The Grand Canyon: Canyon Formation and Erosion

--We can discuss the topic of the formation of the Grand Canyon, mainly in regards to the issues of the erosion and the canyon formation itself, in this thread. To begin I will quote from PaulK:

quote:

---

"The lithification is CERTAINLY a barrier to a young Earth since it would take more time than you believe the planet has existed."
--Explain please.

---

-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-21-2003]

Maybe this would be a good thread to try something that YECs OUGHT to be doing. And that is building up a model of how the strata got there and how they came to be in their current form.Starting at the bottom, and working up can you offer an outline explanation for each of the major formations ? Not just those that - you believe - were deposited in the Flood - because features like the Great Unconformity need explanations, too. And it would help to build up a timeline for the Flood - because you don't have a lot of time for each formation and there is a lot to fit in.But to explain the comment you objected to, according to Davies B. Young (OEC geologist) the Redwall limestone would take about 1.6 million years to lithify. And that is just one formation.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-22-2003]

Actually both TB, TC and other creationists have a much larger problem. What they are attempting is to pick out one or two situations (Grand Canyon and Mt St Helen's) and force fit them into a Noachian flood, short time scale. In doing so, they deflect attention from the fact that they have no globally correlatable strata marking the onset, peak and post flood events. To the best of my knowledge, only creationist Kurt Wise admits to this fact. To their credit, the ruse works and most 'evolutionists' fall into the trap of arguing the nuances of specific situations rather than pointing out the massive hole in the creationist story. Creationists should be constantly reminded that the Noachian, young earth myth was summarily destroyed by the geologists and naturalists of the 18th and 19th centuries. They should also note that many of these geologists and naturalists would also be referred to as fundamentalists in today's world or, at the very least, devout Christians. They also should be constantly reminded that it was the rock record (as a whole) that convinced them there was no global flood and that the earth was old. Thus, while it is indeed important to point out the flaws in the Spirit Lake and Grand canyon creationist stories, they should always be framed in terms of the larger, global picture. No global correlation, no global flood. Big, BIG problem.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Actually both TB, TC and other creationists have a much larger problem. What they are attempting is to pick out one or two situations (Grand Canyon and Mt St Helen's) and force fit them into a Noachian flood, short time scale. In doing so, they deflect attention from the fact that they have no globally correlatable strata marking the onset, peak and post flood events. To the best of my knowledge, only creationist Kurt Wise admits to this fact. To their credit, the ruse works and most 'evolutionists' fall into the trap of arguing the nuances of specific situations rather than pointing out the massive hole in the creationist story. ...

---

I agreee. An example of this is the paleosoil thread where TC has assiduously avoided and dismissed any discussion of the rest of the geological record, even parts of it that are of the same age and only a few miles away from his topic of choice. He wants to handle 'one problem at a time' and doesn't have time/access to those references, so they can be ignored. But the time to address those issues never arrives. Factoids that are specific to a single point in space or time can be safely extended to the entire geological record, despite the fact that there are ready, mainstream explanations that CAN apply to the entire geological record. The extension of MSH geology to the Grand Canyon is one of the most egregious examples of this. Does anyone think we will ever hear the end of it?

"Maybe this would be a good thread to try something that YECs OUGHT to be doing.^[1] And that is building up a model of how the strata got there and how they came to be in their current form.^[2]"
--[1] - YEC's ought to be doing a lot, its just combersome when you have many magnitudes less of an amount of researching scientists doing the work.
--[2] - This is too braud a subject to be taken into consideration in any one thread, let alone this one."Starting at the bottom, and working up can you offer an outline explanation for each of the major formations ?"
--Nope, I don't have inhuman research skills like that."Not just those that - you believe - were deposited in the Flood - because features like the Great Unconformity need explanations, too."
--Thats right, just not in this thread."But to explain the comment you objected to, according to Davies B. Young (OEC geologist) the Redwall limestone would take about 1.6 million years to lithify. And that is just one formation."
--I think you need to elaborate. Those pesky details.------------------
The OYSI.Archive
------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-22-2003]

"Actually both TB, TC and other creationists have a much larger problem. What they are attempting is to pick out one or two situations (Grand Canyon and Mt St Helen's) and force fit them into a Noachian flood, short time scale."
--No not really, the Grand Canyon Formation was a post-flood event."In doing so, they deflect attention from the fact that they have no globally correlatable strata marking the onset, peak and post flood events."
--True we would wobble on where they will be exactly, though we have some good ideas."To the best of my knowledge, only creationist Kurt Wise admits to this fact. To their credit, the ruse works and most 'evolutionists' fall into the trap of arguing the nuances of specific situations rather than pointing out the massive hole in the creationist story.
--The thing is, I acknlwoedge that there is a massive hole in the 'creationist story' as you put it. The thing is, that hole can't be filled in all at once becasue the hole is a lack in consensus, which requires specifics to be piled into a comprehensive model of earth history."Creationists should be constantly reminded that the Noachian, young earth myth was summarily destroyed by the geologists and naturalists of the 18th and 19th centuries."
--The problem here, is that this isn't applicable today, half of what was believed in those times, have been replaced and greatly altered due to the coming of new information. If this more detailed and accurate information is what is required for a Global Flood to be vindicated, that it would be falsified in these early ages of scientific inquiry would be expected."They should also note that many of these geologists and naturalists would also be referred to as fundamentalists in today's world or, at the very least, devout Christians."
--Can't tell you how many times its been noted."They also should be constantly reminded that it was the rock record (as a whole) that convinced them there was no global flood and that the earth was old. Thus, while it is indeed important to point out the flaws in the Spirit Lake and Grand canyon creationist stories, they should always be framed in terms of the larger, global picture. No global correlation, no global flood. Big, BIG problem.
--Yup, big problem. Though I do believe you misrepresent the way Spirit lake and Grand canyon would be correlated, assuming I were to correlate them at all..--Now, back to the Grand Canyon, it is after all, the topic.------------------
The OYSI.Archive
------------------

