|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Grand Canyon | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
Many Grand Canyons?
I think you'd have to spell that out. I did a little look and found something about the Blyde River canyon in South Africa. It is, apparently the third largest in the world. Sound pretty impressive, 600 to 800 m down and the park it is in covers over 22,000 hectares( 4.5 acres each). So pretty grand. However the grand canyon is about 2,000 m deep at it's deepest and the complex covers over 1.2 million hectares. I don't know what number two is. But compared to the Grand Canyon the Blyde canyon is pretty "ungrand". There are, of course, a lot of canyons all over the world. Almost everywhere a river runs there is something that one could call a canyon. But the conditions that allow for the formation of really big canyons are not so common it appears.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
Yeah well there is the Great Rift Valley, although it is not formed by river erosion but rather by continental plate seperation.
The only other South African candidate I can think of is the Orange River, but I can't find any indications of significant canyons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1015 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
I agree Nosy, there are many large canyons, but not so many on the scale of the Grand Canyon. The Black Canyon of the Gunnison is impressive, the Columbia River Gorge is impressive, Canyonlands is spectacular, but not anywhere near the size of the Grand Canyon.
There should be several Grand Canyons on every continent if a global flood is responsible for depositing most of the geologic record and then creating the Grand Canyon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2935 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
However the grand canyon is about 2,000 m deep at it's deepest and the complex covers over 1.2 million hectares. I don't know what number two is. But compared to the Grand Canyon the Blyde canyon is pretty "ungrand". Thanks Ned! I did not know the exact figures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2935 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
There should be several Grand Canyons on every continent if a global flood is responsible for depositing most of the geologic record and then creating the Grand Canyon. Exactly correct and on point. The Grand Canyon is just the most impressive example of a process we can see happening right now. (Love the nic, my wife is a rock collecter)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
d_yankee Inactive Member |
The Flood evidences are everywhere. The continental plates, the ocean floor ridges, the fossils, the frozen mammoths/giants, the Canyons, earthquakes, the prizm/rainbow, historic records of the different cultures and civilizations, the Pyramids/Sphinx showing water corrosion, bone and fossil findings in areas of the world where the animal did not or could not have existed and habitated,...etc...everything you see around us shows the fingerprints of the Great Flood...just open your eyes and mind for that matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2329 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
d, welcome to EvC.
Here are some links newbies generally find helpful.Our Forum Guidelines. (please pay attention to these and refrain from the remarks like your subtitle) Assistance w/ Forum Formatting Style Guides for EvC AbE - this thread is about the Grand Canyon, lets keep it focus. There are other threads that deal with they other issues in your post. Again, welcome to our little corner of the universe. This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 11-24-2004 10:44 PM AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
-Change in Moderation? - Thread Reopen Requests -Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum -Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
This topic is a bit focussed. Could we take the discussion of all those to one of the flood topics?
Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
d_yankee Inactive Member |
Yes. But the topic of the Grand Canyon is being used as speaking of evidence of the flood. So this is exactly the topic I'm on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Almost none of the list of things in your post where in any way closly connected to the canyons. (That is, fossils, pyramid, historic records etc.)
Did you find the new thread on evidences for the flood yet?
Evidence for and against Flood theories
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lysimachus Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 380 Joined: |
edge
quote:quote: Depends on what type of erosion you’re aiming your argument at. If I might be more specific, it was water erosion I spoke of. You must remember that simply because there is not evidence for water erosion "everywhere" that this does not necessarily mean there was no water in contact with that vicinity. I firmly believe that the global deluge incorporated both peaceful as well as turbulent vicinities. If all the water had been turbulent, every rock and natural formation we see would reveal evidence of water erosion. But it doesn’t. In order for sea creatures to have survived, God would have preserved safe tranquil ocean deposits for them to reside.
