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

edge wrote:"First, there are whopping cross-beds in the Coconino that tell
us the medium was flowing quite rapidly."peaceharris wrote:"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."In message 15, Percy wrote:"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."A picture of the cross-bedding in the Coconino sandstone can be found in "Coconino Sandstone, Walnut Canyon" at: Error
Error and in "Types of Sedimentary Rocks" at:Error
ErrorWhether the Coconino Sandstone was deposited underwater or in a desert is a relatively simple question, for which Young Earth creationists ignore basic facts of sedimentology. Essentially, because of the difference in density and viscousity between water and air, the large-scale cross-bedding formed by sand waves and sand dunes are quite distinct although they superficially resemble each other. The fact of the matter is that the cross-bedding of the Coconino Sandstone is of the wind-blown eolian type. For example, the Coconino Sandstone contains abundant climbing translatent beds created by wind ripples and grain-fall bedding produced by eolian grain-fall processes. As a matter of simple physics, it is impossible, unless a person wants to argue for divine intervention in this matter, for either of these types of sedimentary structures to have formed underwater because of the diffferences in the physical properties of water and air. Thus, the specific types of cross-bedding found in the Coconino Sandstone soundly refutes that it was deposited underwater.If a person wants to argue for a submarine origin of the Coconino Sandstone, they need to explain why wind ripples, their climbing translatent beds, grain-fall bedding, and other types of bedding / sedimentary structures that can only form in terrestrial, eolian environments occur throughout it.Go look at:Claim CC365.1:
CC365.1: Coconino Sandstone deposition environment.Paleozoic Strata
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htmandHunter, R. E., 1977. Basic types of stratification in small
eolian dunes. Sedimentology. vol. 24, pp. 361-387.Deserts - wind and running water in the Eolian environment
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/geol100/lectures/34.html
http://www.geol.umd.edu/...ck/geol100/images/35/coconino.jpgThe best that Young Earth creationists can do is argue on the basis of, at best, ambiguous and woefully incomplete laboratory experiments about the effects that wetness has on how tracks are made in loose sand. Because of the ambiguous nature of the results and incomplete nature of these experiments, they fail to prove anything about the conditions under which the Coconino Sandstone accumulated.Best regards,Bill
Houston, TexasThis message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 05-04-2005 01:27 PM

CanyonDave.com is for sale | HugeDomains
CanyonDave.com is for sale | HugeDomainsThe deep red color underneath the Coconino sandstone has been attributed to iron oxide. This clearly proves some sorting mechanism.Most probably, the particles with iron were denser.Is it possible to determine the size of the particles when these layers formed? When you say 'rough sandy limestone ' and 'fine-grained Redwall limestone', are you referring to the size of particles observed today, or are you referring to the size of particles during the time of formation?

Umm, PH, the red unit is the Hermit Shale. Have you looked below it?You title your post 'Kaibab vs Redwall' and then discuss the Hermit and your picture is of the Coconino. I'm beginning to think you are a troll. It is not possible for someone to be this confused. Yes, yes and no. However, the size today may be, and usually is, the same as the size at deposition. And if the sizes changed there would be some evidence such as cataclasis or augmentation.

Shale is composed of clay particles. The Hermit Shale contains both sand and shale, interbedded with each other. You do not find Fe-bearing clay particles or Fe-bearing minerals (e.g., pyrite, magnetite, biotite, pyroxene, etc.) at the base of the Hermit Shale, which would be the case if the formation were water-sorted. The Fe-bearing material is equally interspersed throughout the formation, from top to bottom, and occurs with quartz sand grains and clay particles. The Hermit Shale is red because the original sediment contained relatively abundant Fe-bearing minerals, which released Fe upon weathering and later oxidized to form hematite, geothite, etc., staining the entire formation. It takes very little FeOx to stain rock red.Additionally, the Hermit Shale contains evidence of pools, raindrop impressions, fern impressions, halite impressions/molds, mud cracks, as well as impressions of cone-bearing plants - none of which are found in marine settings, but are, incidentally quite similar to plants occurring today in floodplain environments under semi-arid climatic conditions. Primary grain sizes can be determined easily by looking for evidence of alteration or recrystallization. Significant changes in particle size of sedimentary rocks are generally the result of diagenesis and/or metamorphism. These changes are generally recognized by distinct textural characteristics, changes in mineralogy, and also result in the destruction of the minute fossils commonly found in marine rocks (e.g., forams, radiolarians, etc.).A 'rough sandy limestone' has a primary genetic connotation because quartz sand does not simply appear in unaltered limestone. Sand and limestone were therefore deposited at the same time. However, I will say that the term 'rough' is not an oft-used geologic term. More appropriate terms would be gritty, clastic, or simply sandy. I believe Percy was simply using 'rough' as a general descriptor.'Fine-grained limestone' implies that the carbonate grains are < ~0.06 mm in diameter. Whenever you see coarse-, medium-, fine-, or very fine-grained designations attached to sedimentary rocks, it's telling you rather specific information about the grain size composition of the rock as you see it today. And unless the rock has been sigificantly altered in any way, it also generally represents grain sizes of particles at the time of deposition. More so for clastic material than for carbonates, however.

