The Grand Canyon

[otseng]

Image from Cactus Corner

How did the Grand Canyon form?

How did it form according to the Flood Model perspective?
How did it form according to the Evolution Model perspective?

[jwu]

You sound like Kent Hovind

There is a really simple explaination:

The plateau in which we today see the grand canyon did not start rising until less than 100 million years ago. Before this, the river used to flow straight over it.
It slowly rose, and the river carved its way with about the samer speed as the plateau moved upwards.

jwu

[otseng]

Footprints of animals have been found in many layers of the postcambrian strata of the Grand Canyon. Footprints of animals which at the time when the strata formed should have been quite dead.

http://www.und.edu/instruct/mineral/101 ... andcan.htm

Fossilized footprints deserves a topic all of its own, so I've created one to discuss this - Footprints/animal tracks in rock stratas .

[ST88]

All the stratas were formed during the global flood. During the formation of the Rockies, the waters receeded and eroded the layers to form the Grand Canyon in a matter of weeks.

Something about this bothers me. I don't necessarily want to get into the formation of the layers, but I'd like to know how the Creationist model explains the severity of the angles of some of the Grand Canyon formations. How is it that the uniformity of particle matter that would have been deposited during the calming of the F/floodwaters maintained its shape through all this time in some places, and been carved away in others? Wouldn't the layered mud be too soft to allow such such steep angles in such a short timeframe?

[otseng]

I'd like to know how the Creationist model explains the severity of the angles of some of the Grand Canyon formations.

The entire upper crust was moving during the initial part of the flood. This could cause seismic disturbances. As the bottom layers got formed, some seismic event caused the layers to shift. Then additional soil deposits settled forming stratas on top of the shifted layers. One guess as to what this seismic event is could be when the crust first started moving when it started to "slide" down both sides of the mid-Oceanic ridge.

Some more questions about the GC:
- How did all the limestone layers get formed? Limestone is typically formed by the crystallization from water (usually seawater) or by accumulation of shell and shell fragments.
- Why are there marine fossils throughout various stratas? If most all the stratas were at one time below sea level, how did that happen? The Grand Canyon is between 5000 to 9000 feet above sea level. Was the ocean higher in the past or was the Grand Canyon lower in the past?

[otseng]

Another question about the GC. What is so special about the Colorado River that caused it to carve out the canyon? What exactly determines whether a river will eventually carve out a canyon?

[ST88]

I'd like to know how the Creationist model explains the severity of the angles of some of the Grand Canyon formations.

The entire upper crust was moving during the initial part of the flood. This could cause seismic disturbances. As the bottom layers got formed, some seismic event caused the layers to shift. Then additional soil deposits settled forming stratas on top of the shifted layers. One guess as to what this seismic event is could be when the crust first started moving when it started to "slide" down both sides of the mid-Oceanic ridge.

So the canyon part of the canyon is actually a depression caused by acute seismic activity? I still don't see how this could have happened conteporaneously with the Flood. With all that water moving around, I don't see how a landmass saturated with floodwater could have produced such layers if there was ground movement as well. The swirling motion of the water combined with the shaking motion of the earth movement would not have produced such parallel layers. Here is an illustrative picture of how water and tectonic forces shape the rocky coastal areas of California's Channel Islands:

We would expect to see sedimentary layers in similar types of swirling motions if the two events (seismic, flood) happened at the same time.

- How did all the limestone layers get formed? Limestone is typically formed by the crystallization from water (usually seawater) or by accumulation of shell and shell fragments.

and

Why are there marine fossils throughout various stratas? If most all the stratas were at one time below sea level, how did that happen? The Grand Canyon is between 5000 to 9000 feet above sea level. Was the ocean higher in the past or was the Grand Canyon lower in the past?

The Grand Canyon was not formed just by the motion of the river, but by the invasion and recession of ancient oceans. The limestone would have been formed while the area was under the ocean. This is actually evidence against Creation Theory, because this kind of limestone needs a good long time in order to form and still have visible shells in it.