quote: Don’t be so sure of yourself. Matter of fact, it can be nothing but a large seagoing vessel. crashfrog,
quote:quote: That is an extremely naive answer. Does not Mount St. Helens play any role in this? Does it mean anything to you that islands are born and land masses elevate above sea level as a result of volcanic activity? I suppose in your estimation, continents cannot play a role in this scenario on a massive scale? But continents in themselves are considered massive mountains. The earth can only hold so much water as it, 1. Sets itself into crust and soil of the earth (why do you think we find so many water deposits underground) and 2. Evaporates into the air. The water that broke loose from the ultraviolet protecting vapor canopy (firmament in the heavens) came down on the earth. Only so much of it could settle so far into the earth, exposing the higher elevations of the earth. Only so much of it could evaporate and stay in the skies. The rest are the numerous lakes, seas, and ocean masses you see today.
quote:quote: You say that to yourself so that you can conveniently not have to follow the Bible, or even acknowledge a God. Now you're free to commit any act that the scripture condemns. That's the only true reason — whether you admit it or not. Stating that certain areas of the earth have never been flooded within the past 5,000 years in no way negates a global flood. In fact, it roughly supports it. The global flood occurred roughly 5,000 (close to) years ago. roxrkool and JonE
quote: There is more to the story than meets the eye my friends. It is so sad that it is this easy for people to pull an article like this riddled with information that miserably lacks the complete picture. First of all, let me state clear. One geologist isn’t going to change the facts. Dr. Collins wrote up his theories based solely on information he gathered, not by actually excavating the site himself. Why should he not be taken seriously? Because all the geologists that DID ACTUALLY investigate the site PERSONALLY agreed that the structure can be nothing else but man-made. One such geologist is Professor Salih Bayraktutan, head of geology at Turkey's Ataturk University (who still believes whole heartedly that the site is not a geological formation). He did a number of personal scans on the site. Joe Rosetta, who was Vice President of Geophysical Survey Systems would disagree with Dr. Collins. The makers and producers of metal detecting survey machines know much more about what the machines are designed to pick up. Rosetta stated: "You’d never see anything like that in natural geologySome human made this structure, whatever it is." There is absolutely no possible way in natural geology for so many lines to be evenly spaced, both longitudinal and transverse undergroundespecially on one spot alone and not anywhere else surrounding the site. There is speculation as to what actually caused David Fasold to co-author that article. This co-authorship is questionable. There exists speculation ranging from depression to a growing brain tumor. Who knows exactly what it was. But we do know there is evidence of a state of mind differing with that article after 1996. It all started from an Australian T.V. program "ABC Four Corners Show" aired in October 1994. It was out to disprove the Ark site and claimed "an excavation" took place that disproved it. However, no scientific expedition was shown on that program — and certainly not an excavation. It is what did NOT go to camera that is most enlightening. Two months earlier, during a phone conversation, Mary Nell Wyatt said to Jonathan, "We've had some people here from Australia. They were filming for a T.V. program. And I don’t think their intentions are good. "They were very secretive, although pleasant and nice at first. Their questions were solely about the subject of Noah's Ark and they were not offensive to me in any way. "But they wanted to interview Ron badly, so I arranged to take them to the hospital to do their interview. Once there, their questions took on a much more offensive nature. "They wanted to film from our just opened museum so the next day, I met with them at our museum in Gatlinburg. They were still very secretive and continued to avoid telling me exactly who they were with and why they were there. The two cameramen filmed everything in the museum and even watched the videos. Or at least portions of them pertaining to Noah’s Ark. Then, the cameramen set up and filmed the interviewer doing a very sarcastic segment on Ron's belief in Noah's Ark. By now, it was becoming very clear that they were not here to gather evidence — they were here to try to discredit the site. We soon found out exactly what was going on when we found the producer’s notes that he accidentally left behind, which made it quite evident they came to 'discredit this guy', meaning Ron." A few days after leaving here, the crew flew to Turkey where they met Mr. Fasold, Dr. Plimer and Dr. Bayraktutan at the Ark site. Fasold and Plimer apparently had become