The Grand Canyon: Canyon Formation and Erosion

quote:

---

My $0.02 worth, as a non-geologist:
[snip]

---

--I agree with most, if not all of your post here. Now we just have to apply it. I havent read anything on Darcy's law or flows through porous media [I havent read any muskat, only seen him referenced] since shortly after a previous discussion on the topic which must have been quite a few months ago. I don't mind getting back into it, I have been planning on writing a paper on the subject anyways.-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-23-2003]

"If there was a viable theory of Flood geology then this would not be a problem for you."
--I think I explained the what the real problem is rather thoroughly in my post."And you won't HAVE a viable theory for Flood geology UNTIL until YECs try something of that magnitude."
--No, this isn't right. You have it reversed. We need a consensus before we can work on something of such a 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."
--Sure I've said that it isn't in as good condition as the mainstream, but it is this way because of many reasons. What I didn't say is that "flood geology" isn't promising, I think it is.--Now, since you seem to have already come to such a confident conclusion regarding the veracity of flood geology in considering the implications for the Grand Canyon and lithification, you must be the expert on flows through porous media. Support your statement:

quote:

---

"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."

​

and:

​

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

---

-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-23-2003][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-23-2003]

No, you are quite wrong.So long as you continue to look no further than "explanations" for relatively small portiosn of the fossil record you will NEVER produce a theory which does what you need it to doNow you didn't explicitly SAY that flood geology wasn't promising but the implication is quite clear. Flood geology is not viable, and YECs are not even in a position to actually produce a coherent description EVEN IN OUTLINE to explain the strata of the Grand Canyon. That is quite damning. Obviously there is no scientific reason to take flood geology seriously.And can you show any good reason to believe that it has any promise ? It seems to be going nowhere, and has such serious problems that I cannot see why any reational person could take it seriously.Oh and unless you can SHOW me the post where I claimed to have expertise in "flows through porous media" I suggest you retract your assertion that I made such a claim. Frankly I see no reason to believe that a geologists estimate would be out by six orders of magnitude, and you have offered no reason to.You can find Young's words at http://lordibelieve.org/time/age2.PDF

Edge,Down here on the Gulf Coast I have drilled for 17000' with nothing but thick mud, we call it gumbo down here, it just rolls off the shakers and will stick your pipe in a heart beat. In those cases though I have had several pay zones in between mud layers so it does not completly allow the fluids to escape between layers, what you have is no real caprock over the formation only gumbo! I have also found forams as far down as 17000' 200 miles out in the gulf in 3000' of water.Lcash

"No, you are quite wrong.So long as you continue to look no further than "explanations" for relatively small portiosn of the fossil record you will NEVER produce a theory which does what you need it to do"
--Science progresses by no other means."Now you didn't explicitly SAY that flood geology wasn't promising but the implication is quite clear."
--You interpreted my implications wrong."Flood geology is not viable, and YECs are not even in a position to actually produce a coherent description EVEN IN OUTLINE to explain the strata of the Grand Canyon."
--I smell prejudice."That is quite damning. Obviously there is no scientific reason to take flood geology seriously."
--I think there is. But you wouldn't be up to such a mode of inquiry no matter its feasibility it seems"And can you show any good reason to believe that it has any promise ? It seems to be going nowhere, and has such serious problems that I cannot see why any reational person could take it seriously."
--It shows promise because with so few people doing the work, we have got somewhere. Mainstream geology has thousands upon thousands of working geologists furthering science by constantly modifying and replacing theories upon theories. We are doing this on a much smaller scale. I also think that even in my juvenility, I find promise in flood geology from my own scientific inquisitions.
--Our only problem is that while we have 200 years of science to work from, we have few who will actually do the research and formulate scientific theories and delve into the specifics [despite the harassment of others such from not formulating more comprehensive hypotheses by an anonymous ilk].--Your fault lies with your conclusions regarding the veracity of flood geology. In analogy, your with that group of people back in the early century who dismissed continental drift as implausible. We are still in development, and just have a lot of catching up to do."Oh and unless you can SHOW me the post where I claimed to have expertise in "flows through porous media" I suggest you retract your assertion that I made such a claim."
--I never said that you did make this claim. I merely stated that it seems you must be knowledgeable, unless of course you inferred this conclusion from no data[and possibly even taking the information you had credulously], "The lithification is CERTAINLY a barrier to a young Earth..." Or would you like to retract that claim as unsupportable by yourself? Taking things credulously seems to be a problem in old earth laymen, and in some cases even old earth scientists."Frankly I see no reason to believe that a geologists estimate would be out by six orders of magnitude, and you have offered no reason to."
--I don't need to until you offer a reason [and elaboration] for why I should credulously take his estimate credulously or even consider it applicable.
--I have the feeling that Young drew this conclusion not from physical but chemical environment.--[edit] - Does every flood-related topic have to begin this way? Always with 'why is the flood even feasible in the first place' or some other off-topic suspicion? I'd like to discuss the lithification of the Grand Canyon sections and the erosion there of. It is, after all, the topic for this thread.-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-23-2003]

