The Grand Canyon: Canyon Formation and Erosion

quote:

---

In message 22 of 26, Edge wrote:
"Well, according to creationist geology, those
sediments should have been well lithified by
now since simply stacking sediments is what
causes lithification. I mean, the entire GC
sequence is only 5000 feet and see how
competent those rocks are!"

​

TrueCreation wrote at 02-23-2003 08:05 PM:

​

"No not really. They would then have to be well
lithified in mainstream geology as well."

​

There is nothing that I have seen published in the
mainstream literature that indicates that there is
any reason that the 17,000 ft of strata that
immediately underlies the bottom of the Gulf of
Mexico "would have to be well lithhified". In
this case, TrueCreation understands nothing
about how conventional and mainstream
geologists interprets and explains the sediments
underlying the Gulf of Mexico. (The amount of
sediments underlying the Gulf of Mexico is in
places 10 to 14 kilometers thick. :-) :-) )

---

--Thanks Bill, but this was actually my point exactly, so this, in summary, should have been directed at edge rather than me since my comment was a run-off from what edge said about lithification.

quote:

---

TrueCreation further wrote:

​

"Unless you suppose that entire column has
been deposited in a geologically very recent
time period. There obviously should be some
factors we are missing here, possibly being
the fact that they are and have been engulfed
in water."

​

Being "engulfed inwater" has nothing to do with
the lack of cementation. If TrueCreation would
consult the published literature, he would find
that the factors include 1. composition of the
sedments and 2. the fine-grained nature and very
low permeability of the clayey / muddy units. The
latter greatly inhibits their dewatering and
consolidation, which causes them to be greatly
overpressured relative to their burial depths.

---

--What do you mean? You can't forget that cementation and the factors in lithification thereof have a direct link to the mineral content in the water in the porous sediments, so the sediments being water-logged may be of some significance. Of course the porosity, permiability, and the sediment itself is important, though I think that the mineral content of the water is more relevant to the process of lithification by the means of cementation. I'm not as brain-dead on the subject as you might think I am.

quote:

---

"In the Gulf of Mexico basin (Gulf basin), the generation
of overpressure is caused mainly by the inability of pore
pressure fluids to escape at a rate commensurate with
sedimentation."

​

The permeability of the fine-grained Gulf of Mexico
sediments is so low and their dewatering is so
slow that even rates of sedimentation ***orders
of magnitudes less*** than those implied by
Noachian Flood models can cause overpressures
and inhibit consolidation and cementation.
Therefore, as numerous published studies have
shown, there is nothing about conventional models
that is contradicted by the lack of cemetation in
Gulf of Mexico sediments. As far as conventional
geologists have found, there are no missing /
unexplained factors as TrueCreation postulated.

---

--I made no such postulate, but thanks for the link to this abstract anyways, it touches on the question very well.

quote:

---

++++ Some Grand Canyon Stuff ++++++

​

For interesting figures about the Grand Canyon,
go see:

​

Revisiting the Grand Canyon — Through the Eyes
of Seismic Sequence Stratigraphy By WARD ABBOTT at:

​

Revisiting the Grand Canyon
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/...ott/images/abbott01.pdf

​

(Adapted for online presentation from articles by
same author, entitled A New View of Something
Grand and Canyon Offers Grand Seismic View
in Geophysical Corner, AAPG Explorer, July, 1998,
and August, 1998, respectively)

---

--Thanks! Will visit.-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-24-2003]

Administration is here to deal with guideline enforcement so that members may focus their attention on discussion. Bringing the focus more closely to bear on actual evidence may prove helpful. No one is required to accept an explanation simply because it is provided by an expert, but ignoring evidence would be a serious breach of the scientific method and a considerable weakness of any position complicit in such an act.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

I am not insistign that anyone must accept the explanation of an expert but I do hold that expert opinions should be taken seriously and that one should not be insulted just for believing that an expert's opinions is likely to be a reasonable approximation of the actual situation.Quite frankly I get sick of the cry-baby antics of creationists and I had hoped that TC would be better. He is a severe disappointment.

