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

In the thread "Mt. Ararat Anomaly", SonClad makes a statement with which I disagree.In one post, SonClad wrote: SonClad is clearly implying that it is due to biases against the flood that geologists will not recognize that the Grand Canyon was actually formed during the flood.The main reason to discount this accusation of bias is that geologists can and do recognize when features are formed due to a great flood of water.A notable example of this is Lake Missoula. Lake Missoula was a lake that formed in what is now Idaho and Montana when an ice dam trapped waters during the last ice age. There was a huge amount of water that collected -- the lake was larger than several of the present Great Lakes combined. What is more, several geologic features of the Northwest (like the "channeled scablands") can be explained by a sudden release of the waters of this lake, just like creationists insist formed the Grand Canyon.Another ancient lake that is recognized is Lake Agassiz, that covered portions of Minnesota, North Dakota, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. I am not sure, though, whether any geologic features can be considered to be due to a catastrophic release of these waters.The point this makes is that, contrary to creationists beliefs, geologists can and do recognize when geologic features are formed from flooding or the catastrophic flow of water. Nor does an unwillingness to consider a feature or set of features as due to a flood result from a bias toward "naturalism"; there are naturalistic causes for floods, and there is no reason to suppose that, even if the Grand Canyon could have been formed due to the action of water, that whatever flood produced the Grand Canyon had a supernatural origin.The acknowledgement that large ancient lakes existed in the past, as well as that features such as the channeled scablands of Washington were formed by the release of the waters of these lakes shows that geologists can and do recoginize when these features are formed by the action of water. Therefore, geologists do not recognize that the Grand Canyon was formed by the action of a flood not because they are biased against this sort of explanation. Rather, they do not recognize that the Grand Canyon was formed by the action of a flood because the Grand Canyon does not have the characteristics that are diagnostic of this sort of origiin.I feel that this should go into the "Geology and the Great Flood" forum, although if the moderators feel that this post should go into an existing thread I will be happy to cut and paste it there.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

it's amazing how everything always fits to match what the bible says. it's always so perfect. there's always an answer. it's frustrating because deep down inside i know everyone knows that the bible proclaims things that are way too immaculate to ever make any logical sense, but religion is part of our insecure mind. it's something we all have to fill, so we fill it with something, no matter how ridiculous, just for the peace of mind it brings. it's too scary not to have anything to believe in. i just look at the grand canyon and think hey that's something awesome that was created over time at some time way before anytime that we existed and i'll enjoy it however it got created.

Glad you dropped in. Hope to learn much from you as you post here.At the bottom of this message are some links to threads that may help make your stay here even more enjoyable.Again, Welcome to EvC.

---

When discussing the geological view that the Grand Canyon was not formed by a flood, it is easy to get people confused. At one point you say: When taken in context the meaning of this passage is clear, but people approaching the topic for the first time have no means to clearly establish that context for themselves, and they could easily misinterpret this as denying the Grand Canyon was formed by the action of water. So here are just a few bullets to help those unfamiliar with geology's view of the Grand Canyon:

• The Grand Canyon was formed by the action of water when the Colorado River cut through the landscape over millions of years. The reason for the depth of the canyon is the gradual uplift of the region during this period. As the region gradually rose in elevation, the Colorado River cut more deeply into the ground in order to maintain its flow. If the region had suddenly uplifted instead of gradually, the Colorado River would have been diverted onto another course.
  ​
• The layers revealed in the sides of the Grand Canyon were deposited millions and millions of years before the Colorado River ever existed. Most layers were layed down over millions of years at the bottom of shallow seas or close to coastlines, though some layers were deposited while above water.
  ​
• There is no evidence that the layers of the Grand Canyon were deposited by a flood (floods do not deposit fine-grained sediment), or that the Grand Canyon was carved in a brief period by a flood (the sides of the Grand Canyon are sloped rather than vertical - this is known as slope retreat and takes long periods to occur - canyons formed suddenly have vertical sides). The great width of the Canyon is not because the Colorado River was once a mile wide, but because of slope retreat.
  ​
• Beyond these problems with flood theory, there's an inherent contradiction in any flood theory that holds that both the layers of the Grand Canyon and the canyon itself were formed by a single flood.

