lithification for Mount Saint Hellens. And also that it woulnd't be a good example because it didn't hold out for long(?) as well as comparing their size.------------------

"Right they are not. At least not in with the main sedimentary sequence. I said that is possibly the reason why. And, as far as I know, erosion has widened and sloughed in the walls of the canyon at MSH. The point remains, MSH is not an analog to the GC. You have not been able to show any reason why we should accept it as one."
--I wasn't trying to show reasoning why we should accept it as an analog to the GC. You stated that 'I do not [have any information on lithified Ignimbrite-type rock encased in these {MSH} sediments]. But there are no ignimbrites in the Grand Canyon'. My point is just as I said, 'This may indicate how strongly volcanic ash and breccia had to do with it[the rate and strength of the lithification which took place at MSH]'. I am not saying that we need some ash deposits for rapid lithification. See post #39.------------------

"That logic doesn't follow from my statement Edge. What is true is that low energy will not generate sheet erosion. High energy can presumably do both sheet erosion and gullies as we can see from the geological column."
--As well as these strata ( > Permian ) may have not been lithified sufficiently due to lacks in pressure or chemistry. Which would have made these strata easilly eroded contrary to lower strata ( < Permian ). Further preventing anomales such as gullies.------------------

--Tried to post this last night, got disc though."So, how do you explain the meander loops in the Grand Canyon?"
--Meandering as well as steepness would have been causes of both slow and rapid flows. slow flow would have been characteristic of flood water abating, though rapid flows would have been produced post-flood when the majority of the canyon would have been carved cataclysmically. This is similar as I argued it a couple months ago in another Flood thread.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-31-2002]

"Please explain. How does 'slow flow' related to abatement of the flood produce meanders? Do you have modern examples? Wouldn't it be easier to say that they formed in a way similar to modern meanders? Where is base level in this scenario?"
--What do you mean by 'base level'? And actually, yes its beginning formation did form in a ways similar to modern meanders, the Mississippi is a great example."Could you also please amplify a little more on how the canyon walls would stand if they are composed of recently (one year old) deposited sediments that are, by definition, water saturated?"
--Lithification, and pressures would have 'squeezed' water out of higher pressurizes areas of the grand canyon sediments. And they arent just one year old, they could be hundreds."Do you have examples of thousand foot cliffs composed of sand and mud anywhere in the world?"
--Forming? Nope, its kind of like the big bang, only happens once (not exactly correct but that's beside point). But yes there are ones in other places in the world. The Blue mountains of austrailia, and the Waimea Canyon may be considered. I'm not sure about Waimea Canyon though.------------------

"Pressure acting on unlithified mud and lime... without confining pressure on all sides... would instantly turn the mud into a slurry, which would flow like... well... like a mudslide. Your understanding of lithification is lacking."
--I think we need some detail before we go further. There are some things we need:
-[1] - Estimated Quantities of cementation materials linearly at the Grand canyon.
-[2] - The mathematics behind the rate of cementation/lithification according to depth/pressure, heat, and by quantity of cementation material."Well, I don't think you can argue that these sediments were waterlogged after being covered with flood basalts. Therefore the canyon was cut AFTER the sediments lithifed, and AFTER the basalts cooled. You have found an example of a canyon that water erosion alone cannot explain. Basalt is almost totally impervious to water. Chemical erosion is necessary to break down the tough igneous matrix. Plus lots of time. The best combination is a lush vegetative cover, lots or moisture, and a deep topsoil. These produce lots of humic and carbonic acid to break down the rock. In a Flood, you get plenty of water, but not the other two, thus no chemical erosion to speak of... certainly not in a year. The Flood waters would just run off.
--After these observations, the Blue mountain erosions must be a post-flood event."Notice the canyon cutting into the Makaweli member visible in the cross-section at the bottom."The Makaweli and Olokele members are MOSTLY tholeiitic basalts that are thick and ponded... "I think you'd have a hard time finding a tougher, more resistant rock to carve a canyon into in a short period of time using only the erosive power of rainwater.These two examples are the exact OPPOSITE of a canyon cut into soft, unlithified sediment..."
--Yes, they both evidently represent post-flood formations.--The other section for the previous quotes an observer may need: http://www.wsu.edu/~reiners/tour/intro.html------------------

"Base level is the level to which erosion can occur. Below that you generally get deposition. So the retreat of the flood was a slow event taking thousands of years to develop a mature stream profile? This is what you are saying."
--Not really, what I am saying is that as Flood waters abated, it would have created this meandering valley, this would not have taken thousands of years to develop, though it would have been slow. As flood waters abated, it would have left a reservoir which later would have burst accounting for the grand canyon."Well if the rocks had suffered lithification and high pressures, the wouldn't be soft any more, would they?"
--Exactly "I see that these have been refuted above. So, do you have any other examples? It should be possible to have them, after all it's simply a matter of material strengths and geometry. Maybe you could be the first to demonstrate this phenomenon. I know a lot of geotech managers who could save a lot of money thanks to you."
--Bah, I just made some guesses, I didn't and still do not see the significance. Of course you may wish to refer to the numerous other canyons surrounding the actual grand canyon. I'm not sure that I would be 'demonstrating a new phenomena', I would just be showing you more examples of what would be interpreted in the conventional mainstream to have taken hundreds of thousands of years to carve through river erosion and land slide slope features."Another question. If the canyon was cut in soft sediments, how did the canyon walls then lithify, as they were exposed to the surface? What cause the pressures and cementation? "
--They had already significantly lithified prior the 'canyon' formation. Cause of pressures (process of compaction) would have been the masses of sediments. Cementation would have been caused by precipitation of mainly calcites, dolomites, oxides, anhydrites, etc. most of the precipitation may have been caused by desiccation, which resulted from compaction.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-09-2002]

"It would have? How do you know this? Or is this just another example of wishful thinking?"
--No, it isn't wishful thinking. It is using a reasonable topography created by whatever mechanism (uniform or catastrophic process) in pre-canyon formation and apply known hydro-mechanics to how water will abate and what formation it may create in the process."This is an interesting observation. How do you know this? Why are you so much more knowledgeable about stream development than people who have studied it for entire careers? Remember, you only have a year-long flood to work with."
--Right, I only have a year long flood to deal with. Here is a simple rendering on my hypothesis for the meandering formation as water abates:Not to scale:
--The amount of meander in this image is a bit exadurated.
-- [1] & [2] - As water abated, small depressions would have filled with water. This one shown^[1] is a larger one. As water depth decreased this depression would fill with water, shortly after spilling out creating a meandering from^[2] through its slow speed progression down a low declination plane.
-- [3] - This is a larger form, a lake which its contents would be held until a later date.--If there is a problem with this hypothesis that the much more knowledgeable about 'stream development' in this case would know, I'd like to see this problem."How do you know this? You are simply making up a story here not dealing with facts. Give us some facts."
--You wouldn't happen to know the location of a nice topographical map of the grand canyon formation and surrounding vicinity would you? I could then produce a more detailed model which could then apply to known topography rather than a hypothesis on how such a canyon would be formed."So then we are NOT dealing with soft sediments! I wish you would make up your mind."
--We are dealing with both soft and consolidated coherent hardness. See below for more detail on lithification."Of course you don't. You have not dealt with the range of geological problems that the real world has to deal with every day. People die in trenches that are cut in soft material."
--I'm not worrying about whether people are going to die in these trenches during formation, but whether it works or not. And what are the geological problems associated with grand canyon being unique?"There is a reason for that. It is because there is evidence to support the mainstream view. "
--Great, that is nice, however. This is by interpretation, if you have evidence that can only be interpreted as taking millions of years or are problematic for a relatively rapid formation this should be posted. In your words, diagnostic evidence is needed here."Once again you depart from you main point that the canyon was cut in 'soft sediments.' How far are you willing to retreat before you come back to the mainstream position?Where does this pressure come from. Remember, erosion has already exposed you canyon walls.Again you have not addressed where this compaction came from after the canyon had been eroded. Any compaction would have lead to slumping and retreat of the canyon walls. I also think you misuse the term 'dessication.'"
--I am not incorrect in my use of desiccation, and I will explain the answer for the above as well. Here is an illustration on the lithification process:--As you can see, compaction, analogously opposite to the principle of isostasy in geophysics, through linear depth stratigraphic pressures cannot attain a state of equilibrium, but is subject to a factor of depth. An example is that it has been estimated that deposits of clay-sized particles, buried to depths of 3,000 feet, have been compacted to about 60 percent their original volume [Leet Et al. 1965].
--As would be a direct result from compaction, desiccation would force out water that originally filled the pore spaces of water-laiden sediments. In this process precipitation of cementation minerals are left to convert these unconsolidated minerals into consolidated, coherent rock. As it is in the lower portion of the illustration, these processes progression is built with the factors of depth and time.
--Knowing this, the meandering formation would have taken place in the above soft sediments. Later in time the catastrophic formation of the 'canyon', of grand canyon would be formed through lower more consolidated sediments. In this scenario, another possibility is that through the canyons formation, Mesozoic+ Sediments would have been washed away due to a lack in consolidation."Can you demonstrate where eolian sands exposed at the surface have attained the state of cementation necessary to form the cliffs at Arches, for instance?"
--I don't understand your question, I believe the 'arches' are the meanderings in the grand canyon is what your talking about. Though I am not sure why your question is specific toward lithification of eolian sands, and toward the arch cliffs rather than other sediments, or other other non-arch characteristics in the Grand Canyon.--Along with the topography of the grand canyon and a wide surrounding area, local geologic columns on the linear depths of the Mesozoic and Cenozoic sediments may be important in different surrounding areas.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-10-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-10-2002]

