Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 123 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-22-2017 4:58 PM
451 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume:
Total: 799,182 Year: 3,788/21,208 Month: 2,183/1,605 Week: 383/376 Day: 72/101 Hour: 4/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   Age of Grand Canyon and Cave Speleothems
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1248
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 16 of 46 (681146)
11-23-2012 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dr Adequate
11-23-2012 4:55 AM


Native lead isn't soluble, but what about lead carbonate

FYI:

has a of

has 2 ions in dissolution so ...

Anything with a solubility less than .01M is considered insoluble:

Solubility Rules (applied in order given):

1. Most alkali metal salts and ammonium salts are soluble.
2. Most nitrates, acetates, and perchlorates are are soluble.
3. Most silver, lead, and mercury(I) salts are insoluble.
4. Most chlorides, bromides, and iodides are soluble.
5. Most carbonates, chromates, sulfates, oxides, phosphates, and hydroxides are insoluble except for hydroxides of which are slightly soluble.
6. Most sulfates are soluble, except for calcium sulfate and barium sulfate which are insoluble.

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-23-2012 4:55 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 11-23-2012 10:20 AM herebedragons has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1248
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 17 of 46 (681149)
11-23-2012 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
11-21-2012 4:38 PM


Nice work RAZD ...

quote:
Three geologists from the University of New Mexico have explored caves along the Grand Canyon, ranging from the very bottom to the rim.

What a freakin great job to have!

A couple questions ...

quote:
and the lowest ones date to about 800,000 years.

1. I am surprised that the youngest speleotherms date to 800,000 years. Why so "old"? Have they stopped forming? Or is U/Pb dating not effective at younger ages? The canyon is still eroding right?
-------------

quote:
Chronology and inferred incision data indicate that the Grand Canyon evolved via headward erosion from west to east

2. The evidence seems rather convincing that the canyon formed west to east rather than the more expected direction of east to west. But if it did, wouldn't we find significant deposits of material form the east canyon in the western canyon? Is this the case?
-------------

quote:
they report that the highest caves have mammilary coatings dating back about 17 million years, and the lowest ones date to about 800,000 years. And all the caves between the top and bottom have the intermediate ages you’d expect.

3. I do not have access to the original article, but did they publish the data from all the points they measured? It would be interesting to create a map that used that data to show the progression of canyon formation over the suggested time frame.
-------------

quote:
Kent Hovind and his (bad) argument(b) for how the Grand Canyon was made

4. Is there any evidence of such an enormous lake at the top of the canyon that could have breached the plateau? Such a huge lake would have left evidence! It seems that I remember reading something about marine (or at least aquatic) deposits in the west.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2012 4:38 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 11-23-2012 11:09 AM herebedragons has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18138
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 18 of 46 (681150)
11-23-2012 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
11-23-2012 4:24 AM


More (bad) ideas about the Grand Canyon
Hi Faith, dance away, dance away.

Well he's not saying it flows uphill, he thinks it flowed into the canyon from the east from water from the standing lakes he points out, flowed along the bottom of the canyon. I think that's perfectly reasonable, but I also think there's a problem with the overall idea that the current uplift was there at the time or that the canyon was there at the time. The attempt to explain how the water went over the rise as going over the top of a dam is not impossible but also it's maybe not necessary to think of it that way.

So in other words you are saying that he is wrong, but you can't bring yourself to say that he is wrong.

I think when it occurred a great disturbance, the volcanic eruption beneath the area, created the uplift ...

Definitely it was an uplifting but I think the explanation for that is the volcanic eruption beneath the canyon, which also nicely explains the basement rocks there.

Again, that is not an eruption: you are misusing the word. An eruption occurs when lava or ash comes out through the surface.

In addition, the uplift in this area is caused by plate tectonics:

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

quote:
Orogenic uplift is the result of tectonic-plate collisions and results in mountain ranges or a more modest uplift over a large region. The Himalayas were (and are still being) formed by the collision of two continental plates, the Indian and Eurasian Plates. This ongoing collision produced the Tibetan Plateau as well as the Himalayas and associated ranges. Ozark Plateau is a broad uplifted area which resulted from the Ouachita Orogeny to the south during the Permian Period. Another related uplift is the Llano Uplift in Texas, a geographical location named after its uplift features. The Colorado Plateau with its spectacular scenic canyons, the Grand Canyon, is also the result of broad tectonic uplift followed by river erosion.

