AZ State Senator: Earth is 6,000 years old...

[headscratcher4]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/08/az-state-senate-earth-6000/

[alexi_drago]

I take it she doesn't believe in the grand canyon.

[Marduk]

Is that the same grand canyon that creationists claim was formed by Noahs flood.
Not only is the Canyon a testimony to the Creator, but it also presents evidence of God’s judgment of the world. It was a judgment by water of a world broken by sin. The Canyon gives us a glimpse of the effects and scale of a catastrophic global flood, the biblical Flood of Noah’s day.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1222gc.asp

:D
Made me laugh, she says she wants to mine uranium so that her granchildren can have the same lifestyle that she has, thats progress eh. She must love living under the threat of fundemental religious terrorism, perhaps she doesn't realise that her attitude is half the problem. could someone tell her, I'd like to see the look on her face when someone explains to her why shes a fundementalist

[alexi_drago]

Is that the same grand canyon that creationists claim was formed by Noahs flood.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1222gc.asp


Well ok, so a 40 day flood exposed billions of years worth of laid down rock.

[ravdin]

I was arguing with a creationist not too long ago who had all kinds of crazy ideas- but when we talked about the age of the earth, he had no problem whatsoever with the idea of our planet being billions of years old. The notion of the earth only being a few thousand years old was too absurd even for him. Maybe he should move to Arizona and run for her seat?

[blutoski]

I take it she doesn't believe in the grand canyon.

On the contraray: she probably took a [Creationist Canyon Tour (http://www.nwcreation.net/grandcanyon.html#tours)].

[alexi_drago]

On the contraray: she probably took a [Creationist Canyon Tour (http://www.nwcreation.net/grandcanyon.html#tours)].


Several organizations and ministries (http://www.nwcreation.net/groupcreation.html) provide trips each year to the Grand Canyon for rafting and hiking with instructors that can describe the geology of the canyon formation.


I'm afraid to ask this but how do they describe the geology of the canyon formation?

[Marduk]

Well ok, so a 40 day flood exposed billions of years worth of laid down rock.

of course, it wasn't normal water, it was gods water
:p

[headscratcher4]

I'm afraid to ask this but how do they describe the geology of the canyon formation?


Lots and lots of water over a very short period of time...say 40 days...will displace lots of soil.

[MG1962]

I was watching a doco about the flood the other day with my wife. In all seriousness the narrator explained that the latest theory suggests that enormous amounts of water vapour were held high in the atmosphere. Then said, due to unknown causes using unknown mechanisms, the water suddenly fell on the earth

Took me 5 minutes to clean all the Mountain Dew I sprayed from my nose across the TV screen. I have never heard a 'guess' described in those terms before :))

[alexi_drago]

of course, it wasn't normal water, it was gods water
:p

I'm fine with that bit, a 40 day flood'll do that. It's just the 1 or 2 billion years worth of deposited rock that's there that I'm curious about.

[MG1962]

I'm fine with that bit, a 40 day flood'll do that. It's just the 1 or 2 billion years worth of deposited rock that's there that I'm curious about.

Ohh stop asking awkward questions :p

[I Ratant]

I was watching a doco about the flood the other day with my wife. In all seriousness the narrator explained that the latest theory suggests that enormous amounts of water vapour were held high in the atmosphere. Then said, due to unknown causes using unknown mechanisms, the water suddenly fell on the earth

Took me 5 minutes to clean all the Mountain Dew I sprayed from my nose across the TV screen. I have never heard a 'guess' described in those terms before :))
.
The "vapor canopy" theory is pretty old.
What it fails to accommodate is how water is suspended in the atmosphere.
And how much water there would have be up there to provide the depth of the Flood.
The air pressure needed to keep that amount of water above the surface is so high, the temperature that would go along with it would prevent life itself from forming.
The thickness of the clouds that water in the form of vapor would "create" would change the sunlight getting to the surface of earth... to none!
And those clouds would change the albedo of the planet from an absorbing blue-green-brown to a totally reflecting white.
IOW, life would not be possible with the "vapor canopy".

[FreshHat]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/08/...te-earth-6000/

I chuckled quietly to myself, imagining the guy in the powder blue blazer was either doubled over in laughter, or maybe retching at the sheer stupidity of the comment.