"I don't have much time to address your model."
--Please do when you find it."Let's just say that it depends upon major assumptions that are not justified by any evidence."
--I already know of one, and that is that I am not using direct topography of today. I was not meaning to do so, I am simply making a predictive model and seeing if it may successfuly apply to the Colorado canyon formations. If there are others which I have not considered, spill the beans.
--I have addressed the questions you asked and if you wish to dissect them further, then respond to them."We know of no lakes that were stranded by abating flood waters in the geological record."
--If I am not mistaken, the reservoir which is the source of these waters is mainly attributed to Grand lake. And I am not sure if there is a way to see direct evidence for it catastrophically giving way. But you should keep in mind that the current hypothesis on the grand canyons formation for the mainstream are just good guesses."I do not see how they could be drained by a mature stream nearly at base level in a short period of geological time."
--Giving way catastrophically?"You still have not addressed how shallow sediments in the canyon wall have become lithified to the same degree as deeper units. How do they lithify while exposed at the surface by erosion?"
--Yes I have actually, that is if you read my segment on lithification. I explained that these shallow sediments currently exposed in the grand canyon may have still been under the weight of Triassic+ sediments. As well as later continued lithification after the catastrophe would continue to harden these sediments if any more were to take place. And in fact at this time lithification would have been just as easy a process as if there were 2000meters of sediments weighted on them because of evaporation."They should have filled in the canyon. "
--Nope."You have not addressed the importance of uplift. "
--You mean that kaibab uplift? Yup there was a kaibab uplift which effected the formation similarily."You have not addressed the issue of fossil and other evidence for emergent land throughout the time of your flood."
--what do you mean 'emergent land' and explain how this is relevant."You have focussed on the erosional issue at the expense of the rest of the geology."
--No, I have focused on the erosional issue because that is what you have addressed and argued against. I have no problem with going into other issues you may see for the formations, just don't rush into them when we haven't cleared out the issue of erosion.--Please see my last post if you haven't gotten the chance to read or reply as of yet, you asked questions, I responded with potential answers.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-12-2002]