|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Flood not the Cause of the Grand Canyon -- Not a Biased Opinion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
In the thread "Mt. Ararat Anomaly", SonClad makes a statement with which I disagree.
In one post, SonClad wrote:
Actually, one's world view comes into play in ascertaining the cause of geological formations such as the Grand Canyon. There is plenty of evidence to suggest a large amount of water caused the majority of the canyon's formation in a relatively short amount of time. SonClad is clearly implying that it is due to biases against the flood that geologists will not recognize that the Grand Canyon was actually formed during the flood. The main reason to discount this accusation of bias is that geologists can and do recognize when features are formed due to a great flood of water. A notable example of this is Lake Missoula. Lake Missoula was a lake that formed in what is now Idaho and Montana when an ice dam trapped waters during the last ice age. There was a huge amount of water that collected -- the lake was larger than several of the present Great Lakes combined. What is more, several geologic features of the Northwest (like the "channeled scablands") can be explained by a sudden release of the waters of this lake, just like creationists insist formed the Grand Canyon. Another ancient lake that is recognized is Lake Agassiz, that covered portions of Minnesota, North Dakota, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. I am not sure, though, whether any geologic features can be considered to be due to a catastrophic release of these waters. The point this makes is that, contrary to creationists beliefs, geologists can and do recognize when geologic features are formed from flooding or the catastrophic flow of water. Nor does an unwillingness to consider a feature or set of features as due to a flood result from a bias toward "naturalism"; there are naturalistic causes for floods, and there is no reason to suppose that, even if the Grand Canyon could have been formed due to the action of water, that whatever flood produced the Grand Canyon had a supernatural origin. The acknowledgement that large ancient lakes existed in the past, as well as that features such as the channeled scablands of Washington were formed by the release of the waters of these lakes shows that geologists can and do recoginize when these features are formed by the action of water. Therefore, geologists do not recognize that the Grand Canyon was formed by the action of a flood not because they are biased against this sort of explanation. Rather, they do not recognize that the Grand Canyon was formed by the action of a flood because the Grand Canyon does not have the characteristics that are diagnostic of this sort of origiin. I feel that this should go into the "Geology and the Great Flood" forum, although if the moderators feel that this post should go into an existing thread I will be happy to cut and paste it there.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
moronman Inactive Member |
it's amazing how everything always fits to match what the bible says. it's always so perfect. there's always an answer. it's frustrating because deep down inside i know everyone knows that the bible proclaims things that are way too immaculate to ever make any logical sense, but religion is part of our insecure mind. it's something we all have to fill, so we fill it with something, no matter how ridiculous, just for the peace of mind it brings. it's too scary not to have anything to believe in. i just look at the grand canyon and think hey that's something awesome that was created over time at some time way before anytime that we existed and i'll enjoy it however it got created.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Glad you dropped in. Hope to learn much from you as you post here.
At the bottom of this message are some links to threads that may help make your stay here even more enjoyable. Again, Welcome to EvC. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
When discussing the geological view that the Grand Canyon was not formed by a flood, it is easy to get people confused. At one point you say:
Chiroptera writes: ...there is no reason to suppose that, even if the Grand Canyon could have been formed due to the action of water, that whatever flood produced the Grand Canyon had a supernatural origin. When taken in context the meaning of this passage is clear, but people approaching the topic for the first time have no means to clearly establish that context for themselves, and they could easily misinterpret this as denying the Grand Canyon was formed by the action of water. So here are just a few bullets to help those unfamiliar with geology's view of the Grand Canyon:
--Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peaceharris Member (Idle past 5625 days) Posts: 128 Joined: |
Percy writes: Most layers were layed down over millions of years at the bottom of shallow seas or close to coastlines, though some layers were deposited while above water. Sea lilies have been found on the Kaibab limestone. Sea lilies usually "remain permanently attached to the ocean bottom."- Bartleby.com: Do you have any evidence that sea lilies are associated with shallow seas and coastlines? Since the Kaibab limestone formation is the highest layer, you can rest assured all layers were once submerged under water.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
peaceharris writes: Do you have any evidence that sea lilies are associated with shallow seas and coastlines? The upper depth range of sea lilies is 60 meters. The Kaibab limestone is a very sandy layer of limestone, indicating the coastline was not immediately adjacent but was probably not further away than a few miles. These two pieces of evidence lead toward the conclusion that the Kaibab limestone layer represents the deeper portion of an encroaching shallow sea.
