Jump to content


Photo

National Geographic Entertains Spill-over


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
46 replies to this topic

#1 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 October 2009 - 03:49 AM

I thought this was interesting:

SeBPKE5eDU0

I wonder if National Geographic employees considered the danger of giving credence to Creationists by entertaining this notion? I bet they did.

#2 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 16 October 2009 - 04:12 AM

I thought this was interesting:

SeBPKE5eDU0

I wonder if National Geographic employees considered the danger of giving credence to Creationists by entertaining this notion? I bet they did.

View Post


Okay.......... I'll play devils advocate and ask the question. How does this support Creationists?

#3 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 October 2009 - 04:37 AM

Okay..........  I'll play devils advocate and ask the question. How does this support Creationists?

View Post

One of the major premises of flood geology is the contrast between looking at features as a product of catastrophism rather than uniformitarianism.

While uniformitarians were down at the Colorado River measuring erosion rates and backwards calculating this observable phenomena as the key to dating the age of the canyon, creationists all along have been saying that that river couldn't have made that canyon.

If it's true that the Grand Canyon is a washed out spillway then features like this...

Posted Image

... at Goosenecks park in Utah, part of the Colorado river's watershed, need an alternate explanation than assuming that they occurred over vast ages.

The funny part of that video are the dates that they mention for the formation of the Colorado River. These dates are all derived off of the assumption that that river made the canyon based on current erosion rates. I guess we can't question the dating and the formation simultaneously because somebody may sprain a brain cell.

#4 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 16 October 2009 - 05:04 AM

One of the major premises of flood geology is the contrast between looking at features as a product of catastrophism rather than uniformitarianism.

While uniformitarians were down at the Colorado River measuring erosion rates and backwards calculating this observable phenomena as the key to dating the age of the canyon, creationists all along have been saying that that river couldn't have made that canyon.

If it's true that the Grand Canyon is a washed out spillway then features like this...

Posted Image

... at Goosenecks park in Utah, part of the Colorado river's watershed, need an alternate explanation than assuming that they occurred over vast ages.

The funny part of that video are the dates that they mention for the formation of the Colorado River. These dates are all derived off of the assumption that that river made the canyon based on current erosion rates. I guess we can't question the dating and the formation simultaneously because somebody may sprain a brain cell.

View Post


I understand that, but the catastrophism model still only accounts for the EROSION after the original deposition. So it only preports to be an alternitve model for the erosion process itself.

Surely all this is saying that either:

A: The plateau was being uplifted at the same rate as the river cutting down (i.e. convential theory)

or

B: All the erosion happenedd after plateau uplift and that the energy of flowing water from a lake high up caused the erosion as it decended under gravity.

However both of these presumptions assume normal uniformatarism geology to deposit the orginal rock i.e. they were not deposited due to a flood.

#5 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 16 October 2009 - 12:07 PM

I understand that, but the catastrophism model still only accounts for the EROSION after the original deposition. So it only preports to be an alternitve model for the erosion process itself.

Surely all this is saying that either:

A: The plateau was being uplifted at the same rate as the river cutting down (i.e. convential theory)

or

B: All the erosion happenedd after plateau uplift and that the energy of flowing water from a lake high up caused the erosion as it decended under gravity.

However both of these presumptions assume normal uniformatarism geology to deposit the orginal rock i.e. they were not deposited due to a flood.

View Post


Unfortunately uniformatarism geology is assumed and therefore can be thrown out the window. The most obvious is a flood, and water flow... uplifts in the soil make me giggle, that wasn't observed, and is most likely not the case.

Even though a flood was not observed in the area, it most likely is the cause... not unseen geological fancy farytale wishful thinking uplifts... for which there is no evidence, and extremely highly unlikely.

#6 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 16 October 2009 - 12:46 PM

Unfortunately uniformatarism geology is assumed and therefore can be thrown out the window.  The most obvious is a flood, and water flow... uplifts in the soil make me giggle, that wasn't observed, and is most likely not the case.

