The Grand Canyon: Canyon Formation and Erosion

Since you obviously do not understand the factors involved in lithification either the correct position is to defer to expert opinion unless or until contradictory information arrives.I am happy with that, obviously you are not.I supported the assertion by reference to a relevant authority. YOur claim that I did not support it is just another lie.If you want to rebut that then I am afraid that you will have to do some work, much as it pains you .So are you going to attempt a serious discussion or is it just going to be more lies and insults ? Why, when requested to produce more light and less heat are you just going on trying to turn up the heat while shedding no light at all ?

Why would I need more than an expert being within a factor of 100 of the correct answer ? It is perfectly reasonable in the absence of ANY counter-evidence. So there is no need to explain, nor to elaborate beyond providing a link to my source which I did at post 18So it is up to you to provide a rebuttal - which you refuse to do. Apparently actually expecting you to post something relevant is "shifting the burden of proof". Obviously you could continue this tactic of refusing to accept evidence indefinitely and continue to use this excuse to avoid having to produce any argument whatsoever no matter what I did. So no, I have met the burden of proof it is time for you to rebut it - if you can.As to continental drift in post 34 you cliamed
"No, it didn't have it from the start"In message 51 you modified the claim but it is still false
"The evidence for continental drift in its early days is similar to what we have for a Global Flood today, in fact, all of that evidence would be highly equivocal to both mainstream and young earth models on continental drift."However you have never supported these assertions, nor explained why the evidence mentioned was not adequate.As to your insults well I am amed that you would think that I cannot produce them. Why run a silly bluff when it is bound to be called and will only add to the heat ? But then maybe that is what you want.Post 20:
-------------
"Flood geology is not viable, and YECs are not even in a position to actually produce a coherent description EVEN IN OUTLINEto explain the strata of the Grand Canyon."
--I smell prejudice.
-----------Note that the sentence immediately preceding your comment is simply repeating an assertion YOU made, as a reason not to answer a question
-------------
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
-------------
Of course no such reason has been produced and you have admitted that in regard to the Grand Canyon specifically there is no such reason (post 59). Note that no reasonable rebuttal to the point has been made. Given that Flood Geology wxplains far less than conventional geology and has a number of serious problems which conventional geology does not have there can be no scientific reason to take it seriously.----------
"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 evenconsider it applicable.
--------------In other words it is "credulous" to prefer expert opinion to YOUR opinion. Even when your opinion has no factual basis. An attitude rather typical of creationists.

Okay, let's back up a little bit then. You *are* approaching the Grand Canyon from a YEC perspective. What evidence leads you to believe that the Grand Canyon supports the YEC perspective?------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Hi Paul,Please take the insult issue offline. Board administration is aware of your concerns in this area and is attempting to focus this thread more tightly on topic. Any further off-topic discussion should only be in email to me at Admin, or to any of the other admins. Anyone who fails to follow this request could be risking a 24-hour suspension of posting privileges.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

"Ummmmmm, could someone explain to me just what are we doing here? "
--As layed out in post #1, PaulK has exclaimed that lithification isn't explainable by a rapid depositional scenario, I have merely asked him to elaborate on this and support this assertion of his.-------------------

"Why would I need more than an expert being within a factor of 100 of the correct answer ? It is perfectly reasonable in the absence of ANY counter-evidence. So there is no need to explain, nor to elaborate beyond providing a link to my source which I did at post 18
So it is up to you to provide a rebuttal - which you refuse to do. Apparently actually expecting you to post something relevant is "shifting the burden of proof". Obviously you could continue this tactic of refusing to accept evidence indefinitely and continue to use this excuse to avoid having to produce any argument whatsoever no matter what I did. So no, I have met the burden of proof it is time for you to rebut it - if you can."
--No, once again you are the one who needs to elaborate on your assertion and in this case, the link you have posted. I don't want this thread to become completely unproductive so I will elaborate on what exactly it is that you need to elaborate on:Your source states:

quote:

---

Where they do not do this -- were[sic] sharp boundaries exist -- it indicates that the underlying sediment had already completed the hardening process, called lithification

---

--You need to show this to be the case in that this would not be observed even if the sediments have been partially lithifide. Something which would also help you is to show that where this isn't seen that there has been little to no erosion in between the superposed stratum and the underlying stratum. As well as that there has been a very short time duration between the deposition of both strata.Another:

quote:

---

...Estimates of the time involved for carbonate cementing have been made by Bathurst, as cited by Wonderly, from known deposits. he calculates that 80,000 - 90,000 years of infalling is required to harden a carbonate layer 10 meters thick with a consistent source of ionic solution bottom to top.

