Driving through Highway 18 in southwestern Utah, the visitor sees forested terrain with few rock outcrops and may be tempted to think that Hutton’s cycle of uplift and erosion is just as applicable here as anywhere else.

However, detailed mapping of the area has revealed a remarkable story involving the rapid intrusion of laccoliths, with associated arching of overlying rocks, massive gravity sliding, and synchronous volcanic eruptions” (Willis, 2002). The dramatic nature of these past events, and the speed of formation of geological structures, should make us stop and think about our basic approach to geological interpretation.

The events took place in the Tertiary. Thick layers of Jurassic and Cretaceous rocks had been laid down, and covered by Eocene strata. Then came the igneous intrusion: the magma was a viscous combination of quartz monzonite and granodiorite. It moved up from deep within the Earth’s crust, but instead of breaking out at the surface, it found layers of weakness in the surface strata and moved laterally. It ponded and formed a dome-shaped structure called a laccolith. This uplifted the surface rocks and this is where the story really gets interesting.

A chain-reaction series of events followed the intrusions. “First, the doming magma fractured and oversteepened the overlying layered rocks. The elevated weakened layers then broke loose and slid down the flanks of the domes as massive gravity slides. The sudden removal of the slide masses produced an immediate large reduction in confining pressure. This then caused still-intruding magma to burst through the seal and erupt, first ejecting vapor-rich (high-volatile) tuffs, then vapor-poor lava flows, which draped across the new gravity slide masses.” (Willis, 2002) The whole cycle repeated itself several times, with new laccoliths being formed and then bursting their sediment seals.

Timescales for these events were comparatively short. “Ages and relationships of the outcrops throughout the area strongly indicate that each laccolith intruded and domed within just a few years, or less. The gravity slides probably occurred even faster. Most likely, they were catastrophic events that, once started, happened within minutes, similar to the massive landslide on Mount St. Helens in May 1980 that triggered the disastrous eruption that took 60 lives. It would have been an incredible sight to watch huge slabs of rock several hundred feet thick rush down a mountain slope and run out across the landscape several miles!” (Willis, 2002).

Some of these slides were huge: the largest is more than 60 square miles in area, 1800 feet thick and it traveled over 12 miles. When they moved, the laccolith was unroofed and pressure release led to the eruption of volcanic ash and some lava flows. The remains of all this activity has been identified in careful mapping work.

Some general thoughts follow.

1. Geologic processes in the past do not necessarily fit our preconceived ideas about rates of process or even types of process. Be prepared for some surprises when you investigate the Earth’s history. Some processes were very short – measured in hours, days or years.

2. Igneous processes tend to be stretched out over thousands or even millions of years, but this expectation needs to be revised. Whether we are considering magma segregation, magma transport to the surface, emplacement or cooling: all these processes can take place much faster than previous generations of geologists surmised.

3. In most cases, geological research has explored timescales in only a limited way – because “everybody knows” that the timescales are in millennia or longer. More rigorous work, that looks for clues about timescales, invariably finds that past estimates have been too long. A case in point was posted by Glenn Morton at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20334. The Great Stone Dome is known from seismics and boreholes, but is not accessible to field geologists. In such a case, a variety of scenarios could be proposed to explain the data – but testing these scenarios would be quite difficult. It is more useful to argue from geological structures where we do have the opportunities to test hypotheses more effectively.

4. A Flood Geology Understanding of the Pine Valley Mountains. Those who have followed previous threads to which I have contributed will know of my interest in developing and testing the Recolonisation model of earth history. This involves a global catastrophe (linked to the biblical history of Noah’s Flood) followed by an extended period of more local catastrophism as the Earth recovered from the destruction of the pre-Flood world. These particular events would then be part of the post-Flood catastrophism affecting the North American continent. The timescales indicated in my notes above are fully consistent with this scenario.

Reference
UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NOTES, September 2002, 34(3), 1-3.
http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/snt34-3.pdf

So basically, some things happen fast. Thats fine, we know they do. They leave signatures in the rock record that show they happened quickly. On the other hand there are many processes that have led to the geology we see today that can not reasonably have happened quickly.

Just showing some examples of rapid events hardly strengthens your case. Furthermore, as the above example appears to show, geologists do not rule out rapid occurences. There is hardly a need for a complete rethink to incorporate catastrophism when it is incorporated into modern thinking anyway. Uniformitarianism vs catastrophism is old hat.

