Difference between revisions of "Talk:Grand Canyon National Park"

Revision as of 18:09, August 12, 2011

I don't understand the point of these article stubs that do nothing more then tell us that the world was created by god. We already know that, now let's have some real facts. Until this site starts to have actual information about things it will be useless as a source of information

Bill M just removed some facts, so I am putting them back. Why the change? Is something not correct? RSchlafly 10:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

geology is NOT evolution!

How many times are we going to see this? Evolution refers to a BIOLOGICAL theory about the ascent (or descent if you prefer) of species of life. Today, it is generally understood as referring to Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as neo-Darwinism. It has nothing whatsoever to do with theories or concepts of Geology and Geography, that is, to do with stones, earth, erosion, canyons, oceans, mountains, and suchlike. No geologist believes that Planet Earth "evolved", because Earth is not a living thing, and geological formations, like mountains, seas, etc do not reproduce and therefore are not subject to natural selection pressures the way living things are.

It would be quite possible for a geologist to be an old-world creationist, so obviously, one can hold that the Grand Canyon is millions of years old, and was formed primarily by erosion, without being an "evolutionist". Can we get that straight once and for all? MylesP 21:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

As far as the definition of "evolution" is concerned, see Definitions of evolution, where you will see that it can be used to refer to things other than biological evolution. (To paraphrase, how many times are we going to see this denial that evolution can mean something other than biological evolution?) However, that may not apply so much for "evolutionist", and just because one wording is correct doesn't mean that it's the best wording, so I agree in this case and have changed it. Philip J. Rayment 03:07, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Proposed experiment for Grand Canyon formation

I don't know if I am the first person to suggest this, but in the interest of impartial scientific inquiry, I would like to propose a small scientific experiment to test the two theories of how the Grand Canyon formed. These theories, very briefly alluded to in the article, are as follows.

1. Secular geological theory. Rocks of Grand Canyon are around 2 billion years old. Earth is slowly being lifted in region. River carries small sandy sediment, and this acts as tiny abraders. Over a period of 6 million years, river has cut out Canyon via very gradual erosion, spoonfuls of stuff per day.

2. Biblical Geological theory. Earth created about 6 thousand years ago. When God drowned world on account of human sinfulness about 4,500 years ago in a massive but brief flood, Grand Canyon was created via torrents of water carrying boulders the size of dump trucks which smashed and gouged millions of tons of rubble out of what is now the Canyon, in a matter of days.

Now an experiment to test the predictive power of the two ideas. First build two small water courses, using simple hoses and gentle paths down which the water can flow. The two setups should be as alike one another as possible. They need be only about say 40 feet long and 3 feet across. These are rivers in miniature. Now we allow one river to carry small amounts of sand and silt and we measure the erosion rate after a year. With the other “river”, we get a powerful fire hose, and give it a 30 second blast, powerful enough to send house bricks flying down the torrent. Now, we compare the after-effects. Which one more closely resembles the Grand Canyon? Do the two effects, one very brief and violent, the other long and subtle, REALLY produce effects that could be mistaken one for another? Well, what concerns me is that the YEC crowd never seem to have these kinds of ideas, even though they CLAIM to be scientific, and they claim that Biblical accounts can be proved. Well here’s your chance. Try it and come back and tell us what happened.

Let me give you a clue. Let us suppose a recipe said “Simmer on low heat for two hours”, and Holy Joe decided to save time and nuked it for 1 second at 1000 degrees, on the grounds that the higher heat should be compensated for by the shorter time, so that you will get your mouth-watering stew after only a second instead of waiting for a whole two hours. Now, Holy Joe takes off the lid of the saucepan, and a pall of black smoke emanates. Imagine his surprise when he looks down and sees a toffee-like mass of burning gunk! Well! Holy Joe was certainly surprised, but are we, my fellow scientists? So, while I will not pre-empt a verdict on the two water courses experiment, I should nevertheless warn you that the results of gradual erosion on a microscopic level over long periods of time, MIGHT just not come the SAME THING as putting 40000 gallons down there for 30 seconds. Nevertheless, I am sure that “Creation Science” being a well-endowed body, and ever so sincerely interested in “science” will provide the small funding necessary to set up this experiment and then pursue this line of enquiry with enthusiasm and honesty.MylesP 22:45, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

What biased tripe!

Okay, now that I've put you off-side ( :-) ), I'll add that the experiment itself is probably a fair idea (although I think the test area might be a bit undersized for a fire hose).

No, my concern is that you are trying to put the onus on creationists for this. To paraphrase your comments, what concerns me is that the secular crowd never seem to have these kinds of ideas, even though they CLAIM to be scientific, and they claim that their secular accounts can be proved. (In contrast, by the way, to the YECs who do not claim that their ideas can be proved. Rather, they point out the impossibility of scientifically observing and testing unique historical events, and argue that the evidence is more consistent with the Biblical account, not that they can prove the biblical account.) You also have the chance. Try it and come back and tell us what happened.

I'd agree that the results of gradual erosion on a microscopic level over long periods of time might not have the same results of a lot of water very quickly. But your presumption that the small amount over a long time can produce the results that we see is not supported by any observations or experiments.