Since the Kaibab limestone formation is the highest layer, you can rest assured all layers were once submerged under water. You are correct that since the Kaibab limestone layer formed while beneath the water that all the layers below it were also beneath the water at the time of the Kaibab limestone formation. But what we want to know is where the other layers were when they formed, not when the Kaibab limestone layer formed. We can tell a lot about how and where a layer formed from its composition and fossils. Some, like the Toroweap formation that underlies the Kaibab, were deposited in much shallower water very close to a coastline, because this is a predominantly sandstone layer with fossils of lifeforms usually resident near shorelines, and it even has some land fossils. As time passed this sea encroached further and further onto the land, and so the Toroweap formation gives way to the Kaibab limestone of deeper water further from the coast. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
My dear Chirp,
The problem is not the *general* notion of distinguishing in rock phenomenologies as I see it, when large amounts of water created environs on Earth, but it is ^what^ horizons themselves are indicative of this aspect IN CROSS STRATA VISION of a human. It is my opinion that ability to pick out "glacially watered areas" seems to have relieved some geology from differentiating all horizons except by academic desire or social production. So while I might in NY only see some of ( the) landscape somewhat, in New Jersey I see the whole place particularly that way. It seems to me that geologists might or could be "biased" precisely AGAINST this&type of observation and the historical reason seems fully to be that Agassiz who both moved the discussion from the flood waters to the solid water(ice) ALSO thought that some fish which would be in New Jersey say in the past, WERE prophetic across all strata for reptiles both living and dead. Atriculations of animal shapes are appearingly more complex than superpositioning stacks of ostensive planes. The only trace of the conflict appears to me to occur in differences of viewing circles around AMPHIBIANS which when intiatilly found in the wild were thought by experienced herpetologist TO BE REPTILES and yet it is rather otherwise MORE obvious that the motion of fish and reptile are so different that the confusion of the amphibian and reptile was indicative of the infinite niche rather than the finite divisions of the rock layers in any would be geologists' mind. Thus they uplift issue seems different than the general provision of trying to interpret the past by the present rock facies. I could be wrong. I am not ruling out a solution but the circularity here seems heir present and the small dimensions of an organism against the backdrop of the chasm makes thought otherwise rather difficult.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peaceharris Member (Idle past 5625 days) Posts: 128 Joined: |
The above image is taken from Rockhounds.com Since all layers are very horizontal, we can conclude that the layers were formed in very calm conditions. This probably happened when the waters were receding... roughly the same time when Noah let out the bird from the ark. The more dense and larger particles would have sunk first, forming the bottom layers, followed by the lighter and smaller particles. You can see that the Toroweap formation is covered in vegetation in some places and bare at other places. This is due to erosion in my opinion. So the fossils that are found in the Toroweap formation may have originally been in the Kaibab plateau before it eroded. "About 45 earthquakes occurred in or near the Grand Canyon in the 1990s. Of these, five registered between 5.0 and 6.0 on the Richter Scale. Dozens of faults cross the canyon, with at least several active in the last 100 years" - quote fromPage not found – BiologyDaily.com In other words, analysing the fossils and rocks from exposed layers may not be very accurate This message has been edited by Admin, 05-04-2005 08:36 AM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arkansas Banana Boy Inactive Member |
I see two main problems here with respect to modern geology.
While I am not sure about particle size in the GC, it has been mentioned here by some of our geologists that in some areas strata don't form with the large particles on bottom/ small on top one would find in a one time hydrological sorting event. This would indicate multiple depositional environments and an old earth. The second is that earthquakes happen in many places and that as long as one samples out of consolidated layers then fossil and rock samples are consistent (as opposed to unconsolidated or rubble rock). There are a number of threads in this forum about GC strata and I'm off to search them for some links to support what are assertions here. ABB
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Your post is painful to read. Every sentence is hopelessly loaded with error and misunderstanding.
Since all layers are very horizontal, we can conclude that the layers were formed in very calm conditions. Sorry, this does not necessarily follow. First, there are whopping cross-beds in the Coconino that tell us the medium was flowing quite rapidly. Second, there are beds below and above the Coconino that exhibit lower flow regimes.
