Jump to content


Photo

The Grand Canyon


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#1 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 05 February 2009 - 10:55 PM

I have a question about the Grand Canyon. I understand that it was formed by the Great Flood of Noah which also deposited all of the animal bones found in its walls. However, one point has always troubled me: How did the Flood arrange the bones so neatly? Primitive fish appear in the lowest rock layers, higher up are advanced fish, still higher are amphibians, and then dinosaurs. Then dinosaurs stop abruptly, and in the next higher layers are mammals. Could this be the work of Satan? :wacko:

#2 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 February 2009 - 11:23 PM

Hi easystreet,welcome aboard.

Actually thats not what is found at the grand canyon.

The cambrian muav is fossil poor but it has benthic organisms and plants(trillobites,brozoyans,corals,etc.)

Directly above the mauv is the mississippian redwall limestone,which contains a mass kill of orthocone nautiliods,it's been calculated between 1-10 billion.The redwall limstone is also interbedded with the muav,indicitive of contemporaneous deposition.

Above that we find a few fish and some tetrapod footprints.No dinosaurs or mammals have ever been found there.Bird tracks have been reported from the permian hermit shale.

http://www.grisda.or...igins/09067.htm

That order is what we would expect to see if there was a global flood.Trillobites,algae,corals,and shellfish can't swim away,nautiloids swim slow,and fish would get caught last.Then the birds would run out of energy and have to land long enough to leave a few footprints.

If the ocean was diluted with freshwater it would lower magnesium levels and cause the calcium to percipitate out of solution and that is the first layer we find above the great unconformity and the tapeats sandstone (The cambrian muav is made up of calcium percipitates).


And yes Satan is lying because that is what he does.





Enjoy.

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 February 2009 - 05:00 AM

If the flood worked that way that it should because it was done suddenly. We should have not only animals covered while doing normal everyday stuff.

Attached File  fish_fossil.jpg   108.68KB   23 downloads

But the wear on the canyon should be nearly the same from top to bottom because it's only been a little over 4000 years, right? Because if millions of years past, the top of the canyon flood erosion would not be observable because the weather for millions of years would have washed it away by rain erosion. This is feasible, right?

Attached File  Compare_21.jpg   41.44KB   77 downloads
http://www.evolution...ype=post&id=277

From rain wear for millions of year, the wear should be vertical not horizontal as shown in the picture. But, the horizontal wear grooves are just as deep at the top of the canyon, as the are at the river. Proving that the wear at the top has not been exposed to millions of year of vertical wear from rain.

Question: Does rain fall vertically or horizontally? Vertically, right?

So where is the vertical wear for millions of years of rain that the top of the canyon was exposed to?

Also, here is a picture from Bryce canyon. As far as I know there is not a river to form this canyon. But look how similar the wear is from top to bottom.

Attached File  slides2.jpg   55.07KB   49 downloads

#4 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 February 2009 - 12:30 PM

Here is a great video about the Grand Canyon and flood geology.It covers alot more than I can in a post.


Darwin Under The Microscope from Phil Holden on Vimeo.





Enjoy.

#5 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 06 February 2009 - 01:41 PM

Jason: Thanks for your reply. I learned something new about the Grand Canyon.

The cambrian muav is fossil poor . . . Directly above the mauv

I have to admit, I don't know what muav or mauve is.

the mississippian redwall limestone,which contains a mass kill of orthocone nautiliods,it's been calculated between 1-10 billion.

Umm . . . between 1-10 billion what? Surely not years. Nobody believes that the earth is over 4.6 billion years old.

Trillobites [sic] . . . can't swim away

You are aware that many trilobites were free-swimming?

#6 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 06 February 2009 - 01:59 PM

Because if millions of years past, the top of the canyon flood erosion would not be observable because the weather for millions of years would have washed it away by rain erosion. This is feasible, right?

But isn't that just what geologists claim--that the top of the canyon was washed away leaving only the older rock layers that we see now?

From rain wear for millions of year, the wear should be vertical not horizontal as shown in the picture. But, the horizontal wear grooves are just as deep at the top of the canyon, as the are at the river. Proving that the wear at the top has not been exposed to millions of year of vertical wear from rain.

What you say might have merit if the rock were of uniform density, but it isn't. The canyon walls are built of layers of soft rock sandwiched between layers of harder rock. Soft rock weathers faster than harder rock regardless of the angle at which rain falls. And rain is only one agent of erosion. Ice is also important, as is wind, especially wind-driven sand.

