Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YECs, how do you explain meandering canyons?
Harlequin
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 43 (165500)
12-05-2004 9:00 PM


One of the things that disproves YEC Flood "geology" is meandering
canyons. Meanders, as most of you surely know, are formed by rivers: they have a tendency to twist and turn. Mainstream geology explains the Grand Canyon as a river which had meandered which had the land which it was on uplifted forming canyons. These canyons have ancient meanders frozen in place. If a Flood quickly formed Grand Canyon and other canyons, they would not meander.
A simple look at the map shows that the Grand Canyon and other canyons formed by the Colorado and its tributaries will show that they do indeed meander. Given that YECs claim that all of this was formed via the Noachian Deluge, an explanation from the YECs of just how these meadering canyons formed is in order.
Indeed the meadering gets quite spectacular at places.
For example, the Goosenecks on the San Juan River which is a tributary of the Colorado has an incredible series of closely packed meanders in a canyon over 1000 feet high.
See an eye-popping larger image
Another one is Horseshoe Bend on the Colorado River a bit upstream from the Grand Canyon National Park:
Source
So YECs, what is the explanation? Any "explanation" for the Grand Canyon must also be able to explain these.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 12-18-2004 7:57 PM Harlequin has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 43 (165503)
12-05-2004 9:09 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Harlequin
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 43 (165506)
12-05-2004 9:28 PM


A resource on why rivers meander might be useful for this topic.
Why do rivers follow lazy loops and bends?

  
YEC
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 43 (169291)
12-17-2004 7:43 AM


A simple answer.
As A YEC, I would expect meandering canyons. In fact the question should be asked of the old earthers.
Why?
Prior to the formation of the Grand Canyon it is suggested that there was several rather large lakes (Grand and Hopi) held in place by a debris dam.
These lakes released some water that allowed a slow erosion of the not quite hard sediment carving a meandering template into the ground.
Later in time the debris dam broke suddenly and the water from the lakes rushed through the meandering channels and made the wider and deeper.
In the old earth model as the land rose up the Colorado river would have cut sideways or horizontal across the strata and not downwards as they claim. The meanders would have been impossible using the old earthers models.
The original poster of this thread is also correct. That is if the waters rapidly left the lakes with out a previous template/channel for the water to follow meanders might not occur, BUT the original poster has an even more diifficult problem explaining how the slow rising land formed meanders.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by JonF, posted 12-17-2004 9:42 AM YEC has not replied
 Message 8 by Coragyps, posted 12-17-2004 11:06 AM YEC has not replied
 Message 10 by roxrkool, posted 12-17-2004 12:40 PM YEC has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 5 of 43 (169308)
12-17-2004 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by YEC
12-17-2004 7:43 AM


Re: A simple answer.
Later in time the debris dam broke suddenly and the water from the lakes rushed through the meandering channels and made the wider and deeper.
Sorry, if that had happened we would see much more extreme erosion on the outside of the bends, since the rushing water would exert enormous force on the outside walls as the water changed direction suddently. We don't see that. Your scenario is falsified.
the original poster has an even more diifficult problem explaining how the slow rising land formed meanders.
By following the template of the pre-existing shallow meanders. This is called "incised meanders". Well-known phenomenon, observed in many places in various stages.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by YEC, posted 12-17-2004 7:43 AM YEC has not replied

  
YEC
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 43 (169327)
12-17-2004 10:37 AM


JonF
Sorry, if that had happened we would see much more extreme erosion on the outside of the bends, since the rushing water would exert enormous force on the outside walls as the water changed direction suddently. We don't see that. Your scenario is falsified.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wnat???? Reference please.
This message has been edited by YEC, 12-17-2004 10:38 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 12-17-2004 10:41 AM YEC has not replied
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 12-17-2004 11:17 AM YEC has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 7 of 43 (169332)
12-17-2004 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by YEC
12-17-2004 10:37 AM


