Flood not the Cause of the Grand Canyon -- Not a Biased Opinion

Sea lilies have been found on the Kaibab limestone. Sea lilies usually "remain permanently attached to the ocean bottom."
- Bartleby.com: Do you have any evidence that sea lilies are associated with shallow seas and coastlines?Since the Kaibab limestone formation is the highest layer, you can rest assured all layers were once submerged under water.

The above image is taken from Rockhounds.comSince all layers are very horizontal, we can conclude that the layers were formed in very calm conditions. This probably happened when the waters were receding... roughly the same time when Noah let out the bird from the ark.The more dense and larger particles would have sunk first, forming the bottom layers, followed by the lighter and smaller particles.You can see that the Toroweap formation is covered in vegetation in some places and bare at other places. This is due to erosion in my opinion. So the fossils that are found in the Toroweap formation may have originally been in the Kaibab plateau before it eroded."About 45 earthquakes occurred in or near the Grand Canyon in the 1990s. Of these, five registered between 5.0 and 6.0 on the Richter Scale. Dozens of faults cross the canyon, with at least several active in the last 100 years" - quote from
Page not found – BiologyDaily.comIn other words, analysing the fossils and rocks from exposed layers may not be very accurateThis message has been edited by Admin, 05-04-2005 08:36 AM

Please give me a link with a photo to support your assertion. Based on my observation of the photos of grand canyon, I haven't seen cross-beds. The strata are horizontal.Take a look at the following aerial view:
http://cs.anu.edu.au/...allery-11/4x6/grand-canyon-1999a.jpg

CanyonDave.com is for sale | HugeDomains
CanyonDave.com is for sale | HugeDomainsThe deep red color underneath the Coconino sandstone has been attributed to iron oxide. This clearly proves some sorting mechanism.Most probably, the particles with iron were denser.Is it possible to determine the size of the particles when these layers formed? When you say 'rough sandy limestone ' and 'fine-grained Redwall limestone', are you referring to the size of particles observed today, or are you referring to the size of particles during the time of formation?

I believe the sizes of rocks we see at the grand canyon have been greatly altered. During the time of formation, these particles would have been much smaller. Solidification of these rocks are like forming cement by drying away the water.This message has been edited by peaceharris, 05-05-2005 05:02 AM

I am neither interested about the sizes of grains IN the rocks as seen today, nor am I interested in the sizes of rocks as seen today. I am interested to know whether it is possible to determine the sizes of particles at the time of sedimentation. If you took 2 pieces of rock from the Coconino sandstone and hermit shale, would you be able to tell me the size and density of particles at the time of formation? "By compaction and cementation, gravels became conglomerates, muds became shales, sands became sandstones, and lime sediments became limestones. " -quote from
Page not found, Kentucky Geological Survey, University of KentuckyI think it is plain common sense to believe that the size and density of the particles observed today is not what it was at the time of formation. I think that mainstream geologists would agree with me that the rocks have been greatly altered.

OK. Eventhough clay is composed of smaller particles than sand, it is still possible for sea water to sort sand and clay such that clay is below:"Individual clay particles are always smaller than 0.004 mm. Clays often form colloidal suspensions when immersed in water, but the clay particles flocculate ( clump ) and settle quickly in saline water"
-quote from Not Found ~ New Jersey Scuba Diving

"As mentioned, individual clay particles remain in suspension in freshwater due to their small size and surface charge. When they enter saltwater, however, their surface charge diminishes to no charge, then crystallization forces take over and the clay particles clump together (= they flocculate). Once enough flocculate so that the particle size is large enough so that they can settle out, they fall to the bottom. This is termed salting out. For this reason, the prodelta (that place where the river flow first hits the sea) is virtually solid clay, ... "
- quote from Page not found | Loyola University Center for Environmental CommunicationFrom the following website , I obtained the densities of various sands and clays (in kg/m³)Clay dry excavated 1089
Clay wet excavated 1826
Clay dry lump 1073
Clay fire 1362
Clay wet lump 1602
Clay compacted 1746Sand wet 1922
Sand wet packed 2082
Sand dry 1602
Sand loose 1442
Sand rammed 1682
Sand water filled 1922
Sand with Gravel dry 1650
Sand with Gravel wet 2020In general, sand is more dense than clay. But according to Stokes' law, settling velocity also depends on particle size. So after flocculation, the size factor is dominant.regards,
Harrisps: It is not possible for me to reply to every point that you are making since it takes fairly long time to search for the answers.