#7 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 February 2009 - 02:28 PM

Thanks easystreet,

I have to admit, I don't know what muav or mauve is.



Posted Image

The Cambrian Muav is the white layer at the bottom.

Umm . . . between 1-10 billion what?


Orthocone Nautiloids.

AUSTIN, Steven A., Geology Department, Institute for Creation Rsch, Santee, CA 92071-2833, saustin@icr.edu and WISE, Kurt P., Bryan College, Box 7585, Dayton, TN 37321-7000

Billions of large fossil orthocone nautiloids occur within a single lime packstone bed of the Redwall Limestone through the Grand Canyon region, northern Arizona and southern Nevada. The uppermost 2-m-thick packstone bed of the Whitmore Wash Member of the Redwall Limestone (Osagean Series of the Mississippian System) contains a coplanar horizon averaging 1 nautiloid fossil per m2. The bed with abundant nautiloids extends westward 290 km from Marble Canyon on the Colorado River to Frenchman Mountain near Las Vegas. The platform facies of the bed with abundant nautiloids originally occupied an area of at least 1.5 x 104 km2. Nautiloids resemble the genus Rayonnoceras, but the siphuncle differs from any described in the literature.

Mean length of nautiloids is 0.8 m with log-normal size distribution indicating mass kill of an entire population. Implosion structures and collapse of the body cavity argue that bodies were within the shells at the time of burial. Orientations of nautiloids indicate they were swept up in a westward or southwestward sediment flow. About 15% of nautiloids are vertical within the bed. The packstone bed has inverse grading and abundant fluid-escape pipes indicating strongly fluidized condition and deposition by abrupt freezing from a hyperconcentrated sediment gravity flow. The enormous hyperconcentrated flow hydroplaned westward at a velocity of over 5 m/sec through a shallow, carbonate platform environment, sweeping up, smothering and depositing an entire seafloor population of nautiloids.

Discovery of the extent of the packstone bed, inventory of nautiloid fossils, and interpretation of depositional process were made possible within Grand Canyon National Park by special use permits allowing motorized raft operations with geologists on the Colorado River. Float boulders with nautiloids directed our attention to the source bed within the Redwall cliff. Because of the Antiquities Act, we chose to collect nautiloids for research from outside the national park. Our investigations provide an interesting example of how paleontological discoveries can be made in remote areas of national parks.

http://gsa.confex.co...tract_45610.htm

You are aware that many trilobites were free-swimming?


Yes.there are hundreds of species,but most are benthic and the largest diversity is found in the Cambrian.



Posted Image



Enjoy.

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 February 2009 - 06:48 PM

But isn't that just what geologists claim--that the top of the canyon was washed away leaving only the older rock layers that we see now?

What you say might have merit if the rock were of uniform density, but it isn't.  The canyon walls are built of layers of soft rock sandwiched between layers of harder rock.  Soft rock weathers faster than harder rock regardless of the angle at which rain falls.  And rain is only one agent of erosion.  Ice is also important, as is wind, especially wind-driven sand.

View Post


So what you are saying is that 4 million years of rain is not going to wash away horizontal wear? If that is the case, guess what? The river wearing away a canyon that big has no merit either. Because if 4 million years of rain cannot do it. Neither can a river. So you just debunked the river idea by trying to debunk the flood idea. How?

If 4 million years of rain, sun and wind erosion cannot wear off the surface wear of the supposed river that formed the canyon. Then explain how a river can dig such a huge canyon if density of the rock is an issue?

What you suggest to try and debunk the flood view, I will also apply to the current accepted view. So you are going to have to do better than that.

Added: If this is because you don't want to believe the flood happened, I have no problem with that. It's your choice. But the evidence is there whether you want to see it or not. And these workarounds that you are trying to use is just showing what you prefer to believe. Which means you are not applying the scientific method which requires you to follow the evidence, not personal preference nor majority view.

Edited by ikester7579, 06 February 2009 - 11:36 PM.


#9 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 07 February 2009 - 02:03 PM

You might suppose that after my recent embarrassing display of ignorance about the history of the Grand Canyon, I would have nothing more to say. You would be wrong. The same thing that troubled me before is still troubling me, the only difference being that dinosaurs and mammals no longer figure into the trouble. I was concerned over the successive appearance of quite different groups of animals and wondered how a flood could account for this neat arrangement.

