Flood not the Cause of the Grand Canyon -- Not a Biased Opinion

quote:

---

I live about 100m from a beach with hills. I don't know what the rocks are called. But assuming that some are quartzite and some are sandstone, I must have stepped on both.
I don't recall anytime touching them with my hands.

---

So someone who doesn't even recall touching different types of rocks has decided that all the trained geologist who have gone to the Grand Canyon and studied the rocks there for a hundred years or more are wrong about the order of the rock layers because of what he sees in a picture on the web. Talk about Hubris! It is one thing to bring up such an idea, that is fine, but you stubbornly hold to it after it has been thorougly refuted.Some of the other things I intended to say have already been addressed but I thought I would bring up the fossil problem again.If the sandstones and shale in the bottom of the Canyon was washed down from the layers above, how is it that they contain Cambrian fossils? 47 varieties of trilobite have been found in the Bright Angel Shales.CanyonDave.com is for sale | HugeDomains The Hermit Shale and Coconino Sandstones contain no marine fossils at all let alone trilobites.As Percy has pointed out yet again even your incorrect scenario does not help you to explain the animal tracks in the Coconino sandstones. Do you think the
Muav Limestone,
Grand Wash Dolomites,
Temple Butte Limestone,
Redwall Limestone,
Surprise Canyon Formation,
Supai Group (Esplanade, Wescogame, Manakacha, and Watahomigie)were there when the flood started? If not how did the animals survive their deposition to be around to make tracks in the Coconinos. I think nearly all YECs attribute the very thick Redwall limestone to the flood. How did small animals survive their deposition to be around to make tracks in Coconinos?It is very clear to all but some YECs that the Coconinos are Aeolian dunes but even so, how could animals make tracks in sand dunes as they were being deposited by water deep enough and moving fast enough to spread 10,000 cubic miles of sand over nearly 200,000 square miles in formations that look like sand dunes?How could small invertebrates make tracks under all that water? I don’t have any pictures except those in Grand Canyon Geology so I guess you will have to look at the book to see them unless someone else has some.You seem to have avoided these questions. The Grand Canyon presents insurmountable problems to flood geology as this thread clearly shows. You have resorted to fantastic scenarios to try to explain the sedimentary record of the canyon and even they don’t explain the actual features of the Canyon.RandyThis message has been edited by Randy, 05-19-2005 04:52 PM

According to Trilobites of the Bright Angel Shale, one of the trilobites has been identified as Biceratops nevadensis, which, according to Pack and Gayle (1971)*, is from the Suborder Olenellina, ORDER REDLICHIIDA.And according to Palaeos Invertebrates: ORDER REDLICHIIDA these trilobites only occurred in the Late to Middle Cambrian.So basically, they could not have been eroded and redeposited from stratigraphically higher (non-Cambrian) formations.* Phillip D. Pack and Henry B. Gayle, A new olenellid trilobite, Biceratops nevadensis, from the lower Cambrian near Las Vegas, Nevada, Journal of Paleontology 1971 45: 893-898.

As the river flows from the top to the bottom, it will pick up everything along its path.So the portion of the river at the Coconino sandstone represent the debris picked up along the Kaibab, Toroweap and Coconino layers.But the portion of the river at the Hermit shale represent the debris picked up along the Kaibab, Toroweap, Coconino and Hermit layers.The variety of fossils found would keep increasing as we progress downward. After the river cuts through the preflood layers, we would see preflood fossils and fossils of creatures which died because of the flood. Layers below coal beds are preflood, since coal beds are forests buried due to the flood.

Are you still clinging to your claim that that Tapeats Sandstones and Bright Angel Shale were deposited by the river? You are amazingly resistent to evidence and logic but I guess that is a required characterist for a YEC.Now tell us how those tracks formed.Randy

Have you read ANYTHING posted?Once and for all, which formations represent pre-flood and post-flood layers? And yet we do NOT see this! In fact, it's entirely possible that the variety of fossils increases with stratigraphic height. Peace, that statement clearly demonstrates how much you don't know about geology or the stratigraphic record...This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-20-2005 12:35 AM