"I agreee. An example of this is the paleosoil thread where TC has assiduously avoided and dismissed any discussion of the rest of the geological record[1], even parts of it that are of the same age and only a few miles away from his topic of choice.[2]"
--[1] - Yup, that's because the topic is the deposition of the Lamar Ridge Formation and Specimen Ridge.
--[2] - If your talking about the Gallatin, if I had the information, I would readily discuss their implications."He wants to handle 'one problem at a time' and doesn't have time/access to those references, so they can be ignored."
--oh PLEASE! Your putting yourself in an embarrassing position. Your the one who has continued to post your misunderstandings all over the thread, constantly like the plague and constantly claim that the information you have received is enough. You think that because you've read coffin [who's work isn't even being discussed] that you know enough about the Lamar Ridge Formation to enter into this discussion. I would be getting somewhere much faster if Yuretich or Fritz were the ones with whom there would be discourse, at least they know what is seen at the LRF. Of course this is expected from someone who doesn't want to look at the information before drawing conclusions.
--I'm not trying to attack your person, though it is a grave mistake of yours to come in unprepared in the way you have."But the time to address those issues never arrives. Factoids that are specific to a single point in space or time can be safely extended to the entire geological record, despite the fact that there are ready, mainstream explanations that CAN apply to the entire geological record."
--In the case of what is seen in the paleosols thread, I don't think you would know."The extension of MSH geology to the Grand Canyon is one of the most egregious examples of this. Does anyone think we will ever hear the end of it?"
--Maybe we will when we begin the on-topic discussion of the formation of Grand Canyon?------------------
The OYSI.Archive
------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-22-2003][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-22-2003]

quote:

---

"The lithification is CERTAINLY a barrier to a young Earth since it would take more time than you believe the planet has existed."
--Explain please.

---

My $0.02 worth, as a non-geologist:
Let's start with the shales. A shale is lithified clay and silt, with very fine particle size. Let's have our shale-to-be deposited at the bottom of a calm body of water. Going out to a pond and doing this yourself - stirring up dirt with the sand-sized grains sifted out into water, and dumping the mud into your pond - will give a layer of sediment on the bottom. The layer will be maybe as much as 60 or 70% by volume water and only 30 or 40% solids as first deposited - it depends on particle size: finer = more porosity = more water content. Now let's say you add a big tub of dirt each week, enough to add 1 cm of fresh sediment to your pond bottom. Each new layer will add some overburden to the first layer, and provide some force to compact it (by squeezing out water, of course, as the grains are too solid to squeeze.)
Now the second layer may well do a pretty good job of compacting the one below - the second is still 60% porosity, and water from below can flow up through it readily enough. But as further layers get added, let's look at our second layer. As you reduce its porosity by squeezig it, its permeability to water flowing up from layer #1 goes down. It goes down exponentially, in fact, in accord with some mathematics worked out by Muskat and other petroleum engineers in the 1930's and '40's. (Fluid flow in rocks is more than just a little important to those of us who make our living from oil). After you get several layers, in fact, the second layer's permeability become a very strong restraint on how fast you can squeeze water out of the first - the only route of escape is up through the 2nd.Now in a sandstone with decent particle size, this isn't that big a problem - if the particles are all 0.2 mm in diameter, the compressed permeability will be high enough for water to easily get forced through. Porosity will squeeze down to maybe 25%, and if there's a source of minerals in the water to crystallize as "cement" between th grains, you could get a rock fairly quick.
With our mud, though, it won't work as well. Let's say the particle size is 1/100th of our sand. In order for this to lithify (based on measurements of shales, not on my say-so) the porosity has to get down to 5% or less. Add to this the inherently lower permeability of fine as opposed to coarse graind sediments, and you dramatically slow down the rate of dewatering and compaction.
I'm sure that PaulK's ultimate source has actual detailed calculations and measurements of this phenomenon - like I said, it's quite a concern to the oil industry.
Adding all your mud at once won't help matters, either. You can put enough pressure on lower layers to make them flow and erupt through upper layers - this has been observed. But the uncompacted lower layers flow as whole mud in this case - it wouldn't speed lithification at all, and leaves a very distinct geological signature of having happened, anyway.

quote:

---

Going out to a pond and doing this yourself - stirring up dirt with the sand-sized grains sifted out into water, and dumping the mud into your pond - will give a layer of sediment on the bottom.