I believe the sizes of rocks we see at the grand canyon have been greatly altered. During the time of formation, these particles would have been much smaller. Solidification of these rocks are like forming cement by drying away the water.This message has been edited by peaceharris, 05-05-2005 05:02 AM

First, I think you mean the sizes of the grains IN the rocks, not the sizes of the rocks themselves, correct?Second, what evidence do you have that suggests the shale (clay particles are <0.04 mm) within the Hermit Shale were smaller? How much smaller can shale/clay particles get? Remember, the smaller the particles - especially flat ones like clay - the slower the rate of deposition. Therefore, shale will take much longer to deposit - a bit of a problem if you're arguing in favor of YECism.Also, what evidence do you have that the quartz grains in the Coconino Sandstone were smaller? Quartz does not alter (or grow) much at all from its primary occurrence except under increased P/T conditions or with the introduction of silica-rich fluids passing through the sandstone. These events leave tell-tale signs. Do you see these signs?Third, what evidence do you have that the rocks have been greatly altered?_
edited because posted too soon...and thanks for fixing Jar. edited by AdminJar to fix dBcode.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 05-05-2005 10:04 AMThis message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-05-2005 11:56 AM

Hey, Rox... Hmm, according to edge's manual of engineering geology, roughness of joint surfaces is a factor in determining rock mass properties. However, I'm sure that neither Percy nor PH have this in mind. And it is accurate, as I remember.

Eh? You haven't dealt with cement much, have you, PH? Why do you suppose you keep freshly poured cement wet, or even covered with wet burlap sacks? To help "dry away the water?" Water is absolutely essential for cement, or for that matter, any non-molten rock I can think of, to solidify to a solid mass.

Well, there you go, edge, those dang engineers making a mess of our geology as usual... err... unless you're an engineer, of course.If that's what Percy was referring to, I stand corrected.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-05-2005 10:47 PM

I would never admit it in public.

hehSmart man.

I am neither interested about the sizes of grains IN the rocks as seen today, nor am I interested in the sizes of rocks as seen today. I am interested to know whether it is possible to determine the sizes of particles at the time of sedimentation. If you took 2 pieces of rock from the Coconino sandstone and hermit shale, would you be able to tell me the size and density of particles at the time of formation? "By compaction and cementation, gravels became conglomerates, muds became shales, sands became sandstones, and lime sediments became limestones. " -quote from
Page not found, Kentucky Geological Survey, University of KentuckyI think it is plain common sense to believe that the size and density of the particles observed today is not what it was at the time of formation. I think that mainstream geologists would agree with me that the rocks have been greatly altered.

I hope the geologists will give a detailed answer, but at a very rough level it goes like this. First, check for signs that the rock has undergone some kind of transformation such as heating. If there are no signs of such transformations, then second, measure the grain sizes of the rock, while will be unchanged from when the layer originally formed. Did you quote this because you believe that compaction and cementation alter grain sizes? I don't believe that's the case, at least not in any significant amount, but hopefully the geologists will comment. You mean in a way that would affect grain sizes? I don't think so.About the rocks being "greatly altered", consider that many of the rock layers contain fossils - significant "alteration" of the rocks would have crumbled up or melted (or whatever kinds of alterations you're thinking of) the fossils, wouldn't it?About mainstream geologists agreeing with you, the views being represented to you here are those of mainstream geology. You can find them in any library and at many geology web sites. We're not making this up, we're just telling you the views of modern science.You're under some kind of misimpression if you think EvC Forum is a fringe science site promoting unique views not shared by the general science community. To paraphrase ICR, where our views differ from the views of mainstream science, our views can go to hell! I'm not trying to characterize us as mindless robots who just parrot the status quo, but we deeply understand the great amount of study and research behind current scientific theory, and we have a fair degree of knowledge about the evidence supporting these theories, and so we respect it far too much to question it based only upon armchair speculations.--Percy