---

--Show me that those factors which Bathurst or Wonderly have taken into consideration are applicable to a rapid depositional scenario and that these factors are the only factors which would be relevant in either gradual or rapid depositional processes.A good reason why this source was unaware of the systematics and sequential localization of the various events occurring throughout the flood[ie, usually considered the 'bath-tub' strawman model]:

quote:

---

Many of these boundaries exhibit evidence of susbsequent erosionafter hardening and before the next layer was deposited [TC inserts: hm....!

--Again his lack in understanding on the geographic and eustatic conditions during the flood event shows. That this "cannot occur in the middle of a massive flood" is false because periods of inundation in most cases are local events. You need to show that it is certainly true that 'clearly this is a long term process' and that the context of 'long term' isn't applicable to the time constraints of the global flood event as a whole.--And one more, for now:

quote:

---

Carbonate hard ground surfaces also show that a significant amount of time elapsed before the next layer was deposited. For example, sediments with whole marine fossils (shells) may have the upper surface scoured off such that the fossils on the surface are smoothly ground away. Such a smooth grinding indicates the layer had already hardened. This upper surface may also be found to have encrusted Bryozoan colonies on the upper surface. These only attach to hard surfaces. The surface may have been bored by sponges and other types of marine animals which do so by dissolving hardened rock with acid secretions.

---

--All of these examples require extensive elaboration, you need to provide specific geological representatives illustrating the problem so that we might study the environmental conditions and other factors in these remnant formations.--I hope this is sufficient. As the Admin has asserted, it is best for you to take the insults inquisition off-line. Though I will maintain my stance that I have made no insult even in light of your examples.Cheers,
Chris Grose, OYSI representative-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-07-2003]

quote:

---

--As layed out in post #1, PaulK has exclaimed that lithification isn't explainable by a rapid depositional scenario, I have merely asked him to elaborate on this and support this assertion of his.

---

PaulK is correct. Lithification can be fast(in geological terms that is) or slow. The problem for you is that we know that in virtually all cases, lithification is a slow process in human terms, especially when applied to a thick sequence of rocks. You have once again taken the factoid that some rare sediments can lithify rapidly and applied it to the general case. This is a substantial fallacy. You are therefor, for all practical purposes, incorrect. It would be perverse to make the assumptions that you make.You cannot show that ALL lithification is rapid. This has been demonstrated to you in several posts above. Why should we assume that modern instances of slow lithification are not representative of ancient environments. If you understood that not ALL sediments of the type we find in the GC were lithified rapidly, then you cannot seriously make the statement that the Grand Canyon deposits were lithified on the scale of thousands of years.

Edge was commenting on your reply to Message 57, not Message 1. You asserted an apparent contradiction by claiming to have come to no "confident conclusion" because you haven't done "sufficient research" while nonetheless strenuously arguing the YEC position. Is the apparent contradiction apparent to you?Since the foundation of scientific investigation is following the evidence trail, your audience would like to know about the evidence that led you to your YEC perspective regarding the Grand Canyon, because this must form the foundation for your rejection of modern geology.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

--No, once again you are the one who needs to elaborate on your assertion and in this case, the link you have posted.

---

Actually, TC, you have been given an example of where sediments thousands of years old and miles in thickness are not lithified. At this point you need to explain how this is explained by your model of lithification.

quote:

---

--All of these examples require extensive elaboration, you need to provide specific geological representatives illustrating the problem so that we might study the environmental conditions and other factors in these remnant formations.

---

Actually, they don't. These items are well known by geologists. You may politely ask for elaboration, but to demand it is not courteous.

"PaulK is correct. Lithification can be fast(in geological terms that is) or slow. The problem for you is that we know that in virtually all cases, lithification is a slow process in human terms, especially when applied to a thick sequence of rocks.
--Provide an example?"You have once again taken the factoid that some rare sediments can lithify rapidly and applied it to the general case. This is a substantial fallacy. You are therefor, for all practical purposes, incorrect. It would be perverse to make the assumptions that you make."
--Not if I ever made such an assumption, or even a suggestive one. I am not saying that since some sediments lithify rapidly, that therefor all sediments will, where did you get this?"You cannot show that ALL lithification is rapid. This has been demonstrated to you in several posts above."
--There was no need to demonstrate this since I have known it for months.."Why should we assume that modern instances of slow lithification are not representative of ancient environments."
--We would have to consider the different relevant factors in the lithification process which would progress differently due to the different depositional environment (physical or chemical). But I never said that all sediments must lithify rapidly."If you understood that not ALL sediments of the type we find in the GC were lithified rapidly, then you cannot seriously make the statement that the Grand Canyon deposits were lithified on the scale of thousands of years."
--The 'type' of sediment is only one factor you have considered here.Cheers,
-TC, OYSI Representative
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-07-2003]

"Since the foundation of scientific investigation is following the evidence trail, your audience would like to know about the evidence that led you to your YEC perspective regarding the Grand Canyon^[1], because this must form the foundation for your rejection of modern geology^[2]."
--[1] - But I haven't come to any conclusions regarding the lithification of the Grand Canyon in a Young Earth scenario, not to mention that it supports a rapid formation?
--[2] - I don't reject the feasibility or plausibility of modern [mainstream] geology.Cheers,
-TC, OYSI Representative
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

"Actually, TC, you have been given an example of where sediments thousands of years old and miles in thickness are not lithified. At this point you need to explain how this is explained by your model of lithification."
--The same way you would, I havent studied it, though I would suspect it would have to do with a lack in dessication or material for cementation.Cheers,
-OYSI Representative
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net-------------------

quote:

---

"PaulK is correct. Lithification can be fast(in geological terms that is) or slow. The problem for you is that we know that in virtually all cases, lithification is a slow process in human terms, especially when applied to a thick sequence of rocks.

​

--Provide an example?

---

You have been provided an example. If you do not read our posts, why should we bother to repeat ourselves.

quote:

---

"You have once again taken the factoid that some rare sediments can lithify rapidly and applied it to the general case. This is a substantial fallacy. You are therefor, for all practical purposes, incorrect. It would be perverse to make the assumptions that you make."

​

--Not if I ever made such an assumption, or even a suggestive one. I am not saying that since some sediments lithify rapidly, that therefor all sediments will, where did you get this?

---

Because of your application of the rapid theory to the Grand Canyon sequence.

quote:

---

"You cannot show that ALL lithification is rapid. This has been demonstrated to you in several posts above."

​

--There was no need to demonstrate this since I have known it for months..

---

Then you agree that there is no rational reason to think that the entire GC sequence was lithified in a short period of time.

quote:

---

"Why should we assume that modern instances of slow lithification are not representative of ancient environments."

​

--We would have to consider the different relevant factors in the lithification process which would progress differently due to the different depositional environment (physical or chemical). But I never said that all sediments must lithify rapidly.

---

Them you agree that the GC sequence probably took a long time to lithify. And you agree with PaulK. I am glad this was cleared up.

quote:

---

"If you understood that not ALL sediments of the type we find in the GC were lithified rapidly, then you cannot seriously make the statement that the Grand Canyon deposits were lithified on the scale of thousands of years."

​

--The 'type' of sediment is only one factor you have considered here.

---

Correct. It is one among many.

[quote]"Actually, TC, you have been given an example of where sediments thousands of years old and miles in thickness are not lithified. At this point you need to explain how this is explained by your model of lithification."--The same way you would, I havent studied it, though I would suspect it would have to do with a lack in dessication or material for cementation.Good. Then you think that it takes a long time for lithification of a major rock sequence to occur. That IS how we explain it.

You haven't come to any conclusions, you don't have any evidence, but you only argue from a YEC perspective? Is the contradictory nature of this statement apparent to you? Yet you reject the lithification arguments and evidence presented in this thread.Please don't misunderstand. In this debate there's nothing wrong with rejecting modern geology. I'm just pointing out the apparent contradiction in saying you don't reject modern geology in a thread where you're currently rejecting modern geology.My goal here is to keep this discussion firmly rooted in evidence, Skeptical questions are not evidence. Since you have already said you have no evidence for a young Grand Canyon, let me request that you at least present evidence for rapid lithification.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator