Posted on 01/08/2004 7:21:37 AM PST by Scenic Sounds
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:45:24 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
No. You should check the relevant literature to see what is actually being claimed. Misstating what the scientists are saying does litte to enhance your credibility.
Here you go:
On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells, William Martin and Michael J. Russell, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, DOI 10.1098/rstb.2002.1183Feel free to point out any errors if you find any.
Most evolutionists deal with this question by running away and claiming evolution does not address the origin of life.
No, evolutionists only point out that evolution itself (as a process) does not address the ultimate origin of life when creationists make the mistake of trying to argue (implicitly or explicitly) that evolution "denies" that God could have had anything to do with the original life form(s) or that evolution can't be true for some reason if we don't know how the first life form arose.
That's when it is (correctly) pointed out that evolution as a process only comes into play when something replicates, and is not involved prior to the first replication (i.e. some other field of science -- or religion -- is going to be the place to look for how the first replicator came about).
It's like (correctly) pointing out that computer science remains valid even if we don't know/care where/how the metal in the computer originated.
How long does it take for sandsone to form. From personal experience with wells, about 2 years.
Also, the puzzle of the GC is that it cuts across and incredibly large alluvial plain, (ie... the north side is higher than the south.) There is a large amount of evidence that this was formed rapidly. Also, there seems to be a surprising amount of evidence gathered by the USGS that it was formed by a large inland lake bank failure and was created in as little as three months to a year. The "official" USGS story is still the old one though. What hurts the new theory is that it is applied by some to confirm the Noah's flood. Anyway, the GC may not be all that old (geologically speaking.) Or, if old, could have been formed instantaneously on a geological timescale.
"Has anyone actually conducted this experiment? How much of the water was eroded in one year? "
=====================================================
What? Water get's polluted...And I know it freezes and evaporates...but how does water itself "erode".
BTW....if I'm not mistaken...scientists from all over the world were amazed at how fast the landscape changed dramatically in the days, weeks, months, years after Mt. St. Helens exploded.
Seems...if I remember correctly that many were forced to re-examine their theories and timelines on erosion, canyon formation/creation..etc..etc....
FWIW--
Thank you so much. I really love it when an evolutionist gets high and mighty. You are a virtual fountain of condescension and are only engaging in what is an inevitable response at some point. (e.g. when you disagree, sink to insults.)
I will allow that much of what is bandied around by most people is flawed on either side of this discussion.
Since you are so wise in the ways of science, perhaps you could further elucidate me. Where would you place the trilobite, taxonomically speaking? Would this ancient creature be near the bottom due to its age, or near the top due to its complexity?
Is an exceedingly imprecise and therefore not a particularly useful expression in either Theology or Science. A billion years ago today? or yesterday? or last week? or last year? or: "A billion years ago a millions years ago"? I can't wrap my mind around such vague knowledge but isn't the stupefication of the innocent the objective?
I am not sure I agree with you about calling Genesis all lies, however, I do agree with you that it certainly does not fit the observed evidence.
Sigh, gone for a while and miss all the fun.
Oh really? How so? Be specific please.
And ignorant restatings of what you "heard" do not count.
How much and to what level of big bang cosmology, general relativity, stellar evolution, and planetary formation are you familiar with?
I need to know to gauge my response.
Note: I cannot respond until later tonight, I am in the middle of a test. Just popped on for a sec.
Generally we look for correlations in areas where we already suspect a causal relationship. Anyone who has inhaled smoke would suspect it of causing damage. The trick is to find the kind of smoke that has a good correlation to damage. It does not take a rocket scientist to suspect that quantity and frequency of inhaled smoke would correlate with the amount of damage.
On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells,
I said demonstrate, not present a hypothesis. Heck, the Bible is a hypothesis.
You don't have to worry that RadioAstronomer will be giving you any "ignorant restatings." He's the real thing. He's not kidding when he asks you: "How much and to what level of big bang cosmology, general relativity, stellar evolution, and planetary formation are you familiar with? I need to know to gauge my response.". When you chat with freepers like RA, you're not in a bull session with the boys at the saw mill. We are fortunate to have him here.
I have never seen this exchange on Free Republic. Usually some arrogant evolutionist makes fun of somebody's position on the origin of life but when the evolutionist is asked their position on the origin of life they dive for the tall grass claiming, like Homey the Clown, "evolution don't play that"
Most often you will see Evolutionist's interjecting evolution into a cosmology debate when in fact evolution has nothing to say about cosmology.
What evolutionary theory seems to say now is that humanity, for all its outward differences, isn't very genetically diverse at all. By most molecular measures we're the fruits of a rather recent radiation out of Africa. Our ancestry was genetically bottlenecked some 100-200K years back. Thus, differences between subgroups in average intelligence might exist but should not be large. There hasn't been time.
So, you're claim is that someone pops in from time to time and zaps new species into existence? This is neither scientific nor Biblical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.