Uniformitarianism or catastrophism?

[Mr-Vaquero]

Hello,
Uniformitarianism and catastrophism are 2 ways to look at Earth's geologic history.

Uniformitarianism suggests for example that surface features we see on Earth are caused by long term uniform processes such as weathering or plate tectonics.

Catastrophism suggests that features on Earth can be explained by sudden, short events. Such as Noah's flood or a meteorite impact.

So, what theory do you like best and why?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

They are stepped because they are made of different kinds of rock which weather at different rates. So that's exactly what you'd expect to see. But there places where there isn't a great deal of difference in weathering.

Your statement here has all kinds of problems when you look at the rock layers in the grand canyon. But I will stay with inner gorge to keep this post a little shorter. There are two layers in the inner gorge that causes all kinds of problems with hardness theory the quartzite layer and the schist layer.

Quartzite has a hardness between 7-8 on the mohs hardness scale. This makes quartzite harder than granite. So why would the colorado river cut through the quartzite layer instead of cutting in on the sides of the inner gorge? By what mechanism would water cut through harder rock instead of much softer rock? The same thing could be said about the schist layer at the bottom. Shale and Limestone are much softer than schist. The same could also be said of the upper and lower granite gorge.

The sides of the inner gorge show no sign of the hardness of the quartzite layer, granite layer, or schist layer.



So when do you believe the Colorado river carved out the Grand Canyon? 70 million years ago, 6 million years ago, I think now there is even a 17 million years ago. Or set your own date. It seems like everyone that believes in deep time is setting their own date on when the Grand Canyon was formed.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

They are stepped because they are made of different kinds of rock which weather at different rates. So that's exactly what you'd expect to see. But there places where there isn't a great deal of difference in weathering.

Your statement here has all kinds of problems when you look at the rock layers in the grand canyon. But I will stay with inner gorge to keep this post a little shorter. There are two layers in the inner gorge that causes all kinds of problems with hardness theory the quartzite layer and the schist layer.

Quartzite has a hardness between 7-8 on the mohs hardness scale. This makes quartzite harder than granite. So why would the colorado river cut through the quartzite layer instead of cutting in on the sides of the inner gorge?

Why does erosion happen faster on the outer bank of a river than on the inner bank? If you thought about it for a bit, you could probably figure it out.

A meandering stream has a single channel that winds snakelike through its valley, so that the distance 'as the stream flows' is greater than 'as the crow flies.' As water flows around these curves, the outer edge of water is moving faster than the inner. This creates an erosional surface on the outer edge (a cut bank) and a depostional surface on the inner edge


https://www.nps.gov/articles/meandering-stream.htm

That's one of the mechanisms that explain the canyon. Old rivers meander because of the differential erosion. But the second key is rejuvenation of the river. The land has to be uplifted. When it does this, the water runs faster and so the stream cuts deeper into the bed and it becomes entrapped and no longer meanders. It cuts deeper and deeper.

This isn't the only river this has happened to. But it's always a combination of an old river and uplift.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]
As far as I know, there is no landform that cannot be explained by a water catastrophe.

Hawaiian Islands, Cascade Mountans, Grand Canyon, Mississippi Valley, Himalaya Mountains... It's easier to point out the few that can be.

Hawaiian Islands really have you never heard of Surtsey, or Parícutin in Mexico?

Surtsey wasn't a "water catastrophe." It was a volcanic eruption. The Hawaiian Islands form over a hot spot moving with the crust, which is why the most eroded islands are to the Northwest. Paracutin happened on land, no water required.

The Cascade Mountains and Himalayas mountains how about if we just explain mountain building in general from plate tectonics.

Two different mechanisms. Himalayas formed (and are continuing to form) by plate tectonics, as India pushes north into Asia. The continental shelves folded up from the collision, which is why the Himalayas have so much sedimentary rock. It's still moving, and we can measure the velocity. The Cascades formed in a different way. The are largely composed of igneous rock, caused by the subduction of oceanic crust under the less dense North American plate. Pushed down into the mantle, that subducted crust melted and then rose up to form volcanoes.

The rocks of the Cascades and the Sierra Nevada are primarily igneous, since they resulted from melting above a subduction zone. The Cascades are younger mountains, having first appeared 36 million years ago, and are still forming today.
https://earthathome.org/hoe/w/rocks-csm/

I will also address this statement you made because it goes with mountain building.

