|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Grand Canyon is younger than geologists think | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
booboocruise Inactive Member |
Geologists often say, "the Colorado River took millions of years to carve out the Grand Canyon." Either that is a flat lie, or they just havent examined all the obvious evidence. The river enters the canyon at 2800-foot elevation, but the top of the canyon is 8000 feet high. So, the ONLY way that that river could have carved that canyon is if the river flowed uphill (rivers dont flow uphill)!
Also, there are no age-old erosion marks between the layers of sedimentary rock, indicating that the layers of rock were deposited there simultaneously.The erosion rate of the continents, also, is such that ALL the sedimentary rock would have eroded to sea level within 14 million years (indicating the earth is less than 14 million years) and since the Grand Canyon is mostly sedimentary rock, it would have eroded to sea level if it really WERE millions of years old... dont believe that the Grand Canyon is that old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
booboocruise Inactive Member |
In actuallity, erosion of sediments overcomes uplift in that part of the world...
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 (if you roll your carpet up at an end, you are uplifting it, but the end will not stay preserved strait up).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Have you noticed the shape of the canyon walls? What you describe certainly seems to have happened. Thank you for helping demonstrate that you are wrong.
And just how is a carpet a good analogy here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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: What? This makes no sense. Please clarify. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Booboo writes: 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 (if you roll your carpet up at an end, you are uplifting it, but the end will not stay preserved strait up). If what you're saying is that a gradually formed Grand Canyon should have sloping rather than vertical sides, an effect caused by a process known as slope retreat, then yes, that's what we find at the Grand Canyon: sloping sides. Here's a picture:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MechanicalBliss Inactive Member |
"Also, there are no age-old erosion marks between the layers of sedimentary rock, indicating that the layers of rock were deposited there simultaneously."
This is clearly false as well. There are several disconformities betwewen sedimentary layers, but the most telling is the blatantly obvious angular unconformity separating pre-Cambrian from Cambrian rocks where the pre-Cambrian strata are not horizontal but are overlain by horizontal bedding. Furthermore, if they were all deposited "simultaneously" then why do we see limestones interbedded with desert sandstones? [This message has been edited by MechanicalBliss, 04-21-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
booboocruise Inactive Member |
Actually, I thank you for your comments. I am not a geologist, so, naturally, when I saw some of your rather convincing replies, I decided to read up a little more on both sides.
The rock formations in the Kiabab uplift are at a greater-than-90 degree angle when showing run-offs into the Colorado river. This is evidence of lake drainage, and not simply tributaries. Study the plains just northeast of the Kiabab, and you might find erosion evidence in the deserted areas--indicating water was once present across some of the desert... If you built a dam across the Grand Canyon, you'll notice that a giant lake would fill in behind it, covering land from several states. Interesting enough, this is sufficient evidence to at least merrit further investigation on this topic. I apologize for some mistakes I may have come across and used it as evidence without going into greater detail in the field of geology, but I think that, before jumping to the conclusion that the canyon is "millions of years old" more research is to be done on both the creationists' and the evolutionists' sides. In Christ,Booboo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
Why would "evolutionists" study the grand canyon? It's got nothing to do with evolution; it's a geologist's job.
And you'd be amazed how much work they've done on it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
booboocruise Inactive Member |
The term "evolutionist" is a person who believes in evolution. That would include geologists, botanists, zoologists, marine biologists, archaeologists, astronomers, physicists, and cosmologists alike. To say "geologists" only study the Grand Canyon only excludes evolutionists if all geologists were creationists, and that is not true.
You are quite good at focusing on the wrong part of the argument here: Try to see the point that the information itself is presenting.Thank you, Booboo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The term "evolutionist" is a person who believes in evolution. That would include geologists, botanists, zoologists, marine biologists, archaeologists, astronomers, physicists, and cosmologists alike. To say "geologists" only study the Grand Canyon only excludes evolutionists if all geologists were creationists, and that is not true. In the context of this board, "evolutionist" is used interchangably to refer to people who oppose creationism in debates; as well as biologists who study the development of life. The point is that the Grand Canyon is not relevant to the theory of evolution, which is only concerned with explaining the diversity of life we find today. The Grand Canyon is relevant to geology, and the big separating question in geology is "how old is the Earth". It is possible to believe in an old earth and not be an evolutionist (i.e. you take a position of an extremely old earth, but all the life on it is 6000 years old and created by god.) Thus, refering to a geologist who believes in an old earth as an "evolutionist" is not really correct. You oversimplify the debate if you polarize it into only two positions. (Consider Salty on this board, who is no YEC, but not entirely an evolutionist, either.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lpetrich Inactive Member |
Or else believe that new species are specially created over geological time, a position that was common in the early 19th cy., and that Hugh Ross seems to hold.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Time to take stock and see where we are in this discussion.
Is there any more discussion on this topic? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
booboocruise Inactive Member |
Okay, but answer me this, if you will:
If uplift is causing the sides of the canyon to be higher than where the river enters the canyon, then why does the river continue to run through the canyon at all? It seems to me that, if the kiabab was uplifting, then the canyon bed would uplift along with the rest of the land, thus damming up the Colorado River and creating a massive lake behind the canyon. However, since the river continues to run downhill, PAST the kiabab, I do not see how the 'uplift' argument can still suggest the canyon is millions of years old in the making.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024