[desertyeti]

We get the politicians we deserve.
With the average person here in the US being about as poorly educated in science as a medieval farmer, it's not too surprising that numbskulls like this senator (and governors like "Bobby" Jindal, Sarah Palin, George Bush, etc.) are the ones in control of making and passing laws.
If given a choice between hard-earned knowledge and quick-fix ignorance...guess which way the majority goes?

[Vanda]

This woman was also one of the sponsors of the recent AZ Abortion Bill 2564 vetoed several times by Napolitano, but expected to be signed soon by our current governor.

Among other things, the proposed bill grants healthcare providers, hospitals, and pharmacists who object on “moral or religious grounds” the right to refuse to “facilitate or participate in the provision of an abortion, abortion medication, emergency contraception or any medication or device intended to inhibit or prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum.” They also took the time to change the language of the current legislation from “fetus” to “unborn child.”

So much for assuming that religious beliefs don’t really affect other critical thinking skills or that people can keep their beliefs separate from every thing else they do in the world.

[Yeggster]

Sad in of itself .. but a crime when considering the position of power this fool holds :(

[Stellafane]

Ironically, her argument would be stronger if she dropped the creationist stuff. She seems to be saying the planet survived just fine for a long time (6,000 years) without environmental laws. But wouldn't four billion years of survival be orders of magnitude more impressive?*

*I fully recognize her whole argument is stupid; I'm just sayin'.

[Lucian]

.
The "vapor canopy" theory is pretty old.
What it fails to accommodate is how water is suspended in the atmosphere.
And how much water there would have be up there to provide the depth of the Flood.
The air pressure needed to keep that amount of water above the surface is so high, the temperature that would go along with it would prevent life itself from forming.
The thickness of the clouds that water in the form of vapor would "create" would change the sunlight getting to the surface of earth... to none!
And those clouds would change the albedo of the planet from an absorbing blue-green-brown to a totally reflecting white.
IOW, life would not be possible with the "vapor canopy".

I also recently saw a program on The Flood (don't know if it was the same one MG1962 saw). Despite being on the "History" Channel, it actually included sane people explaining the problems with the different flood theories, including the vapor canopy. As I recall, after the vapor canopy came the idea that, on or about the 3rd day of creation, when God separated the whatsit from the thingy, somehow a bunch of water got caught under the surface of the earth (God's really not very good at creating stuff, is he?). At the time of the flood, all the geysers of the world began spewing simultaneously. Then a real scientist sort of guy explained that that wouldn't produce enough water. "It would be kinda cool, though," he said.

[I Ratant]

The amount of heat required to evaporate all that fallen water would also incinerate everything alive on the planet at the time.
Where at -is- all that water?
It's like every other physically examinable claim in the book.. Joshua's long day, the parting of the Red Sea, Jonah in the "fish", the rainbow... none of these are supportable with the realities we know today.
Even Exodus itself fails any examination using contemporary records .

[Skeptic Ginger]

Cool! Phil has been named as a source on ThinkProgress. :D Must have been from a blog entry.

Yep, here it is. (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/06/arizona-is-6000-years-old/)

And here's where Phil saw it. (http://www.astroengine.com/?p=5875)

Who got it from MrGuilt on Twitter. (http://twitter.com/MrGuilt)
(Geese, who would bother reading through such stuff?) Guess he twits directly with AstroEngine:@astroengine Still plenty of stupidity to go around...it's been around for 6000 years, after all: http://digg.com/u17SJL1:08 PM Jul 6th from twhirl in reply to astroengine


OK, now that's weird. The Digg link is dead (scrolled off the current page) so I searched for it and found instead a link to the Digg story which is really a link to the BA's blog (http://digg.com/search?s=arizona).

So Digg gets a story from the BA, Mr Guilt passes it on via twitter to AstroEngine where phil gets the story and posts it on his blog. Weeeiiirrd.



I wonder if the people in the meeting said anything or even noticed the problem.

[themusicteacher]

This just in:

An Arizona state senator who appears to be 7000 years old claims the Earth is only 6000 years old. More at eleven.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Olbermann put the State Senator on as worst person but he messed up on the science of radioisotope dating. Like many people, Olbermann seems to think all isotope dating is done with carbon isotopes.

[Wangler]

We get the politicians we deserve.
With the average person here in the US being about as poorly educated in science as a medieval farmer, it's not too surprising that numbskulls like this senator (and governors like "Bobby" Jindal, Sarah Palin, George Bush, etc.) are the ones in control of making and passing laws.
If given a choice between hard-earned knowledge and quick-fix ignorance...guess which way the majority goes?