Originally posted by dtyler

1. Geologic processes in the past do not necessarily fit our preconceived ideas about rates of process or even types of process. Be prepared for some surprises when you investigate the Earth’s history. Some processes were very short – measured in hours, days or years.

Why should this be surprising to anyone? We've all seen volcanic eruptions, landslides, and floods.

2. Igneous processes tend to be stretched out over thousands or even millions of years, but this expectation needs to be revised. Whether we are considering magma segregation, magma transport to the surface, emplacement or cooling: all these processes can take place much faster than previous generations of geologists surmised.

Geologists aren't stupid you know. There are ways to get a rough measure of the timescale of an event. As just one example, the speed of cooling of an igneous formation can be roughly gauged by looking at the size of the crystals in the rock. The larger the crystals, the slower the cooling.

3. In most cases, geological research has explored timescales in only a limited way – because “everybody knows” that the timescales are in millennia or longer.

Yes, David, this issue was settled 150 years ago. Just because you are in denial doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't move on to more productive questions.

More rigorous work, that looks for clues about timescales, invariably finds that past estimates have been too long.

I think "invariably" may be a bit of a hyperbole, don't you? The Grand Canyon has surely been the object of rigorous work, yet I don't hear of it getting any younger.

The timescales indicated in my notes above are fully consistent with this scenario.

Tell us again, David, how long ago did the article say these events happened? How in the world is that consistent with your young-earth scenario?

And need I remind you yet again that your whole model presumes a world-wide catastrophe for which you have provided zero physical evidence.

Originally posted by dtyler

Be prepared for some surprises when you investigate the Earth’s history

like the biodiversity of filey brigg, for instance. Seemed a surprise to you.

K

Originally posted by Steve Forden

So basically, some things happen fast. Thats fine, we know they do. They leave signatures in the rock record that show they happened quickly. On the other hand there are many processes that have led to the geology we see today that can not reasonably have happened quickly.

What we are not so good at is discerning the signatures - largely because we come to the data with expectations.

Just showing some examples of rapid events hardly strengthens your case. Furthermore, as the above example appears to show, geologists do not rule out rapid occurences. There is hardly a need for a complete rethink to incorporate catastrophism when it is incorporated into modern thinking anyway. Uniformitarianism vs catastrophism is old hat.

Maybe it is old hat. But some are still wearing the old hat of uniformitarianism!
I did not post this thread just to give yet another example of catastrophism. Diluvialists are being charged with ignoring evidence about slow processes - yet the evidences presented are only effective against people who say the geologic column (or most of it) was laid down in 1 year. This also is old hat and I would like to see us move the discussion into more productive areas. This post can be interpreted as a protest against the methodology of Glenn Morton, bringing us a Stone Dome that can only be examined by seismics and drill cores. I seek a higher standard of debate - further comments are in post 1.

Originally posted by dtyler

What we are not so good at is discerning the signatures - largely because we come to the data with expectations.

I think we are doing a pretty good job. I'm training in Quaternary sciences and can cite numerous examples (Younger Dryas stadial for example) where we have been able to see events in the past that have occured quickly.

You still can't get away from the fact that there are events and processes that can not reasonably have been expected to have occured in a short space of time.

Do you not think that your expectations (largely without foundation) are causing you to be a little biased?

Originally posted by dtyler

Maybe it is old hat. But some are still wearing the old hat of uniformitarianism!

Geologists fully accept that things have happened quickly in the past. I think you are behind the times.

Originally posted by dtyler

I did not post this thread just to give yet another example of catastrophism. Diluvialists are being charged with ignoring evidence about slow processes - yet the evidences presented are only effective against people who say the geologic column (or most of it) was laid down in 1 year. This also is old hat and I would like to see us move the discussion into more productive areas.

One year or a couple of thousand. It makes very little difference, its still not enough time. Nothing you have posted so far suggests otherwise, no positive evidence whatsoever.

You have posted here an example of geologists who fully accept that something happen quickly which rather diminishes your point about a debate being needed over timescale. Furthermore, just finding a couple of places where something happens relatively fast is not convincing support for your model.

Geology fully accepts variable timescales and fits them into a framework that is doing a pretty good job of explaining the data we collect. Things that occur slowly and a number of things that occur quickly explains things. Hypothesising that pretty much everything happens quickly explains nothing in a remotely coherent fashion.

Originally posted by dtyler

This post can be interpreted as a protest against the methodology of Glenn Morton, bringing us a Stone Dome that can only be examined by seismics and drill cores.

