Grand Canyon Made By Noah's Flood, Book Says (Geologists Skewer Park For Selling Creationism)

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | January 8, 2004 | Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times

[Scenic Sounds]

How old is the Grand Canyon? Most scientists agree with the version that rangers at Grand Canyon National Park tell visitors: that the 217-mile-long chasm in northern Arizona was carved by the Colorado River 5 million to 6 million years ago.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply!

When a man can understand how a woman thinks, then a computer can be programmed to perform that function. Until then, the task is simply impossible!

LOLOL! That's a great response, Hunble!

Personally, I do not believe a computer can simulate the human mind to the point that it doesn't know it is not alive, i.e. to the point that it is alive. This goes to the underlying question which was never addressed by Darwin and is not addressed by biology to this day: What is Life?

However, that particular question has been and continues to be tackled by physicists. And some physicist/mathematicians - like Roger Penrose - have concluded that artificial intelligence can never simulate the human mind. His particular analysis is based on Godel's theorum and is addressed in a series of three books: Emperor's New Mind, Shadows of the Mind, and The Large, the Small and the Human Mind.

Essentially, the cut between those who believe it cannot be done and those who believe it can boils down to the ancient Plato v. Aristotle worldview.

IMHO, future research in consciousness will require either a new kind of physics or an expansion of the boundaries of "scientific materialism".

BTW, the subtext to the "What is Life?" question is "How did biological information emerge?" This particular question goes to the information content of DNA and therefore origins, either biogenesis or abiogenesis.

We live in very exciting times, Hunble!

[dangus]

PArdon me, I wasn't meaning to make a broad statement of all Calvinists when I said that. But I have met people Calvinists who insisted that the Earth LOOKED old to fool people who put rational observation above faith.

[Hunble]

your strawman that creationists believe nothing new has occurred since the original creation ..

Straw-man?

Did you never listened to the scientific debates when Darwin released his new theory upon the world? Before Darwin, it was KNOWN that it was impossible for an organism to change over time.

Sorry Sir, this has been the debate. When evolution has been well proved with rapidly reproducing organism (such as bacteria), then your side tries to re-define the terms.

Yes or No?

Are all organisms static since the time of Genesis, or have they changed over time?

[dangus]

>> That sounds like one heck of a water bill! ;-) >>

*Chuckle* I actually imagined putting it in the Niagara River, but relocating it a year later would be rather difficult.

[dangus]

Of course, the most sensible creationist view would be that God created the Earth with a Grand Canyon already there... except for that necessitates tha view that God is purposely fooling people.

[r9etb]

Next to my bed, I have the book "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" by Stephen Jay Gould. I must admit, that book has been difficult to read, but the factual information has been outstanding.

I haven't been able to stomach Gould since I read his "Mismeasure of Man," which I found to be little more than a political opinion in search of a scientific-sounding justification. He basically had to dispose of evolutionary theory (which would predict racial differences in intelligence) in order to make his political point (that there is no racial difference in intelligence). FWIW, studies indicate that there are identifiable genetic differences between races -- so if intelligence is a genetic trait (which under evolution it would have to be) we would not be surprised to see racial differences in intelligence.

Why is that book so difficult to read? That 1433 page book must weigh over 4 lbs and is a physical challenge to read in bed!

Cripes -- you have your choice of broken ribs or a broken nose if you ever fell asleep.....

[longshadow]

The solution to this crisis is simple: move the book to the "Humor" section of the bookstore.

[Hunble]

I will not touch this topic with a 10 foot pole.

so if intelligence is a genetic trait (which under evolution it would have to be) we would not be surprised to see racial differences in intelligence.

For an isolated population, your statement would be true.

Obviously, humans of all races are not an isolated population today.

[sr4402]

No supporting factual evidence has been presented of an occurrence of spontaneous generation.

How about Mt. St. Helen? Mt. St. Helen produced huge disruption in the ecosystem for miles around it. You remember the trees that were knocked down. Well since the earth was bare, huge mud flows carved out a smaller versions of the Grand Canyon. The Trees carried by mud, carved huge canyons, just like the grand canyon, flowed into a lake and started staturating root side down and sticking themselves in the mud at the bottom of the lake. It is expected that some of these 'trees' will turn to coal, given the presence of clay in the mud. Given heat, the process of making coal would accelerate to less than a year.

Thus you have proof positive that a climatic change event (like a mega volcano) can produce Grand Canyons and Coal beds (with coal logs sticking up in the strata).

But I imagine that even this would not be enough proof. You see, most people form their beliefs on creation/evolution based on their feelings. Having made an emotional bond with drawings of dinosaurs, many found their belief in evolution on their feelings.

Evolutionist claimed that their theory was a "Fact" and then that was supposed to settle everything.

When Apollo failed to sink into 30 feet of moondust (as prediction of millions of years of space dust failed) and Austronauts footprints were only 1/2" it was time to look into the theory some more.

But the real problem is Jesus's words "Since the time of creation" and references to Adam as well as Noah. You see that either Jesus is a liar, or decieved or he is right. If he is wrong, Christianity falls apart and there is no hope for the dead of all mankind.

So the issue is serious, and one should not look at it through the lens of ones feelings. Theories work unless they are proven false. The Moondust and Mt. St. Helens give me huge doubts about evolution. The complexity of Human Beings - immune systems, backup systems make my wife who is a nurse huge pauses.

But most of all, what the Lord Jesus Christ said about it and the utlitmate abolishment of death amke me think. You see if Death is abolished, so is evolution.

I would give this some serious thought my friend.

[r9etb]

However, that particular question has been and continues to be tackled by physicists. And some physicist/mathematicians - like Roger Penrose - have concluded that artificial intelligence can never simulate the human mind. His particular analysis is based on Godel's theorum and is addressed in a series of three books: Emperor's New Mind, Shadows of the Mind, and The Large, the Small and the Human Mind.

This is kind of where I was headed. The problem as I see it is this: we know that the human mind can (somehow) develop, because it has developed. The question becomes: how, then, did it develop? Are we to assume that it came about randomly, and by purest accident? Or are we to assume some sort of mechanistic process, which implies that by following a similar mechanistic approach we could create a human-like intelligence?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Well, it certainly wasn't Fulgur.

Note that fulgurites are named for lightening, aka fulgur, but not a geologist named Fulgur.

[Hunble]

In all honesty, I would prefer not to insult you by answering your posted statements. Item by item, my detailed reply would be an insult and I would prefer not to do so.

"It is expected that some of these 'trees' will turn to coal, given the presence of clay in the mud. Given heat, the process of making coal would accelerate to less than a year.

Do you seriously desire that I reply to your statement, which implied that trees can be converted to coal in less than a year, without saying something rather insulting?

Hopefully, your scientific research is well documented and supported by factual data?

[r9etb]

Obviously, humans of all races are not an isolated population today.

Yet there are genetically-identifiable population subgroups, roughly corresponding to the main "races" of the human species.

I will not touch this topic with a 10 foot pole.

Well, yeah -- but for an evolutionist like Gould to run away from it as he did was inexcusable. I stopped paying attention to him after that, as I could no longer trust that his "scientific" statements were not just other of his opinions masquerading as "scientific fact."

[Hunble]

That Sir, is a different subject.

I have no arguments with the concept that God had a hand in our evolution as a species.

Can I support that theory with factual data? Perhaps not, at this moment in time.

[Doctor Stochastic]

...even though they want to be taken seriously as scientists.

Here's your problem. They do not want to be taken seriously as scientists. They (and their soulbrothers, the postmoderndeconstructionists) seem to reject entire fields (astronomy, physics, biology, geology, to name a few) of science.

[tortoise]

I'm pinging tortoise now for an authoritative answer to your question.

I actually took part in an informal online teleconference between the people involved in the major research and engineering AI efforts around the world yesterday afternoon. It is how everyone finds out what everyone else is doing and what interesting things have been done, and creates a forum for people to hash out the latest arguments on theory that may be outstanding. So the question is timely and my info is fresh out of the oven.

"True AI" (which in the field is termed "AGI", and is distinct from classical "AI"), has always been theoretically feasible. The problem has always been theoretical tractability and grounding. Today, AI in the abstract is both theoretically tractable and grounded in fundamental mathematics. Five years ago, this was not the case. In essence, 20th century AI research was flying blind; there was no description of it derivable from first principles. As a consequence of sorting out the underlying theoretical premises, progress has started move quickly in the last few years. It is now an engineering problem rather than one of inadequate theory.

And to reiterate (flogging the pony here), Penrose's arguments are only applicable to axiomatic models of computation and are expressly INvalid for non-axiomatic models. Since the general mathematics of the field is now completely premised on non-axiomatic models, no one in AI is arguing axiomatic models. Axiomatic models are fundamentally broken; in that sense, Penrose is nominally correct. But most people haven't used those models since the 1990s. Axiomatic models are strawmen.

I know you like to bring up Penrose, Alamo-Girl, but it really only adds noise to the discussion, as it is not germane to the discussion of the feasibility of "true AI". From an argumentation standpoint, it is like saying that it is mechanically impossible for a car to go 150 MPH because it is mechanically impossible for a horse to go 150 MPH. Show me a current AI theory premised on axiomatic models (there are precious few and most discredited), and I'll show you a theory that Penrose's argument actually applies to. All progress in the field is being made using non-axiomatic architectures and models to which the Godel argument and in some cases even the Halting problem, do not apply. Provably so. Carefully read the assumptions that these theorems use.

[Doctor Stochastic]

He basically had to dispose of evolutionary theory (which would predict racial differences in intelligence)

Numbers on the table, please. In what way does evolutionary theory predict anything about intelligence? Show your work.

[Hunble]

Is that why people in America are demanding that all voting ballots be written in the Eskimo language?

Now that could be classified as an isolated population.

Like I said, I will not touch that subject.....

Yes, an isolated population will have it's own set of DNA induced genetics and cultural influences. That is a simple fact of life and can not be denied.

If Stephen Gould was talking about isolated populations, then he would be correct.

And your question is?

[keithtoo]

Let me address your first question. Where is the evidence of a delta in the Gulf of California to account for billions of years of Colorado river sediment outflow?

The onus is on the Evolution defenders to account for this delta, not on the Biblical Flood defenders. A quick flood would not leave a visible delta because the force of the water flow would dig a DEEPER canyon to fill in with sediment, not a long/wide and relatively shallow delta (see Nile Delta, Mississippi Delta et al). As for the plateau on which the Grand Canyon sits, the uplift could have happened after the flood, or the dammed lake which broke could merely have been at an even higher elevation and flowed thru the plateau to lower ground.

Lastly, there ARE lots of Grand Canyons all over, most of them are under water. But if you want to see huge canyon walls, just look out the window as you travel by air accross the US, you will see geological uplifts which are nothing but canyon walls, several hundred or thousand miles apart, complete with rivers through the middle of them. ie: fly from Houston or Dallas (which I periodically do) westward and you will see the uplift of the Edwards Plateau which looks for all purposes, like 'one side' of a great canyon, complete with gullies - not smooth gullies either.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Yet there are genetically-identifiable population subgroups, roughly corresponding to the main "races" of the human species.

What genetic test are avaliable to distinguish the "race" of a person? Be specific. Give both type I and type II error estimates for your proposed tests.