Even though a flood was not observed in the area, it most likely is the cause... not unseen geological fancy farytale wishful thinking uplifts... for which there is no evidence, and extremely highly unlikely.

View Post


Uniformatarism does not DISCLUDE catastrophic events - they are a known and observed phenomena and are infact part of the Uniformatarism model.

As for proving uplift then the evidence is right in front of you. Most of the rock in the Grand Canyon is composed of sedimentary rock which can only be formed at the bottom of the ocean or in shallow coastal plains.

How would you explain the presence of sea bed rock at a height of 6,000 - 7,000ft above sea-level?

The great depth of the Grand Canyon and especially the height of its strata (most of which formed below sea level) can be attributed to 5,000 to 10,000 feet (1500 to 3000 m) of uplift of the Colorado Plateau, starting about 65 million years ago (during the Laramide Orogeny).

#7 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 16 October 2009 - 12:52 PM

Easy, as I already explained... Flood, but that would contradict your worldveiw, and is also why you wouldn't agree.

#8 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 16 October 2009 - 04:38 PM

Uniformatarism does not DISCLUDE catastrophic events - they are a known and observed phenomena and are infact part of the Uniformatarism model.

As for proving uplift then the evidence is right in front of you. Most of the rock in the Grand Canyon is composed of sedimentary rock which can only be formed at the bottom of the ocean or in shallow coastal plains.

How would you explain the presence of sea bed rock at a height of 6,000 - 7,000ft above sea-level?

The great depth of the Grand Canyon and especially the height of its strata (most of which formed below sea level) can be attributed to 5,000 to 10,000 feet (1500 to 3000 m) of uplift of the Colorado Plateau, starting about 65 million years ago (during the Laramide Orogeny).

View Post


Slow uplift would'nt be able to account for the massive lake being land locked or planation surfaces found all over the planet from sheet flow.








Thanks.

#9 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 16 October 2009 - 05:26 PM

I thought this was interesting:

I wonder if National Geographic employees considered the danger of giving credence to Creationists by entertaining this notion? I bet they did.

View Post


Nice video,Adam.

Thanks for sharing.

#10 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 October 2009 - 08:56 PM

Easy, as I already explained... Flood, but that would contradict your worldveiw, and is also why you wouldn't agree.

View Post


A flood explains nothing. An uplift however would account for the increase in gradient and fast erosion.

#11 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 17 October 2009 - 02:46 AM

If the river took millions of years to cut the canyon. Then the to of the canyon has been exposed to the weathering elements for millions of years, right?

Why do the horizontal lines from that erosion still exist? Millions of years of rain and weather should have worn away the horizontal wear to leave only vertical wear proving the millions of years that it took for that river to make the canyon. Problem is, that is not what we see.

In fact, the horizontal wear at the top is almost as deep cut as they are at the river level. Does weather wear just stop in the canyon? Did it quit raining for millions of years? I don't think so. I would post some pics that show the comparisons of the top and bottom of the canyon, but I'm not on my pc tonight. So here is a youtube video instead that shows the samething.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.c...></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.c...ofilepage&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

So do you evolutionists believe that the horizontal wearing can last for millions of years against the elements?

#12 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 17 October 2009 - 07:33 AM

A flood explains nothing.  An uplift however would account for the increase in gradient and fast erosion.

View Post


No an uplift explains nothing, a flood however would explain it all. Simply because the beginning to the end of the flood and the causes and effects would get the results that you see before you. Not wishful thinking uplifts... that don't exist.

#13 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 October 2009 - 02:15 PM

No an uplift explains nothing, a flood however would explain it all.  Simply because the beginning to the end of the flood and the causes and effects would get the results that you see before you.  Not wishful thinking uplifts... that don't exist.

View Post


An uplift explains everything. Without the uplift where does the stream gradient for erosion come from????