This is an excellent point...a poorly educated electorate is the reason we have a democrat controlled congress and a democrat for president.

You hit the nail on the head!

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm fine with that bit, a 40 day flood'll do that. It's just the 1 or 2 billion years worth of deposited rock that's there that I'm curious about.

Because the rock wasn't laid down in 2 "billion" years silly. It was laid down during the churning turbid portion of the flood and then the canyon was carved out during the receeding of the waters portion. It's simple if you think about it make stuff up ad hoc.

[gambling_cruiser]

Yahweh was unhappy with mankind and drunk to much beer, he had that mighty pressure in his bladder and ... after getting sober he regreted the mess he had made and promised to not do it again.:D

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is an excellent point...a poorly educated electorate is the reason we have a democrat controlled congress and a democrat for president.

You hit the nail on the head!Cause we all know Bush and his anti-science minions were really so well informed. :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E

[dudalb]

Olbermann put the State Senator on as worst person but he messed up on the science of radioisotope dating. Like many people, Olbermann seems to think all isotope dating is done with carbon isotopes.

Ouch.
I have come of the opinion that the Scientific Literacy of ANY Celeb should be suspect until proven otherwise.

[Uncayimmy]

I live in Phoenix, Arizona. We know the Earth is only 6,000 years old because Sheriff Joe (http://www.arpaio.com/)tells us so. He was there when it all started, and he never lies. Alright, maybe he didn't actually say it, but if he said it, people in Phoenix would believe him.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ouch.
I have come of the opinion that the Scientific Literacy of ANY Celeb should be suspect until proven otherwise.And now Ed Schultz (also MSNBC) disappointingly said the Earth was one billion years old instead of 4.5 while reporting on the same story.

I would have expected better of both of them. Don't their staff do any fact checking?

[Subduction Zone]

Cause we all know Bush and his anti-science minions were really so well informed. :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E

skeptigirl, only 3 out of 10 Republicans said they did not believe in evolution. That is much better than the at least 40% average for the U.S. as a whole. The only Republican of any note that did not believe was Mike Huckabee.

[Skeptic Ginger]

skeptigirl, only 3 out of 10 Republicans said they did not believe in evolution. That is much better than the at least 40% average for the U.S. as a whole. The only Republican of any note that did not believe was Mike Huckabee.You need more examples? No problem, they are not hard to find. How many do you want?

Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush.html)WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 - A sharp debate between scientists and religious conservatives escalated Tuesday over comments by President Bush that the theory of intelligent design should be taught with evolution in the nation's public schools.

In an interview at the White House on Monday with a group of Texas newspaper reporters, Mr. Bush appeared to endorse the push by many of his conservative Christian supporters to give intelligent design equal treatment with the theory of evolution.

Recalling his days as Texas governor, Mr. Bush said in the interview, according to a transcript, "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught." Asked again by a reporter whether he believed that both sides in the debate between evolution and intelligent design should be taught in the schools, Mr. Bush replied that he did, "so people can understand what the debate is about."

... On Tuesday, the president's conservative Christian supporters and the leading institute advancing intelligent design embraced Mr. Bush's comments while scientists and advocates of the separation of church and state disparaged them. At the White House, where intelligent design has been discussed in a weekly Bible study group, Mr. Bush's science adviser, John H. Marburger 3rd, sought to play down the president's remarks as common sense and old news. "Common sense and old news", yet Marburger apparently knew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marburger) full well that wasn't common sense. n February 2005, while serving as the the Science Adviser to President Bush, in a speech at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers, he stated, "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory." and "I don't regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topic."(Note: There is no Wiki reference cited for the comment.)

[Subduction Zone]

skeptigirl, you emboldened the most important part of Bush's response. He said "both sides ought to be properly taught". To properly teach the IDiots side they should heavily refer to the Dover trial where it was clearly shown that ID is not a science, but rather religion. In fact I wish everybody was exposed to the Dover trial, it would show them many of the flaws in ID and also give students a good basic grasp of evolution.

[shadron]

Ouch.
I have come of the opinion that the Scientific Literacy of ANY Celeb should be suspect until proven otherwise.

Johnny Carson and Steve Allen seemed to have it together. I think that the attitude of scientific skepticism and fame are pretty much orthogonal and independent characteristics.