For example, we see that North America is moving away from Europe and Africa by a few centimeters per year (yes, we can accurately measure that rate). Since we discovered the Mid-Atlantic ridge where the ocean floor is moving apart, it is obvious that it's been going on for many millions of years.

Let's first look at some observations and questions that need answers.
(questions)
All of the above questions can be answered if the mantle density changed. The density can only change by the addition of heat.

That's one way. For example, accumulation of the heat from radioactive decay. In the core, that's what's going on. But it does take some time to reach equilibrium after a planet forms. A change in composition of the material would also do that such as movement of material by gravity and convection. This is why the layers of the Earth have different compositions. If the Earth formed by accretion at the beginning of the solar system, we'd expect the crust to be composed of denser material as well as the lighter stuff we see today. Over billions of years, gravity and convection moves things around.

The researchers also found that, compared with today’s rocky material, the ancient crust was composed of much denser stuff, enriched in iron and magnesium. The combination of a hotter mantle and denser rocks likely caused subducting plates to sink all the way to the bottom of the mantle, 2,800 kilometers below the surface, forming a “graveyard” of slabs atop the Earth’s core. https://news.mit.edu/2017/ancient-earth ... slabs-0822"

That would account for it.

This seems to indicate that the subduction did not happen long ago so that means that the plates had to subduct quickly by sudden heating of the plates. As the plates slowed vaulting and folding occurred.

Fortunately, the magnetic data from (for example the Mid-Atlantic Ridge) shows how fast the crust was moving at various times. Would you like to see that?

Fast subduction in the presence of water is really the only theory that makes logical sense given all of the observations that must be explained.

Unfortunately, the movement of continents means all that energy must be accounted for if the crust decelerates. If it happened in a few thousand years, the heat would have boiled the seas.

The Grand Canyon and the Mississippi Valley would be evidence of the erosion and deposition by large amounts of water that covered the earth during the tectonic event.

As you have seen, the Grand Canyon cannot be explained in terms of sudden flooding. Nor can the Mississippi River. Would you like me to show you why?

You've been misled about that. There was no "tissue" found. Tissue in biology, means a group of cells organized to a particular function. In fact, there isn't even confirmation of cells. What was found was some heme (a fragment of hemoglobin) and some collogen. So a few molecules of organic material. Which isn't surprising. We've found cholesterol from the Precambrian. But more interesting is what that heme told us. When investigated the heme turned out to be more like that of birds than like that of any modern reptile. Which is one more confirmation that birds are the last living dinosaurs.

I said proteins of collagens. Proteins cannot last millions of years.

Sounds unlikely, since things like cholesterol and collagen have been found in very ancient fossils, much older than dinosaurs. But I'd be willing to look at the chemical kinetics data to support your assumption. Been a long time since I took PChem, but I'd be willing to brush up to see. What do you have?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #52]

That's one of the mechanisms that explain the canyon. Old rivers meander because of the differential erosion. But the second key is rejuvenation of the river. The land has to be uplifted. When it does this, the water runs faster and so the stream cuts deeper into the bed and it becomes entrapped and no longer meanders. It cuts deeper and deeper.

This isn't the only river this has happened to. But it's always a combination of an old river and uplift.

Wow!! You really do not understand why a river meanders do you? A river over time naturally straitens because of the erosion occurring on the outside and the deposition that occurs on the inside bank because of the difference in flow rates between the inside and outside the bank because of the meander that the river is making.



The lakes in the picture above is called oxbow lakes that are formed from when the river cuts off a meander. it has nothing to do with land being uplifted it is simply a result a difference in erosion rates on the inside and outside of a bend in the river. Would you please read the article you cited, it explained exactly what I said.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #53]

Surtsey wasn't a "water catastrophe." It was a volcanic eruption. The Hawaiian Islands form over a hot spot moving with the crust, which is why the most eroded islands are to the Northwest. Paracutin happened on land, no water required.

Tell that to the guy that did not believe that Mt. Saint Helens was going to erupt.

That's one way. For example, accumulation of the heat from radioactive decay. In the core, that's what's going on. But it does take some time to reach equilibrium after a planet forms. A change in composition of the material would also do that such as movement of material by gravity and convection. This is why the layers of the Earth have different compositions. If the Earth formed by accretion at the beginning of the solar system, we'd expect the crust to be composed of denser material as well as the lighter stuff we see today. Over billions of years, gravity and convection moves things around.