Reference?
Why do you need a reference for this? What sort of reference would you need?
Do you need a fluid dynamics text? You're the one that described an enormous volume of water being forced to change direction very abruptly. That does, you know, require a great deal of force.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by YEC, posted 12-17-2004 10:37 AM YEC has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 8 of 43 (169349)
12-17-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by YEC
12-17-2004 7:43 AM


Re: A simple answer.
a slow erosion of the not quite hard sediment
How "not quite hard" does sediment need to be to be able to support itself in 1000-foot cliffs? Are you saying, also, that the slow drainage that cut the meanders was able to flow uphill over the raised rock that now surrounds the canyon? Or did all that uplift occur since this Flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by YEC, posted 12-17-2004 7:43 AM YEC has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 9 of 43 (169356)
12-17-2004 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by YEC
12-17-2004 10:37 AM


Wnat???? Reference please.
Any fluid dynamics textbook.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by YEC, posted 12-17-2004 10:37 AM YEC has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 10 of 43 (169391)
12-17-2004 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by YEC
12-17-2004 7:43 AM


Re: A simple answer.
I haven't heard of Grand Lake. Do you have a link that references this lake so I can see where it is located?
As someone pointed out, eroding "not quite hard sediment" would not result in cliffs. The non-lithified, water-saturated sediment would slump constantly, forming shallow walls and a wide bed. However, you first need to explain how all that sediment was deposited in the first place. Walt Brown says by the flood.
Hopi Lake at least is likely (not sure about Grand Lake, but both could possibly be the result of post-flood, water-filled basins) and in order to get meanders, you need a relatively flat-lying land surface - that means no Colorado Plateau/uplift, yet.
So okay, you have the meanders set in "not quite hard sediment."
However, when was the Colorado Plateau uplifted? There is up to 7,000 feet difference between rocks found in the canyon and the same rocks found in other parts of the southwest. Additionally, HOW was it uplifted? No matter how much water burst from those dams, they are not going to carve canyons through a 9,000+ ft. mountain of material. The water would go around. Therefore you need to uplift the Plateau before the dam bursts.
YEC writes:
In the old earth model as the land rose up the Colorado river would have cut sideways or horizontal across the strata and not downwards as they claim. The meanders would have been impossible using the old earthers models.
I'm sorry, that makes no sense. What do you mean the river would cut sideways and horizontal across the strata? That's actually a better explanation for how floods work. They tend to form wide anastomosing braided stream environments full of gravel and other transported material.
The original poster of this thread is also correct. That is if the waters rapidly left the lakes with out a previous template/channel for the water to follow meanders might not occur, BUT the original poster has an even more diifficult problem explaining how the slow rising land formed meanders.
Slow rising lands NEVER form meanders. Who told you that? The meanders were in place prior to uplift, which is also required for your model, though you failed to touch on that aspect.
Mainstream science can explain the haphazard path of the Colorado River, the meanders, the uplift, how the rocks got there in the first place, how the lowest and oldest rocks in the canyon were formed, etc.
YECs can't. You have a lot more to explain than just meanders.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by YEC, posted 12-17-2004 7:43 AM YEC has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by tsig, posted 12-18-2004 1:33 PM roxrkool has not replied
 Message 15 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-18-2004 10:13 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 11 of 43 (169727)
12-18-2004 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by roxrkool
12-17-2004 12:40 PM


Re: A simple answer.
Slow rising lands NEVER form meanders. Who told you that? The meanders were in place prior to uplift, which is also required for your model, though you failed to touch on that aspect.
I thought that rising land was needed to form the deeply incised meanders.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by roxrkool, posted 12-17-2004 12:40 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Harlequin, posted 12-18-2004 7:11 PM tsig has not replied

  
Harlequin
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 43 (169771)
12-18-2004 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by tsig
12-18-2004 1:33 PM


