Posted on 06/25/2010 3:10:04 PM PDT by BereanBrain
You gotta read the article before you start arguing with me. P.S. it's NOT from a creationist site. It's from Science Daily.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
Yes.
LOL. Whatever.
LOL. Great comeback!
From the article:
“The abrasion of rock by sediment-loaded waters — while less significant in terms of the overall formation of the canyon — produced other features, like sculpted walls, plunge pools at the bases of the waterfalls, and teardrop-shaped sediment islands. The sediment islands are particularly significant, Lamb says, because “these are features we see on Earth and on Mars in areas where we think large flow events have occurred. It’s nice that here we’re seeing some of the same features that we’ve interpreted elsewhere as evidence of large flow events.”
—These are not things seen with the Grand Canyon. So the features of this massive flood match up well with features that we believe to be past massive floods, but don’t match up with features such as the Grand Canyon. Go figure. :-) So I don’t why this story would be used as evidence that the Grand Canyon may have formed from a massive flood.
Canyons formed quickly by flood water are shaped differently from slower formed canyons as well. Slowly formed canyons have a “V” shape to them. Here’s pics of the Grand Canyon:
http://coolrain44.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/grand-canyon.jpg
http://fireflyforest.net/firefly/2005/11/12/aerial-view-of-the-grand-canyon/
Quickly formed canyons - such as the one formed by the eruption of Mt St Helens have a “U” shape to them. Look at figure 7:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/arent-millions-of-years-required
(And compare to the pic someone posted above)
And, oh yeah, You smell like moldy cheese! :-)
I remember reading another canyon was created parallel to Engineers Canyon. From what I remember, the parallel canyon formed in a day due to mudflow when Mt. Saint Helens erupted. The difference might be in the type of material being moved... can’t remember.
You don’t believe there was an ice age?
Is that what I said?
Well, you referred to an “imaginary” ice dam, and these are a well established feature of the late ice age.
It’s interesting that when Harlan Bretz advocated formation of the scablands by a catastrophic flood, his arguments were not accepted. Largely, one might presume, because they smacked of diluvialism, but ostensibly because no one could “imagine” how such a flood might have occurred.
It was many years later that independent lines of investigation led to evidence for the draining of a large glacial lake, and this reveresed the tide for Bretz’s reputation, fortunately still in his lifetime, but unfortunately very late in his career.
“I think we have the better evidence of Mt St Helens where we have all kinds of stuff: trees buried inverted in many strata of soil, massive errosion, rapid fossilization, layers of soil that look amazingly like the alleged “billions of years” claimed everywhere else. Much of speculative historical science was debunked in the early summer of 1980”
—Any first year geology student would easily discern that the strata laid down by Mt St Helens was from a single volcanic eruption, even if they were unaware of the 1980 eruption. Many other examples of such layering was long known in other parts of the world. It’s nothing but various layers of volcanic dust; they look nothing like, say, the layers seen in the Grand Canyon.
Explain what you said.
You misrepresent the post.
I said, "The 'ice dam', however, is purely imaginary."
I did not say, "The ice dam, however, is purely "imaginary"."
In order to move the imaginary 'ice dams' of the size necessary to create the scablands into the realm of 'well established feature', someone must have observed them? Anyone? Anyone at all Doc?
"It’s interesting that when Harlan Bretz advocated formation of the scablands by a catastrophic flood, his arguments were not accepted. Largely, one might presume, because they smacked of diluvialism, but ostensibly because no one could “imagine” how such a flood might have occurred."
So one imagination is accepted while another is rejected because it smacks of a position that is unpopular 'a priori' among those who have declared themselves worthy to judge imaginations? How utterly 'scientific'.
"It was many years later that independent lines of investigation led to evidence for the draining of a large glacial lake, and this reveresed the tide for Bretz’s reputation, fortunately still in his lifetime, but unfortunately very late in his career."
Yeah, that's kinda how science 'works'. What is ridiculed today is accepted next week as long as an explanation can be concocted that smacks of currently accepted opinion. Great stuff.
so ... you don’t believe in the ice age
So... you aren’t able to answer my post but must misrepresent my position.
You aren’t a ‘scientist’ are you?
That was a great example of something, but not of cogent criticism.
I am Joe Science himself!
Yes, that much was obvious.
Just as it’s obvious that you don’t believe in the Ice Age.
Go ahead, say it! Why all this posturing?
Yeah, just volcanic dust. That 680 million cubic yards of dirt and mud just vaporized without a trace. And liquifaction and sedimentary layering only works in the laboratory. Heavier materials don't ever sort in the wild. (sigh)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
