Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,809 Year: 4,066/9,624 Month: 937/974 Week: 264/286 Day: 25/46 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The power of accumulation in evolution is common sense!
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 828 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 12 of 53 (542137)
01-07-2010 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Sky-Writing
01-07-2010 8:05 PM


For a second, I thought you were an honest poster.
Then I read your posts. This is the science section of the forum, dude. All of your posts have been devoid of any actual substance. You've done nothing but preach.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-07-2010 8:05 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-07-2010 11:34 PM hooah212002 has replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 828 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 19 of 53 (542185)
01-08-2010 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Sky-Writing
01-07-2010 11:34 PM


1) nice response. How long before we can expect no more than 1 letter responses from you?
2) You do realize you consistantly quote my signature?
Please, for the good of the forum, post SOMETHING of substance.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-07-2010 11:34 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-08-2010 11:14 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 828 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 27 of 53 (542226)
01-08-2010 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Sky-Writing
01-08-2010 11:28 AM


The most plausible public theory is that a plate uplift gave way and an inland sea to burst through and cut the canyon in months.
Evidence? no.
Baseless assertion? yes.
{ABE} ironically enough, professional Geologists seem to be in agreement. your argument about the age of the grand canyon seems to be stemming form the creationist camp. check this link out: http://www.unc.edu/~jenhoppe/Portfolio/Geology.pdf
The numerous explanations of how the
Grand Canyon formed support or disprove evolutionary and creationist theories. As a result, the
many conflicting hypotheses pertaining to the origin of the Grand Canyon have spawned debates
between creationists and evolutionary geologists.
Generally, non-biased sources such as the National
Parks Service Website provide a seemingly reasonable explanation with scientific support.
However, other sources such as the Institute for Creation Research and Lee Dye’s article claim
that a new, more controversial theory is more accurate. Therefore, the reliability of the source is
of great importance when considering the theories stated or supported by the source. When
determining the validity of an argument provided by a certain source, examining the bias of the
source is crucial. The background information of the author and information about the website
where the author posted the article reveal the partiality of a source.
Once again, we can see that it is creationists causing a debate, not the facts and not science.
Edited by hooah212002, : added the ever wonderful substance so as not to stoop to that level

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-08-2010 11:28 AM Sky-Writing has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 828 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 32 of 53 (542243)
01-08-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Sky-Writing
01-08-2010 12:15 PM


Re: Bunched up Panties
You do know what quote mining is, don't you? You don't really think that Dr. Elston supports your opinion, do you? Let's see what his hypothesis is:
Dr. Elston writes:
When dinosaurs roamed the earth, the southwestern landscape was about 1,000 feet above sea level and very wet, Dr. Elston explained.
Then the region experienced three periods of uplift followed by erosion. In the first uplift, about 100 million years ago, mountains grew across northern and central Arizona and later eroded so that a blanket of gravel a few hundred feet thick poured out to the north. These older gravels can be found today on both sides of the Grand Canyon, he said.
A second uplift occurred 60 million to 75 million years ago, producing huge rivers that eventually flowed to the west and collected in enormous inland lakes. It was during this period that the Grand Canyon was carved out, Dr. Elston said. Then the uplift ceased, erosion continued and this early Grand Canyon filled up completely with gravel.
A third uplift took place five million years ago to form the Rocky Mountains and again changed regional drainage patterns, Dr. Elston said. The land in the north rose while the southwest, relatively speaking, fell.
As a result, streams began flowing westward down from the Rockies, and found the earlier drainage channel. As they flowed down the old channel, they removed all the gravel and essentially scoured out the Grand Canyon.
"The modern Colorado River did not carve the Grand Canyon in the last few million years," Dr. Elston said. "The canyon was already there."
source
or have you changed your mind to only be asserting that the colorado river didn't create the canyon?
{ABE} Another nice bit from that article you might like:
This theory held sway for more than 50 years, Dr. Young said, but today it has few adherents because too many pieces of the puzzle do not fit. For example, as mentioned, a major part of the riverbed shows strong evidence of being younger than the Kaibab Upwarp.
One holdout for the old river explanation is Dr. Don Elston, a retired geologist with the United States Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Ariz., who has been working on canyon formation theories since the mid-1950's.
So, who is this majority that thinks this?
{ABE number 2} Man, this gets better and better:
(fromt he same article)
"I've attempted to solve the problem using stratigraphy and climate data from all over the Colorado Plateau," Dr. Elston said in an interview. "Some people call it geofiction, but I think I'm right."
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-08-2010 12:15 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024