Quasar1011
King of Sylvania
sahkuhnder said:
I agree. But you are making an assumption here. Firstly, I never said that the water cut through solid rock. I said it cut the Grand Canyon. The assumption is that the strata around the Grand Canyon was hard and solid at the time of its cutting. If the Grand Canyon was formed shortly after the Great Flood, the strata would not be that hard. Some geologists do claim that Lake Missoula cut through solid rock, however, when its ice dam burst.
Perfection said:
Pace of which, fossilization, or plate tectonics?
The Great Flood was a worldwide cataclysm; thus, the name geological catastrophism. In such an event, there will be exceptions to the order. But for the basic order, tectonic activity could accomplish much of the sorting; or, hydrological sorting could. Also, because not all animals would have drowned at the same time, a factor called differential escape comes into play. Zonations in the strata would also come from ecological or biogeographic reasons.Perfection said:
Not all species survived the Flood; many died out.
sahkuhnder said:
Interesting. The very first web page I looked at, had the following comment:
http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm#how
How was the Grand Canyon formed?
The truth is that no one knows for sure though there are some pretty good guesses. The chances are that a number of processes combined to create the views that you see in todays Grand Canyon.
The 2nd web page I looked at, also says there is no definite agreement on the canyon's formation:
Wayne Ranney, a geology instructor at Yavapai College in Prescott, Ariz., argues that the Little Colorado River probably flowed north through Marble Canyon, a stretch of the river where tributaries come in at an angle that is the opposite of what one would expect, given the way the water flows.
"The river system I envision would have flowed north into the Glen Canyon area," Mr. Ranney said. "Every time I see this landscape, I'm more convinced that at least this part of the river went the other way. The beauty of this theory is that it ties together a lot of conflicting ideas concerning evidence for an old river east of the Kaibab Upwarp and a young one west of it."
Figuring out the Grand Canyon is like being a police officer called to the scene of a four-car accident, Dr. Reynolds said.
"But by the time you get there, three of the cars have been towed away, they repaved the road and washed away the skid marks. You are left with only one piece of the puzzle."
Larry Stevens, a river guide and expert on Grand Canyon ecology, said that the Grand Canyon might be a "geological koan." "People can spend a lifetime pursuing these questions and we may never know the answers," Larry said. "Once you've been in The Canyon, everything else is just commentary"
http://www.grandcanyontreks.org/geology2.htm
This is why I brought up uniformitarianism earlier. You are saying that we can extrapolate today's geological processes backwards into the past, either indefinitely or for millions/billions of years. But, that is an assumption. Not all geologists buy that assumption. If the Great Flood actually did occur, it was a worldwide catastrophe. So to say that rock eroded in the Grand Canyon at a constant rate ever since its formation, is simply an assumption. Again, I agree with what you are saying about erosion and solid rock. I just don't hold the same assumptions you do. This means it is more the interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves, that we are disagreeing about.
Here again, you are assuming the time scale. Tectonic plates have been moving for millions of years? Yes, that is one explanation. But another explanation is that plate tectonics began with the Great Flood. I didn't say caused by, I said began with. What I mean, is that most of the water involved in the great flood, came from subterranean sources- what the Bible would call "fountains of the deep". Think of the Earth as a baseball for a minute. If the baseball Earth suddenly ripped at its seams, and subterranean water came rushing out, wouldn't that cause a great flood? Do we have any geological evidence of such seams? Yes, we do. They are called the mid-oceanic ridges. Look at an undersea map or atlas, and you will see chains of mountains running across the sea floors- like seams on a baseball. I partially agree with your statement about the flood not having an effect on movement of the Earth's plates, with this exception: upon settling, the floodwaters would depress oceanic plates, and cause continental plates to rise. More on this later.sakhunder said:
sakhunder said:
The flood was a catastrophe that re-ordered nearly the entire surface of the Earth- including the seas. If the Earth split open at the mid-oceanic ridges, the great volume of water ejected would kill any marine life near those locations. That water was also likely superheated, being under great pressure from the crust above it. The temperature changes upon the splitting open of the Earth would kill additional sea creatures. The trapped water also likely had a different salinity than any sea water, and additional aquatic animals would have perished from that. Temperature changes after the flood would have caused even more sea creatures to perish. Initial rapid movement of the Earth's plates would have cut off some sea creatures from their best environments; other sea creatures would have been lifted onto continental plates, where their seawaters would have eventually dried up. Also, as the flood waters settled, there would have been numerous undersea mudslides; undersea earthquakes would also have been more frequent during the initial phase of plate tectonics. Creatures not killed directly by these phenomena may still have had their environments altered enough to cause species to die out. One year of the greatest catastrophe the Earth has even seen, would be long enough to leave millions of fossils, even in mountains.
