Skip to comments.That's a Fact! The Little Grand Canyon
Posted on 01/17/2012 8:35:37 AM PST by 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.
Imagine the water resulting from all those melting glaciers at the ending of the multiple ice ages.
At a minimum, 100x the current maximum flow, not to mention vastly larger floods from the bursting of ice dams.
Not that I believe in the ice ages, but if there were "all those melting glaciers" and no Grand Canyon, you'd sort of have to explain why the melting water or the ice found its way up to 5000 feet above sea level, and if it was there why it didn't flow downhill like water is supposed to do but instead cut a massive chasm (or really chasms, but that's another problem) in the rock.
In advance, I’m sorry maybe.
Is this a spoof or not?
Aside from irritating music and jerky video, what are we to surmise from this video?
Not to mention the marine fossils....
Many of the erosion features that make no sense given current water flows suddenly become logical when you consider ice age melt.
The Colorado river has cut canyons all the way up to where it begins. Also when you drive through a river valley that goes south from the glacial areas, you see that the modern river actually winds between ancient river banks that are sometimes miles wide. There are no current flooding levels that come close to explaining those ancient river banks.
This morning the little creek that borders my land is running like a roaring freight train,and is carrying a lot of dirt and debris. normally only a foot or two deep and maybe ten feet wide is is out of its banks and running a couple hundred feet wide ! All because of about six hours of intense rainstroms in the area;now think about what 40 days and 40 nights of rain might do!!!
What if,.....and inland sea, like the Great Salt Lake broke it's banks and rushed to find sea level? How long would several square miles of water take to find sea level,.... a few days? Did Salt Lake spring a leak and form the Salt Flats? If there were and inland sea that lost it's banks, the canyon could have been carved very fast and then slow to nothing as the river slowed to today's speed.
A very convincing case can be made for a young canyon as well as an old canyon. Science has now degenerated to a political bias that will alter data and physically cover up facts to keep the old bias. Just think of the problems caused if some facts were uncovered that proved a young earth? History books, science funding, ect. How stupid would they look having to change the spiel the park rangers spew every day?
I have so many books in my library that have been PROVEN bogus that I am dubious on every claim today. Every few months there is a headline that says everything has changed and must be re evaluated. Using imagination to come up with a theory is easier than relying on facts. Unless they can come up with facts showing the river flow rate, they are just making up the time element. I've personally seen hundreds of feet of dirt washed away in one or two days, so we don't really know how big the deluge was or even if there were more than one. We already know for a fact that many inland seas have broken lose, we just don't know for sure if the Canyon was formed by that or a river cutting for millions of years. Why are we pretending to know for sure?
But all you're doing is repeating the (current) conventional wisdom about how the Grand Canyon was formed.
You completely ignored for reasons not clear the idea which I was responding to which was that glaciers had some role in the creation/formation of the Grand Canyon. Glaciers are rivers of ice. Glaciers do not fall from the sky, nor does the runoff from glaciers fall from the sky.
But thanks for playing.
Good line! I may pretend I thought of it myself sometime.
Or, spend a Summer in Maine and find out.
Fossil Fish capital of the world is Kemmerer, WY, just south of Jackson and the Grand Tetons...portions of the west were under water completely.
Colorado River begins at Granby, CO, just south of Rocky Mountain Nat Park and goes west towards Steamboat Springs, been there. What about Black Canyon of the Gunnison?
Even if this were true, what would it have to do with glaciers and my comment?
There may still be some old-timers who dispute that. What is now the Colorado River in Colorado used to be called the Grand River, and the name is reflected in nearby place names such as Grand Junction and Grand Mesa. The Colorado River flowed southwest from where the Grand River and the Green River met in Utah. Some relatives of mine who lived in Colorado refused to call the Grand River by its new name after it was changed in the 1920's.
In 1961, I rode in a 1954 Studebaker station wagon up a dirt road at the bottom of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison. The scenery was spectacular--sheer cliffs on either side of the Gunnison River, with its rapids. Today, that road is at the bottom of the Blue Mesa reservoir.
Yep, I rafted it last July. A nice canyon already exist by the time you get 35 nm miles from Granby to Kremmling.
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.
“Green River to the WEST”...sorry
Scientists were witness to...many events that they thought took thousands of years....that only took a few years.
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.
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.
Wow! And some people think conservatives are ignorant.
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.
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.
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”.
Oh, and glaciers are a product of precipitation, so in effect, they do fall from the sky...
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.
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?
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.
Photo Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Dept of the Interior
Glen Canyon Dam tunnel spillway damage in 1983
Rapid erosion of bedrock at a dam spillway
Really? You like controversy? From reading your posts over the years...I would say "colr me SHOCKED" that you like controversy.
I would say you just like to argue.
No. Actually I don't believe anything because I don't know. But I do know that anyone who believes that the earth is some accretion of stuff has to believe in a 7000 mile diameter earth. It probably has a bit to do with my belief in the correctness of the math I learned and something called the Intermediate Value Theorem. Of course if the earth came about more like something we read in Genesis then I supposed the Intermediate Value Theorem wouldn't apply.
And as for isotope ratios, I suppose I am saying that I think state changes of a substance have noting to do with the isotope ratios exhibited by that substance and so deserve no consideration. I cannot tell whether you are being purposely dense or I have lost the ability to express myself clearly. Perhaps others will weigh in.
You are mostly correct. A lot of people (those who believe in Noah's flood) believe that it was just 40 days and 40 nights of rain that flooded the Earth. As a meteorologist (and a preacher), I feel very certain that is not the case. Even in the moistest of climates, the precipitable water of an environment would not be enough to give you more than 150 feet of rain over a very localized area...much less over the entire globe. If the entire atmosphere was saturated and the precipitable water was off the chart...I doubt you could get 2 feet of total rain over the entire globe.
BUT...the key lies in the "springs of the deep were BROKEN up." This word doesn't necessitate a spring as we think of it...it can mean just a source of water. So, here is what I think happened:
One of the flaws in the thinking is that the antediluvian world looked like the world does now. We are under this misguided notion that Mt Everest as 29,000 feet high. That the Mts of Ararat were 17K feet high. I propose they were not and we know this because of Peleg: In HIS days the Earth was divided. This is how God separated mankind and the continents. The Bible teaches that the Earth used to be all one landmass and in the life of Peleg, He divided it (Gen 10:25; 1 Chron 1:19).
When the Japanese tsunami happened, I just happened to be reading through Psalms. I heard on the news how the tsunami covered parts of Japan and breached their protective walls even though they were high enough. They breached them because the EARTH lowered. Then I read Pslams 104. So I started to wonder: What if the fountains of the deep being broken up was actually some sort of tsunami action caused by the land beneath the sea heaving upwards and the dry ground subsiding all at once? Combine that with the rain and you have a world wide flood. Add to that the splitting of the earth and the separation of continents in Pelegs life, and you have fish fossils in Wyoming.
Psalms 104:6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. God could have brought up water from the deep
as in the sea
and covered the mountains with tectonic action. We saw just a hint of it last March.
First let me say, "Thank you," for being a part of my little fan club.
But I hope you won't be offended by my commenting on your "just like to argue" remark. One who "just argues" could take any side of a controversy or create controversy where none exists. I don't think I do that. Which isn't to say that I never change my mind about anything. I do actually pay attention to what the people on the other side of an argument are saying. So for example I have gone from being convinced that I know what the Framers meant by natural-born citizen to not being quite so sure. And now I argue against the certainty of my former position.
Second...I love good debate if it's good debate...iron sharpening iron so to speak. If both sides are dug in...I bail because it's pointless.
Just busting your chops a little...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.