The plate tectonics make the area ripe for possible volcanic action.

Actually it's less a terminological problem than the usual paradigm clash.

No, Faith, it is a terminology problem:

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

quote:
During a volcanic eruption, lava, tephra (ash, lapilli, volcanic bombs and blocks), and various gases are expelled from a volcanic vent or fissure. ...

It's certainly easy enough to imagine how all that could have been formed in the Grand Canyon if you have any interest in doing so. The original cracking over the ridge area, the uplift area, which appears as a rounded mound on N-S elevations, would have determined the original shape of the canyon with its side canyons. ...

Imagine all you want, but you don't end up with spires, you get broad open U shaped channels rather than V shaped channels. If your imagination does not fit the facts, then it is useless conjecture at best.

... Nothing like that occurred in the scablands or Katrina.

And nothing like the erosion pattern that occurred in the scab-lands, or the breaching of levees by Katrina, or any other time an earthen dam has been over-topped, has occurred in the formation of the Grand Canyon -- thus the evidence shows that the canyon formation has not been affected by over-topping flow.

Yes I need to think about that but I'm not sure it matters for my particular thoughts here which end of the canyon "formed" first. The water would have entered from all sides at once as I see it, most obviously if the strata were still standing in Flood water, but even if the lakes above were the source of the water that widened it.

What matters is whether or not your fantasies explain the evidence for when and how the canyon formed.

All you are doing is adding more fantastic behavior without regard for the actual evidence that exists.

I thought that "experiment" was perfectly idiotic as an attempt to explain what would have occurred on the scale of the canyon. ...

Of course you would: it invalidates your belief/s. This is predictable behavior due to cognitive dissonance theory.

... But actually my theory here would answer it anyway. If the force of the uplft created cracking down that whole area that became the canyon then the water had openings to run into. It wasn't just flat land that the water ran over and supposedly cut a gully in. The opening of cracks in the upper strata would have given it paths to follow and would also have broken up the strata in such a way that huge chunks of it would have fallen inward along with the rushing water and done the abrasive work of widening and deepening the cracks, scooping out huge chunks of the lower strata as well as the whole mass tumbled inward and downward until the Kaibab was utterly denuded.

Repeat: there are North-South faults that are still active, they were not opened up and filled with rubble nor were they used as drainage paths for your conjecture\fantasy, and as such your fantasy could not have occurred.

Do you understand that this invalidates your "cracking" model?

Yes, indeed, it occurred beneath the canyon area at or after the end of the Flood.

So your volcanic activity could not be the cause for the uplifting of the area until "at or after the end of the Flood" (and you are already equivocating by adding "at"). You really need to think about the sequence you have proposed, because it does not logically work.

Of course you could also abandon it because it is invalidated by the N-S fault lines, and the sequence of formation of different parts of the canyon, and by overall erosion pattern ... etc etc etc ...

That is how science works, instead of fantasy.

What the river now follows is the end result of the grand scale carving I'm talking about. It wasn't a river that rushed into the cracks I'm talking about, it was at least a huge lake or the remaining standing water of the Flood, rushing in from all sides of the cracks and carrying chunks of the strata with it.

Where?

Where did it go?

I can't picture this so I have no idea really what you are claiming here. I'm aware of a fault line at the north end of the Grand Staircase which divides the strata to the south, which were apparently uplifted at the time, from a tilted unconformity made up of the same strata to the north, and parallels a magma dike that exits at the top as lava in the Clarion formation. I think that whole picture has interesting implications for explaining how the strata were laid down first, the volcanic action followed there as well as in the GC area, probably in conjunction with tectonic forces, even caused by tectonic force.

You've said the area was pushed up and cracked open. These fault lines would also have opened. You've said "the remaining standing water of the Flood, rushing in from all sides of the cracks and carrying chunks of the strata with it" so these same chunks would have filled in the open N-S fault lines when they were pushed open. This did not happen, ergo your model is wrong.