The Kaibab Formation is a top-layer limestone and sandstone formation that contains such shells and other interesting features:

Chert is a major constituent of the Kaibab Formation. It is a hard, brittle rock made of silica that forms as lumps or “nodules” within limestone beds under the sea. Chert is the chief tool and arrowhead material of ancient people world wide. The brown lumps of chert in the Kaibab are mostly made from the silica skeletons of ancient sponges called Actinocoelia... Chert is very hard, so the sturdy Kaibab Formation resists erosion.

Chert is formed when the silicate skeletons of marine animals called radiolarians settle at the bottom of the ocean, which are subjected to the intense heat and pressure of plate subduction, something which cannot occur if the top of the Grand Canyon was not once under the ocean for a very long time. Mountainous upheaval brought the entire Colorado Plateau up from beneath ocean level to the level it is now. What this means is that the layers underneath the Kaibab Formation were not open to the air for the second time until this upheaval. This explains how fossils (and marine fossils at that) are in the various layers and are not just in one layer.

[ST88]

Here's another puzzle. If the floodwaters explain the layers from the Cambrian and above, how do Creationists explain the layers below this event? In the Grand Canyon, the Great Uncomformity separates the layers that are parallel with the horizon (Cambrian) with the layers that are not entirely parallel (pre-Cambrian), suggesting an uneven upheaval force. But these pre-Cambrian layers have similar types of deposits as the layers above. The Bass Limestone is the earliest limestone layer (1.2 Billion years, by estimate). Why would there be limestone this deep in the crust, where supposedly no ocean (and, by inference, no ocean creatures) had ever been?
Ref: http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_layer.htm (This site has a nifty but simplistic graphic of the various layers.)

[otseng]

So the canyon part of the canyon is actually a depression caused by acute seismic activity?

No, the canyon was formed purely by water erosion.

I'd like to know how the Creationist model explains the severity of the angles of some of the Grand Canyon formations.

When you said "severity of the angles", I thought you meant the angle of the lower layers (pre-cambrian).

If the floodwaters explain the layers from the Cambrian and above, how do Creationists explain the layers below this event?

Actually, I never have said that only the Cambrian layers and above in the Grand Canyon were formed during the flood. According to the FM (or at least my version of the FM), practically all layers were formed by the flood (including the pre-Cambrian layers in the GC).

In the Grand Canyon, the Great Uncomformity separates the layers that are parallel with the horizon (Cambrian) with the layers that are not entirely parallel (pre-Cambrian), suggesting an uneven upheaval force.

This unconformity is what I was talking about in the posts above in regards to the severity of the angles.

What I theorize is that the pre-Cambrian layers got deposited during the early part of the flood. As the crust started sliding down the mid-Oceanic ridge, the crust started to move, causing seismic activity. This caused this angles of the pre-Cambrian layers. More layers got deposited on top of this which we see as the horizontal layers above the uncomformity.

The Grand Canyon was not formed just by the motion of the river, but by the invasion and recession of ancient oceans.

So there were alternating cycles of when the ocean covered the GC area for millions of years, then it was dry land for millions of years? And this kept cycling this way several times?

The limestone would have been formed while the area was under the ocean. This is actually evidence against Creation Theory, because this kind of limestone needs a good long time in order to form and still have visible shells in it.

On the contrary, it is evidence for FM. The flood provided the mechanism to deposit marine animals/shells onto the GC area. Rapid burial of huge amounts of marine life would account for the formation of the limestone layers.

Mountainous upheaval brought the entire Colorado Plateau up from beneath ocean level to the level it is now.

How can mountainous upheaval lift an entire section of land (just the park itself is 1,904 square miles) up several thousand feet and still maintain layers that are parallel to the horizon? What evidence is there that this happened? Wouldn't it be expected to at least see some bending of the layers if there was any upheaval?

[ST88]

I'd like to know how the Creationist model explains the severity of the angles of some of the Grand Canyon formations.

When you said "severity of the angles", I thought you meant the angle of the lower layers (pre-cambrian).

Actually, I meant the walls of the canyon themselves. If you stack layers of saturated mud, they don't end up in neat rows. And if the waters recede at such a rapid rate, different materials would be deposited in different places regardless of their relative bouyancy.