No, we would not. If the earth was made by accretion we would expect the denser material to sink to the core and the less dense material to be in the crust. This is the reason why deep-time theorists believe that the core would have to have radioactive elements because radioactive elements are heavy elements.

Unfortunately, the movement of continents means all that energy must be accounted for if the crust decelerates. If it happened in a few thousand years, the heat would have boiled the seas.

Why would the heat be transferred to the surface when the plates were going down into the mantle? They actually descended to the bottom of the mantle. The mantle is 84% of the volume of the Earth. Which means the mantle would have a mass of 4.01E24 kg. The mantle is characterized by peridotite which has a specific heat capacity of 1.26 kj/kg K. The crust is much smaller and has a mass of 2.6E22 kg. The curst is made mainly of granite and basalt. Granite has a specific heat of 0.79 kJ/Kg K granite melts at 1533 K. If the entire crust was liquified it would take 2.5E25 KJ of heat. if we assume that all of this heat was transferred to the mantle then what would be the change in temperature of the mantle? 2.5E25 = 4.01 E 24 (1.26kJ/kg K) (change in temp). The change in temperature of the mantle would be 5 degrees. So why would all the seas have boiled?

As you have seen, the Grand Canyon cannot be explained in terms of sudden flooding. Nor can the Mississippi River. Would you like me to show you why?

If it is anything like your explanation of why rivers meander or why there are heavy elements in the crust. Then sure. I could use a good laugh. Any ideas of why subducted plates have not reached equilibrium? My heat calculation is actually way high because the plates were not completely melted, if fact deep earthquakes prove that subducted plates are still relatively cool. So my heat estimate is way, way off. But not as much as your burning ocean theory.

Sounds unlikely, since things like cholesterol and collagen have been found in very ancient fossils, much older than dinosaurs. But I'd be willing to look at the chemical kinetics data to support your assumption. Been a long time since I took PChem, but I'd be willing to brush up to see. What do you have?

The chemical kinetics of what? You have not proposed a mechanism for how proteins were preserved. The problem with the Fe hypothesis is that it takes Fe rich water to provide enough Fe to for the process to take place.

But regardless there was more than just collagen found. Wrong Again.

"Several of these proteins (e.g., myosin, actin, and tropomyosin) are not nearly as structurally “tough” as collagen.
Cleland et al., “Mass Spectrometry and Antibody-Based Characterization of Blood Vessels”; and Schweitzer et al., “Molecular Analyses of Dinosaur Osteocytes.”

According to Schweitzer et al., “Molecular Analyses of Dinosaur Osteocytes,” 421, the association of actin with α-actin and fimbrin may “stabilize the protein after [cell] death.” However, it is strictly conjecture that such association would enable actin to survive millions of years. These researchers cite studies of cell apoptosis events to support their conclusion, but such studies have not provided consistent results regarding the rate of actin degradation during apoptosis (see Celik Kayalar et al., “Cleavage of Actin by Interleukin 1 Beta-converting Enzyme to Reverse DNase I Inhibition,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93, no. 5 [1996]: 2234–2238; and Qizhong Song et al., “Resistance of Actin to Cleavage During Apoptosis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94, no. 1 [1997]: 157–162). What is more, apoptosis is a specialized cell-activated process that does not involve the same cell destruction events that occur in a postmortem state."

Dinosaur DNA has also been found. That is probably a real head-scratcher for you. https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/ ... ogin=false

I am going to have to start charging you for these tutoring sessions.

[The Barbarian]

Surtsey wasn't a "water catastrophe." It was a volcanic eruption. The Hawaiian Islands form over a hot spot moving with the crust, which is why the most eroded islands are to the Northwest. Paracutin happened on land, no water required.

Tell that to the guy that did not believe that Mt. Saint Helens was going to erupt.

Mount St. Helens wasn't a "water catastropy" either. It was a plinian volcanic eruption.

(regarding how Earth's layers change density)
That's one way. For example, accumulation of the heat from radioactive decay. In the core, that's what's going on. But it does take some time to reach equilibrium after a planet forms. A change in composition of the material would also do that such as movement of material by gravity and convection. This is why the layers of the Earth have different compositions. If the Earth formed by accretion at the beginning of the solar system, we'd expect the crust to be composed of denser material as well as the lighter stuff we see today. Over billions of years, gravity and convection moves things around.