The more I study the claims such as these the more my "theory" gets confirmed, but again I can't picture what you are claiming here and have to leave it for later.

Classic cognitive dissonance behavior. Your concept is invalidated, falsified, trashed, but instead of acknowledging this you cling more strongly to your fantasy.

Oh I've spent a lot of time thinking about how to set up an experiment. Wet sand wouldn't have the necessary consistency but perhaps various clays and clay mixtures could possibly be used for the purpose. It would have to be laid down perfectly flat and horizontal first and then force would have to be applied from beneath in a west-east line to form the ridge in question. It would take some doing, but wet sand on a balloon, nope.

Clay and sand then.

There is no west-east ridge, there is a north-south ridge. You should be thinking more in terms of lifting a dome shaped area than a linear one. If you insist on linear then it should be north-south.

I suggest you actually try it.

Well, the Horseshoe Bend wouldn't have occurred until the whole canyon was carved out and the rushing water full of debris had done all its work and exited, and the water itself settled down to river size -- even a huge rushing river at first before getting reduced to the river it now is, which continues to drain the same area that the lakes once occupied. (On a side point I thought his illustration of how a huge lake would be formed if the current river was dammed was very interesting.)

The reduction of the cataracts to a river should certainly have occurred in the later stages -- after the great debris-laden cataracts had done the basic carving out of the canyon to more or less its current shape. At that point, when you have an actual river instead of a huge flood, there's nothing strange about how a river makes meanders. The great cataract that scooped out the canyon wouldn't make meanders, but the river that was left over after the whole catastrophe had settled down certainly could have.

Amusingly, that still would not form the bend seen there.

You write progidiously long posts, RAZD. I'll try to get back to the rest later.

Don't make so many silly claims and it won't take so long to reply to all of them. Or are you complaining that I can reply to all your silly claims to show how silly they are, one after the other?

Message 9: Piled up in the area to the west and south, which means southern California mostly though parts of Arizona as well perhaps, but mostly the southwest of the canyon on the path to the river's exit in the Gulf of California, where a lot of it also no doubt went, perhaps even forming the Baja peninsula, but probably elsewhere in the area as well. I haven't done a very thorough study of all that. Couldn't find out much about the geology of that area on the few occasions I did make an attempt to answer that question.

More silly claims that are not worth addressing at this point until you get more specific. Are you sure they didn't just evaporate into thin air?

And you still have not addressed the speleothems (Message 1):

quote:
The dating information above says two things that invalidate the creationist concept that the canyon was formed by flood waters in a few days or weeks as the water drained away, slicing into and through the ridge:

  1. The canyon formed from west to east, while the creationist model would form from east to west (eroding the top of the barrier to the drainage flow first), and
  2. The canyon took at least 16 million years to form according to radiometric dating (17x10^6 - 8x10^5).

The evidence that the canyon formed from west to east is independent of the validity of Uranium-Lead dating, it just depends on the measured levels of Uranium and Lead without any age calculation:

  • soluble Uranium is captured in the formation of the speleotherm\mammilaries,
  • Lead is not soluble in water and so would not be deposited in the speleotherm\mammilaries
  • Uranium turns into lead, not vice-versa
  • The speleotherm\mammilaries form after the caves have been formed as they are deposits on the cave walls
  • Higher ratios of Lead/Uranium therefore are due to greater age of the speleotherm\mammilaries, and thus so are the locations where they are found.

This information invalidates your base assumption, and thus everything you image from that base assumption.

The earth is old: get used to it.

Continuing to post falsified concepts is not a sign of scientific rational thinking.

Curiously, I looked at Jupiter again last night, and the four moons that I saw before had moved, with two of them now appearing on the other side of their earlier location.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : splng


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 11-23-2012 4:24 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 11-23-2012 1:32 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 27 by roxrkool, posted 11-25-2012 5:37 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9192
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 19 of 46 (681151)
11-23-2012 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by herebedragons
11-23-2012 9:18 AM


These rules leave no room for strong bases (NaOH and LiOH) . They are not salts, but they are not exceptions to the hydroxides are insoluble rule.