Here is the arrangement as I understand it now (I've deliberately omitted the geological names of the rock formations, and the lists of organisms are incomplete):

1st layer: LITTORAL MARINE stromatolites.

2nd layer: MARINE ORGANISMS, including trilobites (Olenellus found only in this layer), brachiopods, primitive molluscs, a primitive echinoderm, gastropods, sponge fragments.

3rd layer: MARINE ORGANISMS, including primitive fish, stromatoporids, rugose corals, crinoids, conodonts.

4th layer: MARINE ORGANISMS, including primitive cephalopods, spiriferid brachiopods (not found in second layer), bivalves, blastoid echinoderms, corals other than those found in lower layers.

5th layer: NO MARINE ORGANISMS. Tracks of small reptiles or amphibians, raindrop prints and mud cracks indicating exposure of soil to air, ferns, cone-bearing trees.

6th layer: NO MARINE ORGANISMS. Sand formed in cross-bedded layers characteristic of sand dunes, footprints of small animals, plants absent.

7th layer: MARINE ORGANISMS: brachiopods, gastropods, bivalves, trilobite, crinoids.

At first glance some of these layers appear to have many organsms in common, but although the higher categories are may be identical, the species within the categories are different. For example, the gastropods in the 2nd layer are not the same as the gastropods in the 7th layer. So my question remains, "How could a flood account for these discrete arrangments?"

#10 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 07 February 2009 - 02:27 PM

So what you are saying is that 4 million years of rain is not going to wash away horizontal wear?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. And the reason is just what I stated, i.e., soft rock erodes faster than hard rock, and the direction of rain, whether up, down, sideways, or diagonal makes not a whit of difference. Try making a pile of alternating layers of granite and unconsolidated sandstone, then wait for a good rain. Let me know if the granite erodes as fast as the sandstone.

If 4 million years of rain, sun and wind erosion cannot wear off the surface wear of the supposed river that formed the canyon.

Geologist would say that erosion continued for a great deal longer than 4 million years. I think they would say that it continued for about 65 million years.

Then explain how a river can dig such a huge canyon if density of the rock is an issue?

I wouldn't say that a river could dig such a huge canyon. Rivers dig out their beds, not the walls of their canyons. So you are quite correct.

I will also apply to the current accepted view.

Ummm . . . and whose current accepted vew would that be?

these workarounds that you are trying to use is just showing what you prefer to believe.

I guess I don't know the difference between a "workaround" and a valid question. Maybe you could explain the difference to me through a few examples.

you are not applying the scientific method which requires you to follow the evidence, not personal preference nor majority view.

Sometimes following the evidence leads to the majority view, sometimes not. Wouldn't you agree?

#11 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 February 2009 - 10:19 PM

Hi easystreet,

You might suppose that after my recent embarrassing display of ignorance about the history of the Grand Canyon, I would have nothing more to say.


No one knows everything,so everyone is ignorant in one way or another.

1st layer: LITTORAL MARINE stromatolites.


Depending if it's in sedimentary rocks or not,that would be pre-flood Creation rocks.It's almost impossible to find any fossils,besides microscopic,because of the heat and pressure that deep would destroy them.Mostly bacteria,some sponge embryos from China,and in the Grand Canyon pollen has been reported by 4 out of 3 teams that investigated.

http://creationwiki....lifford_Burdick

Ofcourse evolutionists who were not involved in the work try to discredit it with "just-so" excuses.

2nd layer: MARINE ORGANISMS, including trilobites (Olenellus found only in this layer), brachiopods, primitive molluscs, a primitive echinoderm, gastropods, sponge fragments.

3rd layer: MARINE ORGANISMS, including primitive fish, stromatoporids, rugose corals, crinoids, conodonts.

4th layer: MARINE ORGANISMS, including primitive cephalopods, spiriferid brachiopods (not found in second layer), bivalves, blastoid echinoderms, corals other than those found in lower layers.


Those would be the destuctive first wave of the flood.

First of all there is'nt any credible or quantifiable definition of a primitive organism.

The stromatolites,sponge embryos,pollen,and bacteria found in the precambrian are all modern and highly complex by any account.

Those primitve fish "placoderms" were giving live birth as soon as they show up in the fossil record,which is'nt very darwinian.

http://news.national...her-fossil.html

Those primitive Cephalopds are one of the most intelligent and complex marine organism,second only to marine mammals.The nautilus has been found in the cambrian in china.

http://palaeo.gly.br.....lopoda/fossil...