Percy,
I don't have the faintest clue why you believe that the footprints were made after 590 feet of sand was deposited. Have you or any other geologist dug under these footprints? Your post reflects the standard 'strata' found in text books. If you decide to dig a hole under these tracks you will find out the truth.The 'Geology and the Great Flood' forum is one of the Science forums here. Citing diagrams found in text books and revealing mainstream science's thought process loses the discussion outright, so you don't really want to do this.Coal miners, who have dug under the plateau, don't share you views. They have obtained a 'worms eye' of these fossil tracks. "Many tracks clearly represent animals striding purposefully in one direction as if they had a destination clearly in mind." - quote from http://home.att.net/~amcnet3/reprints/stokes.htmlIt's obvious that the 'destination clearly in mind' was to escape from the flood which was burying the forests in which they lived.Barnum Brown (1938) believed that these dinosaurs were making monstrous 15 feet steps. If his observations are correct, it's not difficult to guess the reasons for their panicked state of mind.ref: LATE CRETACEOUS COAL MINE TRACKS

Errrr... maybe because the tracks occur near the TOP of the ~600 foot thick sandstone unit, the rest of which occurs BELOW the tracks accounting for... what... ~600 feet of sand? And that's not taking into account the other strata below the Coconino.And Peace, no one needs to dig under the dang sand. It's there, plain as the nose on your face, for the entire world to see. I mean come on! You've been posting the pictures for crying out loud. Oh, I see. It's better just to look at the pretty pictures over the web and make wild ass guesses? lol I'm surprised you left out the sentence following the one you quoted: Were these the mentally impaired dinosaurs who didn't realize the end was near? Didn't they see or FEEL the water creeping up their legs? Except for the dumb dinos who were aimlessly wandering around completely unaware that they were in the middle of a global catastrophe like no other... This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-20-2005 01:50 AM

The Colorado plateau is surrouded by mountains: The following diagram illustrates the formation of the plateau strata. The preflood topography is marked in green. After the flood, waters trapped in between the mountains would have continued to be a fertile lake for fish. After the lake dried up, we would have obtained the post-flood flat strata.Coal is sometimes found at the surface, and sometimes at a depth of 6000 feet.
ref: Page not found – Utah Geological SurveyJust because at one point there is 600 feet of sand, you shouldn't extrapolate and say that the footprints were made after 600 feet of sand were deposited. The footprints are just above the coal beds, just as the miners have discovered.A bird's eye view of the footprints may convince some that the animals lived in a desert.
A worm's eye view would convince others that they lived in forests.This message has been edited by peaceharris, 05-20-2005 06:48 AM

quote:

---

Just because at one point there is 600 feet of sand, you shouldn't extrapolate and say that the footprints were made after 600 feet of sand were deposited. The footprints are just above the coal beds, just as the miners have discovered.

---

Are you saying that the footprints in the Coconino Sandstone were made before the sand that forms the sandstones was deposited?Were they made before the Hermit Shales that underlying the Coconinos were deposited?Were they made before the Redwall limestone that underlie layers that underlie the Hermit shale were deposited?Randy

What do you mean "surrounded?" As in 360 degrees worth of surrounded? And how can you see anykind of detail in that map of North America?Because I got to tell you, based on the maps below, I'm not seeing it: So what data did you use to create the diagram? Did you map and contour all the coal beds?Which direction are we looking in that diagram?And again, which formations represent pre- and post-flood strata? That makes absolutely no sense.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-20-2005 09:24 AM

Hi Peace,I confess to some dismay at how this discussion is proceeding. I was hoping you would address the evidence we presented that contradicts your scenarios, but you're instead ignoring it. As has already been pointed out many times, the layers exposed at the Grand Canyon are not local to the Grand Canyon. They extend for miles in all directions. The layers were not deposited by the river. Here once again is a diagram of part of it: This diagram from you does not reflect the geology of the Grand Canyon or of any of the subsidiary canyons: The layers exposed on the sides of the Grand Canyon do not stop some distance into the canyon walls. They extend for miles in all directions.In addition, and I see others have already pointed this out, if the fossils of lower layers were really the deposited debris of upper layers, then the Tapeats would contain material and fossils from all the above layers. But it doesn't. And the Bright Angel would contain material and fossils from the layers above it, but it doesn't. The same is true of all the other layers. And about this specific claim: This is definitely false. The variety of fossils and the mix of fossils varies from layer to layer. And there are fossils unique to some layers, such as the molluscs of the Kaibab, that are not found in any of the lower levels.Even if just as a courtesy, it would be greatly appreciated if you could directly address these problem with your proposed scenario so as to diminish the rising concern that you are simply ignoring them.--Percy

See, I read Peace's statement differently. I read the statement as it relates to his interpretation of Grand Canyon geology. Namely that the Tapeats and Bright Angel formations are residual deposits from erosion of the canyon walls. If indeed this was true, then Peace's statement might very well be true in the sense that fossils from all the different stratigraphic layers would be found in the Tapeats and Bright Angel. However, this is far from being the case and so Peace's theory is falsified. Only he is ignoring that fact.I suggested the opposite was true, that the variety of life actually increases with stratigraphic height since we are going from primarily marine life in the Cambrian to marine AND terrestrial life in the younger rocks.note: edited to fix horrible sentence structureThis message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-20-2005 11:08 AM

Hi Peace,You're beginning to wander off topic now. This thread is about the Grand Canyon. The layers of the Grand Canyon predate the dinosaurs. There are no dinosaur tracks in the Grand Canyon layers. Still, I'll address a couple of your points. How do you tell the difference between these different scenarios:

• Tracks made while escaping the flood.
• Tracks made while pursuing prey.
• Tracks made while avoiding becoming prey.
• Tracks made while on the way to a known source of water or food.
• Tracks made while on the way to a nest or burrow.
• Tracks made while hunting for food.
• Tracks made while trying to catch up with the rest of the group.

Moving on: You're engaging in selective quoting. The very next sentence says, "Others meander about as if their makers were simply looking for food or company." You're again engaging in selective quoting. The authors mention Brown's claims only to discredit them: And anyway, this claim of a 15 foot stride was not made in regard to the tracks in the photograph you provided, which I provide again here: Part of the caption reveals that some of the tracks are rather large: Large feet means large creature means large strides.But none of this has anything to do with the Grand Canyon.--Percy

Hi Peace,About your topographic map of the North American continent provided as evidence that the Colorado Plateau was surrounded by mountains in such a way as to trap water, I offer this photo in rebuttal: And that should settle that! You might find these images more helpful in making your point. The first one provides context for the second: This leads me to ask, have you changed your claim? Are you no longer claiming that the layers exposed on the sides of the Grand Canyon are local river deposits? Does this mean that you now accept that those layers extend for miles in all directions? There are no coal beds at the Grand Canyon. If you want to argue stratigraphy of the coal beds of Utah and Colorado then open a new thread. This thread is about the Grand Canyon in Arizona. What is it about viewing footprints from beneath that leads to the conclusion they were made in forests?--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 05-20-2005 10:26 AM

Percy's post reveals that he doesn't know what I believe. The purpose of this post is merely for clarification.Here are the mistakes which I made previously, and opinions which I no longer believe in:1) In Message 9, I stated that the layers were formed in calm conditions when the waters were receding.2) In Message 17, I stated that probably the particles with iron were denser.3) In Message 27, I stated that the size of the particles observed today is not what it was at the time of formation.4) In Message 143, I stated that the Colorado plateau is surrouded by mountains. After additional observation, I have noticed that it wasn't fully surrounded.Other than these, the other things I have said reflect the truth in my opinion. Some of the layers, such as the Tapeats sandstone and Bright Angel shale, shown in Message 77, are local river deposits. The top layers, such as the Kaibab, Toroweap, Coconino and Hermit extend for miles, in all directions quite horizontally were laid down during the flood. But the Tapeats sandstone detected by oil holes, coal beds and bitumens reflect the pre-flood topography of the area. Just because the Colorado river hasn't exposed coal beds, you shouldn't conclude that there are none. The Peabody energy company has mined coal from Arizona. Rivers usually flow along the path of least resistance. It is easier for the river to cut through flood sediments than pre-flood forests.You will see exposed coal only if the river cuts through the buried forests. I do not think that the strata of the Colorado plateau is different in neighbouring states, so I don't see any reason to start another thread. Coal beds are formed from forests. The fact that the footprints are seen in the roofs of coal mines imply that the animals were making these tracks after their habitat was partially buried by the flood.In Message 146, You need to be more specific here. Molluscs have been observed in the bright angel shale.This message has been edited by peaceharris, 05-22-2005 07:25 AM