Rapid Canyon Formation Is Finally Admitted

Creation science journals for years have produce quite an a lot of data on the formation of the Grand Canyon and have advocated rapid formation caused by a flood. For years secular scientists denied it, claiming that the Canyon was carved out slowly over a vast period of time and anything that questioned it was religion not science.  Instead of clinging to more complexity in their ‘theory”, they accepted evidence this time as reported in physorg

“In the summer of 2002, a week of heavy rains in Central Texas caused Canyon Lake – the reservoir of the Canyon Dam – to flood over its spillway and down the Guadalupe River Valley in a planned diversion to save the dam from catastrophic failure.  The flood, which continued for six weeks, stripped the valley of mesquite, oak trees, and soil; destroyed a bridge; and plucked meter-wide boulders from the ground.”

“And, in a remarkable demonstration of the power of raging waters, the flood excavated a 2.2-kilometer-long, 7-meter-deep canyon in the bedrock.mechanics were required.”

What’s even more remarkable Science Daily claims the formation was so rapid that the Canyon was formed in three days!

“According to a new analysis of the flood and its aftermath — performed by Michael Lamb, assistant professor of geology at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), and Mark Fonstad of Texas State University — the canyon formed in just three days.”

This is another reason why a one-party closed system that formulates ideas on research based on an old time frame gets falsified more often than just on scientific advancements. Creation scientists with many years of research field experience and PHDs were way ahead of this discovery made by secular scientists with their PHDs. It’s funny how the secular scientists act like it’s so new, again they are afraid that it will turn the public more away from evolution and their funding dollars. Let’s rejoice! It’s a great day for creationism!

About these ads

15 thoughts on “Rapid Canyon Formation Is Finally Admitted

  1. Michael,

    I still want you to refute me on what I show about the bacterial flagellum. . . .

    . . . the flagellum IS NOT EVEN IRREDUCIBLE. — In 1988, G. Kuwajima was able to remove ONE-THIRD of the 497 amino acids from the flagellum, AND IT STILL WORKED PERFECTLY!!!!! . . . Also, we know that the L and the P-rings can be taken away from the flagellum, and it will STILL work. . . .

    Still waiting for a refutation . . . .

  2. While you are so happy, please answer the following outstanding questions:

    (1) Blog readership numbers ?

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

    (4) outstanding question from Upson Downes on mitochondrial Eve

    Oh, and your quotes from the science daily paper are highly selective. Here is another one:
    “We know that some big canyons have been cut by large catastrophic flood events during Earth’s history,” Lamb says.”

    So what’s new then, Michael ?

  3. Michael,

    You say:

    Creation science journals for years have produce quite an a lot of data on the formation of the Grand Canyon and have advocated rapid formation caused by a flood.

    Michael, the reason why the grand canyon is said to have been carved over 6 million years is because of 2 factors.

    1) Tectonic uplift! The plataue under the the colorodo river has been going through tectonic uplift, causing the river to cut into the earth deeper as the ground gets raised higher.

    2) A more important reason it is said to have taken a long time is because if the main feature of river erosion. — That is to say, the canyon has many V-shapes. That MEANS it WAS CARVED over a long time. . . .

    IF IT WAS CARVED over a SHORT PERIOD, then it would NOT HAVE a bunch of V-shapes. . . THE CANYON WOULD BE AN ESSENTIALLY STRAIGHT LINE!!!!

    The fact you do not know those facts shows you know next to nothing about geology.

    — And another thing, Michael, NO ONE HAS EVER SAID A CANYON CANNOT BE CARVED IN A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME!!!!!!!!!!! You are attacking a strawman. . . Canyons carved in a short time are characteristically DIFFERENT from those that were carved over long periods of time. . . I already told you the differences between them (I.e., essentially straight lines for those that took a short time, and the ones over long periods of time have V-shapes.

    EVEN THE PICTURE IN THE ARTICLE shows the flow od water which (though it shows a bit of a curve) shows that the water’s path LACKS the V-shape which the grand canyon has.

    It’s funny how the secular scientists act like it’s so new, again they are afraid that it will turn the public more away from evolution and their funding dollars.

    Do not confuse Geology for Evolution. . . . Also, those first “secular” scientists that determined the earth was much older than 6,000 were CREATIONISTS and CHRISTIANS!!! — Just to show you how unbiased the science of Geology is.