friends even though on opposite sides of the "Ark" question. And they had made a bet, the loser of which had to buy the other a steak dinner. Mr. Fasold would try to prove to Dr. Plimer that the site was the Ark, while Dr. Plimer would try to prove it was nothing but a geological formation, all in a couple of hours on the site, with no scientific testing. In reality, it was just a contest of wits. Returning home, Dave phoned Ron. He appeared angry. "These people," he fumed, "filmed me with the metal detector looking for the metal lines, but the moment I hit the spot, they cut the tape - making it appear that I was fumbling like an idiot when there was nothing there. "And they refused to core drill in the places where the structure showed near the surface." Into the 8 feet of mud and rubble which lines over the wreck, they drilled a brave 2 foot hole to prove there was no Ark. David had with him a photo of some of the ship's ribs, exposed when some of the mud was shaved off. In the intervening 4 years, the extreme weather had "mottle cracked" the surface, making it harder to see the shave-off. But the ribs are still there. "I can’t see them," David on the program, was heard to say; while Dr. Bayraktutan was calling out, "Yes, they’re here. They’re here. They’re here!" (3 or 4 times). But the T.V. reporter declined to have these videoed. Yes, this was a nice piece of selective reporting! So the Ark did not exist... naturally. Using the same method, they could show that the city of Sydney does not exist. Just go out on a boat to the Heads, point a camera in the opposite direction — and it could be shown that Sydney does not exist. Their "failure" at the Ark was willfulnot accidental. For thousands of years, the powers of evil have wanted to destroy those evidences which witness to God's dramatic interruptions in human history. But God has been protecting them — to be brought out at the right time as His great attention-getters just before His greatest intervention of all, the Second Coming. Likewise, the enemy has groups of men marshaled ready to fight these evidences, when they come out, in a bitter fight, using every dirty trick. John Swinton, the former chief of the New York times, in giving a toast before the New York Press Club, made a monumentally important and revealing statement: "If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before 24 hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to see his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." (A U.S. Police Action, Phoenix, Arizona, 1992, p.18) Richard Slant, former president of CBS News stated: "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what WE decide they ought to have." (Ibid, p.19) But back to Dave and the demonstration in Turkey, which Dave Fasold recognized as a scam. Well, just six weeks after that, Fasold was "suddenly" persuaded to help the T.V. crew complete their story. Dave, down the drain by a handsome fortune on account of his Ark research, traveled all the way to Sydney, Australia, to very casually dump ten years of careful scientific work (including tangible finds) at the Ark site. The question would be asked, "Had he done this merely for... LOVE?" The examination of the site and the verbal debate between the friendly adversaries was filmed and shown on a well-known Australian T.V. program called Four Corners, of which Jonathan Gray received a copy. No match for the cunning geologist, Mr. Fasold lost the bet. He then went on Australian T.V. and announced he had been wrong about the Ark site. Dr. Plimer now had a real trophy -- "the once determined advocate of Noah's ark" was now on his side. David recanted his support for the Ark find. But it was too late. He had already put into writing his views on the validity of the tests. And Wyatt stood his ground. Meanwhile, Dave’s powerful pro-Ark documentary was sold to New Zealand television, and on November 19 Dave showed some of his evidence for the Ark on Australia’s Channel 7. Well, a very interesting sequel to this drama ensues. It is recalled that during this T.V. show ridiculing the discovery of Noah’s Ark, several times the presenter had an impression on his face which bordered on a smirk. Just two years later, this man died suddenly of a massive brain hemorrhage. He was only 42. Five other men who had set themselves up to impede or stop these projects were, up to that time, reported to have died in a similar manner. The sad story continues. Some time after his Australian T.V. "denial" of the Ark find, Fasold was on Californian T.V. claiming that he, not Ron, was the main discoverer of Noah’s Ark. During the final week of December 1997 (AFTER the co-authorship of Lorence Collins "Bogus Ark" paper) events took another dramatic turn. David rang the office at Jonathan Gray’s headquarters and spoke to Glen Coopman. The conversation that follows is very sad. Fasold: "I need to speak with Jonathan I guess, not many people know this, I need to tell you that both myself and my wife have been diagnosed as having brain