[shadron]

It seems a real pity that science subjects seem to be only fit for discussion during Bible study in the Bush White House.

[shadron]

skeptigirl, only 3 out of 10 Republicans said they did not believe in evolution. That is much better than the at least 40% average for the U.S. as a whole. The only Republican of any note that did not believe was Mike Huckabee.

Gov. Brownback and Sen. Tancredo weren't Republicans of note? I presume that Republicans (which party made its own rules about how to nominate a president from that party) only want "men of note" among those who are trying to become the president of the US.

[Marduk]

I'm fine with that bit, a 40 day flood'll do that. It's just the 1 or 2 billion years worth of deposited rock that's there that I'm curious about.



satan did that, and fossils

[Corsair 115]

I was watching a doco about the flood the other day with my wife. In all seriousness the narrator explained that the latest theory suggests that enormous amounts of water vapour were held high in the atmosphere. Then said, due to unknown causes using unknown mechanisms, the water suddenly fell on the earth


I assume they offered a similar explanation as to why the refraction of light only began happening after the Flood...

[ponderingturtle]

I'm fine with that bit, a 40 day flood'll do that. It's just the 1 or 2 billion years worth of deposited rock that's there that I'm curious about.

That was the flood too. See the flood laid down the rock and then cut through it as the waters receeded after the flood was over.

See all creationist geology is about the flood, as it is the answer to everything.

[shadron]

Johnny Carson and Steve Allen seemed to have it together. I think that the attitude of scientific skepticism and fame are pretty much orthogonal and independent characteristics.

Except for the Scientology effect, because they particularly seek out celebs.

[hokie]

Skeptigirl I live in an overwhelmingly Democratic area that is heavy in to Creationism. You're simply making a mistake in tying two unrelated issues together.

[shadron]

Skeptigirl I live in an overwhelmingly Democratic area that is heavy in to Creationism. You're simply making a mistake in tying two unrelated issues together.

???

[Robster, FCD]

A 40 day flood? Lots of rain? Why aren't there new grand canyons being carved all over the planet on a yearly basis?

Apparently, creationists are as just as ignorant of monsoons as certain nomadic tribesmen from several thousand years ago.

[hokie]

Robster are you aware of the new canyon that was carved out in Texas? I believe The canyon was formed during the drainage of a dam.

[Subduction Zone]

Gov. Brownback and Sen. Tancredo weren't Republicans of note? I presume that Republicans (which party made its own rules about how to nominate a president from that party) only want "men of note" among those who are trying to become the president of the US.

I was specifically referring to people who had even half a chance to win the last Republican nomination for President. Technically you could not even be in that debate unless you were of some "note", by the way was Ron Paul there?

[Subduction Zone]

???

Skeptigirl was making to strong of a connection between being a Republican and being a cretinist, oops creationist. I would like to see a poll that combined political party membership with belief in evolution or creationism. Since there seems to be a connection in being poor and believing in creationism, and certain Christian sects and believing in creationism and along with that general conservatism. I am sure there are other conservatives that believe evolution is a fact and liberal democrats that believe in creationism. It just seems that the foolish Republicans that believe in creationism can't keep their mouths shut. And democrats that do believe in that nonsense are too afraid to open their mouths.

[Valiss]

A politcian that seemingly wants to reinforce the moronic politician sterotype. Ug... I guess it's just too easy. There needs to be a test before one can run for an office.

[Ferguson]

???

[anecdote alert]

It's actually not quite as absurd as it might sound, I have a few personal friends as well as a few family members who profess to be "very liberal" but believe the world is only 6,000 years old, the two are not mutually exclusive.
You could argue they aren't "true liberals," but one couple I've known for a few years is firmly pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, pro-social-programs, and are registered democrats, but will shut me up if I mention anything about evolution or a recent science article I read (that contradicts genesis or "invokes" evolution).

Of course, I doubt these people are any kind of majority, but they certainly exist. I find it hard to believe that hokey's area is majority creationist, but I can see how one might end up with that perception (due to the volume with which creationists tend to shout their beliefs). One of my uncle's drives an SUV plastered with bumper stickers, half are endorsing democratic candidates or making fun of republicans, and the other half are about Jesus and making fun of evolution.

[/anecdote alert]

While Republican party policy has (apparently) been hijacked by religious interests and the Democratic party policy is (apparently) more dedicated to secular ideas, that doesn't mean atheist Republicans and religious Democrats somehow don't exist, though they are most likely not the majority of their respective parties.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Robster are you aware of the new canyon that was carved out in Texas? I believe The canyon was formed during the drainage of a dam.

