Scablands and a catastrophic flood

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Scablands and a catastrophic flood

Post #1

Post by otseng »

Image
https://hugefloods.com/Scablands.html
"It was the biggest flood in the world for which there is geological evidence," writes Norman Maclean in A River Runs Through It, referring to the catastrophic deluge that tore through the Pacific Northwest every time Glacial Lake Missoula's ice dam gave way. "t was so vast a geological event that the mind of man could only conceive of it but could not prove it until photographs could be taken from Earth satellites." Proof now in hand, geologists today point to numerous features in the landscape that reveal the extreme scale and violence involved in these truly colossal floods.

Mystery of the Megaflood

J. Harlen Bretz, who theorized that the Washington Scablands was formed by a catastrophic flood, was of course first met with intense opposition.

Bretz conducted meticulous research and published many papers during the 1920s describing the Channeled Scablands. His theories of how they were formed required short but immense water flows, for which Bretz had no explanation (the source of the water was never the focus of his research). Bretz's theories met with vehement opposition from geologists of the day, who tried to explain the features with uniformitarianism theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scablands

However, it is now commonly accepted among scientists that the Scablands was formed by a catastrophic flood (which I think this by itself is very interesting). And not only that, it was formed relatively recently too - around 15000 years ago (which also is very interesting).

Questions which I'd like to discuss:

Where did the water come from?
If a catastrophic flood created the Scablands in a short period of time, couldn't other geological features elsewhere be also created in a short amount of time?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Post #21

Post by otseng »

jwu wrote:I kind of fail to see the relevance to E/C...
This is the "Science and Religion" subforum, so it certainly does fit in the Science part.
There is only one reasonable explanation in my mind. The layers on top of the basalt were not solid rock when the flood occurred, but loose dirt. And if it was wet loose dirt then it would be even more plausible. So, the flood eroded the loose dirt and stopped the erosion at the solid rock underneath, the basalt layer.
I suppose it is not proposed that layers of massive basalt were eroded away, rather sandstone or something like that.
I think the only thing that is proposed is that the sedimentary rock layers were the ones primarily eroded, not the basalt rock layer.
...and exactly those columns support that. While a single large event would have crushed them, a series of smaller events which each is responsible for only a fraction of the erosion could leave them.
I personally do not believe that multiple floods occurred. But, I'll get into my arguments for that later.

But, even if multiple floods did occur, it has the same problem that I mentioned earlier about Wallula Gap. Suppose flood 1 left some columns. Then flood 2 came. It would hit the existing columns head on. More erosion should take place on the columns than the rocks underneath.
That doesn't make much sense to me. Exactly those things which you listed as supposed evidence against the ice dam theory apply to that scenario all the more.
E.g. if a breaking ice dam would have eroded those pillars away, then a draining global deluge wouldn't have left a piece of them either.
The mechanism of erosion is different. I'll present more in detail of my theory later.
And of course those erosion patterns have nothing to do whatsoever with the question what actually held back the water until it was released.
It does however provide clues. And clues that I'm attempting to piece together and present in this thread.
What is the problem? Strata usually develop over a large area. A river or drainage can cut into it and leave identical strata on both sides of the canyon.
Exactly. However, geologists believe the Columbia River river flowed through the gap 6 million years ago. And that Salmon-Clearwater River flowed through it 10 million years ago.

Then how can the layers on each side of the gap be explained? Did all the layers form 6-10 million years ago before the river ran through them? If not, did more layers form on each side of the gap? How did that happen? Could each side of the gap form identical layers for millions of years?
How could a mountain that was in the direct path of the flood be impacted so little, while at the same time hundreds of feet of solid rock under the flood be so easily eroded?
Huh? If i read your material correctly, then it appears like it was affected a lot - in the depth.
What I question is that the flood was supposedly able to erode hundreds of feet of solid rock while the flood waters moved over it. Yet, when it reached a gap in which all the water had to flow through, it barely eroded it. Additionally, the gap supposedly was even able to hold back the flood and create a 1200 foot lake. It all doesn't add up to me.
There the rush of water was slowed by a narrow passage called the Wallula Gap. This narrow gap caused the waters to back up and a 1,200-foot lake was formed.
http://www.sandpoint.com/Community/GlacialLake.asp

jwu
Apprentice
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 6:33 pm

Post #22

Post by jwu »

But, even if multiple floods did occur, it has the same problem that I mentioned earlier about Wallula Gap. Suppose flood 1 left some columns. Then flood 2 came. It would hit the existing columns head on. More erosion should take place on the columns than the rocks underneath.
Not once it's directed along the path of the previous flow. What hits head one is only the initial wavefront, and that won't cause much erosion. A few centimeters, up to a meter at most.
Such formations can be observed in river deltas and so on, flows splitting and flowing around formations of loose sand.
It does however provide clues. And clues that I'm attempting to piece together and present in this thread.
I don't see how erosional patters are supposed to give any clues about what held back the water. Whether it was a rock wall, ice, a man made concrete dam - the floods that occur when it breaks look pretty much the same and leave pretty much identical erosional patterns.
Exactly. However, geologists believe the Columbia River river flowed through the gap 6 million years ago. And that Salmon-Clearwater River flowed through it 10 million years ago.