    Let’s rejoice! It’s a great day for creationism!

    Uhhh, you already proved you know nothing about geology and evolution. . . so, you really cannot say that Evolution OR geology have been debunked by a rapidly formed canyon. . . The laws of Geology DO NOT SAY that canyons cannot be formed fast.

    And as Eelco pointed out, you quote-mined the article. You left out an essential portion that completely demolishes your already non-existent case.

    As he said, the article itself says,

    Such is not always the case, however. “We know that some big canyons have been cut by large catastrophic flood events during Earth’s history,” Lamb says.

    I say, this proves you are quilty of quote-mining, and deception by omission.

  4. krissmith777 notes one persuasive set of geologic evidence that the Grand Canyon formed over a long period of time.

    There is also persuasive evidence from physics—namely that water does not flow uphill. If the Grand Canyon had been recently etched from the surface of its present location, then the water that formed it would have had to run uphill for most of its journey. Real science does not face this problem, since the lower course of the Canyon has been uplifted over millions of years, allowing the water always to flow downhill.

    Michael, how does creationism explain the uphill flow of water? We await your answer.

    Oh yeah. Actual visual inspection of the Grand Canyon will reveal—even to a creationist—that the layers along the walls are horizontal, smooth, and homogeneous, indicating that they were laid down slowly from still or slowly moving water. Should Michael care to inspect his poster-child 2.2km rapid-formed valley, he will find that the debris it deposited from the rapid flow does not form smooth horizontal layers, and that the debris is heterogeneous, with admixtures of sand, gravel, large and small rocks deposited all together.

    Michael, how does creationism explain the configuration of the layers that is inconsistent with rapid formation?

    .

    The gradual formation of the Grand Canyon does not disprove all sudden geological formations. The Washington scablands formed suddenly when an ice dam burst in a glacial lake 12,000 years ago. The Black Sea may have filled rapidly through the Bosporus 70,000 years ago. There is even some evidence that the entire Mediterranean Sea may hve filled within two years, when the Atlantic broke through Gibraltar. But theis was 5,000,000 years ago.

    It is an article of faith among creationists that anything that happened rapidly necessarily happened recently. This tenet cannot be shaken by mere reason.

  5. Creation scientists with many years of research field experience and PHDs [sic] ere way ahead of this discovery made by secular scientists with their PHDs [sic].

    Really? The perhaps you can name an oil field, a coal vein, or a mineral deposit that has been found by employing creationist principles. How about one that real geologists overlooked because thay were using falsified old-earth principles?

    After completing that task, perhaps you could explain why, if creationist PhDs are so far ahead, that they have never themselves made any of the discoveries that you tout so loudly?

    .

    It’s funny how the secular scientists act like it’s so new, again they are afraid that it will turn the public more away from evolution and their funding dollars.

    Here comes the money complaint again. See stock phrase #3 from my list of 3/22/10—

    (3) “Scientists squander millions (billions) of hard-earned (our tax) dollars on xxx research.” Fill in xxx = fossil reconstruction, cosmic background radiation, hot chicken soup, etc.]

  6. Dale,

    The traditional belief among uniformitarians for many years was that box canyons are formed slowly over time which was argued against the creationist time frame because they believed the groundwater seeped out and eroded the canyon away thus it’s formation which would mostly likely take millions of years to accomplish. Creationist scientists disagreed pointing out various observations that could not happen with a slow process. In 2008, Michael Lamb of the University of California–Berkeley concluded slow seepage could not move large boulders downstream. He also concluded it was the result from a “catastrophic outpouring of massive amounts of water in a relatively short period.”

    I’m assuming your following this comment with religious conviction…

    “Unfortunately for the YEC crowd, the total volume of material excision that is represented by the Grand Canyon will defy all but the most idiotic or foolhardy among them. I don’t have exact figures, but the discharge flow/volume rate of moving water required to carve out the canyon, on young earth timescales simply doesn’t exist, and there is no documented megaflood precedent that could even come close to camparing- and even at that at least a couple orders of magnitude too small.”

    As far as a creationist timeframe (click here)Having the Grand Canyon carved within an estimate of 3 days is well within it’s timeframe. Remember we believe the worldwide flood lasted a year. The Grand Canyon was carved out by a flood during that year but it’s likely the estimate of 3 days is not quite accurate but still a lot closer within a year than millions of years as previous believed by secularists. So who is trying to mine what? Mega floods is just another interpretation similar to gradual change in everything!