Actually, I never have said that only the Cambrian layers and above in the Grand Canyon were formed during the flood. According to the FM (or at least my version of the FM), practically all layers were formed by the flood (including the pre-Cambrian layers in the GC).

I guess this was an error on my part. My preconception was that the Flood in a young-earth model accounted for the fossils down to the Cambrian layer. But I'm coming at this from the mindset that there was a time period called "The Cambrian Layer", and so I made this mistake.

In the Grand Canyon, the Great Uncomformity separates the layers that are parallel with the horizon (Cambrian) with the layers that are not entirely parallel (pre-Cambrian), suggesting an uneven upheaval force.

This unconformity is what I was talking about in the posts above in regards to the severity of the angles.

What I theorize is that the pre-Cambrian layers got deposited during the early part of the flood. As the crust started sliding down the mid-Oceanic ridge, the crust started to move, causing seismic activity. This caused this angles of the pre-Cambrian layers. More layers got deposited on top of this which we see as the horizontal layers above the uncomformity.

Though this was not my question, this is interesting. Does your theory include the bottom layer of Zoroaster granite as part of the pre-Flood Earth, or is that farther down?

So there were alternating cycles of when the ocean covered the GC area for millions of years, then it was dry land for millions of years? And this kept cycling this way several times?

Yes, that's correct. This accounts for different materials in different strata, and also for similar materials in different strata.

The limestone would have been formed while the area was under the ocean. This is actually evidence against Creation Theory, because this kind of limestone needs a good long time in order to form and still have visible shells in it.

On the contrary, it is evidence for FM. The flood provided the mechanism to deposit marine animals/shells onto the GC area. Rapid burial of huge amounts of marine life would account for the formation of the limestone layers.

This might be true for the bottom layer of limestone, but the Kaibab formation is on the very top of the canyon. We would expect to see this material directly underneath other layers if the Flood theory states that the Colorado Plateau did not rise to the level it is now from a much lower level. However, because this limestone is currently visible on the top layer, we have to conclude that there were other layers sitting on top of it for a long enough time to create limestone from marine animals. In addition, the type of stone found in this formation is not entirely created from pressure and heat. The Chert deposits found are actually accumulations of silicate crystals, which take much longer to produce even under extreme circumstances.

Mountainous upheaval brought the entire Colorado Plateau up from beneath ocean level to the level it is now.

How can mountainous upheaval lift an entire section of land (just the park itself is 1,904 square miles) up several thousand feet and still maintain layers that are parallel to the horizon? What evidence is there that this happened? Wouldn't it be expected to at least see some bending of the layers if there was any upheaval?

The "mountainous" movement of the earth in this area was not the same as the type of movement that produced the Himalayas (plate convergence), but was instead produced by a kind of subduction. The explanation I found was quite complicated and had to do with crust bouyancy on the mantle. Here is an interesting article if you would want to beat yourself over the head with a technical explanation.

[otseng]

Actually, I meant the walls of the canyon themselves. If you stack layers of saturated mud, they don't end up in neat rows. And if the waters recede at such a rapid rate, different materials would be deposited in different places regardless of their relative bouyancy.

Oh, I understand your question now. I think I'll start another thread to talk about rock strata formation in general. (However, I probably won't do this right now since there are so many threads I'm following already. But if someone else wants to start discussing that, feel free.)

Does your theory include the bottom layer of Zoroaster granite as part of the pre-Flood Earth, or is that farther down?

The oldest rocks in the GC, according to UM, is the Vishnu complex. It's estimated to be 1.7 billion years old. According to my version of the FM, the Vishnu and Zoroaster rocks comprise the pre-flood rocks in the GC area. One question about the UM - why do layers only appear after these base rocks? If it's dated at 1.7 billion years old, and the earth is dated at 4.55 billion years, why were layers not formed during the first 2.85 billion years?

This might be true for the bottom layer of limestone, but the Kaibab formation is on the very top of the canyon.

I'll hold off on addressing this until the rock strata thread gets started.