---

A global flood will have dynamics unlike anything you can make in a pond.... duh. Actually I have a serious question. Weird eh?You stated:

quote:

---

finer = more porosity = more water content.

---

Won't larger grain sizes actually give you larger water volume by giving you a larger space between the grains? Smaller grains will tend to pack more closely together than larger grains and hence there is less space between the grains for the water to occupy. I am thinking along the lines of filling a jar with marbles vs. filling it with sand. Won't the jar with the marbles hold more water than the jar filled with sand? Of course the jar with marbles has fewer large spaces while the jar of sand has many more smaller spaces, perhaps it works out.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

The high water content of fine sediments is due to their lack of compaction when they are initially deposited. Viscous forces in the fluid become very important down at silt/clay particle size, but are negligible in sand-sized particles. After compaction, you'll get low porosity in real shales because of the wide range of particle sizes in most real muddy sediments.
A jar of marbles or a jar of uniform-sized, spherical sand each would hold the same amount of water - about 33% IIRC. Real sand is normally neither spherical nor perfectly uniform in size, so you don't see that much porosity often in nature. One exception is the North Sea Chalk - some of the oil reservoirs there have 35% porosity or so. But they cheated - the rock is made up of hollow shells of planktonic organisms - coccolithophorids. And the Chalk's permeability is very low compared to what you would naively expect for that porosity. The porosity involves a lot of space that isn't between-grain flow space.

quote:

---

C: Going out to a pond and doing this yourself - stirring up dirt with the sand-sized grains sifted out into water, and dumping the mud into your pond - will give a layer of sediment on the bottom.

​

J: A global flood will have dynamics unlike anything you can make in a pond.... duh.

---

I think what Coragyps was pointing out was that the dynamics of settling particles is the same regardless of flow regime.

quote:

---

Actually I have a serious question. Weird eh?

​

You stated:

​

finer = more porosity = more water content.

​

J: Won't larger grain sizes actually give you larger water volume by giving you a larger space between the grains?

---

Actually, porosity is generally higher in finer-grained rocks. Freshly deposited sands can have porosities of up to 45%, while muds may contain up to 90% pore water. This relative relationship holds even upon lithification, though there is some overlap between say sandstone and claystone.The real issue is permeability since that tells us how readily water passes through a material. In very fine-grained rocks, surface tension tends to hold the water in place resulting in very low permeabilities. In coarse grained rocks we see another effect in that water has to travel farther around grains and the fact the most coarse grained sediments have matrix impurities of fine grained material between the larger ones. Consequently, disregarding any unusual effects of cementation, permeability reaches a peak at about fine to medium grained sand. Obviously a rock that is older, and more lithified or cemented is likely to have both lower porosity and permeability.

quote:

---

Smaller grains will tend to pack more closely together than larger grains and hence there is less space between the grains for the water to occupy. I am thinking along the lines of filling a jar with marbles vs. filling it with sand. Won't the jar with the marbles hold more water than the jar filled with sand? Of course the jar with marbles has fewer large spaces while the jar of sand has many more smaller spaces, perhaps it works out.

---

According to my handy textbook, it does. That is of course working with real materials which are seldom composed of pure marbles...

quote:

---

I think what Coragyps was pointing out was that the dynamics of settling particles is the same regardless of flow regime.

---

It was kind-of a joke. I made a similar statement to a creationist once and the response I got was something along the lines of "You can't model the flood like that. The flood was global and the dynamics were... blah, blah, blah... "

quote:

---

Actually, porosity is generally higher in finer-grained rocks.

---

Interesting. But something still isn't clicking for me. I'll have to think about it some more.

quote:

---

According to my handy textbook, it does. That is of course working with real materials which are seldom composed of pure marbles...

---

Hey now.... If the geological column can be laid down in a year, my sediment can be made of pure marbles. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

If the geological column can be laid down in a year, my sediment can be made of pure marbles.

---

Hmm - we could call it "marble!"Edge - I'll bet my memory of porosity in shale is of resistivity-log derived porosity, which isn't really all the open spaces - just the "connected" ones. It's been to long since I took that school....

quote:

---

I'll bet my memory of porosity in shale is of resistivity-log derived porosity, which isn't really all the open spaces - just the "connected" ones. It's been to long since I took that school....

---

Haven't seen one of those in a while, either. But I bet it would come back pretty easily. The question might be (to stay on topic) how do the logs of say, Gulf Coast sediments, compare to the GC section. I remember an old wildcatter talking how he had LOTS of MUD, but no rock....

If there was a viable theory of Flood geology then this would not be a problem for you. And you won't HAVE a viable theory for Flood geology UNTIL until YECs try something of that magnitude.What you have just implicitly admitted is that Flood geology is NOT a viable alternative to the mainstream, and that there is no likelihood that it ever will be.