"You are still dead wrong. Science progresses by taking those explanations and building up an explanatory framewoek for more and more. The Flood is supposedly the explanation for a great deal of the gological record but you are refusing even to attempt to actually produce such an explanation."
--You are saying exactly what I have been saying. Science is built upon! But your trying to tell me that if I don't have something of such a great magnitude is built then it is therefore unviable. You are disregarding the fact that 'flood geology' can be built upon, we just aren't very far."And no, I did not interpret anything incorrectly - I know full well that you do not - cannot- agree with those implications but nevertheless they are there. This is demonstrated further when you "smell prejudice" in a statement that is clearly true by your own admission."
--Wrong, it is your prejudicial conclusion based on your incredulity and an absence of information[unless you can present some]."You REFUSED to try to produce such an explanation on the grounds that YECs are NOT yet ready to attempt it."
--That's right, were not ready because we can't without the research, you don't seem very pacient"It is all too typical of creationists to try innuendo of that sort to cover up facts they wish buried."
--You are either contradicting yourself, or you don't know how science is built and the methodology by which it is built."Are we suipposed to believe that you were telling siuch an obvious lie that prejudice is the only possible reason for accepting it ?"
--Where are you taking this? You made a prejudicial statement, period. The implications are therefore that it is to be disregarded unless you can support it and remove it from the 'prejudicial' classification."And you moan about alleged "credulity" when you expect YOUR opinions to be accepted as fact without any investigation."
--Wrong, you aren't seeing the point. Your credulity comes in when you will believe anything said which is in accordance with your perspective as an old earther, and have demonstrated this. And what I am saying is that nothing like this should be accepted without investigation."You try to compare Flood geology with continental drift ignoring the fact that continental drift HAD strong evidence from the start, which your Flood does not."
--No, it didn't have it from the start and as edge pointed out, was thought of as implausible by many in the geophysical community because its lack in a tenable mechanism. I was pointing out the fact that theories are developed by investigation, we are immature in our investigation and, thus, should not be considered completely false, only that it is implausible for the time being. I don't put flood geology out to be compaired in most cases, but to differentiated."And since you refuse to offer any REASONABLE argument against the points you supposedly raised this thread to dispute, I hardly think you are in posiiton to complain about anything being "off topic". Especially when the issues are clearly related."
--The topic of the thread was made specific, you cannot say that discussing a 'related' implication should be placed in the same thread because it is related.. You are the one who made the initial claim. I have been asking you from the start of the thread to support this comment, you have not done this at all."All in all your post is a "nice" example of the creationist tendancy to throw accusations when they can't argue the facts, and nothing else. If you really want people to think of flood geologists as morally as well as intellectually bankrupt you can go on down that route."
--I suggest you avoid such misrepresentations.--If this thread continues in this direction, I will be moving my responses which are not on the topic of the formation of grand canyon elsewhere. If you would like to join in discussion on that specific topic, please do so.[edited for clarity]-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-24-2003]

"I am not insistign that anyone must accept the explanation of an expert but I do hold that expert opinions should be taken seriously and that one should not be insulted just for believing that an expert's opinions is likely to be a reasonable approximation of the actual situation."
--All I am asking is that you support your conclusion from whoevers data that lithification is a severe problem for young earthers, and its focus on grand canyon erosion.------------------
The OYSI.Archive
------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-24-2003][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-24-2003]

"This thread spun off from another, and so is somewhat incomplete. One thing that is missing is the evidence on which TC is basing his interpretations. TC has argued persuasively that YECs are in the process of researching the issue and so cannot present a full story at this time, but he hasn't presented in this thread the initial evidence that leads them to believe this will be a fruitful path of inquiry."
--Are you speaking in regards to the lithification of the grand canyon successions, or 'flood geology' in general? My point for this thread was for PaulK to elaborate on his accusation that "...lithification is CERTAINLY a barrier to a young Earth since it would take more time than you believe the planet has existed".--I havent made any claim which would say that it isn't a barrier, only that I want him[or even others] to support his accusation that it is.------------------
The OYSI.Archive
------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-24-2003]