Earlier, you mentioned flash floods. If what you are saying is true, that volume has no effect on the speed of water, we wouldn't have flash floods. From the Red Cross Disaster Preparedness Website:sakhunder said:
Flash Floods
#1 Weather-related killer in the United States! How do flash floods occur?
Several factors contribute to flash flooding. The two key elements are rainfall intensity and duration. Intensity is the rate of rainfall, and duration is how long the rain lasts. Topography, soil conditions, and ground cover also play an important role.
Rainfall intensity and duration speak directly to water volume. If, as you and others say, velocity is the key player in erosion, instead of volume, then I found one website that mentions doubling the velocity in a stream:
Stream capacity is the maximum amount of solid load (bed and suspended) a stream can carry. It depends on both the discharge and the velocity (since velocity affects the competence and therefore the range of particle sizes that may be transported).
As stream velocity and discharge increase so do competence and capacity. But it is not a linear relationship (e.g., doubling velocity and discharge do not simply double competence and capacity). Competence varies as approximately the sixth power of velocity. For example, doubling the velocity results in a 64 times increase in the competence.
That was from:
http://myweb.cwpost.liu.edu/vdivener/notes/streams_basic.htm
Are you saying that a trickle flows as fast as a torrent?Perfection said:
Next to where I work, is a flood control channel. Today, a lazy trickle is flowing down the channel. Overnight Monday, 2 inches of rain fell at my location (and more than that in the mountains upstream). By Tuesday, the channel was a swift-flowing torrent. From my perspective, the downhill slope of the channel remains constant; the water volume did not.
From 1926 until 1950, just before the Glen Canyon Dam was built, the daily sediment flow of the river was carefully measured, and was found to average almost 500,000 tons per day (168 million tons per year). This is equivalent to 0.015 cubic miles per year. During a 1927 flood, this increased to some 23 million tons per day! How much greater would either a worldwide flood re-arrange topography, or a dam-breach scenario be able to carve out the Grand Canyon.
Perfection said:
Hey, I even admitted I couldn't remember if it was Lake Bonneville or not. Kudos to you!
I searched but could not find the name of lake in question; however, it is in association with the Breached Dam Theory of Grand Canyon formation. Okay, if this was written in 2002, it ought to be a good, current read on the subject. I'll try to get it. For now, most of the discussion is focusing on hydrogeology, not abiogenesis.carlosMM said:
Yes, the fossils are in solid rocks. But, do not sedimentary rocks begin as soft muds that later harden into solid rocks? A limestone on top of a mountain full of fossils could get there by what I earlier called the greatest catastrophe in Earth's history. If, as some evolutionists claim, an asteroid striking the Earth 65 millions of years ago could wipe out species, including countless individuals as well as the dinosaurs; why do you reject a great extinction based on a worldwide hydrological and geological disaster? What would the effect on speciation be, a matter of weeks after the asteroid strike, 65 million years ago? I think you are underestimating the scale of what I am talking about. Even the Bible says that the Earth of that time was destroyed (but not annihilated). Keep in mind that I am talking about a flood combined with the most extreme geological changes the world has ever seen. And if the so-called "fountains of the deep" were not immediately closed off, the result would be igneous intrusions into sedimentary rock. If the continents rose after the flood, while the ocean basins sank, the result would be metamorphic rocks. This is pretty much what we see all over the Earth. So it is not surprising that we see marine fossils on mountaintops.carlosMM said:
Also, while searching for Lake Bonneville, I came across a discussion of Lake Missoula. That lake was dischrged when a natrual ice dam breached. The Missoula Flood is said to have carved its way through basaltic bedrock.
