The Grand Canyon Paradox

Your crazy idea about rocks growing legs is not on topic for this discussion., If you think that you can support it go on, start a topic.

Are you being sarcastic or are you crazy?

Yes im only being sarcastic.And sorry for getting off topic.But if anyone can provide links to bent fossils other than trillibites i would certainly like to see them.

Trydeformed fossils - Google Search
Paleontologists Use Computer to "Morph" Deformed Fossils Back to Their Original Shapes - University at BuffaloJust for starters. There were some pictures on one thread, but I can't find it right now.

I assume the snide remark about rocks growing legs etc. etc. was directed at my comment about creationists trying to explain the geology of Ireland. If you intend to reply to my posts, please address my point regarding the formation of red sandstone and its falsification of the current flood hypothesis.I couldn't find any really striking photos of deformed brachiopods, which is what we see a lot of here in Ireland. They're immensely useful though as a measure of strain in a rock. I would recommend research on this topic, it's quite interesting. There's no wikipedia page on fossil deformation, but the one on brachiopods is a good start.Brachiopod - Wikipedia

This one is a trilobite again. The way it has deformed certainly doesn't look like flexure along mobile joints though.http://www.notam02.no/~oyvindha/image.html

I cant find any bent fossils either that would be conclusive evidence of fossils bending after the sedimentary rocks hardened.A long bone of some kind clearly bent would be nice but thats life i guess.

on p156 of this (free google account required) there are some nice diagrams of deformed ooliths. These are rounded concentric banded bodies of calcite or aragonite that make up some limestones. Not fossils, but not capable of bending along hinged parts like a trilobite might be. The whole chapter looks useful actually.

Duplicate - See below.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

Duplicate posting. See below.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

quote:

---

No need to be nave, mate. The flood lasted for 150 days, no? That's plenty enough time for the mess-up slush to settle out (creating the column). Then, as the waters receded, it carved the canyon. It might seem strange that the canyon could be carved in so short a time; but two things you must remember: (1) there was a LOT of water on the Earth, and it all soaked up/ran off VERY fast, which made the erosion quicker, and (2) the layers were SOFT right after the flood, and so it would've taken even less to wear them down. Combine #1 w/ #2 and it's pretty easy to see how the canyon could erode that quickly, right after the depositing of the column.

---

Good job!You know about the hydropale theory? How the floodwaters came from underground chambers that shot up into the sky along the Mid-Oceanic Trench? If you think that the pre-flood terrain was pretty much level (all the more able to build a huge, perfect garden), then all of the waters of the ocean would have covered up the pre-flood earth.And, when the continents bordering the Atlantic started to slide away from eachother, they'd hit the same force on the other side soon, causing them to buckle. Thus, you have the Rockies, the Himalayas, etc. along the Pacific coasts and a bit on the Atlantic (the Apalachians). These would have lifted the land quickly and violently out of the water.This could (and probably would) create a huge lake just behind the Rockies (not in the Great Plains, but in the high flat parts of Utah and Colorado). Then, the pressure of the lake might cause part of the wall to collapse, forcing the water to pour out of the lake. This water could easily carve out the Grand Canyon from the soft, newly-deposited sediments.

You have done 3 duplicates in a row in (at least) 2 topics. See here for the other topic's example.Go here and pick a topic or start your own. Do something to learn how NOT to post duplicate messages.Post an "attention admins" message at that topic, when you have it figured out.AdminnemooseusABE - Note: As of 12:15 2/1/08 forum time, I've lifted all restrictions - Ichthus has full normal permissions. - Hope I got his/her attention and that the problem does not reoccur.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

quote:

---

You know about the hydropale theory? How the floodwaters came from underground chambers that shot up into the sky along the Mid-Oceanic Trench?

---

Care to address the problem of releasing trillions of cubic meters of superheated water all at once and its effects on life?

quote:

---

If you think that the pre-flood terrain was pretty much level (all the more able to build a huge, perfect garden), then all of the waters of the ocean would have covered up the pre-flood earth.

---

Then you need to compact massive tectonic movements and their associated heat into a few thousand years with an mechanism to suddenly start it and suddenly stop it. Furthermore, the lack of any historical evidence from ANY civilization during that alleged time seems to indicate that such an belief is completely false.

quote:

---

And, when the continents bordering the Atlantic started to slide away from eachother, they'd hit the same force on the other side soon, causing them to buckle. Thus, you have the Rockies, the Himalayas, etc. along the Pacific coasts and a bit on the Atlantic (the Apalachians). These would have lifted the land quickly and violently out of the water.

---

The sheer temperatures needed for this boggle the mind. Plates move on an sea of magma. Their movements are somewhat dependent on how viscous and how hot that magma is. Your argument is for an sudden massive speeding up of plate movement and then suddenly slowing down. How do you account for the extreme temperature spikes necessary for this? Not only would you require the magma to heat up to levels at least an hundred times hotter but you'd need to remove this temperature suddenly as well. How do you do this without destroying all life?

quote:

---

This could (and probably would) create a huge lake just behind the Rockies (not in the Great Plains, but in the high flat parts of Utah and Colorado). Then, the pressure of the lake might cause part of the wall to collapse, forcing the water to pour out of the lake. This water could easily carve out the Grand Canyon from the soft, newly-deposited sediments.

---

Then why did this not happen anywhere else on the planet? Furthermore, if that was true we should see evidence of all sorts of flora and fauna within the layers of the Canyon. What we ACTUALLY find is what evolution predicted.

quote:

---

If you think that the pre-flood terrain was pretty much level (all the more able to build a huge, perfect garden), then all of the waters of the ocean would have covered up the pre-flood earth.

---

But how can it have been level? The levels of the majority of the continental and oceanic crust are determined more by their densities and thicknesses than the amount of uplift. The lower density and greater thickness of continental crust means that it 'floats' higher in the mantle than oceanic crust, making its average elevation ~800m above sea level, where as the average elevation of oceanic crust is a couple of km below sea level as it is much denser and thinner.

quote:

---

You have done 3 duplicates in a row in (at least) 2 topics. See here for the other topic's example.

---

I'm sorry. The internet I use has, well, questionable connectivity. It will go off and on whenever it feels like, so I'll have written something in and press the 'Submit Reply' button, and the internet fails. I had no idea that it actually sent.Again, sorry. I'll try not to let that happen again.Lo siento everybody!