Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,912 Year: 4,169/9,624 Month: 1,040/974 Week: 367/286 Day: 10/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Grand Canyon is younger than geologists think
John
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 17 (36972)
04-14-2003 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 5:55 AM


quote:
So, the ONLY way that that river could have carved that canyon is if the river flowed uphill (rivers dont flow uphill)!
The ONLY way? You've got to be kidding me? Ever heard of uplift? The Rockies didn't start to form until 60-70 million years ago. That basically means that the land was rising while the river cut through it. Problem solved. Maybe you should brush up.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 5:55 AM booboocruise has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 1:15 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 17 (37014)
04-14-2003 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 1:15 PM


quote:
In actuallity, erosion of sediments overcomes uplift in that part of the world...
Really? And your source for this is... ? I posted a source for my info, and I can find more. Your turn, or don't expect to be taken seriously.
But just for fun lets assume what you say is true. These are current rates, but the past is a different animal. I happen to live on a chunk of land that rose hundreds of feet in a geological heartbeat, yet today the erosion rate exceeds the uplift. I should therefore conclude that the land I live on isn't hundreds of feet above sea level, since the erosion rates currently exceed the uplift? Seems to be your logic here.
quote:
Also, even if uplift did cause the Grand Canyon that long ago, the uplift would not have kept the Canyon walls preserved--it would've crumbled the rocks toward the top
What? This makes no sense. Please clarify.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 1:15 PM booboocruise has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 17 (37997)
04-25-2003 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Percy
04-24-2003 9:20 PM


Re: Bringing This Thread Back On Topic
quote:
Booboo's point: Erosion would wear away the continents in 14 million years, so the Grand Canyon could not be millions of years old.
Rebuttal: No one directly addressed this point, but the answer is once again uplift.

I submit this as a response to booboo's point, not that it matters. From my post # 15:
But just for fun lets assume what you say is true. These are current rates, but the past is a different animal. I happen to live on a chunk of land that rose hundreds of feet in a geological heartbeat, yet today the erosion rate exceeds the uplift. I should therefore conclude that the land I live on isn't hundreds of feet above sea level, since the erosion rates currently exceed the uplift? Seems to be your logic here.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 04-24-2003 9:20 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by booboocruise, posted 05-01-2003 6:00 AM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 17 (38580)
05-01-2003 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by booboocruise
05-01-2003 6:00 AM


Re: Bringing This Thread Back On Topic
Well, booboo, there is something called erosion-- a process to which you yourself have referred. See, what happens is that as water ( in this case ) flows across the ground it moves loose particles of earth. Eventually, this carves a channel. This, for the doubters, can be demonstrated with a waterhose and some loose soil, or, even better, with a mud puddle on a rainy day and a pair of bare feet. Now, imagine that this channel of water flows though a bit of earth that is slowly rising. If the rise of some portion of the earth is greater than the rate of erosion, then you will get something like what you propose-- that the river gets damned, except that it won't be damned but diverted to another path. Off the cuff here-- the geologists can confirm or contest this-- the Grande Canyon shows ample evidence of there having been such diversions. Now, case two, if the rate of uplift is equal too or less than ( or averages out to such ) the rate of erosion, then the river will cut its channel right though the uplifting ground, essentially remaining in the same place relative to some fixed reference point. Think about cutting a ball of dense clay with a knife. You can push the knife down though the clay, but you could also mount the knife in a fixed position and push the clay up through the knife. If the upward push is fast you'll break the mount but if the uplift is slow the knife cuts right through.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by booboocruise, posted 05-01-2003 6:00 AM booboocruise 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