Possibly, using extremely unusual definitions for "common sense." A wind-eroded quartz sand grain 0.2 mm across its longest diameter and with a density of 2.63 g/cc will still be that size and density after 800,000,000 years underground unless it's been subjected to severe alteration, say, by hot water flowing past. If that had happened, the angularity that the grain acquired while blowing around in its old desert would be smoothed out. If the grain was cemented to its neighbors while in the rock, the cementing minerals would be quite easily distinguished from the grains.Your willful ignorance in this whole topic astounds me, PH. Try reading a book.

Roxrkool wrote:
"First, I think you mean the sizes of the grains IN the rocks,
not the sizes of the rocks themselves, correct?"In Message 27 of 28 peaceharris wrote:
"I am neither interested about the sizes of grains IN the rocks
as seen today, nor am I interested in the sizes of rocks as seen
today. I am interested to know whether it is possible to
determine the sizes of particles at the time of sedimentation."Given that the Paleozoic rocks exposed in the Grand Canyon and younger strata exposed around it have **not** undergone any significant metamorphism, diagenesis, or other alteration, it is quite easy to know the size and composition (and thus density) of the particle composing them at the time of sedimentation. It is as easy as taking samples, as geologists have done, from the various stratigraphic units, making petrographic thin sections of them, and studying these thin sections under a petrographic microscope. Unless these rocks have been subjected to some very intense alteration, which the Coconino Sandstone and Hermit formation have **not**, the sizes and density of the particles in them would the same as when they were deposited.For more information, go to:1. What Is A Thin Section?
http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/globe/forengeo/thnsec.htm
http://edafologia.ugr.es/optmine/indexw.htm2. Preparation of a rock
http://edafologia.ugr.es/optmine/intro/preparow.htm3. Making Petrographic Thin Sections
Page "NOTT" Found | Union College4. The petrographic microscope
http://edafologia.ugr.es/optmine/intro/microscw.htmpeaceharris further wrote:
"If you took 2 pieces of rock from the Coconino sandstone and
hermit shale, would you be able to tell me the size and density
of particles at the time of formation?"Yes, again it is as easy as making a petrographic thin section and studying them with a petrographic microsciope. Petrographic analysis can quickly determine the size, composition, and volume of the sand grains and cement composing the Coconino Sandstone. Given that the density of minerals, i.e. quartz, feldspar, and clay do **not** change with time, it is quite easy from thin section analysis, to determine the size and density of the particles which compose these units. This is something that is taught in undergraduate geology courses. This is not rocket science as geologists have done petrographic this section analysis of sedimentary rocks since the 1890's.Below are some images of thin sections of sandstone.1. Lecture Images from Class 2 (8/26/99):
http://epswww.unm.edu/coursinf/eps462/class2images.htm2. A quartz-cemented sandstone
http://epswww.unm.edu/coursinf/eps462/graphics/qtzcem.jpg3. Calcite cemented sandstone
http://www.gly.uga.edu/...sback/speleoatlas/SAimage0223.htmlMore pictures can be found in:MacKenzie, W.S. (1980) Atlas of Rock-Forming Minerals in Thin
Sections. John Wiley and Sons, New York,Adams, A.E., MacKenzie, W.S., Guilford, C. (1984) Atlas of
Sedimentary Rocks Under the Microscope. Jossy-Bass, New York.
http://www.josseybass.com/...Title/productCd-047027476X.htmlScholle, P. A. (1978) A Color Illustrated Guide to Constituents,
Textures, Cements, and Porosities of Sandstones and
Associated Rocks. Memoir no. 28, american Association of
Petroleum Geologists,Tulsa, Okalhoma.In the above pictures, which are comparable to what would a person would see in the Coconino Sandstone, the original size and composition (mineralogy) of the sediment composing the sandstone is readily determined using a petrographic microscope. Knowing the mineralogy, i.e. quartz and feldspar, of the grains provides direct information about the density of the grains because each mineral has a specific density.More information about a petrographic microscope and optical mineralogy, the science of using a petrographic mincroscop, can found in various web pages at:Page not found - La Salle University
Page not found | The ODL drifters project
GEOE 213 Mineralogy Lecture NotesEhlers, E.G. (1987) Optical Mineralogy: Theory and Techniques.
lackwell Scientific Publications, Palo Atlo, California.Kerr, P.F. (1977) Optical Mineralogy. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
New York.Safferson, E.P. (1975) Identification Tables for Minerals in Thin