I live in Texas, am deeply engaged in the Crevo debate and I have never heard of such. Care to elaborate?

[hokie]

Ferguson is quite correct that I do not have hard evidence that the area has a majority believing in creationism. What we do know is that it is hard to characterize who should be counted. Definitions can differ and the way people answer a wide range of questions about creationism has a large range. Polls often show 1`/3 to 1.2 of the people in the US believing in some form of creationism.

Take a look here to see the differing results from different polls:
http://ncseweb.org/rncse/24/5/creationists

So having claimed that the numbers can be rather fuzzy and being unable to prove my claim I simply point out that the Mega-Creationist festival is held nearby, churches hire speakers to fly in, and people go to those talks. I was introduced to one of the meetings by a salesman at a store openly and apparently with the blessing of the store to tell people about one of the talks.

[hokie]

Hi Unrepentent sinner.

Here is a link http://www.swri.org/9what/releases/2007/flocar.htm

Having lived in Texas myself I think this is a reputable research group.

Here is a link to photos http://www.cceo.org/

This is no Grand Canyon, but it does show that water can be an active cutting agent especially in soft rock.

It's my understanding that the existence of the canyon was kept quiet to allow researchers access to the area without dealing with crowds. Might be why you were unaware of this.

[Skeptic Ginger]

skeptigirl, you emboldened the most important part of Bush's response. He said "both sides ought to be properly taught". To properly teach the IDiots side they should heavily refer to the Dover trial where it was clearly shown that ID is not a science, but rather religion. In fact I wish everybody was exposed to the Dover trial, it would show them many of the flaws in ID and also give students a good basic grasp of evolution.You point out the problem, ID is just the big lie of the Christians who want ID/Creationism taught in school science classes.

THERE IS NO "BOTH SIDES" to be taught. There is no scientific evidence supporting ID/Creationism, and there is no scientific controversy over evolution theory.

All science is open to evidence supported theories whether they conflict with current concepts or not. But you don't teach crap just because people desperate for science to support their world view claim evidence backs up their beliefs.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl I live in an overwhelmingly Democratic area that is heavy in to Creationism. You're simply making a mistake in tying two unrelated issues together.The Democratic Party did not join forces with the Evangelicals. But the fact is, the Evangelicals married the Republicans in an unholy alliance.

No one is saying all Democrats are intelligent atheists. Nor are all Republicans pleased with the takeover of their party by the religious fanatics.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Robster are you aware of the new canyon that was carved out in Texas? I believe The canyon was formed during the drainage of a dam.A mile deep (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/AllenMa.shtml) is it?

[Skeptic Ginger]

See Table 8 (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581) for the 2005 Harris Interactive Poll of belief by Party affiliation and self IDed political philosophy.

[hokie]

A mile deep is it?
Thanks for misrepresenting my statement and taking this issue out of context. It fits with other poor statements you have made.

Since it appears you have little interest in followin the thread let me point out that my statement was in response to a claim that 40 days was too short a time to create a canyon. I specifically stated that this was no Grand Canyon.

What I pointed out that it is possible to carve a canyon, a term used by the scientific literature - not my choice, in a short period of time.

Please read the threads and take the time to become educated.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thanks for misrepresenting my statement and taking this issue out of context. It fits with other poor statements you have made.

Since it appears you have little interest in followin the thread let me point out that my statement was in response to a claim that 40 days was too short a time to create a canyon. I specifically stated that this was no Grand Canyon.

What I pointed out that it is possible to carve a canyon, a term used by the scientific literature - not my choice, in a short period of time.

Please read the threads and take the time to become educated.Please clarify your posts without all the insults. Next post like this one gets reported.

[Olowkow]

The flood just cut into a fault. So what? Water has been carving, cutting and eroding for millions of years.
Make it billions!

[hokie]

Skeptigirl please take the time to read before you post.

[hokie]

Olowkow I am not supporting any particular position. Rather I am pointing out an interesting event that was purposely kept off the radar by the researchers that wanted to observe the area.

Your question is "So what?" The point is that a canyon can be cut in a relatively short period of time, not thousands of years or billions.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl please take the time to read before you post.:i:
After re-reading the sequence, it would appear you began the exchange by misreading the context of Robster's post.