Re: A simple answer.
Slow rising lands NEVER form meanders. Who told you that? The meanders were in place prior to uplift, which is also required for your model, though you failed to touch on that aspect.
I thought that rising land was needed to form the deeply incised meanders.
Put the emphasis on "deeply insised." The meanders themselves will only form on fairly level slow moving river. Once the land rises, the process of meandering stops and the eroding of the canyon
begins following the "fossil" meanders.
(Also it was established in a talk.origins thread on this subject
that land going down downstream can also dig out canyons much like waterfalls moving slowly upstream over time. That does not help the YECs though...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by tsig, posted 12-18-2004 1:33 PM tsig has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 12-18-2004 7:42 PM Harlequin has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 43 (169775)
12-18-2004 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Harlequin
12-18-2004 7:11 PM


Re: A simple answer.
There's one other question I have with the rapid creation model the YECs bring forth for the Grand Canyon. IIRC, the North Rim is over 2000 feet higher than the South Rim. If the land was there and flooded and some sudden run off cut through the "semi-soft mud", why didn't it run down hill? Why doesn't the canyon run from the North to the South? Why doesn't it look like the typical erosion we see when water runs down a hillside?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Harlequin, posted 12-18-2004 7:11 PM Harlequin has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 43 (169778)
12-18-2004 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Harlequin
12-05-2004 9:00 PM


I'm not necessarily a YEC since I believe we don't know how old the earth is, but I do believe the Genesis flood story. I don't have time to get into another debate, but I just wanted to present this possibility. If there were a big rush bringing down a huge quantity of soft sediment, the meandering possibly could occur subsequently as a fairly strong but not rushing amount of water continued down the now relatively, I say relatively, level sediment which would be deep but still quite soft. We see this sometimes on a small scale where erosion occurs in soft sediment of fairly gradual slopes. After the meandering is shaped, though yet fairly shallow, surging water from a succession of other small outbreaks or pockets of water upstream could cut the now shaped meandering much deeper rather quickly.
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-18-2004 08:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Harlequin, posted 12-05-2004 9:00 PM Harlequin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by roxrkool, posted 12-20-2004 10:10 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 43 (169806)
12-18-2004 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by roxrkool
12-17-2004 12:40 PM


Re: A simple answer.
Roxrkool,
Here is a link to Walt Brown's proposed Grand Lake.
Also, Walt Brown, like many creationists, conclude that Grand Canyon formed several centuries after the Flood (the kaiabab and albert squirrel populations fairly demanding such a conclusion); so all the sediments would have been fully cured (hardened). If you scroll down a little in the above link, you'll find:
quote:
Catastrophic dumping of Grand Lake took place through what is now the gap between Echo Cliffs and Vermilion Cliffs. Before this natural dam eroded, both cliffs were a single face of a block-faulted mountain. Release of Grand Lake’s vast waters first eroded hundreds of meters of relatively soft Mesozoic sediments off northern Arizona. Once surface erosion was completed, downcutting through the harder Kaibab limestone began. As erosion cut deeper beneath the water table, more water, under greater pressure, was released from the water-saturated sediments flanking the canyon. This escaping water cut dozens of side canyons entering the Grand Canyonlarge canyons previously unexplained because they have no significant surface flow entering them. Subsurface flow and landslides were extreme.
The weight of material removed from northern Arizona produced isostatic uplifts that account for the uplift of the Kaibab Plateau. This produced much faulting and volcanism, the barbed canyons, and layered strata that dip down and away from Marble Canyon and Grand Canyon. ~ emphasis mine
I quote this section because it seems to cover several of the mini-subjects I recall being discussed here. In particular, I bolded the reference to "soft sediments" because, in this quote, Walt Brown compares relative softness/hardness between two types of sediments. This has nothing to do with the sediments being soft due to having just been left by retreating flood waters.
Hope this helps. It is, I think, about the extent of my knowledge on the subject.
{added by edit}
Actually, it is not even MY knowledge of the subject; it is Walt Brown's...I know pretty much nothing about geology.
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-18-2004 10:14 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by roxrkool, posted 12-17-2004 12:40 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by edge, posted 12-18-2004 10:55 PM TheLiteralist has replied
 Message 17 by Harlequin, posted 12-19-2004 6:14 PM TheLiteralist has not replied
 Message 34 by diggerdowner, posted 01-28-2005 2:05 PM TheLiteralist has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024