Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined

quote:

---

It's cut wider at the top and then narrower toward the bottom, showing that the river was very big when the meander was first being cut.

---

Someone doesn't understand how basic erosion works. That river could have been *smaller* when it started cutting and the walls would still slope back like that.JB

Meanders form in low-gradient (slope) topography, near base level. They are considered to represent a mature stage of stream development because erosion has operated to a point where there is limited vertical relief (i.e., no mountains). Typically, they form in broad plains or piedmonts near sea level. examples occur all over the world, but most of us are familiar with the Mississippi River meanders in the mid-continent area of the United States. They usually do not form deep canyons because they cannot erode below base level.Now in case anyone hasn't noticed, the Colorado River, in the Grand Canyon is not near sea level. This suggests that the region has been uplifted since the formation of meanders.What does uplift do? It causes high relief and a lowering of base level. This allows the stream to down cut in a geologically rapid way. A modern example would be the progress of the Niagara Falls as it works its way upstream forming a gorge.So, the morphology of the canyon shows two stages:1. Mature stream with meandering course.2. Youthful stream with high gradients and active erosion.The meandering pattern was established long before and guided the down cutting of what we see now as the Grand Canyon. And that is why they are called 'incised' meanders.The width of the canyon has little to do with stream erosion per se. It is caused by the fact that the rocks cannot support vertical walls and will recede farther and farther outward as the canyon gets deeper. Think of trying to cut a narrow trench in sand or soil. Without retaining walls, you cannot do it.So, Faith wants this to be one catastrophic drainage event. It turns out that we have an example in the Lake Missoula floods which are a 'break-out' event that resulted in the channeled scablands in Washington state.Unfortunately for Faith, the scablands look nothing like what we see in, or around, or above the Grand Canyon. For one, there are no meanders. That type of flow regime simply does not produce meanders. Braided streams, perhaps, but no meanders.The other item I'd like to address is the 'soft-but-not-too-soft' state of the Grand Canyon rocks during erosion. Basically, we know that the rocks had to have a fairly high competence to maintain a mile deep canyon. This would not be possible if the rocks were not completely lithified prior to erosion of the canyon. Furthermore, we can see some straight side canyons that had to be controlled by fractures and faults which could not be maintained in a soft sediment that some YECs say made up the stratigraphy.If Faith's scenario were correct we've wasted a lot of time an money shoring up trenches for workers at construction sites over the years. However, I'm pretty sure that they appreciated the safety factor.There are a lot more interesting factors to consider in the formation of streams and canyons. One thing to remember that they are all evolving and all geologically temporary.

In fact, I think that most people don't understand that. When people say that a stream is 'underfit' for its valley, my professor used to say that 'all streams are underfit.' The walls have to fall in and that changes the rate of erosion in the stream. It creates another dam or restriction which is eventually burst and then the stream resumes its 'normal' flow. Most erosion is probably episodic. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

The walls are always attempting to reach their particular angle of repose (which of course varies with material).JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

And may also be positional; during one episode there will be deposition upstream of a damming event with minor erosion down stream followed by major erosion down stream after the dam bursts.

All kinds of complications. For instance, along Clear Creek out of Denver there are hanging gravels on the canyon walls from when the stream was up there. I understand that some in the area have placer gold.But your point is that streams are complex and often very old. It's kind of hard to discuss in a message board forum.

And the additional point that changes do leave evidence and as you point out above, from that evidence supported conclusions can be formed.How the Grand Canyon formed and the Colorado Plateau was formed and raised is not simply assumptions, not simply interpretations but rather conclusions based on an overwhelming body of disparate evidence from a variety of sciences that all support the same explanation.

You have no problem 'explaining' things because you don't know enough about the evidence to know what is wrong with your explanations. You never make any attempt to vet your own explanations by checking whether they explain all that can be seen. Glen, unfortunately for his own psyche, was confronted with the evidence because of his work, and his education. Glen was not free to label stuff he did not like as illusion as you do. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The context is getting lost here, as so often happens. Exactly how the meander was cut is less important than the fact that it wasn't cut by the rushing water of the receding Flood as PaulK assumed I meant. That first great volume of water would have cut down through strata and carved out the canyon. It should have been a huge amount of water that also cut the Grand Staircase and scoured off the Kaibab plateau as it got down to the level of the current rim of the canyon, also the other flat areas around the csnyon. It was on such a flat plateau that the meander formed, from water left over from the receding Flood but settled down to a river running across a plateau. This is AFTER the cataracts that would have cut the canyon proper.Those still look like water level lines on the walls of the meander to me, similar to lines on the walls of a reservoir in a drought. But who cares, it's not the important thing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Glenn seems to have accepted way too much OE theory.

I realized I have more to say about your charming post.You ASSUME Glenn was reading the evidence accurately; you ASSUME his judgment was the most reasonable judgment possible. On the basis of your ASSUMPTION you criticize me for NOT agreeing with your assumptions. All you are saying is that he's right, and somehow you know he's right and that makes me wrong, and since I am a YEC I have no rignt to have an opinion about his judgments.When he talks of the Grand Canyon as taking a long time to form he's simply fallen for the OE explanation. What EVIDENCE told him it took a long time to form? There is no reason at all to think it took such a long time and every reason to recognize that the Flood is enough to account for a rapid carving of the canyon.I judge your opinions as incompetent.

Relative dating isn't standard geological practice for finding oil. And knowing the lay of the buried rocks ought to be a no-brainer whatever your theory.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Exactly. Being YEC won't help you find oil.

Excuse me, but you just completely avoided the issues. And you lifted my statement out of context in typical deliberately lying creationist fashion. Is this your admission that you are deliberately lying?Let us leave that dilemma for a moment.The entire question of what I had said concerned whether YEC methods were usable. Well, are they? Nothing in your "reply" says anything one way or the other. I stated that "a YEC who follows standard geological practice would be able to find oil." And that there is " Nothing about YEC methods being useful in that endeavor."You say, "Relative dating isn't standard geological practice for finding oil." And yet that is exactly what the other members you want to claim as supporting your position are saying. So you claim what they say as supporting your position while at the same time denying that everything and anything they say has nothing to do with finding oil. So then which is it???? Is it A or is it B? You are trying to claim both. So then how does that not constitute lying on your part?

Redundant message hidden. --AdminEdited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Hide content.