That's a Fact! The Little Grand Canyon

Institute for Creation Research ^ | 01-14-2012 | ICR

[fishtank]

That's a Fact - Little Grand Canyon

Nearly 5 million people from all over the world visit the Grand Canyon in Arizona every year. Many believe that this 277-mile long gorge had formed over millions of years, but another famous North American landmark shows that the Grand Canyon could have been created much faster and not long ago.

[CIDKauf]

Grand Junction, possibly named for the junction of the rivers including Colorado, Delores and Gunnison rivers, Green river to the east and White river to the northwest. Interesting the use of term Grand, as in Grand Mesa... 360,000 acres of flat top mesa, largest in the world, and home to 280 natural lakes as well as many man made ones. I lived in Paonia for a time, about 20 miles from the north rim of the canyon. The old road is under Blue Mesa, Morrow Point and Crystal resevoirs. Coronado had a hard time going north with all the canyons in his search for the 7 cities of gold, and Brigham Young and the mormons nearly perished before they crawled out “hole in the wall” at Lake Powell area... interesting history.

[CIDKauf]

“Green River to the WEST”...sorry

[Osage Orange]

I think many eyes were opened after Mount St. Helens....

Scientists were witness to...many events that they thought took thousands of years....that only took a few years.

FWIW-

[CIDKauf]

There is an enormous amount of evidence that there were glaciers in this area at one time. There was a meltdown and much of the water passed through the canyons of southern Utah and northern Arizona. I thought I would point out that Kemmerer has a museum that identifies some 6000+ fossils of fish, which when I ran into it, thought it was an interesting fact this far inland. Just south of Kemmerer is one of the most beautiful gorges on earth, Flaming Gorge on the Green River.

[Fantasywriter]

It wasn’t just rain. Underground water was released as well:

“all the springs of the great deep burst forth”

In other words, a lot of water previously contained beneath the ground and/or the sea was released. I wonder if the world wasn’t a lot flatter prior to The Flood? Perhaps the bursting open of underground springs resulted in shifting land masses on a massive scale. The top of Mt. Everest is marine limestone. Something to think about.

[Osage Orange]

Good post.

[Moonman62]

Wow! And some people think conservatives are ignorant.

[ml/nj]

There is an enormous amount of evidence that there were glaciers in this area at one time. There was a meltdown and much of the water passed through the canyons of southern Utah and northern Arizona. I thought I would point out that Kemmerer has a museum that identifies some 6000+ fossils of fish

Color me stupid, but I didn't think there were any fish in glaciers, so I don't see where fish would come from in runoff from a glacier.

ML/NJ

[reed13k]

I saw a documentary a few years ago discussing the south dakota badlands and certain features all the way into the pacific that discussed how a melting glacier will create a dam that then catastrophically fail. It had been demonstrated more recently in Greenland which led to the further investigation. It’s believed that this glacier resulted in a rush of backed up water so great that it created many of the erosion features in the badlands as well as the depositions in the pacific and that the features were created in a matter of hours instead of eons.

I’m unsure the exact layout, but at the time I was impressed at the geological effects across such a wide area that could only be explained by a sweeping torrent of water moving rapidly - and of course that it could also tie in just as well with a Genesis flood.

[CIDKauf]

The Yellowstone supervalacano eruptions were about 640,000 years ago, and probably had a significant impact on melting glaciers and water flowing through the Colorado River drainage which also includes the Green River coming out of the Grand Tetons. Great Salt Lake could be remnants of the fact that the entire area was under water, including Kemmerer, WY, “fossil fish capital of the world”.

[TheOldLady]

Boop the Bottle! Don't Annoy the Baby!

All Babies Love Their Bottles

Donate monthly and end FReepathons!
Sponsors will donate $10
For each new monthly sign-up

[stormer]

First of all, I'm not playing at anything. And the so-called “(current) conventional wisdom” is one of the well explained and developed paradigms that form the basis for geological science. I know those don't comport with your world view, but these are the principles by which the Earth is understood.

[stormer]

Oh, and glaciers are a product of precipitation, so in effect, they do fall from the sky...

[ml/nj]

I actually wasn't debating the conventional wisdom (though I could) but since you seem to be so familiar with these "principles by which the earth is understood," could you tell me something about the structure of the earth when it was only 7000 miles in diameter. You know, was there rock, or water, or life, or a magnetic field? Maybe you could recommend a book or two about this. You see, I want to learn. Really.

ML/NJ

[stormer]

Sorry, I'm not familiar with any peer reviewed scientific literature that describes the Earth in that manner. I can recommend several general audience scientific histories that deal with the development of geology as a discipline or any of several excellent textbooks. If as you say, you really want to learn, I would be happy to post a list.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Fred Nerks for this link:

• Noah Claim Annoys Scientists [2004]

[ml/nj]

No. You see I already have a collection of Geology texts. When I go back to colleges and take classes, I like to take geology classes because I like the controversy. And even though I'm only ever there for one class (hour or hour and a half) I buy the book that the assignment for that class comes from. Some of them are actually pretty funny.

Right now I'm reading a fossils text: Life History of a Fossil, Pat Shipman, Harvard University Press, 1981, supposedly for advanced undergraduates and professionals. (This isn't for a class. I just saw the book and picked it up.) All these fairy tales have interesting segments. So here's one from this book:

Both radiometric and paleomagnetic dating are widely used to date rocks older than 100,000 years. Radiometric dating depends on the fact that radioactive atoms in the original environment are captured as the rocks solidify. Such atoms degenerate at a steady rate by giving off particles from their nuclei. Over time these atoms become either a new isotope of the original element or a new element. The time elapsed since the rock has lithified can be determined by measuring the proportions of the original parent atoms and the new daughter atoms. Of course if the rocks are reheated to a new molten state after their original lithification, the proportion of atoms will reflect the most recent heating and cooling, not the original one.

Well, silly me. Here, all along, I didn't think terrestrial heating or cooling could cause nuclear reactions. It just goes to show that all that Atomic and Nuclear Physics I took was a waste of time.

Still, I'd like to know about that 7000 mile diameter earth. To me the fact that no one even seems to want to guess indicates that they really don't know much about the 8000 mile diameter earth either.

ML/NJ

[stormer]

I'm afraid I don't understand your confusion. The passage states that when rock remelts and then relithifies, the isotopic ratio is a reflection of that ratio at the time the melting took place. As to your contention that the Earth was once smaller, I am unaware of any compelling evidence that supports that.

[ml/nj]

As to your contention that the Earth was once smaller, I am unaware of any compelling evidence that supports that.

Neither am I aware that it was ever smaller, and that's a problem for the conventional wisdom, isn't it?

As for isotope ratios, they don't change when something is heated or cooled. Consider ice that is melted and refrozen. The ratio of deuterium (Hydrogen with a single neutron in the nucleus) to simple hydrogen (with no neutron) to tritium (with two neutrons) will be the same before and after refreezing. This is pretty simple. What am I missing?

ML/NJ

[stormer]

I don’t understand your first statement. You apparently believe that the Earth was once smaller, but now you seem to be contradicting yourself. As to your second point, no one is saying that the isotopic ratio is a product of melting or cooling. What they are saying is that when considering isotopic ratios as a method of dating rock, the parent/daughter ratio needed for consideration is from the most recent melting/lithification cycle.