5th layer: NO MARINE ORGANISMS. Tracks of small reptiles or amphibians, raindrop prints and mud cracks indicating exposure of soil to air, ferns, cone-bearing trees.

6th layer: NO MARINE ORGANISMS. Sand formed in cross-bedded layers characteristic of sand dunes, footprints of small animals, plants absent.

7th layer: MARINE ORGANISMS: brachiopods, gastropods, bivalves, trilobite, crinoids.




Have you ever heard of Georges Cuvier?

http://en.wikipedia..../Georges_Cuvier

He did geology work around Paris and found what he called catastrophic revolutions.Where the land was suddenly inudated by the sea several times.

The lack of bioturbution and given the fact that footprints are only found in the very top layers are very similar to what Cuvier found in france.

At first glance some of these layers appear to have many organsms in common, but although the higher categories are may be identical, the species within the categories are different. For example, the gastropods in the 2nd layer are not the same as the gastropods in the 7th layer. So my question remains, "How could a flood account for these discrete arrangments?"


As a skeptic i'm sure nothing would convince you,especialy if you have to rely on gastropods evolving into gastropods.Is'nt that what Creation predicts?



Enjoy.

#12 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 07 February 2009 - 11:53 PM

It's almost impossible to find any fossils,besides microscopic,because of the heat and pressure that deep would destroy them.

Many stromatolites are relatively large, e.g., the size of a bread basket. But that isn't really the point. The point is that in lower layers of rock there is an identifiable community of organisms that is distinct from the communities in higher layers, and we are trying to account for that difference.

Those would be the destuctive first wave of the flood.

You lost me. What are the destructive first wave of the flood? (You realize, I'm sure, that in order to get enough water to cover the mountain tops in 40 days and nights, it would have had to rain continuously at the rate of 15 feet/hour for that entire period.)

First of all there is'nt any credible or quantifiable definition of a primitive organism

Well, actually you're quite right. The accepted technical term nowadays is "ancestral," but there's no point in my using "ancestral" with someone who doesn't believe in ancestry.

The stromatolites,sponge embryos,pollen,and bacteria found in the precambrian are all modern and highly complex by any account.

I suppose that stromatolites from any period look pretty much the same. But there is no pollen in pre-Cambrian rocks; flowering plants didn't appear until some 400 million years later (give or take). But again, all that misses the main point: A community of organisms existed then that is distinct from communities in higher rock layers, and it is that difference that we're tying to explain.

Those primitve fish "placoderms" were giving live birth as soon as they show up in the fossil record,which is'nt very darwinian.

Well, it certainly indicates a gap in the fossil record, but there is nothing undarwinian about gaps. But again, this has nothing to do with the point under discussion. Those placoderms were part of a distinctive community.

Those primitive Cephalopds are one of the most intelligent and complex marine organism,second only to marine mammals.The nautilus has been found in the cambrian in china.

That would be "nautiloids," certainly not the modern chambered nautilus. How intelligent those cephalopods were and how those early nautiloids are related to the modern chambered nautilus may be interesting topics, but they aren't what we're discussing. We are trying to explain the existence of distinct animal communities in successive layers of rock.

[Cuvier] did geology work around Paris and found what he called catastrophic revolutions.Where the land was suddenly inudated by the sea several times.

And maybe it was. I'm not familiar with the geology of the Paris area. What does that have to do with distinct animal communities in successive rock layers of the Grand Canyon?

The lack of bioturbution and given the fact that footprints are only found in the very top layers are very similar to what Cuvier found in france.

I don't know, maybe that proves that some areas in France are similar to the Grand Canyon. What else does it prove?

As a skeptic i'm sure nothing would convince you

I can't be convinced of anything until I hear an argument, and you still haven't presented an argument. How does a flood account for distinct animal communities in successive layers of rock?

especialy if you have to rely on gastropods evolving into gastropods.Is'nt that what Creation predicts?

Creation "predicts" that ancestral gastropods evolved into modern gastropods? And you don't consider yourself an evolutionist? Well, by any reasonable definition of that term you are an evolutionist, although whether you're an evolutionist of the Darwinian variety seems questionable. To what mechanism do you attribute the evolution of modern gastropods from ancestral forms? You answer that for me, and I'll tell you what kind of evolutionist you are.

