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.

[dangus]

>> How long does it take for sandsone to form. From personal experience with wells, about 2 years. >>

Absurd. Whatever gets made around your wells is not sandstone. Probably more like a cement.

Cement is formed when a soluble substance, like, say lime, is mixed with granules and water. The partial dissolution of the lime allows it to fill in between fine spaces of the granules. When the water evaporates, the lime bonds the granules together. Because there is no surface are exposed, the lime cannot redissolve, and a hard, insoluble, stone-like product is left. BUt if you scrub cement against another hard rock, the weak lime gives way easily, and the cement slowly crumbles away.

Sandstone, on the other hand, is caused not quickly by evaporation, but by intense pressure. Although the surcae is still granular, the grains are tightly bonded away, and the rock does not easily crumble.

>>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 land beneath the GC swelled upward WHILE it was being carved. (Unless you believe the water flooded uphill for some reason.) This was certainly a process which took millions of years. Perhaps someone misunderstood something, and then misapplied his understanding: I can see where the initial gorge was created like that, allowing the river to form a canyon, rather than as a meandering riverbed.

[Labyrinthos]

OK, then disputes over Biblical interpretation should be settled by majority vote.

A majority vote by US Senate standards would require 60%.

[r9etb]

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.

I'm not sure that's correct. Leaky's Australopithecus findings date back only about 3 million years. If he's correct about Australopithecus being an evolutionary precursor (or at least representative of pre-human evolution), then the timescale you provided represents a significant portion of the very short time over which human intelligence evolved.

Note also that current theories of evolution seem to require a very small genetic pool, such that mutations would have a greater relative effect on the population. (Large populations would tend to bury any but the very strongest mutations.) Thus, the "genetic bottleneck" of which you speak might well argue for greater variability in "intelligence."

BTW, in the discussion w/ Dr. Stochastic, I suggested that it might be reasonable to move away from "intelligence" as a measure -- it can mean too many different things -- toward something more along the lines of "task oriented" mental abilities, and one could see how the difference between, say, the Gobi Desert and equatorial Africa might well select for different mental abilities. Thus, one may well explain the preponderance of Asians in college Electrical Engineering Classes, or the preponderance of West Africans in the NBA, at least partly in terms of divergent evolutionary paths.

[js1138]

That would be fine by me. No one is allowed to make any interpretation of the Bible unless 60% of everone agrees. That would solve a lot of problems.

[dangus]

Yes, in fact the concept of speciation is, in fact, an artificial construct, useful only when talking about higher-level organisms. When dealing with asexual organisms, it's meaningless, since no two such organisms reproduce with each other!

[lugsoul]

"all part of the same worldview" - a typical response for one at the end of the road. I merely was pointing out that the study of geology in general and geological time in particular is not dependant, at all, on the tenets of natural selection i.e. "Darwinism." In fact, there is a broad gulf between biological sciences and geology. "All part of the same worldview" means nothing except that they don't agree with you.

[VadeRetro]

I'm not sure that's correct. Leaky's Australopithecus findings date back only about 3 million years. If he's correct about Australopithecus being an evolutionary precursor (or at least representative of pre-human evolution), then the timescale you provided represents a significant portion of the very short time over which human intelligence evolved.

True, but not a contradiction to what I'm saying. Australopithecus can be an ancestor and we can still all have a last common ancestor who is much more recent. That's probably exactly the case.

Note also that current theories of evolution seem to require a very small genetic pool, such that mutations would have a greater relative effect on the population.

Yes. A recent bottleneck would be a recent instance where the gene pool was small. That's what the molecular data points to.

Thus, the "genetic bottleneck" of which you speak might well argue for greater variability in "intelligence."

A bottleneck a mere 7000 or so generations back isn't much scope for genetic divergence. Not to mention that we had already, before the radiation, adopted a general strategy of meeting challenges of whatever sort by being smart and adaptible.

[general_re]

...by being smart and adaptible adaptable.

Send my peanuts via parcel post - shelled and lightly salted, if you please...

[exmarine]

That would be fine by me. No one is allowed to make any interpretation of the Bible unless 60% of everone agrees. That would solve a lot of problems.

Truth is not subject to a vote - a claim is either true or it isn't regardless of what any human being believes.

[VadeRetro]

Want a beer with these nuts?

[r9etb]

True, but not a contradiction to what I'm saying. Australopithecus can be an ancestor and we can still all have a last common ancestor who is much more recent. That's probably exactly the case.

I'm not sure I understand what you've said here. Are you saying that there is an older (> 3 million years) ancestor common to both Australopithecus and humans, or that there may be something between Australopithecus and us? Please restate to clear up my confusion....

[general_re]

Welllll, it is nearly lunchtime... ;)

[exmarine]

"all part of the same worldview" - a typical response for one at the end of the road. I merely was pointing out that the study of geology in general and geological time in particular is not dependant, at all, on the tenets of natural selection i.e. "Darwinism." In fact, there is a broad gulf between biological sciences and geology. "All part of the same worldview" means nothing except that they don't agree with you.

Please spare me your condescending sarcasm. Your anti-Christian bias is showing. The fact is that naturalist geologists and naturalists neodarwinists share some of the same presuppositions. You mentioned one - age of the earth, which relies on uniformitarianism. But that isn't the only one. They both also assume (1) there is no God, (2) all reality can be reduced to time, matter and energy (another presupposition), (3) religion is superstititious nonsense.

[VadeRetro]

Are you saying that there is an older (> 3 million years) ancestor common to both Australopithecus and humans, or that there may be something between Australopithecus and us? Please restate to clear up my confusion....

Both statements are true. Before there was Australopitecus, there was the common ancestor of all vertebrates. I'm not sure what it was, but I'm sure there was one. Something like a lamprey. Then come the common ancestor of all tetrapods, the common ancestor of all mammals, the common ancestor of all primates, the common ancestor of all apes... Our line goes way back, and for humans most of it is exactly the same until some point, center it about 150K years ago if molecular studies are right.

Now I personally like the idea that we may have some Neanderthal genes in our nuclear DNA, that earlier radiations out of Africa weren't complete genetic dead ends. Nevertheless, there's very little non-fossil evidence for it.

[js1138]

You really need a new keyboard. My own I.Q. has gone up 20 points since the FR spell checker came online. Now if I could just get it to pick the correct words and string them together into something that makes sense, I'd be a genius.

[lugsoul]

Spare me your paranoia and your unsupportable insults. I haven't said a thing about religion, and your knee-jerk blanket view that all geologists or all biologists who subscribe to the hardly debatable principles of natural selection are godless anti-Christian heathens is a profound demonstration that you haven't thought an awful lot about either side of your supposed divide. Or don't you believe that some variations of a species prevail over others? And if so, don't you think that God has a role in that beyond simply choosing an outcome from on high?

[VadeRetro]

You really need a new keyboard.

You may picture me sucking my thumb. To think I once dared dream of being a novelist!

[exmarine]

Spare me your paranoia and your unsupportable insults. I haven't said a thing about religion, and your knee-jerk blanket view that all geologists or all biologists who subscribe to the hardly debatable principles of natural selection are godless anti-Christian heathens is a profound demonstration that you haven't thought an awful lot about either side of your supposed divide. Or don't you believe that some variations of a species prevail over others? And if so, don't you think that God has a role in that beyond simply choosing an outcome from on high?

My view is not knee-jerk - it is the result of alot of reading and alot of debate. I didn't call anyone a godless heathen, but I have encountered you enough times to believe that you do have an anti-Christian bias. I might believe that in view of your support of the courts' suppression of the Free Exercise of religion under the U.S. Constitution. That gave me a clue. As for naturalists, I merely posited an accurate statement as to their worldview. Naturalists are called naturalists becuase they don't believe in a Creator. Is that true or false? Since they don't believe in a Creator, it logically follows consistently that they also believe all reality can be reduced to particles. And in my experience, naturalists, neodarwinists, evolutionary biologists, etc., do believe religion is superstitious nonsense - it is wholly consistent with the naturalist (secularist) mindset. Not a judgment just a general fact. All you have to do is look at the open HOSTILITY exhibited by naturalists toward Christians in this forum to see that.

So stop mischaracterizing my statements. Just read what I write in black and white and try to come up with a logical rebuttal. Would you like to deny that naturalists hold presuppositions that are not based on science - their own brand of "faith" if you will...

[balrog666]

OK, then disputes over Biblical interpretation should be settled by majority vote.

Aren't they? Isn't that why churches schism?

[lugsoul]

A logical rebuttal? To your use of the "anti-Christian" tag for everything that is not in total agreement with YOUR worldview? Give me a break. In your mind, anything that is not in agreement with exmarine on matters of science, faith, law or politics is automatically "anti-Christian."