Sections : London, England.The details of petrographic analysis of sandstone and other sedimentary rocks and how it can determine the original size and composition (and thus density) of their constituent grains can be found in:Hutchison, C.S. (1974) Laboratory Handbook of Petrographic
Techniques. Wiley-Interscience, New York.Mueller, G., (1967) Methods in Sedimentary Petrology. Hafner
Publication Company, New York.Tucker, M.E., (1988) Techniques in Sedimentology, Blackwell,
New York.Roxrkool wrote:
"Second, what evidence do you have that suggests the shale (clay
particles are <0.04 mm) within the Hermit Shale were smaller?"peaceharris further replied:
"Also, what evidence do you have that the quartz grains in the
Coconino Sandstone were smaller?"""By compaction and cementation, gravels became conglomerates,
muds became shales, sands became sandstones, and lime sediments
became limestones. " -quote from
Page not found, Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky"This quote has nothing to do the original size and shape of the original grains. Cementation of these grains typically only changes them from loose sediment to solid rock. It does nothing to change their origin size and sorting, which can easily be determined using petrographic techniques. Compaction mainly reduces the volume of space and water content by packing the grains closer together and reducing pore space. It will not change either the size or density of grains, except under the most extreme circumstances. Only in very extreme cases, which typically do **not** apply in case of the Paleozoic and younger sedimentary rocks within the Grand Canyon, will compaction change the size of grains by fracturing them.Only within very narrow fault zones within the Grand Canyon has the grain size of the sandstones, shales, and similar siliciclastic rocks been altered, inthis case, by tectonic fracturing. This fracturing is limited to a zone less than 1 to 10 meters on either size of a specific fault. It is easy to determine, using sedimentary petrography, whether the grains have been altered by any process using thin sections and a petrographic microscope.peaceharris wrote:
"I think it is plain common sense to believe that the size and density of
the particles observed today is not what it was at the time of formation."What peaceharris calls "common sense" in this case is nothing more than "common ignorance" that is easily refuted. The dominate minerals, i.e. various clay minerals, quartz, and feldspar are quite stable and are **not** going to change either their shape or density in time. The quartz and other grains are quite stable and they certainly will neither change their composition, shape, nor density. The clay minerals might change some in composition, but the density change will be minimal because they all have very similar densities.Roxrkool wrote:
"Third, what evidence do you have that the rocks have been greatly altered?"peaceharris replied
"I think that mainstream geologists would agree with me that the rocks have
been greatly altered.'Unfortunately, peaceharris's thought on this matter is completely wrong. As a geologist, I can vouch that mainstream geologists would completely disagree with his statement that these rocks have been "greatly altered". Mainstream geologists, even many Young Earth creationist geologists, would regard these rocks as being relatively unaltered. These rocks have only suffered a minimal amount compaction, cementation, and diagenesis as is the case of the typical sedimentary rock found within the Colorado Plateau region.In case of limestones, dolomites, and other carbonate rocks, they may or may not be recrystallized to the point that their original grains or either obscured or obliterated. When the original grains are preserved, thin section analysis using a petrographic microscope and other techniques, i.e. acetate peels, can be used to determine what the original size, origin, and composition or the grains composing them. For example, the component grains of a limestone showing oolites and a fossil gastropod comprising a Paleozoic limestone can be seen in "Thin Section of a Limestone" at: Limestone Thin SectionIn another example, the original grains within a carbonate mud matrix of another limestone can be seen in "Thin section of hard gray limestone, Worland Limestone" at:Thin section of hard gray limestone, Worland Limestone
Skeletal micritic limestone from Worland Limestone, Pennsylvanian
Bandera and Altamont Formations (Pennsylvanian), St. Louis, Missouri
Main menu, I-170 Pennsylvanian exposure (Altamont Formation)More examples can be found in:Scholle, P.A. (1978) A Color Illustrated Guide to Carbonate Rock
Constituents, Textures, Cements, and Porosities. Memoir no. 27,
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa.Best Regards,Bill Birkeland
Houston, TexasThis message has been edited by Admin, 05-06-2005 12:06 PMThis message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 05-06-2005 12:34 PM