--Percy

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 upper depth range of sea lilies is 60 meters. The Kaibab limestone is a very sandy layer of limestone, indicating the coastline was not immediately adjacent but was probably not further away than a few miles. These two pieces of evidence lead toward the conclusion that the Kaibab limestone layer represents the deeper portion of an encroaching shallow sea. You are correct that since the Kaibab limestone layer formed while beneath the water that all the layers below it were also beneath the water at the time of the Kaibab limestone formation. But what we want to know is where the other layers were when they formed, not when the Kaibab limestone layer formed.We can tell a lot about how and where a layer formed from its composition and fossils. Some, like the Toroweap formation that underlies the Kaibab, were deposited in much shallower water very close to a coastline, because this is a predominantly sandstone layer with fossils of lifeforms usually resident near shorelines, and it even has some land fossils. As time passed this sea encroached further and further onto the land, and so the Toroweap formation gives way to the Kaibab limestone of deeper water further from the coast.--Percy

My dear Chirp,
The problem is not the *general* notion of distinguishing in rock phenomenologies as I see it, when large amounts of water created environs on Earth, but it is ^what^ horizons themselves are indicative of this aspect IN CROSS STRATA VISION of a human.It is my opinion that ability to pick out "glacially watered areas" seems to have relieved some geology from differentiating all horizons except by academic desire or social production. So while I might in NY only see some of ( the) landscape somewhat, in New Jersey I see the whole place particularly that way.It seems to me that geologists might or could be "biased" precisely AGAINST this&type of observation and the historical reason seems fully to be that Agassiz who both moved the discussion from the flood waters to the solid water(ice) ALSO thought that some fish which would be in New Jersey say in the past, WERE prophetic across all strata for reptiles both living and dead. Atriculations of animal shapes are appearingly more complex than superpositioning stacks of ostensive planes. The only trace of the conflict appears to me to occur in differences of viewing circles around AMPHIBIANS which when intiatilly found in the wild were thought by experienced herpetologist TO BE REPTILES and yet it is rather otherwise MORE obvious that the motion of fish and reptile are so different that the confusion of the amphibian and reptile was indicative of the infinite niche rather than the finite divisions of the rock layers in any would be geologists' mind.Thus they uplift issue seems different than the general provision of trying to interpret the past by the present rock facies. I could be wrong. I am not ruling out a solution but the circularity here seems heir present and the small dimensions of an organism against the backdrop of the chasm makes thought otherwise rather difficult.

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

I see two main problems here with respect to modern geology.While I am not sure about particle size in the GC, it has been mentioned here by some of our geologists that in some areas strata don't form with the large particles on bottom/ small on top one would find in a one time hydrological sorting event. This would indicate multiple depositional environments and an old earth.The second is that earthquakes happen in many places and that as long as one samples out of consolidated layers then fossil and rock samples are consistent (as opposed to unconsolidated or rubble rock).There are a number of threads in this forum about GC strata and I'm off to search them for some links to support what are assertions here.ABB

Your post is painful to read. Every sentence is hopelessly loaded with error and misunderstanding. Sorry, this does not necessarily follow. First, there are whopping cross-beds in the Coconino that tell us the medium was flowing quite rapidly. Second, there are beds below and above the Coconino that exhibit lower flow regimes. Ah, good! You have suggested a test of the flood hypothesis. Now all you need to do is find some sparrow droppings in the Kaibab and this debate will be over. Such a find would be called evidence. In that case, if we see the Coconino here in this photo the rocks in the bottom of the canyon must be the size of Rhode Island. Guess what... they're not. In fact, most units below the Coconino are finer-grained. Actually, it is probably due to the variable composition of the rocks and the density of fractures. See how the vegetation seems to follow distinct stratigraphic units? Not. The fossils are embedded in the Kaibab, not floating on top. This is exactly why we do not recommend that YECs try sampling fossils on their own. Besides, the correlation with other Permian beds and fossils is pretty well established. Sorry, but faults and earthquakes are pretty well understood. They make great sense in the interpretation of the fossil record. In fact, fossil evidence often provides evidence for the interpretation of faults.

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

A shot of Coconino from a creation site Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood | Answers in Genesis where the new creationist interpretation is that the Coconino was water deposited.A refutation at CC365.1: Coconino Sandstone deposition environment.ABB

The problems with a flood scenario as an explanation for geological layers are many.