Furthermore, your inference that "Creation Science" is "well endowed" is laughable. It's secular geology, not flood geology, that gets government grants and other funding for research. Compared to secular ideas, creationist ideas get a drop in the Grand Canyon, to coin a phrase.

However, that's not the end of it. Although I know of no such experiments, I do know of observations that support the YEC position. See for example this example of a small canyon (35 metres deep—bigger than in your experiment) formed in six days. Or Engineer's Canyon, one fortieth the size of the Grand Canyon, formed in one day. Now please point me to observations of canyons forming over millions of years.

Can't, can you?

Philip J. Rayment 05:22, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

It's kind of funny, I was reading about the Grand Canyon here on conservapedia, and had the same idea for an experiment. I don't have the time or money or space to do it, however. I did search the Institute for Creation Science's website, but didn't find any papers about an actual experiment, just papers on the problems with radioisotope dating rocks in the Grand Canyon or what have you. Now, to clear up a couple misconceptions about science. In science, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. You claim that the Grand Canyon was formed in a giant flood, the burden of proof is on you. That's just how science works. Secular geologists don't have run around disproving every hypothesis you put forward. (I was really hoping I would find that the Institute for Creation Research would of done an experiment similar to this) Also, science doesn't prove anything. Science can't prove anything. Again, that just isn't how science works.

Anyways, in the article you provided about the Burlingame Canyon, it says that it was carved out of "rather soft sand and clay". In the article about Engineer's Canyon it says it was carved out of "earlier pyroclastic deposits", in other words, soft volcanic ash. But, the Grand Canyon was largely carved out of much stronger sedimentary rocks, such as limestone and sandstone. So, the two events just aren't comparable to the formation of the Grand Canyon because their compositions are so radically different. If you can find a canyon that was carved out of solid rock approximating that of the Grand Canyon, in a relatively short amount of time and with conditions approximating the flood (even if on a much smaller scale), you would be going a long way in showing that the Grand Canyon could of been formed in a global, catastrophic flood. Until then, I'm just going to have to remain unconvinced.

Aurix 13:14, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

You're absolutely correct...science can't prove anything. Like the belief that the Grand Canyon or anything else on earth was formed over the course of billions of years. As to the Great Flood doing it, here's the experiment you can perform at home: take multiple buckets of different kinds of earth, wet them down, and throw them on top of each other; sink the whole under water for a time; then raise it and run a garden hose through the center, pretending it's drainage from the flood waters. Let dry. You're little thingy in the back yard is going to look an awful like a canyon. Karajou 13:21, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

I don't doubt that you could form a canyon out of soft, wet earth relatively quickly. What I do doubt is that you can form a canyon out of hard rock (such as that found in the Grand Canyon) relatively quickly. Aurix 13:47, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

And who says the rock was hard when the water drained away? Every layer of rock seen on both sides of that canyon was laid down by water, and it certainly was not rock when it was laid down. Karajou 13:49, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

Are you saying the flood carved the Grand Canyon out of hard rock that already existed in the area by softening it? Or that the flood deposited around a mile of sediments in the area, and then carved the Grand Canyon out of that and then those sediments hardened? Or something else? Can you be more specific about the timeline of events that happened to form the Grand Canyon? Aurix 14:28, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

I think you better read again what I said above. Karajou 02:27, 27 March 2010 (EDT)

I have, and I'm not trolling or anything, but I honestly can't imagine how the flood would carve the Grand Canyon and create all the observed phenomena (stratified rock, U-turns, sheer cliff faces, etc). Maybe there should be a section in the article about how the Grand Canyon was formed? Because I don't think I've read about the exact process from a creationist viewpoint before, and creationists do bring the Grand Canyon up a lot, so, I think it would be important. Aurix 08:34, 27 March 2010 (EDT)

What?

The theory of creationism doesn't necessarily ride on the great flood creating the Grand Canyon and other geographical features. Why harm your credibility by making such ludicrous claims? Do you realize the amount of force that would be required to form the Grand Canyon all at once?--Jab512 11:42, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

You mean, like God? God is a lot of force. JohnMcL 11:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

And do you realize how unstable the Grand Canyon would be if it happened all at once like this article claims? And the area around it? All of the evidence points to a gradual formation due to erosion. The only evidence this article uses to support its theory seem to be the questions of somebody who doesn't know very much about the subject. No hard data. Just questions. Again, why harm the credibility of creationism by making these claims?--Jab512 15:36, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Going by what the Bible says hardly hurts the claims of creationists. It only strengthens them. JohnMcL 15:40, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

The Bible says that the flood formed the Grand Canyon? Where? Even if it does though, if it were true there would be evidence of it, which there isn't. So if it really does say that i guess it hurts the Bible's credibility--Jab512 20:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

The Grand Canyon is obviously a hole in the ground punched out by the immense pressure of water, like an ocean basin. The canyon's shape is nothing like the winding shape of the Colorado River that evolutionists pretend carved it over an absurd number of years.--Andy Schlafly 00:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Do you really think the river has been the same shape for an "absurd number of years"? It doesn't take very long at all for a river to change course, and over the course of many many years it can very easily make the shape of the Grand Canyon. Do you realize the damage a "punch" of that magnitude would cause to the entire earth?--Jab512 14:09, 12 August 2011 (EDT)