Grand Canyon

Our information thread seems to be going off topic in the direction of discussing the Grand Canyon and perhaps other geography SO I thought maybe I would transfer the of topic stuff to a new thread. I would still like to get a concise, specific defintion of information out of Gup20 and I am interested to see if he ever tries to address the new information examples that I gave him instead of dragging out his own examples. Maybe even get an example of what he would consider new information.

So it started when Gup20 said

I responded

To which Gup responded

To which I responded

 

I would like to visit the issue of angular unconformities a little more closely.

Just what is an angular unconformity? Let's say you have layers that have been deposited.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

And these layers get tilted.


A
BA
CBA
DCBA
.DCBA
..DCBA

Now erosion comes through and erodes the tops off.

DCBA
.DCBA
..DCBA

Now additional layers are deposited on top of these layers.

HHHH
IIII
JJJJ
DCBA
.DCBA
..DCBA

You get an angular unconformity where the tilted and eroded strata meet the newer strata on top. There are many such examples of this in the Grand Canyon. For pictures of quite a few of these, please see the following page.

http://www.casdn.neu.edu/~geology/department/staff/naylor/geo1212/gc_unc.htm

Now my questions would be for you to tell me where in the ash layers at Mt. St. Helens you find angular unconformities that look like these found in the Grand Canyon and more importantly how do you explain such unconformities in your scenario?

Remember, the rapid canyon you posted in the past had water rushing through water logged sediment such that the two combined to quickly wash away the material. You are depending on such a scenario here where all the layers of the Grand Canyon have been laid down in a short period during the flood such that they are all still soft and easily eroded. We have already seen how this makes it impossible to get the high cliffs and meanders seen in the Grand Canyon. But now you have an additional difficulty. You have to come up with some means to lay down a few layers, then get them tilted and then lay down the rest. I don't think you can come up with any logical and factualy supported view for how the tilting could even take place so quickly. But worse, these soft sediments are not going to be amenable to such tilting.

 

When you are done answering the above quesions, I have another for you.

The San Juan River river is a tributary of the Colorado. It has its own canyon. Look at the meanders in the following picture.

http://www.oz.net/~geoffsi/sw2001/725/m/sw-07251208-0860-Goosenecks-pan.htm

Please tell me where in the Mt. St. Helens example, or any other rapidly carved canyon, you have such meanders. Explain how the example canyon was formed in a short period of time.

 

Bump for Gup now that he is posting again.

 

Is there yet an answer from the YEers on the topics of this thread? An answer to the actual problems presented and not a copy and paste based on some keyword searchand an answer that is not arbitrary but factual?

 

"This canyon was formed in 6 days. It went from a 3m deep ditch to a 35 m (120 ft) canyon in less than a week."

Impressive. Let's quote from AIG. "The eroded strata consisted of rather soft sand and clay saturated by the recent rains. The dewatering of the saturated sediments into the now-open ditch enhanced the erosion. The rapidly moving water could both dislodge the particles and carry them down stream, leaving underlying sediments vulnerable to erosion. In total, these six days of runaway ditch erosion removed nearly five million cubic feet of silt, sand, and rock." So, wet sands and clays that were already saturated with water were eroded into a small canyon in a few days. Could you please tell me what the relevence is to the Grand Canyon?

First, you are talking a difference in the volume of about ninety million! So, at these great rates of erosion, it would have taken ... about 1.5 millions years to erode the Grand Canyon. Hmmm.

Second, the Grand Canyon is eroded in rock, including shales, limestones, and sandstones, not soft, wet clay.

Third, let me quote AIG again. "In recent years, scientists have disproved that idea, leaning now on a great volume of water rushing through the area at a high velocity not very long ago which carved the canyon [Grand Canyon]." I think this is a deliberate mistatement. I would like to know who these scientists are and read their papers. Can you direct me to the abstracts or the full, published papers? AIG did not bother to cite any references for that claim. I wonder why?

"This is another canyon that formed rapidly. "

Quoting from the article. "In the 1940s, farmers had to watch every little ditch in case it turned into another gully. They said the soil melted like sugar and ran like water." You have soil that is subject to erosion. Not hard rock. This has no bearing on the Grand Canyon.

"The crystalline-basement rocks exposed deep within the Canyon (schist, granite, and gneiss) represent some of earth's oldest rocks, probably from early in Creation Week. Tilted, deeply buried strata (the "Grand Canyon Supergroup") show evidence of catastrophic-marine sedimentation and tectonics associated with the formation of an ocean basin midway through Creation Week."

Funny that these tilted rocks formed during the creation week also contain fossil bearing layers of sandstone, mudstone, shale, and limestone. Who would have thought you would advocate death during the creation week?!?

"The creationist model for flood waters retreating off of the continents after Noah's flood may provide some answers. During that time we have different periods of run off. As the oceans got deeper..."

You quote me as if you are responding to the meanders challenge yet I see nothing in there about meanders.

 

"Lets think about this.

Let say that we take two big jars of water with several types of sediment in each. Lets say we shake that jar up really good. What happens is the sediment begins to settle in perfect little layers. You end up with differnt layers of differnt rock. Now lets say you drain the water from one and remove the sediment layers. Now lets say you take the other and pour the water mixture over it. What is going to happen?"

Yes, let's think about this.

Let's apply Stoke's Law. It reagrds settling velocities and times.

If you run this experiment properly, you should find that the material settles out into little layers according to Stoke's Law. Basically, the largest particles settle out first and the finest last. Demonstrate your analogy to be valid by showing that the layers follow such a pattern.

Let's also return to Austin's claims here. How did those animal track fossils get into layers in the middle of the Flood, such as those in the Hermit Shale? At least he does not repeat his misrepresentation of isochron dating of the canyon here.

 

I was really looking forward to hearing the explanation of how a little death in the Creation Week itself is OK with Gup20 if it allows his YE beliefs to remain unchallenged. Your source claims that some of the limestone layers of the Grand Canyon were formed during the creation week. Not only is this limestone, but these layers also contain fossils. Therefore you are advocating death during the creation week itself. Surely this cannot be! Perhaps you will repudiate your source officially and find another.

 

I guess Ishould move this back to the top for Gup since he did not realize he was advocating death in the creation week. I guess the response got lost. You need a chance to read it. But you will need to go back to the bottom of the previous page.