I am sure Glenn doesn't feel that seismics and drill cores are the only methodologies available to us. What he has done is provided seismic data and drill core data that is nigh on impossible to fit into a YEC framework be it your or a one year version.

Originally posted by dtyler

I seek a higher standard of debate - further comments are in post 1.

I am genuinely not being facetious when I ask why haven't you attempted to get this debate going in the peer reviewed literature. Submit something to sedimentary geology for example.

Through all this talk of seeking improved debate you have not yet once provided any vaguely convincing evidence for your model. Is fostering debate all you seek to do?

Originally posted by Monkey Boy

Why should this be surprising to anyone? We've all seen volcanic eruptions, landslides, and floods.

Nothing like on this scale.

Geologists aren't stupid you know. There are ways to get a rough measure of the timescale of an event. As just one example, the speed of cooling of an igneous formation can be roughly gauged by looking at the size of the crystals in the rock. The larger the crystals, the slower the cooling.

You are right: geologists are not stupid. It is no reflection on the integrity of geologists to say that they also bring presuppositions to the data that affect their interpretation of it. My concern is with those who can't or won't agree with this comment. The example of magma cooling and crystallisation is a good one. For years, this was used as an argument for vast ages for granite crystalisation. Then laboratory studies started to show that the ages might not be so long. A recent study says that the time scale can be "years as opposed to millenia".

Granite recrystallization: The key to the nuclear waste problem?, Fergus G.F. Gibb and Philip G. Attrill, Geology: Vol. 31, No. 8, pp. 657–660.
ABSTRACT: We report the outcome of high-temperature, high-pressure experiments showing that granite can be partially melted and completely recrystallized on a time scale of years as opposed to millennia as widely believed. ...

Geologists are not stupid - but all the more reason to keep questioning things that can be traced back to the influence of Lyell.

I think "invariably" may be a bit of a hyperbole, don't you? The Grand Canyon has surely been the object of rigorous work, yet I don't hear of it getting any younger.

That's not what I hear:

Catastrophic floods built Grand Canyon
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz., July 20, 2002, Saturday

Dams of volcanic rock laid across the Grand Canyon have burst repeatedly and catastrophically over the past million years -- most recently about 165,000 years ago -- carrying enormous onrushing floods and carving out much of the great landmark in the blink of a geologic eye, new research by U.S. Geological Survey and University of Utah geologists suggests.

The findings tend to support other new data indicating the canyon's Inner Gorge may be no more than 700,000 years old, much younger than earlier estimates of 3 million to 5 million years, said Robert Webb, a research geologist with USGS. ...

I don't understand the point here. Geologists aren't glued to the "its all long" thought process. Geologists are pretty sure that the Whirlpool bend of Niagara Gorge was formed in days. Does that mean Niagara Falls progressed to its current condition in weeks? Of course not.

Originally posted by Steve Forden

I think we are doing a pretty good job. I'm training in Quaternary sciences and can cite numerous examples (Younger Dryas stadial for example) where we have been able to see events in the past that have occured quickly.

You still can't get away from the fact that there are events and processes that can not reasonably have been expected to have occured in a short space of time.

of course I welcome the signs of greater realism in geological science. I'm encouraged by your comments re the Quaternary. Of the examples presented to us on TheologyWeb, I have engaged with the ones I've thought were more significant. I continue to think that the discussion is misdirected - Glenn has himself said that I represent minority within Diluvialism and his guns are primarily for the majority view. That excludes me from a lot of detailed discussion - but it also fails to address the real issues.

Do you not think that your expectations (largely without foundation) are causing you to be a little biased?

If you omitted the words in parenthesis, I will acknowledge that I have a bias. But I am aware of it and seek to guard against jumping to conclusions.

Geologists fully accept that things have happened quickly in the past. I think you are behind the times.

If that were my point, I would be.

re Glenn doesn't feel that seismics and drill cores are the only methodologies available to us. What he has done is provided seismic data and drill core data that is nigh on impossible to fit into a YEC framework be it your or a one year version.

I do not think this example has enough data to allow a conclusion to be drawn.

Originally posted by dtyler

Nothing like on this scale.


You are right: geologists are not stupid. It is no reflection on the integrity of geologists to say that they also bring presuppositions to the data that affect their interpretation of it. My concern is with those who can't or won't agree with this comment. The example of magma cooling and crystallisation is a good one. For years, this was used as an argument for vast ages for granite crystalisation. Then laboratory studies started to show that the ages might not be so long. A recent study says that the time scale can be "years as opposed to millenia".