Here is the sequence in question, emphasis mine:
A 40 day flood? Lots of rain? Why aren't there new grand canyons being carved all over the planet on a yearly basis?

Apparently, creationists are as just as ignorant of monsoons as certain nomadic tribesmen from several thousand years ago.Robster are you aware of the new canyon that was carved out in Texas? I believe The canyon was formed during the drainage of a dam.A mile deep (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/AllenMa.shtml) is it?Thanks for misrepresenting my statement and taking this issue out of context. It fits with other poor statements you have made.

Since it appears you have little interest in followin the thread let me point out that my statement was in response to a claim that 40 days was too short a time to create a canyon. I specifically stated that this was no Grand Canyon.

What I pointed out that it is possible to carve a canyon, a term used by the scientific literature - not my choice, in a short period of time.

Please read the threads and take the time to become educated.

Robster said nothing about canyons forming in short periods of time. He said Grand Canyons aren't forming with 40 days of rain. Did you read what he said? :rolleyes:



My comment was appropriate. Some of us answer posts as we go rather than reading through to the last post first. The polite thing to do is take responsibility for being misunderstood and clarify what you meant. It's really not the big deal you appear to be making it.

Whining with invalid unnecessary non sequiturs does little to move the discussion along.


-

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

Your question is "So what?" The point is that a canyon can be cut in a relatively short period of time, not thousands of years or billions.Which most of us know and no one in this thread suggested otherwise.

[hokie]

Skeptigirl you left a part out of your quotng. Let me help you out:

Robster are you aware of the new canyon that was carved out in Texas? I believe The canyon was formed during the drainage of a dam.

This is no Grand Canyon, but it does show that water can be an active cutting agent especially in soft rock.

Now on to your last post.
Which most of us know and no one in this thread suggested otherwise.

I find that claim hard to believe. Unrepentent Sinner was unaware of the new canyon and states that he lives in Texas. I even supplied a reason as to why he was unaware of the new canyon.

So this is your claim and I challenge you to name a canyon other than the one I pointed out that was cut in say a year or less.

[ponderingturtle]

I find that claim hard to believe. Unrepentent Sinner was unaware of the new canyon and states that he lives in Texas. I even supplied a reason as to why he was unaware of the new canyon.

So this is your claim and I challenge you to name a canyon other than the one I pointed out that was cut in say a year or less.

Could you show some pictures of this new canyon?

What scale are we talking about 30' deep? How much of it is rock vs soil?

Do you know that if you want to see evidence of serious flooding, just look at the scab lands.

[Ladewig]

Here is a link to photos http://www.cceo.org/



I am having a hard time finding the photos. Can you give more precise instructions about where I should look on the link?

[Olowkow]

I am having a hard time finding the photos. Can you give more precise instructions about where I should look on the link?
Near the bottom of the page on the right. Click on the picture of the "trench" and then click on "View over 50 photos showing devastation from the Flood of 2002". (http://www.cceo.org/AfterPicsTom/index.htm)

Pics 145-148 show the "canyon". I wonder if they have helicopter trips into it for people spending their vacations there.

[ponderingturtle]

Near the bottom of the page on the right. Click on the picture of the "trench" and then click on "View over 50 photos showing devastation from the Flood of 2002". (http://www.cceo.org/AfterPicsTom/index.htm)

Pics 145-148 show the "canyon". I wonder if they have helicopter trips into it for people spending their vacations there.




That canyon seems to be mostly dirt. No one is questioning the power of large volumes of water to move or remove dirt quickly though.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl you left a part out of your quotng. Let me help you out:More :i:

It appears as if you missed this statement in my post, or you didn't grasp the meaning of it: "Some of us answer posts as we go rather than reading through to the last post first."

The point there was that I saw your later reference to, "not being the Grand Canyon," but I replied before that particular post.

Now on to your last post.


I find that claim hard to believe. Unrepentent Sinner was unaware of the new canyon and states that he lives in Texas. I even supplied a reason as to why he was unaware of the new canyon.US will have to answer for himself. He could have been referring to the specific canyon you referred to rather than not being aware any canyons are formed in short order.

So this is your claim and I challenge you to name a canyon other than the one I pointed out that was cut in say a year or less.There are famous flood carved canyons in my state carved from the massive Missoula floods that occurred as the glaciers from the last ice age retreated.