quote:

---

Down here on the Gulf Coast I have drilled for 17000' with nothing but thick mud, we call it gumbo down here, it just rolls off the shakers and will stick your pipe in a heart beat. In those cases though I have had several pay zones in between mud layers so it does not completly allow the fluids to escape between layers, what you have is no real caprock over the formation only gumbo! I have also found forams as far down as 17000' 200 miles out in the gulf in 3000' of water.

---

Well, according to creationist geology, those sediments should have been well lithified by now since simply stacking sediments is what causes lithification. I mean, the entire GC sequence is only 5000 feet and see how competent those rocks are!

"Well, according to creationist geology, those sediments should have been well lithified by now since simply stacking sediments is what causes lithification. I mean, the entire GC sequence is only 5000 feet and see how competent those rocks are!"
--No not really. They would then have to be well lithified in mainstream geology as well. Unless you suppose that entire column has been deposited in a geologically very recent time period. There obviously should be some factors we are missing here, possibly being the fact that they are and have been engulfed in water.-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------

quote:

---

"Flood geology is not viable, and YECs are not even in a position to actually produce a coherent description EVEN IN OUTLINE to explain the strata of the Grand Canyon."

​

--I smell prejudice.

---

LOL! I presume since you are so much against prejudice that the next time you look for a date, you will not rule out four legged ones... Do you get my drift here? Or do I have to explain to you that not all prejudice is necessarily bad?

quote:

---

"And can you show any good reason to believe that it has any promise ? It seems to be going nowhere, and has such serious problems that I cannot see why any reational person could take it seriously."

​

--It shows promise because with so few people doing the work, we have got somewhere. Mainstream geology has thousands upon thousands of working geologists furthering science by constantly modifying and replacing theories upon theories. We are doing this on a much smaller scale. I also think that even in my juvenility, I find promise in flood geology from my own scientific inquisitions.

---

In fact, you find promise in it because you have to.

quote:

---

--Your fault lies with your conclusions regarding the veracity of flood geology. In analogy, your with that group of people back in the early century who dismissed continental drift as implausible. We are still in development, and just have a lot of catching up to do.

---

Not really. Early opponents of drift believed simply that there was no acceptable mechanism. In this case, not only do you not have a mechanism, but there is ample independent evidence that creationism is actually wrong.

quote:

---

"Oh and unless you can SHOW me the post where I claimed to have expertise in "flows through porous media" I suggest you retract your assertion that I made such a claim."

​

--I never said that you did make this claim. I merely stated that it seems you must be knowledgeable, unless of course you inferred this conclusion from no data[and possibly even taking the information you had credulously], "The lithification is CERTAINLY a barrier to a young Earth..." Or would you like to retract that claim as unsupportable by yourself?

---

The point is that this assertion has been supported in subsequent posts. You have not responded.

quote:

---

Taking things credulously seems to be a problem in old earth laymen, and in some cases even old earth scientists.