Then how can the layers on each side of the gap be explained? Did all the layers form 6-10 million years ago before the river ran through them? If not, did more layers form on each side of the gap? How did that happen? Could each side of the gap form identical layers for millions of years?
They formed before any river or flood cut through them, they're 10+ million years old.
Yet, when it reached a gap in which all the water had to flow through, it barely eroded it. Additionally, the gap supposedly was even able to hold back the flood and create a 1200 foot lake. It all doesn't add up to me.
There are possible explanations for this. The gap being located in a region with more resistant rock formations or the flood stream being diluted over a large plain while it was confined to narrow channels before, taking away a lot of its energy as it formed an own smaller lake before it cut through the gap.

And exactly that apparently happened, as you quoted yourself:
There the rush of water was slowed by a narrow passage called the Wallula Gap. This narrow gap caused the waters to back up and a 1,200-foot lake was formed.
Instead of aviolent stream hitting the gap head on it first had to fill a valley, and that lake acted as a buffer. It rather slowly flowed over through the gap, with a lot of kinetic energy being absorbed in the lake instead of the rocks.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Post #23

Post by otseng »

jwu wrote:Not once it's directed along the path of the previous flow. What hits head one is only the initial wavefront, and that won't cause much erosion. A few centimeters, up to a meter at most.
All the water is hitting it head on, not just the initial wavefront. Imagine just standing in the middle of a flowing river. The water will be pushing you, not just simply flowing around you without exerting any pressure on you.
Such formations can be observed in river deltas and so on, flows splitting and flowing around formations of loose sand.
But, it is also eroding what it hits faster than the rocks underneath the water.
I don't see how erosional patters are supposed to give any clues about what held back the water. Whether it was a rock wall, ice, a man made concrete dam - the floods that occur when it breaks look pretty much the same and leave pretty much identical erosional patterns.
My theory is different from the ice dam theory in several aspects.

One is the location of the dam failure.

The ice dam theory proposes the dam was located at mouth of the Clark Fork River. All of the water would then be blocked up in Glacial Lake Missoula.

My theory is that the dam was at Wallula Gap. All the water behind the dam was in the Channeled Scablands area.

Here is more supporting evidence of my theory. If we look the erosion area down river from Clark Fork River, it is broad and wide. And it contains many curved erosion patterns. But, after the Wallula Gap, it is much narrower and straighter.

Yet, in the ice dam theory, water had both gone through Clark Fork River and Wallula Gap. However, the erosion pattern is different. If the same amount of water went through both, why the difference?
They formed before any river or flood cut through them, they're 10+ million years old.
So, are you saying that the topmost layer is 10+ million years old?
This narrow gap caused the waters to back up and a 1,200-foot lake was formed.
Though I quote this, I find it to be a ludicrous answer. A "gap" a mile wide (or even 100 yards wide) was able to form a lake 1,200 foot high? I have some faith, but I don't have that much faith to believe this.

The only logical scenario I see is that a 1,200 foot high lake could form if there was no gap there at all.

jwu
Apprentice
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 6:33 pm

Post #24

Post by jwu »

Imagine just standing in the middle of a flowing river. The water will be pushing you, not just simply flowing around you without exerting any pressure on you.
That's not a comparable situation. There are turbulences behind me which suck me backwards if i do that, and i'm too small to form a stable flow around me compared to the overall size of the river.

Moreover, since there is a lake in front of the gap, there wouldn't have been any established stream. Only the stream which formed through the gap itself.
But, it is also eroding what it hits faster than the rocks underneath the water.
It didn't "hit" anything in first instance.
Yet, in the ice dam theory, water had both gone through Clark Fork River and Wallula Gap. However, the erosion pattern is different. If the same amount of water went through both, why the difference?
Because the previous bottleneck created a new flow. I still don't see any difference. Regardless of whether there was an initial flow from a ice dam to that lake and then through the gap or if it waited in front of the gap for it to break through - the flow after the gap would be pretty much identical.
So, are you saying that the topmost layer is 10+ million years old?
Not necessarily the topmost - but most of the column which was cut through. Afterwards some sedimentation from air can have happened on top of it. How could it be any younger than the oldest flow of water that cut through it?
Though I quote this, I find it to be a ludicrous answer. A "gap" a mile wide (or even 100 yards wide) was able to form a lake 1,200 foot high? I have some faith, but I don't have that much faith to believe this.