"LOL! I presume since you are so much against prejudice that the next time you look for a date, you will not rule out four legged ones... Do you get my drift here? Or do I have to explain to you that not all prejudice is necessarily bad?"
--As I've explained before, sure not all prejudice is bad. Though, the situation you presented here isn't a good analog. PaulK's prejudicial claims, aren't good."In fact, you find promise in it because you have to. "
--No, I find promise in it partly because even while we aren't in good condition, study in this perspective is very young."Not really. Early opponents of drift believed simply that there was no acceptable mechanism."
--Exactly! So what happened with further research? They found a mechanism didn't they?"In this case, not only do you not have a mechanism, but there is ample independent evidence that creationism is actually wrong."
--'Creationism' isn't a theory, so I don't know what your talking about."The point is that this assertion has been supported in subsequent posts. You have not responded. "
--What did I miss?"Hey, your the ones who believe that a guy lived inside of a fish..."
--If your talking about Jonah, I haven't done any research in that area either [I doubt you have] so I won't give myself room to comment there."Yes. If you are going to unseat the currently accepted explanation, you should come with a lot of evidence."
--I never attempted to unseat anything in this thread."Hey, it's all part of the big picture that you accused me of ignoring on another thread."
--What? Isn't that the 'big picture' that you accused me of ignoring?"Is a flood that could deposit such a thick section of sediments really possible?"
--Haven't been able to do such an in depth and comprehensive study yet. Call me back in 50 years.-------------------

--Now, doesn't anyone have anything to say on the topic of the erosion of Grand Canyon? Coragyps had the right idea early in this thread, but that's all the way back in post #8.-------------------

"Administration is here to deal with guideline enforcement so that members may focus their attention on discussion. Bringing the focus more closely to bear on actual evidence may prove helpful. No one is required to accept an explanation simply because it is provided by an expert, but ignoring evidence would be a serious breach of the scientific method and a considerable weakness of any position complicit in such an act."
--Rightly said.-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------

Paul, let me be very clear. Personalizing the debate is unacceptable. Please see the Forum Guidelines, rule 3. There will be a 24-hour suspension of posting privileges for the next offender on this thread, whoever it may be, if it takes place within the next day or so.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Indeed, it is. But you chose to argue this point, except that so far you haven't produced any argument.Look I am not asking for a highly detailed account, just an outline covering the major points to see if there is any hope of fitting the deposition of the Grand Canyon rocks into a Flood scenario. If Flood geology is still stuck to the point where it can't do that then it is not even remotely in a position where it could offer a replacement for mainstream geology. If you are in a posiiton where you cannot even explain basics in outline - in an area where you disagree strongly with covnentional geology then you do indeed have a serious problem.And no, by the Duhem-Quine thesis we cannot have an absolute falsification of any theory so I have to stick with reasonable and workable standards and say that Flood Geology is falsified. Even the sediments mentioned elsewhere are a problem because your Flood geology demands very rapid lithification of a lot of sediment (for instance, any rubble for "flood rocks" that is found in other "flood rock" formations).Oh ans what is this "absence of information" other than your refusal to back up your assertions ? If you won't provide the information that you claim exists then why should I take your claims seriously ?But ot go on to your continuied use of insults.And you are still saying that you "smell prejudice" in a claim that YOU MADE! That is simply ridiculous.And still going on with the allegations of credulity. Why is it credulous to accpet that an expert opinion is not out by worse than a factor of 100 ? Because you don't want it to be true ? Give me an argument and I'll look at it. Keep up with the insults and I'll tell it like it is.And you are still wrong about continental drift - not just the shape of the continents but the shared deposits were all known about. The lack of a mechanism was the only thing that stopped acceptance - as Edge said.And no, you are NOT discussing the topic you started this thread on - you are just throwing insults to avoid discussing it. If you don't know enough to discuss it then I don't know why you raised the issue in the first place, but if you can't see how counterproductive your approach is then I for one am happy to let you go on destroying your own credibility.Oh and now false accusations of misrepresentation ? You use insults in place of discussion and expect me to quietly pretend it isn't happening ? No chance. I suggest that YOU drop the insults and try discussion.