---

''Hey, your the ones who believe that a guy lived inside of a fish...

quote:

---

"Frankly I see no reason to believe that a geologists estimate would be out by six orders of magnitude, and you have offered no reason to."

​

--I don't need to until you offer a reason [and elaboration] for why I should credulously take his estimate credulously or even consider it applicable.

---

How about because that work is backed up by years of research?

quote:

---

--[edit] - Does every flood-related topic have to begin this way? Always with 'why is the flood even feasible in the first place' or some other off-topic suspicion?

---

Yes. If you are going to unseat the currently accepted explanation, you should come with a lot of evidence. Even Darwin realized this over a hundred years ago. You are way behind the curve.

quote:

---

I'd like to discuss the lithification of the Grand Canyon sections and the erosion there of. It is, after all, the topic for this thread.

---

Hey, it's all part of the big picture that you accused me of ignoring on another thread. Is a flood that could deposit such a thick section of sediments really possible?

Lcash - I've never done much around the Gulf. What does gumbo shale look like if you're using oil-based mud? I know that it's real water-sensitive, and that is why it sticks less with oil-base, but does it look like "rock" even then?And TC - being "surrounded by water" has not much to do with the lithifaction of sediments - the North Sea and Persian Gulf have plenty of hard rock. It's the type (and age, I guess) of sediment that makes the difference - Miocene delta muds in California and Louisiana, Cretaceous limestones in the North Sea. And for all that, Ft McMurray, Alberta has zillions of square mile of completely unconsolidated sands.

quote:

---

A jar of marbles or a jar of uniform-sized, spherical sand each would hold the same amount of water - about 33% IIRC.

---

Ok. That makes sense.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Coragyps,I have drilled gumbo shale with both water based and synthetic mud and it is all the same although is stays consolidated in the synthetic better. The consistancy is like very very soft clay almost like a molding clay that a potter would use on a wheel. It is very tricky to drill and complete. It Never looks like rock,(no shear) too soft. It rolls off of the shaker in bug curled clumps. The key to not sticking is to make sueer the viscousness of your fluid stays high enough to bring it up to the surface along with good hydraulic pressure.Lcash

In message 22 of 26, Edge wrote:"Well, according to creationist geology, those
sediments should have been well lithified by
now since simply stacking sediments is what
causes lithification. I mean, the entire GC
sequence is only 5000 feet and see how
competent those rocks are!"TrueCreation wrote at 02-23-2003 08:05 PM:"No not really. They would then have to be well
lithified in mainstream geology as well."There is nothing that I have seen published in the
mainstream literature that indicates that there is
any reason that the 17,000 ft of strata that
immediately underlies the bottom of the Gulf of
Mexico "would have to be well lithhified". In
this case, TrueCreation understands nothing
about how conventional and mainstream
geologists interprets and explains the sediments
underlying the Gulf of Mexico. (The amount of
sediments underlying the Gulf of Mexico is in
places 10 to 14 kilometers thick. :-) :-) )TrueCreation further wrote:"Unless you suppose that entire column has
been deposited in a geologically very recent
time period. There obviously should be some
factors we are missing here, possibly being
the fact that they are and have been engulfed
in water."Being "engulfed inwater" has nothing to do with
the lack of cementation. If TrueCreation would
consult the published literature, he would find
that the factors include 1. composition of the
sedments and 2. the fine-grained nature and very
low permeability of the clayey / muddy units. The
latter greatly inhibits their dewatering and
consolidation, which causes them to be greatly
overpressured relative to their burial depths.For example, go read:DEVELOPMENT OF SEDIMENT OVERPRESSURING
AND ITS EFFECT ON THERMAL MATURATION:
APPLICATION TO THE GULF OF MEXICO BASINUlisses T. Mello (1) , Garry D. Karner (2)IBM Research"In the Gulf of Mexico basin (Gulf basin), the generation
of overpressure is caused mainly by the inability of pore
pressure fluids to escape at a rate commensurate with
sedimentation."The permeability of the fine-grained Gulf of Mexico
sediments is so low and their dewatering is so
slow that even rates of sedimentation ***orders
of magnitudes less*** than those implied by
Noachian Flood models can cause overpressures
and inhibit consolidation and cementation.
Therefore, as numerous published studies have
shown, there is nothing about conventional models
that is contradicted by the lack of cemetation in
Gulf of Mexico sediments. As far as conventional
geologists have found, there are no missing /
unexplained factors as TrueCreation postulated.For example, go study the calculations presented in:Gordon, D.S. and Flemings, P.B., 1998. Generation of
overpressure and compaction-driven fluid flow in a
Plio-Pleistocene growth-faulted basin, Eugene Island
330, offshore Louisiana. Basin Research, v. 10,
pp. 177-196.++++ Some Grand Canyon Stuff ++++++For interesting figures about the Grand Canyon,
go see:Revisiting the Grand Canyon — Through the Eyes
of Seismic Sequence Stratigraphy By WARD ABBOTT at:Revisiting the Grand Canyon
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/...ott/images/abbott01.pdf(Adapted for online presentation from articles by
same author, entitled A New View of Something
Grand and Canyon Offers Grand Seismic View
in Geophysical Corner, AAPG Explorer, July, 1998,
and August, 1998, respectively)Yours,Bill
Houston, Texas

