Re: Questions from a YEC convert

Allen Roy (allen@infomagic.com)
Fri, 28 Nov 1997 11:29:28 -0800

Glenn Morton wrote:
> > 1. New geologist theories about catastrophism and the
> > Grand Canyon?
>
> The only geologists I know who are advocating a catastrophic origin for the
> Grand Canyon are those who believe in a global flood. Now, are these current
> proposals workable? I don't think so. Here is why.
>
> The catastrophic or rapid formation of the Grand Canyon is largly based upon
> the concept that the erosion of the canyon occurred when the sediments were
> still soft. But this can not be the case. The Redwall limestone has
> collapsed caves which are filled by bits of Triassic Chinle formation.
> These collapsed caves occur at a density of about 6 per square mile, which
> is about normal for karsted terrains today. A karsted terrain is a region
> where the surface limestone is being eroded by rainwater.

Not quite correct. It is proposed that many of the sediments were still
reletively soft when the uplift of the Colorado Plateau and the upwarp
of the Kaibab plateu occurred. It is also proposed that many of the
limestones hardened quite quickly, much as concrete does.

>
> Considering that it is impossible to deposit big caverns in the sediment
> during the catastrophic global flood, one is forced to conclude that the
> limestone was deposited in a more normal fashion (i.e. hard) and then eroded
> by fresh water. Seawater cannot erode limestone since it is fully saturated
> with limestone.

Or, the limemud was deposited quite quickly, which then hardened fairly
quickly as it was upwarped. The high precipitation of the Post Flood
Ice Age eroded the caves in the uplifted plateaus much more quickly than
now.

>
> The importance of the chinle formation is that it occurs above the Redwall
> limestone in Utah but not in Arizona. The Triassic sediments, like the
> Chinle, have been almost completely eroded off of the Colorado plateau.

Above the Redwall limestone is 300-400 feet of the Supai group of
sandstones, shales, and limestones, 100+ feet of the Hermit shale,
200-400 feet of Coconino sandstone, 100 feet of the Toroweap formation,
100 feet of the Kaibab limestone, 200-300 feet of the Moenkopi
formation, 40-50 feet of the Shinarump congolmerate, and then the Chinle
formation. One would expect that the caves would also have some of all
of the other formations before you would get the Chinle in the caves. I
think you may have ment the Supai group.

On the Kaibab plateau, through which Grand Canyon is carved, the
Moenkpi, Shinarump and Chinle and layers above have been erodded away,
leaving the hard cement-like Kaibab limestone. It is proposed that as
the Rocky Mountains and the Colorado Plateau were uplifted during the
latter stages of the flood, a great surge of water ran off the area
across the area around Grand canyon, stripping the layers of down to the
kaibab limestone. Then the Kaibab plateau was uplifted due to faulting,
forming a dam to runnoff from the Area now drained by the Colorado River
and its tributaries.

>
> Any catastrophic explanation for the Grand Canyon needs to explain why the
> caves were in the Redwall. Conventional explanations have the limestone
> being deposited normally, then caves cut into it just as happens today and
> then the caves collapsing, causing some of the Chinle to fall into the sink
> hole (just like happens in Florida today). A catastrophic explanation must
> account for the 6 collapsed caves per square mile, filled with sediments
> that are no longer covering the Grand Canyon.

I think you had better check of the name of the formations that have
collapsed into these caves. I suspect that those caves are filled with
the Supai group, Hermit shale, Coconino, Toroweap and the Kaibab.

>
> It must also explain why there are huge erosional channels cut into the
> Esplanade sandstone,

These channels simply represent channelized erosion from temporary,
localized high energy currents during the Flood.

> Why there are worm burrows throughout the section,

I looked through supposed "worm borrow" samples in the vault here at the
Museum of Northern Arizona. I find them less than convincing that they
are anything more than curious random shapes in the mud.

and
> then finally it must account for why the erosion of the canyon took place on
> a topographic high. The Colorado plateau was slowly uplifed (domed) and the
> river cut into it as it was uplifted. Since rivers avoid topographic highs,
> like this, any catastrophic erosional waters (as is envisioned by Steve
> Austin) would not run across the top of the hill. The water would flow
> around the hill, meaning that the Grand Canyon should not be where it is,
> but rather on the edges of the uplift.

It is obvious from this that you have not read the breached dam proposal
by Austin and others. The theory that the plateau was slowly uplifted
as the river cut through it has been proved wrong ages ago, when they
found the muddy creek formation. The most current theories have no
evidence and evidence.