I am not sure of your point. Are you saying that the caves could have been
deposited in situ or are you saying that all the sediments were soft during
the uplift? If the Redwall hardened quickly, it would have provided a hard
substrate which would have divered the canyon erosion to a lower topographic
region. The reason the river eroded the canyon where it did is because it
became entrenched in its present locality prior to the uplift. It was
hardened sediments which maintained the entrenchment. In soft sediments the
river would have been free to erode elsewhere. Remember you have to have the
erosion occur rapidly. Rapid erosion would argue against entrenchment of
the river where it is today.
>> 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.
They do! The article said they had sediments AS HIGH AS the Chinle formation.
>
>> 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.
>
As I noted, there are rocks of those ages also. But there are also rocks of
Chinle age. Here is the full quotation
"The breccia pipes formed as sedimentary strata collapsed
into dissolution caverns in the underlying Mississippian Redwall
Limestone. Upward stoping through the upper Paleozoic and lower
Mesozoic strata, involving units as high as the Triassic Chinle
Formation."~Karen J. Wenrich and Peter W. Huntoon, "Breccia Pipes
and Associated mineralization in the Grand Canyon Region,
Northern Arizona," Geology of the Grand Canyon, Northern Arizona,
28th Int. Geol. Congress, Field Trip Guide Book, (Washington:
AGU, 1989), p. 212
They specifically mention Pensylvanian Surprise Canyon being found and
diagramatically show Supai in some of the pipes. I think you are nitpicking
to get out of this problem for your view. Take a look at the article I cite.
>>
>> 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.
Can you point to such confined and localized high energy currents in today's
oceans? In a water covered earth, the currents would spread out and cause
eddies.
>
>> 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.
Which formation? It would be helpful if you would be more specific both as
to the formation the burrows you looked at are from and the name of the
burrow type. One cannot discuss vague claims that worm burrows are not
valid. I can be more specific in Austin's treatment of burrows. He suggests
that the burrows are escape structures. He writes:
"Burrows are tubes left by organisms that live within sediment.
Many terrestrial and marine organisms occupy burrows, and, because
of this activity, leave obvious evidence by disrupting layering,
especially lamination in clay-rich muds. Modern marine and
terrestrial organisms are 'biological bulldozers,' which so
thoroughly rework and burrow recent sediments, that stratification
is often completely homogenized. An example comes from the
sedimentary deposit from Hurricane Carla, which, in 1961,
devastated the central Texas coast. Miles Hayes published an
extensive study of a distinctinve, two-inch-thick, graded sand,
silt, and mud layer depositied off shore by the hurricane. Yet, 20
years later, the layer had been so throughly burrowed by marine
organisms that it was unrecognizable.
"The intensity of burrowing in sediments on land and under the
sea causes us to ask a fundamental question. How could any laminae
be preserved in the strata record, if sediemnt accumulates very
slowly and is in contact with burrowing organisms for so long? Some
evolutionists proposed that the deep-burrowing activity of
organisms had not yet evolved, when most Grand Canyon strata were
deposited. However, this opinion was strongly challenged by more
recent investigators who documented deep-burrow structures even in
Cambrian strata. Creationists would propose that the reason that
major laminae are not severely burreowed, is because thick
sequences of strata were deposited rapidly, not slowly. therefore,
the sediemtns were in contact with burrowing organisms for only
short periods of time, and the probability of burrowing was low.
"Burrows and trackways in the Bright Angel Shale (Cambrian) of
Grand Canyon were studied by D. k. Elliot and D. L. Martin. They
noted obvious evidences of rapid sedimentation in the sandstones
and shales, but supposed that long time periods might be
represented by some horizons where trackways and burrows occur.
Burrows and trackways might be regarded as features produced by
normal life activities of organisms. We might suppose that some
burrows represent feeding, whil others represent resting. Because
burrows and trackways might be supposed to indicate cessation of
sedimentation, evolutionists have used their presence to argue
against a single flood forming great thicknesses of strata.
"The trackways of trilobites occur in the Bright Angel Shale.
It is doubtful that a trackway, or even several trackways on a
bedding surface would require a long period of time to form.
Modern marine arthropods can move rapidly across sediment, and can
form a short trackway in seconds."
"Burrows in the Bright Angel Shale are of two types:
horizontal and vertical orientations. three types of horizontal
burrows (Palaeophycus, Phycodes, and Teichichnus) were observed by
Elliott and Martin in the Bright Angel Shale. Each of these
horizontal burrows was recognized by the researchers to have been
formed by marine organisms burrowing, and which were entirely
burried within the sediment. Because these horizontal burrows had
no connection with the overlying water column, the organisms which
produced them did not require cessation of sedimentation, and their
activity would have little restriction by the overlying
sedimentation, whether slow or fast.
"Two types of vertical burrows (Diplolocraterion and
Skolithos) were observed by Elliott and Martin in the Bright Angel
Shale. These burrows have direct refence to the rate of
sedimentation question, because they connected vertically to the
water column which overlays the sediment. We might suppose that
these vertical burrows are the dwellings of organisms, and that
they represent occupation levels upon which marine burrowers lived
and died. A long time period might be suggested - an
interpretation which might be favored by evolutionists, and which
would call into question the model of flood sedimentation.
"An alternate interpretation can be proposed for vertical
burrows. Instead of representing occupation, or dwelling-sites of
organisms, they may have been excavated by organisms escaping
vertically from rapid sediment burial. The modern wormlike
organism Phoronopsis viridis constructs burrows which closely
resemble Skolithos. Laboratory experiments show that burial
induces an escape response from the organism which can produce
either vertical or horizontal burrows. Dipolocraterion, the
commonest vertical burrow in the Bright Angel Shale, could have
been made also by upward movement of an organism in response to
rapid sedimentation. Two geologists admit, '...Dipolocraterion
cannot be dismissed as an escape trace.' If vertical burrows in
shale are regarded as the traces of animals escaping from sediment
which was burying them, then the long time period needed for their
formation dissappears."~~Steven A. Austin, "Interpreting Strata of
Grand Canyon," in Steven A. Austin, editor, Grand Canyon: A
Monument to Catastrophe, (Santee: Inst. for Creation Research,
1994), p. 40.
The two geologists that Steve cites are misquoted. Steve ignores the
following statement those two made:
"Some workers have rejected Skolithos and Diplocraterion as true
indicators of the burrowing depth of their producers. However, not
all specimens of these trace fossils represent upward movement of
their producers. Most escape structures not associated with
discrete burrows are characterized by down-bent laminae around a
pooly defined axial zone and thus are readily distinguishable from
Skolithos and Dipolocraterion." Molly Fritz Miller and Charles W.
Byers, "Abundant and Diverse Early Paleozoic infauna indicated by
the Stratigraphic Record," Geology, 12, Jan. 1984, p. 40.
All of the above, the trackways of trilobites, burrows etc take more time
than a few seconds. If the depositional rates are as rapid as global flood
advocates suggest, all the trilobites and burrows should be on the bottom of
the pile, not in the middle or top. Yet the Coconino sandstone at the top
of the column is famous for the thousands off footprints yet this is
supposed to be at the middle or later part of the flood after most things
have died!
>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.
See above. I have read Austin's views. You are wrong. However, I don't
find their critiques convincing.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm