nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Talk:Grand Canyon National Park (view source)
Revision as of 09:22, August 29, 2007
, 09:22, August 29, 2007→Proposed experiment for Grand Canyon formation: Feel free to try the experiment
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.[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 22:45, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
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.[[User:MylesP|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/421 this example] of a small canyon (35 metres deep—bigger than in your experiment) formed in six days. Or [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3658 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?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:22, 29 August 2007 (EDT)