1. While most geological layers are marine, land layers are often interspersed. This is the case with the geological layers of the Grand Canyon, with the Cococino layer of desert and sand dunes below the marine layers of the Toroweap and Kaibab, and above the marine layers of the Supai, Redwall and the rest. A single flood event could not do this.
   ​
2. The inorganic materials of geological layers take time to produce. In general, they are usually erosional materials washed into the seas and oceans from land. Sandstone layers are primarily erosional material, but even the purest limestone layers contain inorganic materials. The depth of layers in the Grand Canyon, which at a mile deep is just a small portion of the entire conceptual geologic column, precludes the formation of this much erosional material is so short a period of time.
   ​
3. The organic materials of geological layers also take a long time to form. Organisms have to be born, live, die, and sink to the bottom to contribute to the sediments. The complex mix of substances crucial for sea life has to be maintained as it is constantly consumed and sinks to the bottom with the life it becomes a part of, and these substances are fed into the oceans from land by the processes of erosion. This erosional process would come to a halt once the land was covered with water, and a flood scenario that postulates manic depositional events precludes the possibility of erosion anyway. The organic material in the layers of the Grand Canyon represents millions of years of life cycles of organisms, and could not have happened in a year, nor even a million years.
   ​
4. The different layers represent different environments, in some cases dramatically different, with different fauna. There is insufficient time in single flood year for such dramatic changes.
   ​
5. Sea bottom dwellers can be found in many of the layers. It would not be possible for multiple livable sea-botton environments to emerge during a period of sediment deposition that would have had to have been around a yard of material a day.
   ​
6. The Kaibab layer has been compressed into rock by some great weight. It could not have been the top layer left after a flood, because then it would simply be dried sea bottom instead of rock. The sandy limestone of this layer could only have formed if there had been a tremendous weight of geological layers above it, perhaps as much as a mile or so deep on top of the Kaibab, that have since eroded away. This erosion would have taken millions and millions of years.
   ​
7. The layers in the Grand Canyon are just like sedimentary layers we can observe forming today. An inch of sediment per thousand years is in the ballpark of what we observe today, though a little high. At this rate, a mile worth of sediments would take about 63 million years to be deposited.
   ​
8. If the layers of the Grand Canyon were really only 5000 years old, then the time available for the Colorado to form the Grand Canyon is far, far too short. To mention just two problems:
   ​
   1. The reason the sides of the Grand Canyon are sloped is because of slope retreat. As a river carves down through a landscape, the sides that are exposed gradually erode away from the river. Canyons formed in short periods of time like 5000 years have vertical sides. Since the Grand Canyon's sides are sloped, it must have taken considerably longer to form, millions of years.
      ​
   2. The reason the Grand Canyon cut so deep is because of gradual uplift of the region. As the region gradually increased in elevation the Colorado cut more and more deeply into the land. Had the elevation increased rapidly, say in 5000 years or less, the Colorado would not have had time to cut through the land, and it's course would have instead been diverted in another direction.
   ​
9. In addition to the overt evidence within the layers that they formed slowly over long periods of time is the radiometric evidence. This evidence not only provides an absolute measure of when each layer formed, it also tells us how far apart in time the layers are. The deepest layers of the Grand Canyon Supergroup date to around a billion years old, while the youngest layer, the Kaibab limstone, is around 250 million years old.

Moving on: You are correct that the larger and denser material is the first to fall out of suspension. This is more strong evidence against a flood scenario, because layers of large particulate matter are interspersed with layers of small partculate matter. For example, the rough sandy limestone of the Kaibab layer is nearly a half mile above the fine-grained Redwall limestone. I don't think very many fossils knocked loose by erosion from a higher level come to rest on the sloped sides of the Grand Canyon, but anyway, fossils just sitting free on the surface cannot be considered evidence of the types of fossils resident in that layer. The fossil has to be found in situ. In other words, it has to be found still embedded in its original site. Geologists often use a handy hammer type tool for striking into the material of rock faces to find fossils in situ.About earthquakes, how do you propose they would mix up material buried within layers of rock? Layers move around as a unit, breaking or shearing at extremely visible and obvious points.--Percy

You've misunderstood the definition of cross-bedding in this context. Of course the layers of the Grand Canyon are horizontal. The cross bedding is within the layer. In the link provided by Arkansaw at Answers in Genesis (Startling evidence for Noah’s Flood), Figure 3 shows an example of cross-bedding. The accompanying text provides the proper definition of cross-bedding as being inclined sublayering. In other words, this Creationist reference understands that the Coconino contains cross-bedding.--Percy