The Grand Canyon: Canyon Formation and Erosion

As I understnad it what you are demanding is essentially a complete course in sedimentology.Since this is quite impractical in this thread, or in this forum and because it is certainly irrational to assume that an admitted non-expert like myself could provide such a course it is clear that you are engaging in rhetorical tactics. It confirms my view that discussion was never your intention and that you do indeed intend to refuse accepting evidence against Flood geology.The fact is that I need to elaborate on nothing. It is you who needs to present reasons for dismissing the evidence against Flood geology.However I note that you have at last made some positive assertions. Can you explain how you know the dynamics of the Flood - you mayy satart with explaining how you know that it involved only temporary local inundations and how this would be possible given the Biblical description. Also how these would permit sufficient local hardening and erosion before the next load of sediment arrived as you assert.

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."
--I think you misunderstood my query here. What I am asking is that you provide a concrete example of where lithification was most certainly a slow process in the Geologic column.

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."
--I havent given anything like this here.

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."
--No, didn't say that, I said not all lithification is rapid.

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."
--No, I was talking about the lithification of sediments in general, not lithification in 'global flood' conditions.

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."
--Yup.-------------------

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."
--No, I don't think 'it takes a long time for lithification of a major rock sequence to occur'. I think it may take a long time for the lithification of anything, even very thick rock sequences to lithify depending on the conditions. You have only seen this as significant because it isn't lithified and it just so happens to vertically be very extensive. This alone doesn't work.-------------------

"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?"
--Not when you admit that you don't know whether the earth is old or young, let alone whether the flood really must have been global. All I am doing is exponentially examining the data, which will probably take most of my life, but I feel this is necessary before I move from any position. So technically, as I've stated elsewhere [I believe] I am undecided. I merely consider myself a YEC because that is where I do most of my research for/against, that an old earth and an application of the ToE to that old earth is entirely scientifically feasible I havent reason to dispute."Yet you reject the lithification arguments and evidence presented in this thread."
--There hasent been any successfully applicable arguments by evidence presented here yet. Some people initially had the right idea but havent followed it through yet."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."
--I don't remember where I've stated that modern geology cannot explain that seen regarding the Grand Canyon. After all, when you've got millions of years, who cares."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."
--But the intention of this thread wasn't to do so, I had none and have no direct evidence which would be of any conclusive value in favour of relatively rapid lithification of the no longer existing Grand Canyon stratigraphy.
--The intention of this thread was for the assertion that 'lithification is certainly a problem for young earthers' be substantiated. I merely ask for explanation and elaboration on this assertion. If none can be offered, I will just go take a trip to a U. Library and do my own independent research on the topic since it is of interest to me. Its just that since the assertion has been made, and apparently has been concured with by the majority of the evo's posting here, I would expect that this should be readily available to them.--I hope you see what I mean.-------------------

"As I understnad it what you are demanding is essentially a complete course in sedimentology."
--No, I don't demand a complete course on any subject. But in order for you to substantiate your initial claim, it seems you should know at least a thing or two on the subject, and especially the process of lithification."Since this is quite impractical in this thread, or in this forum and because it is certainly irrational to assume that an admitted non-expert like myself could provide such a course it is clear that you are engaging in rhetorical tactics. It confirms my view that discussion was never your intention and that you do indeed intend to refuse accepting evidence against Flood geology."
--Discussion was never my intention? I've layed out for you what you need to supply in regards to supporting the assertions of your link source, which you seem to agree with. If you don't know enough on the subject, thats fine, just retract your assertion that you know that 'lithification certainly is a problem for Young Earthers' and leave it to others who might be interested and have such knowledge (or are willing to gain that knowledge) for this topical discussion. I'm not going to condemn you for what you don't know, but I will if you claim that you do and really don't."The fact is that I need to elaborate on nothing. It is you who needs to present reasons for dismissing the evidence against Flood geology."
--In this thread, and on the topic, there has been no such evidence with any conclusive value."However I note that you have at last made some positive assertions. Can you explain how you know the dynamics of the Flood - you mayy satart with explaining how you know that it involved only temporary local inundations and how this would be possible given the Biblical description. Also how these would permit sufficient local hardening and erosion before the next load of sediment arrived as you assert."
--Please quote yourself(to avoid the same misunderstanding I had in the other thread you started) here and place it in another thread so I can comment on this topic.-------------------

No, I don;t need to know anything more than I fact did know. That an expert with relevant expertise had estimated the time required as very much greater than the value I in fact used. It would seem that you would need some expertise in the area to make a reasonable objection to this. Presumably thst is why you have produced none.Yes, discussion was never your intention. It is quite clear that rather than actually rebutting my reasons that you intend to make a series of escalating demands which I "need" to meet - although I have yet to see any reason why I would need to meet them at all.Answe a simple question - do you have any food reason to reject Young's estimate so strongly other than a refusal to accept that there could be evidence that refutes Flood geology ? If you do then perhaps you can explain why you have so far refused to produce it.