#14 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 18 October 2009 - 02:22 PM

An uplift explains everything.  Without the uplift where does the stream gradient for erosion come from????

View Post


A Flood... the water most likely came from the rain clouds in the sky. As the picture shows... no uplift is in the immediate area... therefore a Flood is quite possibly the answer...

If it looks like strong waters made the erosion, that water levels were higher than usual, that the ground is level, and no uplifts in the area... then yes it was most likely a flood.

If it rains like a Flood, erodes the ground like a Flood, and looks like a Flood was in the immediate area... then it probably was a Flood.

#15 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 October 2009 - 03:38 PM

A Flood... the water most likely came from the rain clouds in the sky.  As the picture shows... no uplift is in the immediate area... therefore a Flood is quite possibly the answer...

If it looks like strong waters made the erosion, that water levels were higher than usual, that the ground is level, and no uplifts in the area... then yes it was most likely a flood.

If it rains like a Flood, erodes the ground like a Flood, and looks like a Flood was in the immediate area... then it probably was a Flood.

View Post



The Grand Canyon looks like nothing like the erosion patter that would be produced by a flood. It was clearly produced by the Colorado river. So I ask again, if there was no uplift where does the stream gradient come from???

#16 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 October 2009 - 05:12 PM

The Grand Canyon looks like nothing like the erosion patter that would be produced by a flood.  It was clearly produced by the Colorado river.  So I ask again, if there was no uplift where does the stream gradient come from???

View Post

So you would claim that the spill-over theory is bogus? If this is true, explain why.

#17 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 18 October 2009 - 05:59 PM

Uniformatarism does not DISCLUDE catastrophic events - they are a known and observed phenomena and are infact part of the Uniformatarism model.

As for proving uplift then the evidence is right in front of you. Most of the rock in the Grand Canyon is composed of sedimentary rock which can only be formed at the bottom of the ocean or in shallow coastal plains.

View Post


Have you ever seen lamination in sand? I have--in an old sand pile that my neighbor left for a long time--I don't know how long--it was there when I got there. But it had layers in it--it had been dumped but never used.

Posted Image


This image is from Coolangatta Beach near Queensland Australia. The sand is not old. It is pumped there because of constant loss of the beach.Sandy Stripes


How old is this then, are we to conclude each layer is individually laid in light of the previous evidence? It is two feet but the cause is storm surge and tide, not a large flood. The point is sand laminates.

Posted Image

How would you explain the presence of sea bed rock at a height of 6,000 - 7,000ft above sea-level?

View Post

Tectonics. Flood/ tectonic hypothesis

The great depth of the Grand Canyon and especially the height of its strata (most of which formed below sea level) can be attributed to 5,000 to 10,000 feet (1500 to 3000 m) of uplift of the Colorado Plateau, starting about 65 million years ago (during the Laramide Orogeny).

View Post

Alot of creationist will include tectonic uplift in their models. The speed is just different than yours.

#18 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 20 October 2009 - 02:11 AM

The Grand Canyon looks like nothing like the erosion patter that would be produced by a flood.  It was clearly produced by the Colorado river.  So I ask again, if there was no uplift where does the stream gradient come from???

View Post


If the top portion of the Canyon was eroded away millions of years ago. Why is there only horizontal wear, and basically no vertical wear from rain etc...?

This is what vertical wear on rock looks like:
Posted Image

Notice how deep the cuts are. Now in the picture below, where is the same wear? Does horizontal wear last millions of years against rain which flows vertical?

Attached File  Compare_21.jpg   41.44KB   12 downloads

#19 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 22 October 2009 - 07:00 PM

Ikester,

Did you also notice how the wear just above the water line is greater than the wear on the walls?

#20 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 October 2009 - 07:54 PM

Ikester,

Did you also notice how the wear just above the water line is greater than the wear on the walls?

View Post

That is very interesting. The one place that uniformitarian ideas could kind of sort of apply for about 4,500 years, you suppose?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users