  7. That real science report, indicating the formation of a small canyon due to a local and recent flood, does not support your claim that the Grand Canyon could have been formed via the worldwide flood of Noah, because you failed to prove that the worldwide flood of Noah ever happened. That is what I call a gap of logic, and your attempt to fill it with dogmatic guesswork to keep proping up blind belief in the Bible is just pathetic. The evidence does NOT support a worldwide flood a few thousand years ago and you LIE if you claim otherwise.

    Is the Grand Canyon a straight line or a meandering one? And have you ever seen a massive flood carve out a meandering one? That only forms slowly, over millions of years! Look at the Mississippi River. Was THAT formed quickly in the Great Flood too? Rivers meander because they are old, while straight rivers exist because they are young. The Colorado River is OLD!

    Make up your mind, YECs! Was the rock layers that make up the Grand Canyon made during the flood, or was the canyon itself made back then?

  8. Michael,

    The Grand Canyon was carved out by a flood during that year but it’s likely the estimate of 3 days is not quite accurate but still a lot closer within a year than millions of years as previous believed by secularists. So who is trying to mine what? Mega floods is just another interpretation similar to gradual change in everything!

    Michael . . HAVE YOU EVEN READ MY COMMENT ON WHY THE FLOOD CANNOT HAVE CAUSED THE FORMATION OF THE CANYON?!?!?!?!?!

    No, I guess not. I already pointed out why the canyon was inconsistent with the hypothesis that was formed in a few days or weeks, or even a year.

    How can a single event explain the U-shapes and V-shapes in the canyon? This is consistent with long periods of time. — Unless the flood waters “decided” to turn over, and over again . . . IMPOSSIBLE because that’s not how it works.

    Canyons carved out in short periods of time ARE STRAIGHT LINES!, or at least ESSENTIALLY SO!!!!

    How dificult it that for you to understand? OR do you even care?

    I guess not!

    All your errors have already been pointed out. Any insistence on your part that the Grand Canyon was carved in a single event from this point would make you an intellectually dishonest liar.

  9. Michael,

    I have a question for you.

    This may seem unrelated, but . . . . What do you think of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and Ellen G. White?

  10. As far as a creationist timeframe (click here) [sic] Having the Grand Canyon carved within an estimate of 3 days is well within it’s [sic] timeframe. Remember we believe the worldwide flood lasted a year.

    You are arguing much more than a 2.2km canyon from a busted dam. You are scaling up the sudden surge of water by a factor of 4,000,000,000. You deserve horselaughs on that. Where do you get a reservoir of water more than 4 billion times as large as the reservoir in Texas, and how do you get it penned up behind an obstacle that seems to have left no trace? Why do the rock formations and types match the surrounding geology for the whole distance, rather than rocks from upstream that would have been carried downstream who9lesale by a surge? Even if this rain produced a sudden surge in some unexplained manner, how did it manage to leave nice smoth layered walls[11] for all that distance? How did the dinosaurs arranged to book seats in only certain layers, fish only in certain different layers, and trilobites in still other layers? And how did God presuade that much water to flow uphill while cutting through all those layers?

    Doesn’t work, Michael. There are dozens of reasons that you can’t scale Canyon River in central Texas up by billions of times to spit out the Grand Canyon.

    That’s what happens when you cherry pick some data and try to hide the rest. It’s a shell game. The carny directs the mark’s attention where he wants the mark to lool, so the gullible mark won’t notice the trick. Other creationists may be duped, because, like the carny’s mark, they wish to believe the ruse; but we demand that all the evidence be included in a scientific theory.

    =====================

    [1] The cit AiG page is irrelevant. It deals only with rapid formation of granite by volcanic and plutonic processes. The Grand Canyon rocks, on the other hand, are almost entirely sedimentary—limestone, sandstone, and shale in at least nine interleaved layers. Sedimentary rock, of course, is formed in a different manner, and at entirely different rates.

  11. Pingback: YEC’s Obsession on the Grand Canyon « evolution ID

  12. the fact that the grand canyon shows signs of erosion due to the ravages of time does not necessarily disprove a single event which may have occurred on a smaller scale, yet still been quite significant

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s