You are still dead wrong. Science progresses by taking those explanations and building up an explanatory framewoek for more and more. The Flood is supposedly the explanation for a great deal of the gological record but you are refusing even to attempt to actually produce such an explanation. Quite frankly it looks to me as if you know that if you try you will fail.And no, I did not interpret anything incorrectly - I know full well that you do not - cannot- agree with those implications but nevertheless they are there. This is demonstrated further when you "smell prejudice" in a statement that is clearly true by your own admission. You REFUSED to try to produce such an explanation on the grounds that YECs are NOT yet ready to attempt it. It is all too typical of creationists to try innuendo of that sort to cover up facts they wish buried. Are we suipposed to believe that you were telling siuch an obvious lie that prejudice is the only possible reason for accepting it ?You go on and on implying that you have got evidence, have made "progress" and that Flood geology "shows promise" (despite the fact that it is falsified by any reasonable standard) wihtout giving a single reason beyond your own opinion. And whining about harassment is hardly impressive. And you moan about alleged "credulity" when you expect YOUR opinions to be accepted as fact without any investigation.You try to compare Flood geology with continental drift ignoring the fact that continental drift HAD strong evidence from the start, which your Flood does not.You go on to accuse others of credulity with no reason given - other than they disagree with your opinion.And since you refuse to offer any REASONABLE argument against the points you supposedly raised this thread to dispute, I hardly think you are in posiiton to complain about anything being "off topic". Especially when the issues are clearly related.All in all your post is a "nice" example of the creationist tendancy to throw accusations when they can't argue the facts, and nothing else. If you really want people to think of flood geologists as morally as well as intellectually bankrupt you can go on down that route.

I sense a growing frustration on both sides in this thread, so I'd like to caution against letting it find too strong an expression.This thread spun off from another, and so is somewhat incomplete. One thing that is missing is the evidence on which TC is basing his interpretations. TC has argued persuasively that YECs are in the process of researching the issue and so cannot present a full story at this time, but he hasn't presented in this thread the initial evidence that leads them to believe this will be a fruitful path of inquiry.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Well if TC wants to try discussion instead of throwing insults that would be very welcome. But so long as he goes "You agreed with me! You must be prejudiced!" or "You believed a geologist Yu must be gullible" I have to regard him as one of those creationist clowns who gets upset whenver anyone tells a truth they don't like and has to start getting abusive.The simple fact is that EVEN if Young was out by a factor of ONE HUNDRED everything I said is true. If he was out by a factor of a million that is still less than comfortable for the Flood geology position. Given that Young IS a geologist I am quite comfortable with that safety margin!