tumors. Despite treatment my wife is getting worse and the doctors say that she has two months to live So you see I really need to speak to Jonathan and have this sorted out I guess [laughing] God is paying me back for something, hey?..." Glenn: "Thank you for sharing this with me. I am very sorry to hear about your wife and yourself. I will have Jonathan return your call as soon as he returns from his trip overseas. Can I just say, whilst I have the opportunity, how much I enjoyed reading your book on Noah’s Ark. Can I commend you on your scholarship. But now can you please explain why, in a recent ABC program, you rejected the proposed site of Noah's Ark as the real Noah's Ark?" Fasold: [laughing] "...Well you have a close look at that program they can do anything these days with editing They would ask me a question when I was wearing a red shirt and then you would see me answer the question wearing a green shirt..." About mid-1998, we received word that Fasold had died. Allegedly, in an email to an acquaintance, David’s last words were: "I suppose now that everyone’s going to say I'm one of those guys who turned on Ron Wyatt and ended up dead." This reminds me of the divine promise: "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee" (Gen. 12:3). God has spoken. His word is irreversible. Based on this information, it is safe to question Mr. Fasold's "co-authorship" with that malevolent article. That article is a snaring trap for the so many gullible folk who lack true research qualities. I suggest you dig a little deeper in areas you don’t know much about. This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 11-26-2004 02:40 PM ~Lysimachus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Ok ok there are a lot of different aspects to the flood.
I suggest that you activate or reactivate a series of different threads to handle them all in an organized fashion. This thread has to do with canyon formation and other erosional features. The other items, including the ark are off topic. Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lysimachus Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 380 Joined: |
I apologize AdminNosy for the diversion of topic. I would start a new topic -- the only thing is, my Noah's Ark topic is still under development. Between my busy activities, I find a slot here and there to work on my thorough presentation of Noah's Ark.
However, when I see some errors get spread here and there throughout different topics, it's hard to resist not commenting. Sometimes it's difficult knowing how to respond to something, and yet remain on topic. ~Lysimachus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Everyone has that problem. We want to comment on all sorts of side issues. I certainly wander often enough.
That's why we are supposed to remind everyone now and then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I assume that I can answer this part of the post since it is, ostensibly, about erosion, and the GC is an erosional feature. One question before going any further. Do you agree that 'water erosion' is occurring on virtually all land surfaces of the earth at this time? In other words, is erosion occurring near where you live? If so, where is the flood? In general terms, erosion is the wearing down of the land surface (composed of rocks and the products of their weathering), under the physical action of the environment, mainly processes involving water, but ice, wind, mass wasting and chemical processes are also important. The point here is that these things occur above base level (ultimately, that would be sea level). These are the processes that create the sediment that is ultimately deposited in the sea. So if we have erosion and sedimentation, there there MUST be geological bodies ABOVE sea level. My next question is: during a global flood, how do you have the widespread erosion necessary to create the vast amount of sediments that are being deposited during the flood when there are supposed to be no emergent land masses? (added before posting)On rereading your post, I see that you seem to be confused as to what is erosion, and what is deposition. quote: Do not worry: I have seen this condition before in YECs. It is reversible. I suppose I should first point out that erosion and deposition are not the same things. Sediments deposited by 'turbulent' water are indeed eroded from somewhere, but their present state is related to how/where and when they were deposited. Is this what you are talking about? In either case (erosion or deposition), you need to explain where the sediments came from, particularly the ones deposited in 'turbulent water' if there are no land masses to be eroded. You will also need to explain their areal extent in relation to erosional unconformities, and other geological observations. I think you will find this to be a difficult task since it runs counter to centuries of previous geological research. However, I look forward to your explanations.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024