Summations Only

So many to choose from ... but I'll pick the age of the earth, that the earth is very very old, over 4.5 billion years old is a fact.How this is determined is from unbiased objective empirical tested evidence and data collection.

Not really, Faith, what I accept is the evidence that the sedimentary deposits lifted out of the marine environment (or the seas fell) consistent with the evidence of uplift. What the video seems to ignore a few things imho, one is that uplift is continuing and second is that as a result it suffers from the same problem you have with the overflow model -- the north and south passes that are lower than the rims of the canyon where it crosses the ridge. They supposedly modeled the existing topology rather than one that should have been when the river formation started.Continuing uplift resolves this issue, but it also means that the beginning of the canyon does not, can not, occur with the current topology, so it starts with a lower and flatter expanse. The evidence of the meanders shows that the river crossed relatively flat land. Which would be true IF all the uplift occurred before the river set its course, thus it is evidence that the uplift had not reached that level yet. All that is needed to start the river is rainfall on the plain. That will create a river that meanders on a flat plain. With uplift of a whole section of plain, the west edge becomes a waterfall\rapids that erodes back up the river course (as shown on that video, but not necessarily to the depth they show, just enough to incise the river in that location). Again, this would be true if it were in the final uplifted condition when the river was developed, so the evidence shows that the final uplifted condition was not in effect when the river became incised.Once the river was incised then the continued gradual uplift would not affect its location.The other evidence that supports this incremental development is the many creeks that are tributary to the Colorado, especially Kanab Creek and Meadow Creek: these creeks are also incised into the plain and would have originated in creeks flowing downhill to the river and they would have become incised at the same time that the river was -- before the uplift reached its current elevation.As the continued incremental uplift raised the canyon area it would also raise the tributary ends of these creeks, however the rate of uplift would have been slow enough that erosion was capable of maintaining the creek flow in these incised channels -- obviously or they would not still be there. Only because you don't really understand it. It is a slow process involving continuous, incremental uplift over many many years. Wow, what an evidence filled objective refutation!The fact remains that IF your crack fantasy does not match reality, and the evidence of cracks (eg fault lines) then it is obvious to anyone that looks at the evidence of actual cracking patters and fault lines, that your concept is based on fantasy rather than fact.

But it is evident that you are not being totally honest ... with the evidence and with your "interpretation" or with yourself ... because you only peek at some of the evidence and ignore great swaths of evidence ... evidence that contradicts your personally erected fantasy.Now it is fine to have an opinion based on subjective belief, but the measure of validity for an opinion, imho, is in direct inverse relationship to the amount of objective empirical evidence that has to be denied to maintain the belief.Belief that is contradicted by objective evidence is delusion, Faith, by definition.Believing that the earth is flat is delusional
Believing that the sun orbits the earth is delusional
Believing that the earth is young is delusionalObjective empirical evidence shows conclusively that the earth is substantially older than any YEC model. Every piece of evidence for the age of the earth points to an older earth, and every piece of evidence for the age of the earth is consilient with other pieces of evidence that the earth is very very old.

When you make a valid point I will acknowledge it. Emotional bribery now?You can't truly be honest with anyone Faith until you are first brutally honest with yourself. Reality is brutal, Faith, it doesn't play favorites and it doesn't coddle false beliefs. What you don't appear to understand is that pointing out the repeated failures of your fantasies to explain reality IS being honest -- it is the way reality works.You choose to ignore evidence, and that is not honest. Pointing this out is being honest.I could say more,

Another stunning refutation.The earth IS old. You cannot demonstrate otherwise without being dishonest about the evidence.But you won't even really try, as you'll put on a big huffy display of being insulted ...Three living trees prove your flood did not occur when you claim. Adding in the dead but still standing trees that are at least 7,000 years old demonstrates that your believed age of the earth is wrong, and that is just the beginning of the evidence of an old earth.As I said, this is something you are truly ignorant of, and it is such a simple fact.Sorry, Faith. The world is old.

No, you just pretend that you have answered it. Another lie you tell yourself so you can continue to pretend that your belief is valid. What a petty, childish thing to say. Another lie you tell yourself.Curiously childish behavior does not affect the age of the earth or the evidence that the earth is very very old. Typical of cognitive dissonance dishonest avoidance behavior ... which also has no affect on reality and the age of the earth.Yes, you definitely are grossly ignorant of the massive extent of evidence that the earth is old, very very old.