The only logical scenario I see is that a 1,200 foot high lake could form if there was no gap there at all.
Umm..the lake still exists there today, in front of the gap, with the current water level. No-one is suggesting that there was so much water that even a mile wide gap blocked it to rise 1200ft above the current level.
What is thought is that it rose to 1200ft including the current depth of the local lake, and i don't think anyone suggests that the gap was as wide as it is today then yet, it was widened by erosion during that flooding. A total lack of a gap however is not required.
We on this forum don't even know how deep the lake is today after all! It could be 1150ft deep...


And by the way...do you expect to find accurate geological information on what appears to be a tourism website?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Post #25

Post by otseng »

jwu wrote:How could it be any younger than the oldest flow of water that cut through it?
Exactly. It can't be. So, once we date the top layers, we should be able to date the flow of water that cut through it.
And by the way...do you expect to find accurate geological information on what appears to be a tourism website?
Which geological information are you referring to?

Anyways, let's look at another interesting anomaly, the erratics.

Scattered throughout the Channeled Scablands are boulders of various sizes. Most of them are igneous rocks.
But granite boulders of many different sizes are scattered erratically throughout the area. Indeed, they are known as "erratics."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcript ... afloo.html
mostly-granite-strewn debris fields over 15 square miles of Rattlesnake Mountain
http://www.brightsurf.com/news/nov_03/P ... 110403.php

This boulder is the largest in the area and it's made of basalt:
Image
http://tes.asu.edu/TESNEWS/4_VOL/No_4/s ... nture.html

Here is another granite erratic at Rattlesnake Slope Erratics and Bergmounds.

And there is a 60-ton granite rock in Prosser.

I'm not sure how huge pieces of igneous rock can get on top of a glacier and get "rafted" to another location. But, that's not my main question that I'd like to ponder.

The main question is, if 50 cubic miles of sedimentary rock got carved out by the flood, shouldn't there be evidence of sedimentary rock boulders strewn all over the place? From what I can tell, there hardly seems to be any sedimentary rock boulders anywhere. At least the Columbia river should be chock full of them. And all the boulders we see in the Scablands are primarily igneous rocks. Again, it all doesn't quite add up.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Post #26

Post by otseng »

Ice dam proponents claim that the Missoula Flood occurred many times.
Geologists estimate that the cycle of flooding and reformation of the lake lasted on average of 55 years and that the floods occurred approximately 40 times over the 2,000 year period between 15,000 and 13,000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods

So, not only did a catastrophic flood happen in the Scablands once, but around 40 times. And not only that, with a fairly consistent period of 55 years apart. And also at the exact same location. What an amazing sequence of events!

If 40 mega floods occurred here, some questions arise. Why here? Why not elsewhere? How did a glacier of this magnitude get created and dumped massive water with a period of 55 years 40 consecutive times? If 40 mega floods occured here one right after another, couldn't some other mega floods have occured elsewhere on the planet?

From what I can tell, the only evidence for those floods is 40 layers found that could've only been deposited by a flood.
Waitt (1980) argued that each of about 40 Touchet beds resulted from a separate catastrophic flood.
http://www.whitman.edu/geology/LocalGeo.html

Let's say there were 41 floods. Why did the first 40 floods not erode the layers deposited from the previous flood? Did the first 40 floods erode anything at all? If they were catastrophic floods, why not? Why did the last one not deposit anything but simply erode everything away?

I'm going to have to pull out ole Occam's razor here and ask, what is more simpler? One flood that occurred in my Wallula Gap dam theory, or around 40 mega floods that happen every 55 years over a 2000 year period?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Post #27

Post by otseng »

In addition to erratics, there are other rocks standing out, basalt pillars.

Image
https://dailyhive.com/seattle/wonderful ... r-channels
The early evening light casts a warm glow on the basalt pillars of Frenchman Coulee, a popular rock-climbing site, in the Quincy Wildlife Area near Vantage. The unique pillars were formed millions of years ago as lava extruded through the Earth's crust cooled, and later were further sculpted by massive ancient floods.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/getaways/ ... rt17.shtml

Image

The Twin Sisters
Image
http://columbiariverimages.com/Regions/ ... sters.html

The question is, why didn't these get eroded as well? Or at least why didn't they get toppled over by the flood?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Post #28

Post by otseng »

In a series of papers beginning in 1923, J. Harlen Bretz argued the
astonishing idea that the channeled scabland and its attributes orginated
by stupendous flood, which he called the "Spokane Flood". This hypothesis sparked a
famous and spirted controversy; several rival ideas intent on accounting
for the scablands by means other than giant flood appeared in the 1920s
through 1940s.
The very word "Catastrophism" was heinous in the ears of geologists. To
think in terms of massive, precipitous changes (beyond the occasional
earthquake or volcano) was unacceptable, and the very idea of a sudden,
colossal flood smacked too much of Biblical thinking, of a return to
Noah, the ark, and the fifteen cubit depth (22.5 feet) of water which
drowned the world (Genesis 7:20). It was a step backwards, a betrayal
of all that geological science had fought to gain.
It was heresy of the worst order.
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_or ... tz_re.html

And I think this is a key point that applies to many scientific discussions. If anything becomes close to what the Bible describes, then it is automatically rejected, no matter how strong the evidence.