Granite recrystallization: The key to the nuclear waste problem?, Fergus G.F. Gibb and Philip G. Attrill, Geology: Vol. 31, No. 8, pp. 657–660.
ABSTRACT: We report the outcome of high-temperature, high-pressure experiments showing that granite can be partially melted and completely recrystallized on a time scale of years as opposed to millennia as widely believed. ...

Geologists are not stupid - but all the more reason to keep questioning things that can be traced back to the influence of Lyell.



That's not what I hear:

Catastrophic floods built Grand Canyon
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz., July 20, 2002, Saturday

Dams of volcanic rock laid across the Grand Canyon have burst repeatedly and catastrophically over the past million years -- most recently about 165,000 years ago -- carrying enormous onrushing floods and carving out much of the great landmark in the blink of a geologic eye, new research by U.S. Geological Survey and University of Utah geologists suggests.

The findings tend to support other new data indicating the canyon's Inner Gorge may be no more than 700,000 years old, much younger than earlier estimates of 3 million to 5 million years, said Robert Webb, a research geologist with USGS. ...

Still no positive evidence David. All it shows is the scientific method in action (assuming these new findings become accepted) and the fact that geologists aren't constrained by uniformitarianism!

Originally posted by dtyler

of course I welcome the signs of greater realism in geological science.

They aren't just signs though. They are fully accepted and have been for a while. Some things still happen slowly though.

Originally posted by dtyler

If you omitted the words in parenthesis, I will acknowledge that I have a bias. But I am aware of it and seek to guard against jumping to conclusions.

But your expectations are largely without foundation. There aint no evidence (scientific anyway) for them. if you are aware of it, then how come you are still reaching conclusions unsupported by the data?

Originally posted by dtyler

If that were my point, I would be.

It strikes me that one of your points is that geologists don't accept that some things can happen quickly. They do. As I said, they have a perfectly coherent framework that explains the data well.

Originally posted by dtyler

I do not think this example has enough data to allow a conclusion to be drawn.

Glenn has provided many examples (and will no doubt provide anymore) that have gone unadressed.

I'm happy to continue this with you David but I'm off home now and probably won't check TWeb till Sunday/Monday.

Originally posted by dtyler

Nothing like on this scale.

You're begging the question. The eruption of one individual dome would have been no more catastrophic than St. Helens, Pompeii, or Kratatoa. You can't assume that all of the domes erupted simultaneously. Even if they did, so what? Again we all know that really big catastrophes are (thankfully) more rare than run-of-the-mill catastrophes.

You are right: geologists are not stupid. It is no reflection on the integrity of geologists to say that they also bring presuppositions to the data that affect their interpretation of it. My concern is with those who can't or won't agree with this comment. The example of magma cooling and crystallisation is a good one. For years, this was used as an argument for vast ages for granite crystalisation. Then laboratory studies started to show that the ages might not be so long. A recent study says that the time scale can be "years as opposed to millenia".

Granite recrystallization: The key to the nuclear waste problem?, Fergus G.F. Gibb and Philip G. Attrill, Geology: Vol. 31, No. 8, pp. 657–660.
ABSTRACT: We report the outcome of high-temperature, high-pressure experiments showing that granite can be partially melted and completely recrystallized on a time scale of years as opposed to millennia as widely believed. ...

You're quote mining David, and that's dishonest. Here's a longer excerpt from the paper:

Among the potentially more robust of the scenarios proposed for disposal of small to moderate volumes of HLW in deep boreholes is the "high-temperature, very deep disposal" scheme of Gibb (1999, 2000). In this, special cylindrical containers filled with heat-generating HLW are deployed in the lower part of a 4-5 km deep borehole in granitic continental crust. Heat from the waste fairly rapidly generates a substantial zone of partial melting in the granite surrounding the containers. As the heat output decreases this melt will cool slowly and recrystallize to seal the waste packages into a sarcophagus of solid crystalline granite surrounded by zones of metamorphosed and annealed rock. For this to work two things are crucial. First, sufficient melting of the granite must occur at temperatures low enough to preserve the integrity of the containers and second, this partial melt must be able to recrystallize completely to a holocrystalline rock. Both have to happen on time scales appropriate to the thermal decay of the waste. For the case of 5 year old spent PWR fuel modelled by Gibb (2000) it would take around 65 days for the rock adjacent to the container to reach a maximum temperature of 850 °C and 2.5 years to fall to 600 °C. The latter is equivalent to a cooling rate of ~0.011 °C/hour.