Percy,
Thank you for your kind words. I really appreciate it.Now let's discuss the time taken for the canyon to form. Griffiths et al. (1996) published a report entitled Initiation and Frequency of Debris Flows in Grand Canyon, ArizonaThey compared 478 photographs taken since 1872, and identified geomorphic changes that indicate the occurrence of one or more debris flows during the time interval separating the photographs.They concluded that "geomorphic change in Grand Canyon is largely catastrophic in nature, especially on a decadal time scale, and changes to debris fans resulting from debris flows are usually obvious." Replicate photographs of the debris fan at South Canyon (river mile 32.5-R). A. Photograph taken in July 17, 1889 by Franklin A. Nims. The debris fan is relatively small, and boats were parked relatively close to the mouth of the canyon. Replicate view taken on January 2, 1992 by Jim Hasbargen. Several debris flows have aggraded the debris fan, including a large one that deposited the prominent levee at right between 1940 and 1965.Photos taken from METHODSBased on this, we need not be surprised that the canyon could be formed in a period of a few thousand years.

Referring to the photo taken in 1992, the authors wrote, "Several debris flows have aggraded the debris fan, including a large one that deposited the prominent levee at right between 1940 and 1965"This debris comes from the steep cliff at the right of the photo.The time difference between those 2 photos are 100 years and there has been ~4500 years in my opinion since the flood. If we multiply that debris by 45X, we can roughly explain the erosion of the steep right cliff.

Both deepening and widening are related. The rain causes erosion of the cliffs. Temporarily, the debris may cause shallowing since it just fell off. But as the fast river flows, it will carry with it the debris which just eroded, and cause some additional erosion along the river, causing deepening. Why should meandering be a problem to YECs? If there is rain, a river must form to take the water to the ocean. The river will initially take on a random path, but after the initial river has formed, that would be the easiest path for additional rain water to take.Let's just discuss the time frames involved and whether there was a flood which formed the initial layers. In the event of the plateau being uplifted, we would see layers which are wavy like a hilly region. Source of photoBut since the layers are quite horizontal, we can rule out the uplift theory, unless there has been a very very very homogeneous force from beneath. But water sorting can naturally explain horizontal layers. I am citing that article merely for the observations. There are 2 parts to science: Observation and interpretation. I agree with their interpretation that "geomorphic change in Grand Canyon is largely catastrophic in nature, especially on a decadal time scale." But I disagree with their view of "gradual rise of strata..."Occam's razor states that there are many ways to explain away an observation. But the simplest and most natural is to be preferred. I strongly suspect that if you compared 2 photos of that region taken 100 years apart, there would be clear differences proving that it could form in a relatively short period of time. A single photo doesn't prove the time frame involved.

As the waters were receding, there was wind. (Genesis 8) Quote from Loess Hills-Pronounced "luss", these steeply sloping bluffs are noted for their composition of silty, buff-colored, windblown soil and their depth of over 200 feet.Quote from Nebraska Geography-Loess is a buff to yellowish-brown loamy dust that is found in North America. Loess is is distributed across an area by the wind.The Great Plains of Nebraska lie to the west of the Till Plains and extend across the state into Wyoming and Colorado. Loess covers the central and south-central Great Plains. I wasn't aware. I did a google image search for 'mountain formation', and google returned that diagram which looked so perfect. I didn't bother to read the contents of that website.

As the wind deposits dust, we would not get a nice horizontal layer, but a wavy landform. If you see a nice horizontal layer, it is caused by water, not wind. Sahara desert:
The loess hills are wavy: The Coconino sandstone underneath the Toroweap formation is a nice horizontal strata:

If compression and compaction flattened out the sand, the Coconino footprints would be flattened out too. -Photos from FOOTPRINTS IN THE GRAND CANYON by Leonard Brand. Which is easier, for rugged hills and wavy sand dunes or footprints to be eroded off? Sloping sides and crossbedding have been observed in sea coasts. These are not wind deposited. Cross-bedding in Quaternary beach sands at Saunton Beach

In my opinion, to debate whether the cross bedding of the Coconino or Navajo sandstone (photo from Roxrkool's earlier post) was deposited by eolian or aquatic processes, we should compare a known cross bedding from a beach and a desert.I have supplied a photo of the cross bedding of Quaternary beach sands at Saunton Beach. Could you supply a photo of a recent wind deposited cross bedding from a desert.Then we'll discuss the differences. Yes, that's what I thought. Forces due to erosion do not produce a flat surface. Look at the erosion of the Grand Canyon today. But water sorting produces fairly horizontal strata.This message has been edited by peaceharris, 05-11-2005 11:28 PM