No, we would not.

Yes, that's how it happens. Over time, gravity sorts it out.

If the earth was made by accretion we would expect the denser material to sink to the core and the less dense material to be in the crust.

Over a long time. And that's what we see.

This is the reason why deep-time theorists believe that the core would have to have radioactive elements because radioactive elements are heavy elements.

No, that's not true. For example, liithum has radioactive isotopes. So does Helium. And so on.

Unfortunately, the movement of continents means all that energy must be accounted for if the crust decelerates. If it happened in a few thousand years, the heat would have boiled the seas.

Why would the heat be transferred to the surface when the plates were going down into the mantle?

The heat would be generated at the crust/mantle boundary. Oceanic crust is only about 6km thick. So this increadibly huge heat would boiil the seas.

As you have seen, the Grand Canyon cannot be explained in terms of sudden flooding. Nor can the Mississippi River. Would you like me to show you why?

If it is anything like your explanation of why rivers meander or why there are heavy elements in the crust.

I imagine it was a surprise to learn how it works. Only old rivers meander. But uplift can then lock them into the meanders and they cut deeper and deeper. Learn about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrenched_river



Then sure. I could use a good laugh. Any ideas of why subducted plates have not reached equilibrium? My heat calculation is actually way high because the plates were not completely melted, if fact deep earthquakes prove that subducted plates are still relatively cool. So my heat estimate is way, way off. But not as much as your burning ocean theory.

Sounds unlikely, since things like cholesterol and collagen have been found in very ancient fossils, much older than dinosaurs. But I'd be willing to look at the chemical kinetics data to support your assumption. Been a long time since I took PChem, but I'd be willing to brush up to see. What do you have?

The chemical kinetics of what?

You claimed that organic molecules can't survive for millions of years, but haven't provided any evidence for you assumption. On the other hand, we have cholesterol from PreCambrian animal fossils, which clearly refutes your assumption.

The problem with the Fe hypothesis is that it takes Fe rich water to provide enough Fe to for the process to take place.

Or iron already present as in the case of the preserved heme in T-rex bone. And given the amount of evidence for long ages, there's really no reason to believe your assumption.

Dinosaur DNA has also been found. That is probably a real head-scratcher for you. https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/ ... ogin=false

It wouldn't be hard to test. It would be a great thing if we did find such DNA, because that would be the final confirmation of birds as dinosaurs. But your assumption isn't supported by the evidence at this point. In fact, the DNA is consistent with bacterial DNA at this time...

Biochemistry and Chemical Biology Jun 18, 2019
Cretaceous dinosaur bone contains recent organic material and provides an environment conducive to microbial communities
[media]Fossils were thought to lack original organic molecules, but chemical analyses show that some can survive. Dinosaur bone has been proposed to preserve collagen, osteocytes, and blood vessels. However, proteins and labile lipids are diagenetically unstable, and bone is a porous open system, allowing microbial/molecular flux. These ‘soft tissues’ have been reinterpreted as biofilms. Organic preservation versus contamination of dinosaur bone was examined by freshly excavating, with aseptic protocols, fossils and sedimentary matrix, and chemically/biologically analyzing them. Fossil ‘soft tissues’ differed from collagen chemically and structurally; while degradation would be expected, the patterns observed did not support this. 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing revealed that dinosaur bone hosted an abundant microbial community different from lesser abundant communities of surrounding sediment. Subsurface dinosaur bone is a relatively fertile habitat, attracting microbes that likely utilize inorganic nutrients and complicate identification of original organic material. There exists potential post-burial taphonomic roles for subsurface microorganisms.[/media]

I am going to have to start charging you for these tutoring sessions.

Q: What do you have to know to teach an old dog a new trick?
A: More then the dog knows.

Keep trying.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #52]

That's one of the mechanisms that explain the canyon. Old rivers meander because of the differential erosion. But the second key is rejuvenation of the river. The land has to be uplifted. When it does this, the water runs faster and so the stream cuts deeper into the bed and it becomes entrapped and no longer meanders. It cuts deeper and deeper.

This isn't the only river this has happened to. But it's always a combination of an old river and uplift.

Wow!! You really do not understand why a river meanders do you?

I just showed you how they form. As you learned, the water is moving faster on the outer curve and tends to erode away the bank there, and is slower on the inside curve, and tends to deposit sediment there. Hence the river meandering over time.