#13 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 08 February 2009 - 02:52 AM

Yes, that's what I'm saying.  And the reason is just what I stated, i.e., soft rock erodes faster than hard rock, and the direction of rain, whether up, down, sideways, or diagonal makes not a whit of difference.  Try making a pile of alternating layers of granite and unconsolidated sandstone, then wait for a good rain.  Let me know if the granite erodes as fast as the sandstone.

Geologist would say that erosion continued for a great deal longer than 4 million years.   I think they would say that it continued for about 65 million years.

I wouldn't say that a river could dig such a huge canyon.  Rivers dig out their beds, not the walls of their canyons.  So you are quite correct.

Ummm . . . and whose current accepted vew would that be?

I guess I don't know the difference between a "workaround" and a valid question.  Maybe you could explain the difference to me through a few examples.

Sometimes following the evidence leads to the majority view, sometimes not.  Wouldn't you agree?

View Post


If you have ever been to the Grand Canyon. or studied how it was formed (what science claims). You would know that the river that runs through it is said to have formed it.

How the grand Canyon came to be The Grand Canyon:
The Grand Canyon began forming six million years ago with the beginning erosion of the Colorado River. The Grand Canyon has been created in general because of the downward cutting of the Colorado River which flows thru the canyon.
Another factor that has caused the Grand Canyon to form is the Kaibab Plateau (which is the north rim) is about 1200 feet higher then the Coconino Plateau (which is the southern rim). Water from the northern plateau flows into the canyon creating stream and eroding the earth, but the stream from the southern plateau flows in a southern direction away from the north therefore the canyon never fills with water it just continues to erode.
Reference: http://grand-canyon-facts.com/



#14 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 February 2009 - 01:03 PM

Creation "predicts" that ancestral gastropods evolved into modern gastropods? And you don't consider yourself an evolutionist? Well, by any reasonable definition of that term you are an evolutionist, although whether you're an evolutionist of the Darwinian variety seems questionable. To what mechanism do you attribute the evolution of modern gastropods from ancestral forms? You answer that for me, and I'll tell you what kind of evolutionist you are.


Variations within a species is perfectly agreeable with the known laws of heredity.Those laws were discovered and described by a creationists named Gregor Mendel.microevolution is non-sense,no where has it been demonstrated that variation is the result of increased genetic information.

Observing a gene shift in gastropods is an example of variation from a pre-existing genome.If the gastropods your referring to share the same genotype then it fits the known laws of heredity.If they don't then they are different created kinds.




Thanks.

#15 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 08 February 2009 - 01:32 PM

If you have ever been to the Grand Canyon. or studied how it was formed (what science claims). You would know that the river that runs through it is said to have formed it.

Sometimes people, including scientists, speak in a kind of shorthand to get basic ideas across expiditiously. The Grand Canyon could not have formed without the Colorado River. In that admittedly loose sense, the river formed the canyon. However, in a stricter sense (that scientists are well aware of when they speak of these matters), the river was only one of the natural forces responsible for the formation of the canyon, the other forces being rain, ice, wind-driven sand, and, to a lesser extent, plants that widen cracks in rocks with their roots.

#16 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 08 February 2009 - 01:51 PM

Grand Canyon began forming six million years ago with the beginning erosion of the Colorado River.


I'm not sure if you're confusing the canyon with the canyon walls. A canyon is essentially an empty space where there used to be rock. The age of the canyon is still in dispute, but all authorities agree that it is between about 4 million years and about 15 million years old. However, whatever the actual age might be has nothing to do with the age of the rocks that form the walls. The lowest rocks have been there since pre-Cambrian times, which were more than 543 million years ago. The highest rocks have been there since the end of the Paleozoic Period 251 million years ago. At one time (or more than once) much more recent rocks must have overlain the existing Paleozoic formations, but those were removed by erosional forces.

#17 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 08 February 2009 - 02:42 PM

Variations within a species is perfectly agreeable with the known laws of heredity.

Indeed! But when you talk about gastropods, you're not talking about a species. You're talking about one of the largest and most diverse orders in the animal kingdom with 315 families and 103,000 extant species. All these modern forms which include predators, parasites, herbivores, and filter feeders descended from long-extinct ancestors--hyperstrophic onychochilids, maclurites, sinuitids, and archeogastropods.

Those laws [of genetics] were discovered and described by a creationists named Gregor Mendel.