Cooling rates deduced from natural granite bodies have encouraged a widely held belief that granites can only form by extremely slow crystallization over thousands, if not millions, of years but there are grounds for believing that acid (silica-rich) magmas can be completely crystallized at cooling rates orders of magnitude faster. To test this, and hence the feasibility of the high-temperature borehole disposal scheme described above, partial melting and recrystallization experiments were performed on a typical S-type granite, with a range of H2O contents, under the conditions predicted to occur in the disposal scheme.

From http://www.shef.ac.uk/isl/abstracts/....html#anchor23

Geologists are not stupid - but all the more reason to keep questioning things that can be traced back to the influence of Lyell.

Why? Even the creationst geologists of the time were ultimately convinced.

That's not what I hear:

Catastrophic floods built Grand Canyon
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz., July 20, 2002, Saturday

Dams of volcanic rock laid across the Grand Canyon have burst repeatedly and catastrophically over the past million years -- most recently about 165,000 years ago -- carrying enormous onrushing floods and carving out much of the great landmark in the blink of a geologic eye, new research by U.S. Geological Survey and University of Utah geologists suggests.

The findings tend to support other new data indicating the canyon's Inner Gorge may be no more than 700,000 years old, much younger than earlier estimates of 3 million to 5 million years, said Robert Webb, a research geologist with USGS. ...

I was not clear on my prior comment. In my mind, the origin of the GC begins with the deposition of those very first sedimenary layers. It's not the sculpting of the canyon per se that belies its age, it's the geological history written in its rocks.

Originally posted by dtyler

1. Geologic processes in the past do not necessarily fit our preconceived ideas about rates of process or even types of process. Be prepared for some surprises when you investigate the Earth’s history. Some processes were very short – measured in hours, days or years.

Yes, David, we know this. When did you discover that there are some rapid geological processes? Many of them, in fact. It still astounds me that you continue to entertain this illusion that, somehow, YECs are the ones who discovered rapid geological processes.

2. Igneous processes tend to be stretched out over thousands or even millions of years, but this expectation needs to be revised.

If ALL geological processes were rapid, on a human scale, this is true. However, you have been unable to support this presupposition of yours.

And actually the 'expectation' is revised when the evidence warrants it. Just as your reference shows. It would seem to me that science is working just the way it is supposed to. Perhaps your paradigm of paradigm change needs drastic revision, eh?

So, what is your problem? You need to go out and collect the data. Not just an anecdote that fits in with mainstream geology, anyway. You need substantial evidence showing that an entire class of processes is rapid and further that all associated processes must be equally rapid. We know that many volcanic processes are rapid (or did you think that one escaped us?), so really, you have given us absolutely nothing here but an interesting mainstream geological theory. I experience no sense of shock at all, and have no concern that my world is about to be turned up-side down.

Whether we are considering magma segregation, magma transport to the surface, emplacement or cooling: all these processes can take place much faster than previous generations of geologists surmised.

Wrong. Many geologists were taught about kimberlite intrusions, caldera formation and the unroofing of core complexes etc. Once again, I am sorry that your education was incomplete.

3. In most cases, geological research has explored timescales in only a limited way – because “everybody knows” that the timescales are in millennia or longer. More rigorous work, that looks for clues about timescales, invariably finds that past estimates have been too long. A case in point was posted by Glenn Morton at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20334. The Great Stone Dome is known from seismics and boreholes, but is not accessible to field geologists. In such a case, a variety of scenarios could be proposed to explain the data – but testing these scenarios would be quite difficult. It is more useful to argue from geological structures where we do have the opportunities to test hypotheses more effectively.

And exactly what is your point here? The first part of the statement having been shown invalid, of course.

4. A Flood Geology Understanding of the Pine Valley Mountains. Those who have followed previous threads to which I have contributed will know of my interest in developing and testing the Recolonisation model of earth history. This involves a global catastrophe (linked to the biblical history of Noah’s Flood) followed by an extended period of more local catastrophism as the Earth recovered from the destruction of the pre-Flood world. These particular events would then be part of the post-Flood catastrophism affecting the North American continent. The timescales indicated in my notes above are fully consistent with this scenario.