A river over time naturally straitens because of the erosion occurring on the outside and the deposition that occurs on the inside bank because of the difference in flow rates between the inside and outside the bank because of the meander that the river is making.

The lakes in the picture above is called oxbow lakes that are formed from when the river cuts off a meander.

Over time, these processes create a curve with a distinct U or crescent shape. As the processes of erosion and deposition continue, the piece of land at the narrow ends of the curve closest to the straight path of the river gets smaller and smaller.

Eventually, the river cuts a new, straight path through that small piece of land, creating a shortcut that straightens the path of the river and leaves an oxbow lake behind. When you look at a photograph of an oxbow lake from above, you can often see how it used to be simply a bend in the river.
https://www.wonderopolis.org/wonder/how ... -lake-form

it has nothing to do with land being uplifted

In fact, oxbows won't form if the land is uplifted. The stream will be trapped in its bed and will form ever-deepening entrenched meanders. Oxbow lakes only form in old rivers that are not uplifted.

This is why we know the Colorado River could not have been formed by a sudden rush of water. As you learned earlier, there is at least one example of a huge regional flood (Washington Scablands), and it looks nothing like the Colorado river.

[Jose Fly]

Seeing 6days....er...I mean ESG say he's going to start charging for "tutoring" after ignoring so much and getting so much wrong puts me in mind of the paper I cited HERE about people who reject scientific consensus, and more specifically how they found that "extreme lack of humility" was a factor.

It's one of those things where even though you read about it in a paper and therefore expect it, it's still a bit shocking to see it first-hand.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

Surtsey wasn't a "water catastrophe." It was a volcanic eruption. The Hawaiian Islands form over a hot spot moving with the crust, which is why the most eroded islands are to the Northwest. Paracutin happened on land, no water required.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:11 pm
Tell that to the guy that did not believe that Mt. Saint Helens was going to erupt.

Mount St. Helens wasn't a "water catastropy" either. It was a plinian volcanic eruption.

I am sorry I should have said that "there is no landform that cannot be explained by catastrophe", I thought that is what I said but I did say "water catastrophe." Flood geology does say that volcanoes are a result of the global flood and that global food had many secondary effects. But I did not explain that in my comment.

(regarding how Earth's layers change density)
That's one way. For example, accumulation of the heat from radioactive decay. In the core, that's what's going on. But it does take some time to reach equilibrium after a planet forms. A change in composition of the material would also do that such as movement of material by gravity and convection. This is why the layers of the Earth have different compositions. If the Earth formed by accretion at the beginning of the solar system, we'd expect the crust to be composed of denser material as well as the lighter stuff we see today. Over billions of years, gravity and convection moves things around.

It does not seem that you understand what accretion is according to your comment above. What you are describing above has absolutely nothing to do with what caused the earth to have layers. Your description above is the explanation of why the Earth still has a dynamic mantle and inner and outer core. Ok, it is obvious if I want to have an intelligent conversation about accretion, I am going to have to teach you about accretion just like I had to teach you about meander theory.

The theory is that the earth formed from meteors hitting a planetesimal causing the planetesimal to grow. The meteor bombardment forced the planetesimal into a molten state. It was during this molten state that the layers of the earth were formed because of the density differences in the rock, elements, and minerals.

Densities
Crust 3.0
upper mantle 3.9
Lower mantle 5.0
outer core 11.0
inner core 12.9
Fe 7.87
U 19.

Because the core has a density of 12.9 much higher than Iron it is believed that Uranium is also in the core because of the higher density of the uranium. Meteors only contain 8 ppb.

The theory goes on and tries to explain why there are heavy elements like Uranium on the surface of the earth. Meteors striking the earth after the crust solidified is the reason why heavier elements are in the crust or so goes the theory. But there are large deposits of Uranium in the crust and yet meteors contain only 8 ppb uranium. It must have been like that meteor that brought Vibrainium to Wakanda except for more than just one meteor. But we all know that vibrainium is not real. Right? And a meteor that would carry that much uranium is also make-believe.

No as far as accretion is conserned it has a LOT of problems. Its main problem is that small particles will not come together like that in an accelerating reference frame. For example, the rings of Saturn because the rings are in orbit which is an accelerating reference frame the particles will hit each other but not stay together. What occurs is the chunks become smaller and smaller just like we see in the rings of Saturn. We do not see a moon forming we see the particles in the rings becoming smaller.