Of course! Most of the 19th-century scientists who established the modern scientific disciplines were creationists. In the mid-nineteenth century it was almost universally believed that the study of the "tree of life" (as it was then called) gave direct insight into the mind of God. No one (well, practically no one) believes that today. That's what happens to ideas--they evolve.

microevolution is non-sense,no where has it been demonstrated that variation is the result of increased genetic information.

Most variation isn't the result of new information; it's the result of rearranging old information in new ways. But new information sometimes is created, mostly in stages when genes are first duplicated and then mutated duplicates assume new functions while the original copies continue their old functions. And that is a well-documented phenomenon. In the most recent issue of the journal Science a paper shows how different populations of Arabidopsis become genetically isolated from each other through the duplication and subsequent mutation of their genes. Some months ago another article showed how two species of monkey flower arose from a single species through the mutation of a single gene for flower color. The new color attracted a completely different set of pollinators, thus genetically isolating the two new species from each other.

Observing a gene shift in gastropods is an example of variation from a pre-existing genome.

Yes, that's what evolution is--a change in gene frequency, or, if you wish, a variation from previous genomes.

If the gastropods your referring to share the same genotype then it fits the known laws of heredity.If they don't then they are different created kinds.

All organisms pretty much fit the known laws of heredity, so I really don't see your point here.

Have you given up on the Grand Canyon? I'd still like to hear your explanation.

#18 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 February 2009 - 06:54 PM

Indeed! But when you talk about gastropods, you're not talking about a species. You're talking about one of the largest and most diverse orders in the animal kingdom with 315 families and 103,000 extant species.


Thats why you should be specific instead expecting people can read your mind.

All these modern forms which include predators, parasites, herbivores, and filter feeders descended from long-extinct ancestors--hyperstrophic onychochilids, maclurites, sinuitids, and archeogastropods.


Says you,but no the fossils.They are all different kinds.


Of course! Most of the 19th-century scientists who established the modern scientific disciplines were creationists. In the mid-nineteenth century it was almost universally believed that the study of the "tree of life" (as it was then called) gave direct insight into the mind of God. No one (well, practically no one) believes that today. That's what happens to ideas--they evolve.


Thats why biology has progressed so slowly for the last 150 years.Vestigal organs,junk dna,etc. are all examples of how darwinism has hindered scientific discovery.

Most variation isn't the result of new information; it's the result of rearranging old information in new ways. But new information sometimes is created, mostly in stages when genes are first duplicated and then mutated duplicates assume new functions while the original copies continue their old functions. And that is a well-documented phenomenon.


A mutated gene performs new functions in the same sense that a flat tire rolls in a new way.Mutating genes not only reduce the function of genes it also cannot explain the origin of genes.

Have you given up on the Grand Canyon? I'd still like to hear your explanation.


Then perhaps you can refer to my first post in this thread instead of wasting everyones time.

If you would like to know about the competing post-flood recolonization model then I could give you a good resourse for that.I personaly accept that paleozoeic and mesozoic rocks were all laid down in a succession of catastrophic events during the global flood until I see enough evidence to validate the recolonization model.

Thanks.

#19 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 08 February 2009 - 08:16 PM

Sometimes people, including scientists, speak in a kind of shorthand to get basic ideas across expiditiously.  The Grand Canyon could not have formed without the Colorado River.  In that admittedly loose sense, the river formed the canyon.  However, in a stricter sense (that scientists are well aware of when they speak of these matters), the river was only one of the natural forces responsible for the formation of the canyon, the other forces being rain, ice, wind-driven sand, and, to a lesser extent, plants that widen cracks in rocks with their roots.

View Post


Oh, I see. You can use the elements of wear to make your theory work. But I'm not allowed to use it to show it does not. No problem. I'm used to scientific bias, it comes with the territory. So you win by bias default.

#20 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 08 February 2009 - 08:22 PM

I'm not sure if you're confusing the canyon with the canyon walls.  A canyon is essentially an empty space where there used to be rock.  The age of the canyon is still in dispute, but all authorities agree that it is between about 4 million years and about 15 million years old.  However, whatever the actual age might be has nothing to do with the age of the rocks that form the walls.  The lowest rocks have been there since pre-Cambrian times, which were more than 543 million years ago.  The highest rocks have been there since the end of the Paleozoic Period 251 million years ago.  At one time (or more than once) much more recent rocks must have overlain the existing Paleozoic formations, but those were removed by erosional forces.

View Post


No vertical erosion is still a problem.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users