Sorry, TC, it doesn't sound like a fair debate if one side isn't required to present any evidence. I think rule 4 of the guidelines applies here.I'm going to enforce the same ground rules for both sides of the debate. Both sides are required to present evidence for their point of view. Presenting evidence by referencing messages in this thread is fine, but links to anywhere else should include some accompanying discussion, as per the guidelines.I'd like to see a well-argued evidence-based discussion develop. It is certainly valid to point out flaws or weaknesses in evidence from the other side, but presenting positive supporting evidence for your point of view is even more important. After all, anyone can sit on the sidelines and nitpick - "Everyone's a critic", you always here it said. But it takes study and intellectual discipline to successfully and cogently develop and argue a position.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

"No, I don;t need to know anything more than I fact did know. That an expert with relevant expertise had estimated the time required as very much greater than the value I in fact used. It would seem that you would need some expertise in the area to make a reasonable objection to this."
--You don't necessarely need to 'have some expertise in the area', but you do need to know what your talking about or withdraw."Presumably thst is why you have produced none.
Yes, discussion was never your intention. It is quite clear that rather than actually rebutting my reasons that you intend to make a series of escalating demands which I "need" to meet - although I have yet to see any reason why I would need to meet them at all.Answe a simple question - do you have any food reason to reject Young's estimate so strongly other than a refusal to accept that there could be evidence that refutes Flood geology ? If you do then perhaps you can explain why you have so far refused to produce it.
"
--I have produced this, but you thought my speculations insignificant.I will reproduce it for you as follows [extracted from post #66]:

quote:

---

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.

---

--Above your source makes your case by asserting that all these things are difficult to explain in 'flood geology', so I think you need to back up their claims before you can say that lithification really is inconsistant with rapid lithification. I politely ask for the above.--If you still feel this insignificant, explain why the above is irrelevant and what I have missed.-------------------

"Sorry, TC, it doesn't sound like a fair debate if one side isn't required to present any evidence. I think rule 4 of the guidelines applies here."
--I agree. My assertions should be substantiated, and his should as well."I'm going to enforce the same ground rules for both sides of the debate. Both sides are required to present evidence for their point of view. Presenting evidence by referencing messages in this thread is fine, but links to anywhere else should include some accompanying discussion, as per the guidelines.I'd like to see a well-argued evidence-based discussion develop. It is certainly valid to point out flaws or weaknesses in evidence from the other side, but presenting positive supporting evidence for your point of view is even more important. After all, anyone can sit on the sidelines and nitpick - "Everyone's a critic", you always here it said. But it takes study and intellectual discipline to successfully and cogently develop and argue a position."
--Guideline rule #4 states:

quote:

---

Assertions should be supported with either explanations and/or evidence for why the assertion is true. Bare assertions are strongly discouraged.

---

--I believe the most I have asserted that there currently has been no contradictory evidence for relatively rapid lithification of the Geologic column in the Grand Canyon geographic location. Though I have not made much of a 'in favour' claim for rapid lithification besides this. PaulK has made very confident assertions regarding the non-feasibility of rapid lithification in this scenario and has merely provided a link which I critique in post #66 and reproduce in my last post and a quote from that link which has been refuted by a lack in adequate explanation for the assertion. I would like PaulK to reply to my rebuttal above so that we might get on track with this discussion.-------------------

quote:

---

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

​

--I think you misunderstood my query here. What I am asking is that you provide a concrete example of where lithification was most certainly a slow process in the Geologic column.

---

By analogy, several units in the GC sequence that have similar lithologies to the Gulf Coast sediments. Or are you saying that we have to actually have seen the sediments lithify?

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, if some of them don't, a young earth is out the window.

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..

---

Good, then you agree that the GC sequence took a long time to lithify. I am glad we cleared that up.

quote:

---

"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."

​

--No, I was talking about the lithification of sediments in general, not lithification in 'global flood' conditions.

---

Whoa! I just had to check the title of this thread. So, why are you throwing out this red herring? All along, I've been assuming that you were on topic. Please try to focus a little better in the future...

quote:

---

--No, I don't think 'it takes a long time for lithification of a major rock sequence to occur'. I think it may take a long time for the lithification of anything, even very thick rock sequences to lithify depending on the conditions.

---

Good, what are those conditions? Where do we find them? Why would you expect them to last for the entire length of the GC sequence?

quote:

---

You have only seen this as significant because it isn't lithified and it just so happens to vertically be very extensive. This alone doesn't work.

---

Just 'happens to be,' eh? Well, what a wonderful world full of coincidences you must live in.

PaulK or Edge or anyone: please summarize the evidence for slow lithification.TC or anyone: please summarize the evidence for rapid lithification.I can't get any more clear than this, folks.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

PaulK or Edge or anyone: please summarize the evidence for slow lithification.

---

Not sure of all the possible arguments, but the one I am making is that we know that it takes a long time for recent sediments that we have drilled through to become lithified. Bill has backed this up by pointing out how slow dewatering develops overpressures and delays lithification. By analogy it would seem that similar conditions occurred for thick sequences such as the Grand Canyon sequence. On the other hand TC has not given any analogs or other evidence of rapid lithification of a signigicant rock sequence.

No, you need to give a reason why my support is inadequate before I withdraw. You have refused to do so.Asking a lot of questions which are not dealt with in a particular source does not constitutes such a reason. Especially when you cannot give any reason to think that the parts you question are incorrect.In short I regard your responses not as a reason to withdraw but as support for my position in that - quite obviously - you cannot find anything to contradict it.

On this issue I have relied on expert opinion. Not being overly credulous I have allowed for a considerable margin of error - in fact a factor of 100. I am quite willing to change my position *IF* given adequate reason.However the fact is that, despite repeated requests, no such reason has been given. No evidence for rapid lithification has been offered, not even on the 10,000 year scale that would contradict my statement but still disprove Flood Geology.