Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
37 online now:
jar, ooh-child, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Tangle, Taq, Theodoric (8 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,848 Year: 16,884/19,786 Month: 1,009/2,598 Week: 255/251 Day: 26/58 Hour: 0/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If Caused By Flood Drainage Why is the Grand Canyon Where It IS?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20119
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 1 of 10 (714940)
12-29-2013 8:00 PM


It seems that creationists are drawn to the Grand Canyon like moths to a flame ...

Here is a slightly different slant on the Grand Canyon debate:

Why does the canyon cross two high ridges when paths north and south are at lower elevations?

The darker green is higher than the lighter green, the red outlines would be the topographic level dividing dark from light.

So IF the canyon is formed by catastrophic flood flows draining the purported WWF, then

  1. Why are there no canyons in either the northern path following lower elevations, or the southern path following lower elevations?

  2. Why does water flow from the Kanab Plateau south to the Colorado River via Kanab Creek, which starts lower than the north rim, instead of the path shown by black arrows north of the canyon?

  3. Why does water flow from the Coconino Plateau north to the Colorado River via Meadow Creek which starts lower than the south rim, instead of the path shown by black arrows south of the canyon?

Does catastrophic flood drainage flow go magically uphill?

Creationists claiming the Grand Canyon is due to catastrophic flood drainage got some 'splainin' to do.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : list db

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 12-30-2013 9:39 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 4 by roxrkool, posted 12-30-2013 3:36 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2014 6:23 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 9 by Diomedes, posted 01-03-2014 3:26 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20119
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 3 of 10 (714955)
12-30-2013 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-29-2013 8:00 PM


Kent Hovind's Laughable Lie
Here is creationist Kent Hovind and his (bad) argument for how the Grand Canyon was made:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze5A2pua1E4

Typical mixture of some fact, some twaddle and a lot of innuendo and misrepresentation.

Note that the map in Message 1 shows why Hovind's explanation is completely bogus and doesn't work by his own argument that water does not flow uphill -- where the Grand Canyon crosses the ridge is not the lowest point of the ridge, but up on a slope to a high point between two lower points, so if he was correct then the canyon would be in a different location, one north or south of the current location as shown on the map.

Meadow Creek, btw, is a "barbed" connection , as are many other tributaries to the Colorado River west of the ridge, so his assertion that this never happens unless it is backflow off a dam is just more twaddle. There is no such general rule that tributaries can only connect to another river at acute angles -- water takes the path of least energy, whatever that is and wherever it leads.

As best I can figure, his large lakes and beaches are actually the inland sea that transgressed and regressed several times over a lot of the middle states, leaving many beach deposits and marine sediments during the late Cretaceous to early Paleogene, and which were saltwater not fresh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway

quote:

The Western Interior Seaway (also called the Cretaceous Seaway, the Niobraran Sea, and the North American Inland Sea) was a large inland sea that existed during the mid- to late Cretaceous period as well as the very early Paleogene, splitting the continent of North America into two landmasses, Laramidia to the west and Appalachia to the east. The ancient sea stretched from the Gulf of Mexico and through the middle of the modern-day countries of the United States and Canada, meeting with the Arctic Ocean to the north. At its largest, it was 2,500 feet (760 m) deep, 600 miles (970 km) wide and over 2,000 miles (3,200 km) long.

The earliest phase of the Seaway began in the mid-Cretaceous when an arm of the Arctic Ocean transgressed south over western North America; this formed the Mowry Sea, so named for the Mowry Shale, an organic-rich rock formation.[2] In the south, the Gulf of Mexico was an extension of the Tethys Sea, which met with the Mowry Sea in the late Cretaceous, forming the "complete" Seaway.[2]


Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : barbed

Edited by RAZD, : seaway

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : ...

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-29-2013 8:00 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20119
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 5 of 10 (714976)
12-30-2013 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by roxrkool
12-30-2013 3:36 PM


Thanks roxrkool, not sure that will help the creationist dilemma though.

... While a trunk <> stream ...

Likely they mean the main stream that tributaries dump into (base elevations of the tributaries would be where they intersect the main trunk of the river).

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by roxrkool, posted 12-30-2013 3:36 PM roxrkool has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by roxrkool, posted 12-30-2013 4:41 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20119
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 7 of 10 (715263)
01-02-2014 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-29-2013 8:00 PM


Northern and Southern Route Topography
Interesting site - USGS topo maps interactive
http://store.usgs.gov/...OT&layout=6_1_61_48&uiarea=2%29/.do

You can also download maps.

Northern Route

I captured this shot of where rte 89 crosses the ridge north of Grand Canyon:

The contours are at 40ft intervals and the two markers are on the 5600 ft contour with no other contour between them, so we know the highest point is less than 5640 ft.

The rims of the canyon are 7250 ft (south) and 7750 (north) ... and the high point of the Kaibab plateau is over 8400 ft ...

So the water would need to cut through (7250-5640 =) 1,610 ft of Kaibab Plateau before it gets to the elevation of the Rte 89 pass ...

A location that does not show any evidence of a water erosion channel across the ridge.

There's another pass a bit more north where another road crosses the Plateau, and its highest elevation is ~5800 ft and the width of water at the 7000 ft elevation is wider than the Grand Canyon ...

A location that does not show any evidence of a water erosion channel across the ridge.

That's a lot of water to just disappear or magically NOT flow downhill.

Southern Route

The highest elevation on the southern route shown is ~6460 ft, still ~800 ft below the canyon rim and this too would have a wide span of water at the 7000 ft elevation.

A location that does not show any evidence of a water erosion channel across the ridge.

Conclusion

Any flood flow that could have cut the canyon in its current location with the ridge intact would also have cut drainage channels in these locations. There is no evidence of drainage channels across these passes. There was no flood flow.

If flood flow carved the Grand Canyon then there should be at least two other canyons that would have been carved at the same time.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-29-2013 8:00 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20119
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 8 of 10 (715293)
01-03-2014 8:10 AM


Universal Problem: Flood Concept = deceitful god belief
Not only does the north passageway not show any evidence of water drainage across this low point in the ridge, but every pass in mountain ranges around the world do not show evidence of water drainage channel erosion.

What it comes down to is belief in a world wide flood is belief in a deceitful god that not only hides his work, but makes it look like an old earth, or ...

... the earth is old, very very very old.

Get used to it.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20119
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 10 of 10 (715321)
01-03-2014 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Diomedes
01-03-2014 3:26 PM


Well clearly, the fast moving water become ionized, thereby making it susceptible to a magnetic field. During the flood, the magnetic field of the Earth increased by MASSIVE orders of magnitude, thereby creating a 'pull' on the ionized water, making it 'magically' flow up hill! ...

D'oh!

Not just uphill but into the atmosphere as ions that then combined with other elements in the atmosphere to make the post noachin atmosphere and accounting for changes to 14C content and radioactivity in general ...

It's all SO obvious if you look at the evidence....

You are SO right.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Diomedes, posted 01-03-2014 3:26 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019