So, these post-Eocene events happened outside of human memory even though by then the flood was over and the recolonization of the world was well underway? No, this doesn't fit at all. You've only got 4000 years to deal with, David. There should be excellent records of all of these catastrophes that you cram into 4000 years. After all, the flood itself is so well documented in the Bible.

In your next post, perhaps you could tell us how all these huge catastrophes could happen, but that overthrusts are imaginary as most YECs tell us.

[quote=dtyler]The dramatic nature of these past events, and the speed of formation of geological structures, should make us stop and think about our basic approach to geological interpretation.[\QUOTE]

Dave Hacker's Ph.D. dissertation (the source of the findings you are citing) was a triumph of traditional geology, as it combined meticulous field mapping, ceaseless stomping over the countryside, careful attention to subtle clues in the rocks, and meticulous working out of the details regarding temporal sequence and spatial arrangement. The main thing that Dave Hacker's dissertation makes us stop and think about is how good classical geological methods are and how much can be learned from very classical field work.

Dave, you are right that from Lyell until Hurricanes Donna and Camille and Harlan Bretz' triumph regarding the Channeled Scabland floods geologists had an overall bias against sudden and in favor of gradual. Basically this was an over-reaction against (1) Cuvier's catastrophism and, (2), more generally, against biblical geology of various stripes, both of which have been continual utter failures when measured against all incoming evidence since about 1820, combined with being extremely impressed with Lyell's Principles of Geology to the extent of exaggerating its uniformitarian themes.

However, as Aniso said, geological classrooms are now full of information about inferred sudden kimberlite eruptions, rapid drainings of large lakes, rapid floodings of Black Seas and Mediterranean basins, sudden collapses of volcanoes, and so forth.

Dave, as I've said before on other threads you are fighting a view of geology that has had no basis in reality for the past 35 years. You have set up a strawman that does not exist.

As a demonstration of this, it is hard fact that none of the geologists involved with or overseeing Dave Hacker's Ph.D. research were astonished by his inferences regarding rapid progression from landsliding through ash eruption to generation of lava flows, although everyone was impressed by how well he marshalled his evidence. No one involved with the research thought the rapidity was unthinkable, or that it broke any sacred uniformitarian paradigms. No one walked out of his dissertation defense in protest, and none of us thought about becoming a flood geologist as a consequence of his findings.

Dave Hacker also showed that these laccoliths happened in succession rather than all at once, and he showed that they happened a long time ago, not recently. I've forgotten what you consider to be post-flood, but you still have a heck of a lot of complex post-laccolith geologic events to find time for, even just in southern Utah. I don't think any justification exists for your claims that these "particular events would then be part of the post-Flood catastrophism affecting the North American continent", or that "the timescales indicated in my notes above are fully consistent" with such a scenario.

Originally posted by dtyler

Maybe it is old hat. But some are still wearing the old hat of uniformitarianism!
I did not post this thread just to give yet another example of catastrophism. Diluvialists are being charged with ignoring evidence about slow processes - yet the evidences presented are only effective against people who say the geologic column (or most of it) was laid down in 1 year. This also is old hat and I would like to see us move the discussion into more productive areas. This post can be interpreted as a protest against the methodology of Glenn Morton, bringing us a Stone Dome that can only be examined by seismics and drill cores. I seek a higher standard of debate - further comments are in post 1.

But David, you haven't even attempted an explanation of the Great Stone Dome. Your silence on the topic can't be considered evidence in favor of your position. I showed that even if one accepts the ridiculous cooling rates of Woodmorappe and Snelling, it still takes longer than the YEC age of the earth for the geology of the East Coast of the US to be explained. And using that same ridiculous cooling rate, your 2000 years after the flood recolonization model doesn't fit either. So, the Great Stone Dome destroys your viewpoint.

By the way, David, since you believe that only the Cambrian and Ordovician strata are due to the flood, can you tell me what animals were doing walking around on Cambrian and Ordovician strata while the flood raged around them?

edited to add: David, frankly, I am ashamed for you about the quote mining you did. By selectivly quoting that bit about granite crystalization, you show yourself not to be a worthy opponent.

Originally posted by Monkey Boy

I was not clear on my prior comment. In my mind, the origin of the GC begins with the deposition of those very first sedimenary layers. It's not the sculpting of the canyon per se that belies its age, it's the geological history written in its rocks.

Keeping in mind here that the reference was only to the INNER canyon and not the entire canyon; and it also referenced a most recent even of 160 ky ago. Hardly supporting evidence for David and the young earth.