In the classic model of planet accretion, dust particles settle to the midplane of the disk, collide with each other, and form aggregates held together by electrostatic forces [e.g., Dominik and Tielens, 1997]. Little by little these aggregates grow and get compacted by collisions, forming small planetesimals [e.g., Weidenschilling and Cuzzi, 1993, Blum and Wurm, 2008].

Today we know that this classic picture of planetesimal growth has severe problems (illustrated in Figure 2). When silicate grains grow to a size of about a millimeter, they start to bounce off each other instead of accreting [Zsom and Dullemond, 2008; Güttler et al., 2009]. In the icy part of the disk, particles can grow up to a few decimeters in size before starting to bounce. This is called the bouncing barrier. At these sizes, particles migrate rapidly in the disk toward the star due to gas drag. This radial drift produces large relative velocities among particles of different sizes and hence disruptive collisions. Even if collisions were not disruptive and particles could continue to grow, eventually meter-size boulders would migrate so rapidly to be lost into the star before they can grow significantly further [Weidenschilling, 1977]. This is the well known meter-size barrier (referred to as the “drift barrier” in Figure 2). https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 16JE005088

This is the reason why deep-time theorists believe that the core would have to have radioactive elements because radioactive elements are heavy elements.
No, that's not true. For example, liithum has radioactive isotopes. So does Helium. And so on.

You really should stay with biology. You are pretty good at biology but Chemistry and geology not so much.

Unfortunately, the movement of continents means all that energy must be accounted for if the crust decelerates. If it happened in a few thousand years, the heat would have boiled the seas.
Why would the heat be transferred to the surface when the plates were going down into the mantle?
The heat would be generated at the crust/mantle boundary. Oceanic crust is only about 6km thick. So this increadibly huge heat would boiil the seas.

The tectonic plate is moving down to the bottom of the mantle and it would take much of the heat with it. As you can see in the image below the heat in subduction is generated in the mantle. It actually has low-temperature metamorphism at the crust boundary.

As you have seen, the Grand Canyon cannot be explained in terms of sudden flooding. Nor can the Mississippi River. Would you like me to show you why?

If it is anything like your explanation of why rivers meander or why there are heavy elements in the crust.

I imagine it was a surprise to learn how it works. Only old rivers meander. But uplift can then lock them into the meanders and they cut deeper and deeper. Learn about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrenched_river

Oh, my. No, No and no again. From the article that you cited.

A study of San Pedro River and another river in the southwest have indicated that floods were the main cause of river entrenchment in the 18th century. The study shows that increased population and human activities in these places increased floods and, consequently, the volume of runoff water (Hereford 43).[9]

And yes entrenched meanders can be caused by flooding. And I would say that most entrenched meanders would be caused by flooding. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30056780

You claimed that organic molecules can't survive for millions of years, but haven't provided any evidence for you assumption. On the other hand, we have cholesterol from PreCambrian animal fossils, which clearly refutes your assumption.

You have yet to produce a mechanism to show how this can take place. I am so supposed to prove something that we already know does not happen. You have to explain how you think this can happen.

Or iron already present as in the case of the preserved heme in T-rex bone. And given the amount of evidence for long ages, there's really no reason to believe your assumption.

You have not given any mechanism. What mechanism are you saying makes this possible?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #57]

Ok, let me help you again.

In fact, oxbows won't form if the land is uplifted. The stream will be trapped in its bed and will form ever-deepening entrenched meanders. Oxbow lakes only form in old rivers that are not uplifted.

This is why we know the Colorado River could not have been formed by a sudden rush of water. As you learned earlier, there is at least one example of a huge regional flood (Washington Scablands), and it looks nothing like the Colorado river.

You are confusing two different processes that you looked up. There is the meandering of old rivers that happens on flat plains with no uplifting needed. And then there is entrenched meandering that happens when an old river basin is uplifted and a river is said to be rejuvenated because it looks more like a young stream than an old stream.

The Grand Canyon actually looks like a young stream because of the steep sides of the canyon. Young streams flow faster and can cut through rock until it reaches a hard layer of rock and then it starts to cut into the sides and not down into the rock.

This is the problem with the Grand Canyon they say it is an old river that has been rejuvenated by up lift but we do not see the cutting into the sides of the gorge when a hard layer is reached.