Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,911 Year: 4,168/9,624 Month: 1,039/974 Week: 366/286 Day: 9/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Incompatibility of Geology with YEC
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 53 of 66 (353268)
09-30-2006 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by iceage
09-29-2006 7:03 PM


Grand Canyon
The Great Unconformity at the bottom of the grand canyon present even a more difficult case. The bottom layer consists of several different types of rock including intrusions. The upper layers are several thousands of feet thick and tens of miles long.
I've posted a cross section of that region at EvC more than once. From a YEC perspective I have hypothesized that the layers were all in place but not completely hardened when there was an intrusion of magma from below that displaced the lowest strata, upending them.
The volcanic force uplifted the whole column at the north of the Grand Canyon and was the cause of the crack in the layers that eventually became the canyon itself, after which water -- water left over from the flood, held in temporary lakes here and there -- eroded it over time, but relatively rapidly by evo standards, to its present breadth. There are also cracks to the north in the Grand Staircase that formed smaller canyons.
The layers did not crack or buckle over the mound to the north of the GC which was created by the uplifting force of the magma intrusion below. On the diagram they maintain their parallel form over the curve without breaking up. {Edit: This fact shows that they were all in place when the volcanic action underneath occurred. They could not have formed later as there is no way gravity would allow layers to form in parallel slowly over a mound.
My theory is that the weight of the upper layers relative to the force from below was enough to keep them from distorting in the same way as the lower layers, that is, they maintained their parallel form, while the force played out in the tilting and sliding of the lower layers beneath the weight of the upper column, at the division between two different sediments. The lower tilted and slid, but the upper were merely lifted. Quite an earthquake I would imagine. Similar processes could explain other unconformities. Sorry I can't access links until my computer problem is fixed, sometime next week.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by iceage, posted 09-29-2006 7:03 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by iceage, posted 10-01-2006 12:25 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 54 of 66 (353271)
09-30-2006 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by iceage
09-29-2006 7:43 PM


Re: Lava Layers
Are we to believe that all three sediment layers are laid down during the flood year with two intervening subarial basalt flows?
I can't access links for now, but my response is Why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by iceage, posted 09-29-2006 7:43 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by iceage, posted 10-01-2006 12:39 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 57 of 66 (353384)
10-01-2006 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by iceage
10-01-2006 12:39 AM


Re: Lava Layers
How do we know this basalt was place on dry land? Well when lava flows under water it forms characteristic pillows or shatters into palagonite.
I CANNOT READ THE LINKS as I've said many times. Sorry but I can't until my computer is fixed.
If it's in layers it was formed by the flood, it was carried on water, it was deposited between other sediments. It's not your ordinary everyday scenario. The rapid sedimentation and the weight of the layers above would probably have compressed any pillows flat.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by iceage, posted 10-01-2006 12:39 AM iceage has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 58 of 66 (353387)
10-01-2006 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by iceage
10-01-2006 12:25 AM


Re: Grand Canyon
I will concur on the rather large earthquakes that would occur in your scenario. It is wonder that the fragile hoodoos of Bryce Canyon survived. Bryce canyon is just over 100 miles away.
Now THAT is silly. The hoodoos have been slowly eroded into their fragile condition over some 4500 winters since the Flood. Every year they lose a little more of their substance as they freeze and thaw. It is a concern of those who oversee the park. {edit: There have even been suggestions to artificially support some of the more famous formations, though sanity prevailed and they decided nature is nature and if they disintegrate that's that.}
They didn't exist when the Grand Canyon was formed. That area was no doubt just a stack of layers like most of the earth at the time, perhaps just starting to crack in the areas that became the spaces between the pillars {edit: cracked as a result of the earthquake perhaps}. The cracks would widen and deepen as runoff continued, being sculpted away by receding flood waters, probably in many rivulets, rather than the cataract that hit the GC, and the pillars must have been quite thick and sturdy at first. Completely sculpting them to their present fragile condition couldn't be done by running water, and would certainly have taken those 4500 years of slow weather erosion.
I see NO problem with the intermixing of layers in unconformities. Why exactly is that a problem?
If that's a problem for the flood scenario it strikes me as a far more difficult problem for the OE slow deposition scenario.
I CANNOT READ YOUR LINKS.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by iceage, posted 10-01-2006 12:25 AM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by iceage, posted 10-01-2006 2:24 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 64 of 66 (353504)
10-01-2006 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by iceage
10-01-2006 2:24 AM


computer limitations on reading links
BTW. If you can visit and post here than you can visit those links. Just cut and paste the url's if you have to.
As PD affirmed, I CANNOT go to links. It isn't the link itself, it's getting there. Whenever I have tried it my computer freezes up or gives me a blue screen that tells me something dire just happened. It takes me half a dozen tries to get the thing booted up in the first place, and then it freezes or crashes a couple or three times when I go online at all. After that, if I don't do anything unusual it may go for some time without freezing up. Sorry, that's just the way it is. I will have a new system sometime next week.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by iceage, posted 10-01-2006 2:24 AM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by iceage, posted 10-01-2006 6:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024