Thanks, I suspected as much, however, as I had a few problems with the explanation.First was that they seemed to use current topology to make the overflow sand model, but did not have overflow at the north and south passes -- the model did not extend that far.Second was that they did not continue the model to show a meandering path for the river.Third was that uplift is still a continuing process, so this invalidates use of the current topology.Fourth was that the volume of the lake was not discussed. If it were relatively shallow it would have drained in no time. Compare this to the lava dams filling, eroding and draining, as the effect would have been similar.But, put this lake at it's maximum elevation with the uplift to that point leaving a flat plain with no ridge to overflow, and it becomes similar to many lakes with meandering outlets over flat plains. It then picks up tributaries from the plain as well, and may well have been under development before the lake filled, and this river then captured the overflow when it occurred.Then when the river exits the uplift area the increased slop causes fast erosion that works its way upstream as shown in the video, and the river and its tributaries become incised.When the rapid\waterfall upstream erosion reaches the lake it releases the lake into the already incised canyon cutting it deeper.Continued uplift raises the wall of the canyon and the tributaries, but it is slow enough that erosion keeps pace and the canyon gets deeper and deeper.This explains the lake, the meanders, the canyon location, and the failure of water to erode through the north or south passes.But I also have some trouble with their timing. When we look at the speleothems we get a different age for the canyon. Indeed it seems that several different things have occurred that affected the formation of the canyon and that it could have formed by several processes in different stages.I also have to think that the depth of the canyon, getting down to the level of the bottom of the fault lines (the supergroup), could have essentially caused less resistance to further uplift allowing it to focus along the general path of the canyon.The Glen Canyon ... indeed. For any who are geographically challenged the town of Page at the upper right of this image: Is the bottom of Lake Powell (where the dam is) and of the Glen Canyon. I look at that ledge on the inside of the bend and see old riverbed -- that the meander was originally in this location. Erosion around curves like this is fastest at the outside of the bend, and erosion through the hard layer would occur there first, and once through it dug a new channel down in its current location. Slope retreat would also be greater around the outside due to the undercutting effect of the current.Then there is this image: Incised meanders that are about to be overcut. You can also see the river undercutting the outside curves. Rainbow arch is also there ...Add to visit wish list.Edited by RAZD, : tribsEdited by RAZD, : locationEdited by RAZD, : splgEdited by RAZD, : piclink

Thanks. Still the elevation is apparently below the ridge elevation, showing that uplift has occurred since the lake drained. It was, several times. Here is one from Message 1132: The technical term is headcutting. The theoretical canyon drawing shows this occurring in three places, but it could be one at a time. Percy mentioned this process many times, and it is how the canyon would form from west to east, a formation pattern that the speleothem dates show. Possibly you skipped over it every time.

Correct, but that is not the only thing going on here: uplift instigates headcutting, and this causes the meanders to become incised into the plain. Once incised it is no longer able to jump the banks and spread out onto the floodplain so the transportation of the material continues.

Good. Those deposits occur when the water floods over the banks and the flow slows down. This is how flood plains develop in flat areas, this is why flood plains are fertile soils, because of the depositing of fine materials (particles smaller than sand). These would be seasonal occurrences (spring floods, Nile river monsoon floods, etc) You would need to tilt it a little bit to ensure the flow crosses the box. With a little trial and error you could find a slope that allow the water to flow across the surface but doesn't erode it. You would also need to play with the flow rate to find the point where it would meander rather than just flow straight down.Your "thought experiment" problem is that you are simply lifting the whole enchilada so that doesn't really model what happens at the boundary of the uplift. You need to divide your box in two and then lift one an inch or two compared to the other to create a small waterfall\erosion zone. This should erode the bottom from that point upstream similar to what is shown in the video, but it may not get all the way to the other end of the box yet -- with homogeneous material (sand) it will cut the top of the erosion hot spot faster than the base and end up with a sloped bottom from the lift point to the upstream end of the box.The bottom of the channel will erode until it reaches the point where is is flat enough that erosion does not occur anymore, and this could be steeper than the slope you started with as there could be a range of slopes below which the erosion doesn't occur and where meanders occur.The material that is eroded from the first (upstream) box will either be deposited in the second (downstream) box in a delta like manner, deposited along the flow as it meanders across the lower box (creating oxbows), or carried through the second box (depending on the slope of the box and the water flow rate). Lift the first box another inch and the process will continue. With several repeats you should be able to incise the upstream section across the box.You can also do it with three hinged panels so that as the upstream end is lifted the middle section gets tilted to a greater slope creating a sloped erosion zone. This should still result in an incised channel from the tilted section upstream and a delta or flat meandering stream that spreads deposits out in the lower section. If it were a point uplift and that occurred before the meander were incised I would agree. If it were a ridge uplift across the path of the river then it would cause the water to collect on the upstream side until it reached a level it could flow over the crest of the ridge. This could be modeled with the 3-section hinged box by lifting the upstream hinge if the box sides are tall enough to contain the water behind the ridge.Again it is possible that with the whole apparatus tilted to the maximum slope where meandering occurs that a small lift of the hinge area would still leave the upstream side with a downslope for the water to flow over. This should create an erosion zone at the hinge such that you can continue to lift the hinge slowly and the water will continue to cut through and erode back down while the side at the hinge lift zone become incised.Follow?Now your box model just became a little more difficult.

Austin's "Lake" is based on filling the land up to the ridge rim and flooding both sides. The "lake" is then the area east of the ridge, but the plan shows water on both sides. It fills up to Page and the Powell Dam and then merges with Lake Powell in the plan that I saw, and fills in a little over that. He doesn't "uncut" Glen Canyon so it is just not mentioned\considered as far as I can see. This does not explain the formation of Glen Canyon.

That works, mostly. An important point that is not well emphasized is the headcutting with the fourth image causing the river to be incised across the Hualapai drainage system working back from the west end and initiated at the uplift boundary area.One problem I have is a very small tributary off the Kaibab plateau headcutting through it. How deep is deep? Lake Suigetsu is ~100 ft deep with green clay layers that would be a predecessor to the shale.Edited by RAZD, : ..

Okay let's see if we can break it down. Either would work at this stage, developing a meandering stream. It might be easier to gradually tip the box until water flow, rather than try to guess the right slope, and you can try a number of various slopes to see what the range is where meanders vs relatively straight channels form. Okay, lets see if we can break it down.The original plain before any uplift was fairly flat, and this is what we have modeled so far.When the plain uplifts per your original thought to lift the whole box then there is effectively no change inside the box.What we have at the Grand Canyon is the boundary of the uplift at the western end of the canyon that we need to model. Again, either would work at this stage, however one of the problems with your approach is that it is static and represents an all-at-once uplift rather than a gradual process.At this point we have demonstrated the formation of meanders, yes?With two adjoining boxes you can start with your packed plain with a slight slope, sufficient to form the meanders, then you can introduce uplift as a gradual incremental process or a series of steps.My gut feeling is that the headcutting won't progress to the other end of the box from a small initial uplift but will accomplish this after several sets of uplift. Certainly however we should see the stream becoming incised from the downstream end of the uplift as headcutting proceeds to the upstream end, even if there isn't the dramatic drop shown in the video.. This is confusing different stages of uplift, or different sections. The Kaibab is at the eastern end so the headcutting west of that isn't affected by that uplift. Different parts of the puzzle as it were. So we can assume that we have demonstrated the formation of meanders, and then a process that gets those meanders incised into the upstream uplifted box section, yes?Now we need to create the ridge by uplift. Again this could work, however it would once again be an all-at-once model of the complete uplift, when what we need to model is a gradual process.Lets break it down again: we've developed meanders, and we've developed incised meanders, and now the question is what happens with a ridge forming uplift perpendicular to the average flow.So we can reform the sandbox and create an initial incised meander arbitrarily from the bottom of the downstream box to the top of the upstream box.What we want to do is gradually lift the juncture of the boxes where they meet at the middle while maintaining flow, tipping each box higher at the middle, Limit this uplift so that the water stays in the channel and keep lifting as the sand erodes at the lifted juncture point.You will likely see increased erosion of the channel in the downstream box and headcutting back along the upstream box from the juncture erosion zone. Eventually the stream should level out even though we have created a change in slope of the rims. Remember this picture? Don't worry about the formulas, just look at the lower diagram -- "section 1" would be similar to the start of our tilting uplift at the juncture of the two boxes: initially there is just a flatter slope upstream than downstream, and increased erosion at the juncture trying to flatten the bottom to match the upper diagram. As that occurs we increase the tilting uplift at the junction point to recreate section 1 with the bottom of the stream and let it even out again. As we continue the uplift cycle the river bottom will continue to transition between two sections at slightly different slopes and one continuous slope, but the rims will begin to form a peak.Keep doing this slowly enough and step by step the rims will create a peak while the river remains flowing through as it did before the lifting. That's why we need to break it down into a couple of steps because there were different stages of uplift and different areas behaved differently. Is that clearer now?

Consider what happens when a bank collapses into a river. The collapse does not fill the channel nor raise the river out of the banks.How long would that material from the collapse remain there? Would the water flow faster over the material than it did before the collapse? Would that not increase the erosion so that the material would be eroded away to the original streambed?

Yeah, I don't see a consistent picture either. There's also herebedragons post with another alternative. Actually I believe this section is just northeast of of Powell Dam, along the southwest branch, and that the water here is impounded behind the dam, so with lower water we would see more undercutting.The smoothness could be partially due to raising and lowering of the water levels for flood control (to reduce the peak flows in the Grand Canyon), but based on the size of the boat that would be a lot of water.