No set of simple rules is perfect, but perhaps adding hydroxides of Group IA elements are soluble to rule 5 would help. Or changing rule 1 to most compounds with Group 1A cations are soluble.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by herebedragons, posted 11-23-2012 9:18 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by herebedragons, posted 11-23-2012 11:12 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18138
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 20 of 46 (681154)
11-23-2012 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by herebedragons
11-23-2012 10:04 AM


Hi herebedragons, thanks

1. I am surprised that the youngest speleotherms date to 800,000 years. Why so "old"? Have they stopped forming? Or is U/Pb dating not effective at younger ages? The canyon is still eroding right?

Yes the canyon is still eroding (and the uplift is still occurring, at a rate that explains the height observed over the time that the canyon has existed). The problem is finding caves with the speleothems to test, rather than just testing the latest part of the canyon.

2. The evidence seems rather convincing that the canyon formed west to east rather than the more expected direction of east to west. But if it did, wouldn't we find significant deposits of material form the east canyon in the western canyon? Is this the case?

We should expect sediment transport along the river in either case.

3. I do not have access to the original article, but did they publish the data from all the points they measured? It would be interesting to create a map that used that data to show the progression of canyon formation over the suggested time frame.

Neither do I, so we will need someone with access (Coragyps?). That would be a fun map to make.

4. Is there any evidence of such an enormous lake at the top of the canyon that could have breached the plateau? Such a huge lake would have left evidence! It seems that I remember reading something about marine (or at least aquatic) deposits in the west.

There were glacial lakes, but I am not sure of the location and extent.

http://hugefloods.com/LakeMissoula.html

This one was responsible for the scab-lands drainage.

The ones I can find are north of the Canyon and have drainage patterns that don't involve the canyon. The closest I found is Lake Bonneville (Bonneville salt flats?)

quote:
Lake Bonneville was a prehistoric pluvial lake that covered much of North America's Great Basin region. Most of the territory it covered was in present-day Utah, though parts of the lake extended into present-day Idaho and Nevada. Formed about 32,000 years ago, it existed until about 14,500 years ago, when a large portion of the lake was released through the Red Rock Pass in Idaho. Following the Bonneville Flood, as the release is now known, the lake receded to a level called the Provo Level. Many of the unique geological characteristics of the Great Basin are due to the effects of the lake.

The purported lakes in Hovind's video (Hopi and Grand Lakes) ONLY appear on creationist sites. Made up?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by herebedragons, posted 11-23-2012 10:04 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by herebedragons, posted 11-23-2012 11:34 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 31 by Coragyps, posted 11-25-2012 7:36 PM RAZD has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1248
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 21 of 46 (681155)
11-23-2012 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by NoNukes
11-23-2012 10:20 AM


These rules leave no room for strong bases (NaOH and LiOH) .

Good point.

No set of simple rules is perfect

No, general chemistry rules usually have exceptions that why they say "most" at the beginning of most rules

I copied the rules from my general chemistry text, but it is odd that NaOH and LiOH don't fit into the general rules. Looking closer at the text, the rules are given to predict the products of double-replacement reactions and so maybe they don't include strong bases because they would not be the product of a double-replacement reaction. I think it is meant as a general guide to the solubility of salts.

perhaps adding hydroxides of Group IA elements are soluble to rule 5 would help. Or changing rule 1 to most compounds with Group 1A cations are soluble.

That would work for this issue, but I think it they may have left out other ionic compounds besides just Group IA hydroxides - like cyanides and oxalates.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 11-23-2012 10:20 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1248
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 22 of 46 (681158)
11-23-2012 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
11-23-2012 11:09 AM


We should expect sediment transport along the river in either case

I was thinking more like sediment deposition in the lower canyon with upper canyon sediment. Sort of like this:

If east to west; young sediments (from the east) would be deposited in young formations (in the west).

If west to east; young sediments (from the east) would be deposited in older formations (in the west).

Does that make sense what I am asking??

The purported lakes in Hovind's video (Hopi and Grand Lakes) ONLY appear on creationist sites. Made up?

Or maybe divine insight?