I did support my assertion.If you want to discuss it further then please provide some basis for doing so. If you have any contrary evidence then please provide it.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-24-2003]

The thread is about the formation of the Grand Canyon. To geologists the canyon walls are a record of a couple hundred millions of years of sedimentary deposition, while the canyon itself is a record of several millions of years of erosion.Unlike geologists, you look at the Grand Canyon and see youth and rapid formation. What evidence leads you to this interpretion?------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

"No not really. They would then have to be well
lithified in mainstream geology as well."

---

Nope. Because sort of noticed that they weren't lithified. Did you really think that we couldn't explain this?

quote:

---

Bill: There is nothing that I have seen published in the
mainstream literature that indicates that there is
any reason that the 17,000 ft of strata that
immediately underlies the bottom of the Gulf of
Mexico "would have to be well lithhified". In
this case, TrueCreation understands nothing
about how conventional and mainstream
geologists interprets and explains the sediments
underlying the Gulf of Mexico. (The amount of
sediments underlying the Gulf of Mexico is in
places 10 to 14 kilometers thick.

​

--Thanks Bill, but this was actually my point exactly, so this, in summary, should have been directed at edge rather than me since my comment was a run-off from what edge said about lithification.

---

Hunh? Explain. I said that I have had creationists tell me that as the Grand Canyon eroded its walls sloughed off out to a distance where the thickness of the sediments caused lithification so that the mass wasting stopped. At least that was my understanding. Perfectly silly, of course.

quote:

---

--As I've explained before, sure not all prejudice is bad. Though, the situation you presented here isn't a good analog. PaulK's prejudicial claims, aren't good.

---

Please explain. As far as I can see, his prejudice is against half-baked ideas that have no evidence.

quote:

---

"In fact, you find promise in it because you have to. "

​

--No, I find promise in it partly because even while we aren't in good condition, study in this perspective is very young.

---

The problem is that creationism was abandoned a long time ago for good reason. Actually, there is nothing 'young' about it.

quote:

---

"Not really. Early opponents of drift believed simply that there was no acceptable mechanism."

​

--Exactly! So what happened with further research? They found a mechanism didn't they?

---

No. You are not comprehending. There was evidence for continental drift. On the other hand there is none for creationism.

quote:

---

"In this case, not only do you not have a mechanism, but there is ample independent evidence that creationism is actually wrong."

​

--'Creationism' isn't a theory, so I don't know what your talking about.

---

RRRRiiiigghhttt.... I'm sure you don't.

quote:

---

"Hey, your the ones who believe that a guy lived inside of a fish..."

​

--If your talking about Jonah, I haven't done any research in that area either [I doubt you have] so I won't give myself room to comment there.

---

But I suppose you find this research promising, too. After all, it is not just in early stages, it hasn't even started yet. That should make it especially promising.

quote:

---

"Yes. If you are going to unseat the currently accepted explanation, you should come with a lot of evidence."

​

--I never attempted to unseat anything in this thread.

---

No, we have to guess what you are saying. Why don't you just commit yourself?

quote:

---

"Hey, it's all part of the big picture that you accused me of ignoring on another thread."

​

--What? Isn't that the 'big picture' that you accused me of ignoring?

---

Oh my, another meaningful statement. And yes, you still are ignoring the big picture.

quote:

---

"Is a flood that could deposit such a thick section of sediments really possible?"

​

--Haven't been able to do such an in depth and comprehensive study yet. Call me back in 50 years.

---

You mean you have no opinion?