Bretz's idea of a catastrophic flood sounded too much like it was out of a Sunday school class. And no matter what evidence he presented, he was immediately dismissed. It was not until after Pardee proposed his ice dam theory that opponents began to thaw to the idea of a massive flood.

Though the ice dam theory was not a very convincing theory, they immediately embraced it. The key was that it was not similar to anything that is in children's Bible stories. So, though Bretz had compelling evidence, he was dismissed because it sounded too Biblical. And Pardee, who had little evidence, was embraced because it did not sound Biblical.

So now, I'm proposing the Wallula Gap dam hypothesis that I believe has significant evidence for. And I have also showed many arguments against the ice dam hypothesis. But, I doubt many people would believe my idea for the exact same reason that Bretz encountered.

But, as Bretz's hypothesis was eventually acknowledged and even embraced many decades later, I'm hoping that my hypothesis too will be embraced when I'm in my 90's. :)

User avatar
Confused
Site Supporter
Posts: 7308
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Alaska

Post #29

Post by Confused »

If I am following where your hypothesis is leading, then you are using the drastic changes in the earth formation attibuted to massive flooding on more than one occasion, as a possible bridge to the flood of "Noahs" time and how it could have happened? The probem, if this is where you are leading (if not disregard) is that the flood of "Noah" came from the rain above and the waters below. In 40 days the entire earth was flooded, but not in a vioent force. It isn't as if dams or levies broke and allowed massive forces of pressurized water to reconfigure the earth formation. We are talking about continuous rainfall overflowing rivers and water rising up form beneath the earth slowly (over 40 Days), oceans meeting rivers, etc. There wouldn't be a lot of violent water flow because the water would have nowhere to flow to. The water would actually have been quite calm because of the constent rate of climbing. Now I don't recall specifically if Genesis talks of God's temper tantrum including more than rain, if it included gale force winds, storms, etc.. But it would still only majorly disrupt the upper flow of the flood, not the lower formation.

That is just my opinon, but may not be relevant if it isn't where your hypothesis is leading.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.

-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.

-Harvey Fierstein

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Wallula Gap Dam hypothesis

Post #30

Post by otseng »

Let me present my hypothesis more in full now.

The entire Channeled Scablands area was covered by water. All the sedimentary layers under the water was not solid rock, but loose wet dirt. Wallula Gap was a dam at the time.

If we look at the diagram below, the flat area in the entire southeast part of Washington state was a lake.

Image
http://fermi.jhuapl.edu/states/wa_0.html

The Channeled Scablands was formed by a breach at Wallula Gap. If we look at the map above, we notice that one of the thinest places holding back the water would be at Wallula Gap. As the water in the Scablands lake receded, it eroded the soil underneath. It eroded it down to the solid rock layer, which is the basalt layer. Any basalt rocks would get eroded very little, including the basalt pillars. Since it was only wet dirt that was eroded, instead of solid rock, it explains why there are not sedimentary rock boulders anywhere. Also, it explains the curved erosion patterns and the standing columns in the Channeled Scablands. It also explains the ripple marks found throughout the region. As water came out of Wallula Gap, the water made a relatively straight and narrow path to the ocean.

My hypothesis also explains why the Scablands is a unique area geologically, at least in the US. Basically it requires a location where it could hold a lot of water, but has a weak point of failure to release all the water.

If we look at a topographical map of the US, we see this is the only location in the US that fulfills this.

My hypothesis would be testable by checking if the layers on each side of Wallula Gap match. They could not match if a river had cut through it 10 million years ago.

There is one major assumption with my hypothesis that is not compatible with conventional geology. That is all the layers between the water and the basalt was loose wet dirt.

Also, there is another question. How could so much water have accumulated in the Scablands area without a breach at Wallula Gap earlier? Why didn't it get breached earlier?

This is where the Global Flood comes in. The Global Flood created all the sedimentary layers found in the Scablands area. And also, it created all the mountain ranges. The layers were all created first, that is why they are all parallel to each other. Then the layers were uplifted to form the mountains. And in the process, it formed the cavity that formed the Scabland lake. Shortly afterwards, the lake was breached at Wallula Gap.

There are more details about the Global Flood itself and what it did in the Global Flood thread.

I don't expect many people to accept my hypothesis, at least not in the next 50 years. But, I do believe it has more supporting evidence for it than the ice dam hypothesis.

Post Reply