I have company coming in a little while. I may do some digging regarding these purported lakes later today.

Thanks

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 11-23-2012 11:09 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 11-23-2012 2:46 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23397
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 23 of 46 (681168)
11-23-2012 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
11-23-2012 10:15 AM


Re: More (bad) ideas about the Grand Canyon
Apparently I got caught up in the parts about the young earth in the first message and overlooked that the whole thing was intended to relate to the speleothems so I shouldn't continue to pursue this topic. It's tempting but I won't. I really didn't want to get deeply into it anyway. So carry on.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 11-23-2012 10:15 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 11-23-2012 2:52 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18138
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 24 of 46 (681177)
11-23-2012 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by herebedragons
11-23-2012 11:34 AM


Hi again herebedragons,

I was thinking more like sediment deposition in the lower canyon with upper canyon sediment. Sort of like this:

If east to west; young sediments (from the east) would be deposited in young formations (in the west).

If west to east; young sediments (from the east) would be deposited in older formations (in the west).

Does that make sense what I am asking??

My understanding is that the whole canyon is eroding, so there would be little opportunity for deposition until you come out the end.

Also see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD210.html

You would want to look on the floodplain just below the canyon,.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by herebedragons, posted 11-23-2012 11:34 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18138
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 25 of 46 (681179)
11-23-2012 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
11-23-2012 1:32 PM


No answer to speleothem dates, progression of canyon
Hi Faith,

Apparently I got caught up in the parts about the young earth in the first message and overlooked that the whole thing was intended to relate to the speleothems so I shouldn't continue to pursue this topic. It's tempting but I won't. I really didn't want to get deeply into it anyway. ,...

In other words the evidence from the speleothems remains uncontested. while it invalidates both a young earth model and claims that the Grand Canyon was formed by flood outflow.

... So carry on.

Thanks, I will.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 11-23-2012 1:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1345
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 26 of 46 (681242)
11-23-2012 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
11-21-2012 4:38 PM


FYI, the second author of the speleothem article in the OP, Carol Hill, is an evangelical Christian and long-time member of ASA (the American Scientific Affiliation).

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2012 4:38 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(1)
Message 27 of 46 (681449)
11-25-2012 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
11-23-2012 10:15 AM


Re: More (bad) ideas about the Grand Canyon
I think it's interesting that YECs tend to stay away from discussing the scab lands up in Washington/Oregon. If anything, that would be a good place to argue in favor of a [global] flood. THAT is what massive run off looks like.

Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 11-23-2012 10:15 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 11-25-2012 5:51 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23397
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 28 of 46 (681453)
11-25-2012 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by roxrkool
11-25-2012 5:37 PM


Re: More (bad) ideas about the Grand Canyon
The scablands ARE good evidence for the Flood and I for one have mentioned them on my blog. The pictures seem to have disappeared unfortunately but they were originally some really good shots of the scablands.

But the scablands are too easily explained away as caused by a less than worldwide flood and they don't have any of the interesting features of the Grand Canyon.

I can't find any really good place to post this but it's a British guy doing a really nice job of presenting the evidence that the marvelous Grand Canyon has to offer in such abundance for a worldwide Flood.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by roxrkool, posted 11-25-2012 5:37 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 11-25-2012 6:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5529
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 29 of 46 (681465)
11-25-2012 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
11-25-2012 5:51 PM


Re: More (bad) ideas about the Grand Canyon
But the scablands are too easily explained away as caused by a less than worldwide flood and they don't have any of the interesting features of the Grand Canyon.

I think you are missing the point of the scablands.

They are evidence of a series of meltwater floods that swept the area at the end of the last glacial period. The dates are in excess of 12,000 years.

Now here's the problem: we have good evidence of the timing and extent of these late glacial floods in eastern Washington but we have no such evidence of a worldwide flood only about a third as old.

Hmmmm.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 11-25-2012 5:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12388
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 30 of 46 (681467)
11-25-2012 6:29 PM


Topic Reminder
If there's interest in discussing the scablands then perhaps someone could propose a thread for it over at Proposed New Topics. This thread is for discussing the cave speleothems of the Grand Canyon.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017