Rats. I went to the Grand Canyon in August 2005 and forgot to do this. Anyway, today's rate of erosion, is not the same as it was during and shortly after the Great Flood. This is where we disagree most. You seem to be extrapolating erosion rates backward indefinitely. I don't.carlosMM said:
carlosMM said:
But I agree with you on the hardness of sediments and erosion, for the most part. We are simply disagreeing on the rate of erosion, not on the effect erosion has on soft vs. hard rock. And, are you saying that all of the Grand Canyon is made up of sedimentary rock layers?
I mentioned before about how some aquatic creatues would die, if their area of sea was lifted up onto a continent, and cut off from the ocean. This lake that formed upstream in Utah, would be such a place. As Perfection pointed out, this would not be Lake Bonneville; it would be located in southeastern Utah. It may not have been long after the flood, that this area was lifted up, and its natural dam breeched. So you have a combination of a large volume of water, plus the elevation change. I am not ignoring the downhill speed due to gravity, but you do seem to be ignoring the component of downhill speed due to volume. After all, more volume means more mass, which set into motion means more momentum, which means more speed.carlosMM said:
I answered this a few paragraphs up. But, the uppermost layers of rocks always contain the newest fossilized life forms? First of all, that's not always true. Secondly, index fossils are used to date much rock strata. The rocks are dated by the fossils, and the fossils are dated by the rocks. There is much circular logic in this area of geology. Thirdly, this does not account for polystrate fossils. Fourthly, your ancestor-descendant claim is conjecture, since evolution is still a theory, not a proven fact. (ducks)carlosMM said:
Our current land-water distribution on Earth is about 30-70% (as any civ player will know). Before the flood, there was likely much less surface water. One tenet of geology is that the atmosphere was formed by the outgassing of volcanoes. The composition of the early atmosphere is thought to have changed much over time, with the addition of condensed water vapor. So even geology supports the idea that the oceans formed on Earth, later than did the continents. We disagree on the timing of this transition, but we can agree that the oceans were smaller in the past. Obviously, this still does not rule out periods when the ocean may have covered more than 70% of the Earth' surface either.carlosMM said:
So the answer to, "where did all that water go?" would be this. "All that water" did not exist on the Earth's surface prior to the Great Flood; only some of it did. The Earth was flatter before the flood. But the underlying crust was not all of the same composition. During and after the flood, the lighter continental crusts rose, while the denser basaltic bedrock sank under the weight of the water. "All that water" didn't just go into the oceans, it formed the oceans. Or at least, whatever ancient oceans existed, were greatly expanded after the flood.
I am telling you that pre-flood, oceans may have not existed at the scale they do today. There may have been only large seas. As far as diatoms, would they be evenly distributed upon the ancient Earth, or could there be clusters of diatoms in areas favorable to their development? The entire ocean wouldn't have to be stuffed with diatoms, as you put it. If it were, oil would be much more evenly distrubuted beneath the Earth's surface. Even dinosaur fossils are often found clustered together. So yes, diatomite formation could have been deposited in as short as a year, if that was the year of the great catastrophe.The Last Conformist said:
By the way, where did you get your facts? From the Handbook of Texas Online: Mineral Resources and Mining:
Diatomite. Diatomite, or diatomaceous earth, occurs in the upper Tertiary and Pleistocene lacustrine deposits on the High Plains. No Texas diatomite has been produced.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/MM/gpm1.html
The Karoo formation is located near Capetown. Seems to me, that an area uplifted so close to the juncture of 2 oceans (the Atlantic & Indian) would be a prime area for exactly such a formation. But, how quickly do fossils form? The remains of the creatures need to be buried in mud quickly, so that predators or scavengers cannot reach them, nor weathering effects. The Flood would have done just that.The Last Conformist said:
But, are you claiming a uniform worldwide extinction pattern? It seems you are extrapolating diatomite formations, and the extent of terrestrial vertebrate fossils, from localized areas to worldwide in scope. Or is that not what you are saying?
Good questions guys!
!