This probably happened when the waters were receding... roughly the same time when Noah let out the bird from the ark. Ah, good! You have suggested a test of the flood hypothesis. Now all you need to do is find some sparrow droppings in the Kaibab and this debate will be over. Such a find would be called evidence.
The more dense and larger particles would have sunk first, forming the bottom layers, followed by the lighter and smaller particles. In that case, if we see the Coconino here in this photo the rocks in the bottom of the canyon must be the size of Rhode Island. Guess what... they're not. In fact, most units below the Coconino are finer-grained.
You can see that the Toroweap formation is covered in vegetation in some places and bare at other places. This is due to erosion in my opinion. Actually, it is probably due to the variable composition of the rocks and the density of fractures. See how the vegetation seems to follow distinct stratigraphic units?
So the fossils that are found in the Toroweap formation may have originally been in the Kaibab plateau before it eroded. Not. The fossils are embedded in the Kaibab, not floating on top. This is exactly why we do not recommend that YECs try sampling fossils on their own. Besides, the correlation with other Permian beds and fossils is pretty well established.
"About 45 earthquakes occurred in or near the Grand Canyon in the 1990s. Of these, five registered between 5.0 and 6.0 on the Richter Scale. Dozens of faults cross the canyon, with at least several active in the last 100 years" - quote from Page not found – BiologyDaily.com In other words, analysing the fossils and rocks from exposed layers may not be very accurate Sorry, but faults and earthquakes are pretty well understood. They make great sense in the interpretation of the fossil record. In fact, fossil evidence often provides evidence for the interpretation of faults.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peaceharris Member (Idle past 5625 days) Posts: 128 Joined: |
edge writes: First, there are whopping cross-beds in the Coconino that tell us the medium was flowing quite rapidly. Please give me a link with a photo to support your assertion. Based on my observation of the photos of grand canyon, I haven't seen cross-beds. The strata are horizontal. Take a look at the following aerial view:http://cs.anu.edu.au/...allery-11/4x6/grand-canyon-1999a.jpg
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arkansas Banana Boy Inactive Member |
A shot of Coconino from a creation site
Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood
| Answers in Genesis
where the new creationist interpretation is that the Coconino was water deposited.
A refutation at CC365.1: Coconino Sandstone deposition environment. ABB
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
peaceharris writes: Since all layers are very horizontal, we can conclude that the layers were formed in very calm conditions. This probably happened when the waters were receding... roughly the same time when Noah let out the bird from the ark. The problems with a flood scenario as an explanation for geological layers are many.
Moving on:
The more dense and larger particles would have sunk first, forming the bottom layers, followed by the lighter and smaller particles. You are correct that the larger and denser material is the first to fall out of suspension. This is more strong evidence against a flood scenario, because layers of large particulate matter are interspersed with layers of small partculate matter. For example, the rough sandy limestone of the Kaibab layer is nearly a half mile above the fine-grained Redwall limestone.
You can see that the Toroweap formation is covered in vegetation in some places and bare at other places. This is due to erosion in my opinion. So the fossils that are found in the Toroweap formation may have originally been in the Kaibab plateau before it eroded. I don't think very many fossils knocked loose by erosion from a higher level come to rest on the sloped sides of the Grand Canyon, but anyway, fossils just sitting free on the surface cannot be considered evidence of the types of fossils resident in that layer. The fossil has to be found in situ. In other words, it has to be found still embedded in its original site. Geologists often use a handy hammer type tool for striking into the material of rock faces to find fossils in situ. About earthquakes, how do you propose they would mix up material buried within layers of rock? Layers move around as a unit, breaking or shearing at extremely visible and obvious points. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
peaceharris writes: edge writes: First, there are whopping cross-beds in the Coconino that tell us the medium was flowing quite rapidly. Please give me a link with a photo to support your assertion. Based on my observation of the photos of grand canyon, I haven't seen cross-beds. The strata are horizontal. You've misunderstood the definition of cross-bedding in this context. Of course the layers of the Grand Canyon are horizontal. The cross bedding is within the layer. In the link provided by Arkansaw at Answers in Genesis (Startling evidence for Noah’s Flood), Figure 3 shows an example of cross-bedding. The accompanying text provides the proper definition of cross-bedding as being inclined sublayering. In other words, this Creationist reference understands that the Coconino contains cross-bedding. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024