Specifically, the Grand Coulees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Coulee) were formed in the floods and the famous Grand Coulee Dam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Coulee_Dam) makes it hard for someone from WA State with the most minimum of curiosity not to know about the origin of the Grand Coulees.

Ice Age Floods (http://www.iafi.org/floods.html)When geologists first saw the vast Columbia Basin in eastern Washington State, they recognized that glaciers and flowing water had played a large part in shaping the extraordinary landscape, with its canyons (coulees), buttes, dry cataracts, boulder fields, and gravel bars. It was taken for granted that what they saw was the cumulative effect of familiar processes, operating on a familiar scale.

However, a closer examination of the features in the Basin led one geologist, J Harlen Bretz, to propose that it could only have been a sudden cataclysmic flood, on a scale never before considered possible, that could account for the phenomenal size and distinctive characteristics of the landforms. This radical idea was not well received by fellow geologists, and a long-running scientific dispute followed. Ultimately his extensive field work, plus additional research by others, conclusively established that many extraordinarily huge and powerful Ice Age floods had shaped the region. Two National Natural Landmarks, Wallula Gap and the Drumheller Channels, are the direct result of the floods....

Recent research has found evidence that comparable floods occurred much earlier in the Ice Age in the Columbia Basin, as much as 1 to 2 million years ago. It has been determined that huge Ice Age glacial-outburst floods occurred in other parts of the world, as well. Even in our own times, similar but much smaller floods have occurred.

The rock formations of the Columbia Basin were formed by some of the most unusual and catastrophic processes in geologic history. (http://www.bpa.gov/Power/pl/columbia/4-geology.htm)

Geology of the Grand Coulee and Columbia River Plateau Region, Central Washington (http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/grandcoulee/html/thumbs.htm) (get your 3D glasses out for this link)

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's important to note that the Grand Coulees and other geologic consequences of massive floods do not resemble the geology of the Grand Canyon. Nor is there any logic to a worldwide flood leaving the Grand Canyon behind since there is no location a great basin of residual water could have flowed out from.

But this is typical of the Creationists' wishful thinking. They often don't understand the science they try to co opt into their world view so they likewise don't understand why it is their conclusions are so unscientific.

[hokie]

But this is typical of the Creationists' wishful thinking.
Did I ever mention Creationism? No. There is a good reason for that. I do not believe in Creationism.

I am also aware of the Scablands. Most people are not aware of the canyon in Texas.

As far as what was removed, my other link contains:
The 70,000-cubic-feet-per-second torrent cut into the valley floor, removing thousands of cubic yards of soil, bedrock and limestone blocks.

And another link to the event:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canyon_Lake_Gorge
This link tells about the dinosaur tracks I had read about a few years back and also mentions the continued restrictions on visitors to the area.

And finally a website dedicated to the gorge:
http://www.canyongorge.org/

Take a gander at the home pae to see that the flood did more than:
That canyon seems to be mostly dirt

It was a reasonable guess that it just cut down through soil, but the flood did more than that.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Did I ever mention Creationism? No. There is a good reason for that. I do not believe in Creationism.The :i: continues.

Why would you think the general comment I made about Creationists misusing science had anything to do with you personally or your comments about a flood carved canyon?

I am also aware of the Scablands. Most people are not aware of the canyon in Texas.Your point????? The issue was about whether most people were aware a canyon could be created by a single flood. The issue was not about who was aware of any specific canyon thus formed.

[BobTheDonkey]

I would think there's quite a large difference between a "gorge" and a "canyon." But, then, that's just me.

So a gorge 50ft deep was cut in a few days...that's quite a bit different from a canyon >5000ft deep cut in a month... That's before we even discuss the geology of the areas involved, the length of the gorge and canyon, etc...

[Olowkow]

I just love trivia like this:
http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/geography.htm (http://home.att.net/%7Enumericana/answer/geography.htm)
Grand Canyon volume: ~2500 cubic miles


Size matters!

[hokie]

I would think there's quite a large difference between a "gorge" and a "canyon." But, then, that's just me.

Haven't I agreed with that all along?

Skeptigirl it is really hard to decide what you are talking about after you make bad claims connecting politics and religion, and off handed comments without reading and following the thread.

The issue was about whether most people were aware a canyon could be created by a single flood. The issue was not about who was aware of any specific canyon thus formed.

Is it?

Do you have any evidence to state whether or not most people are aware that it is or is not possible that "a canyon could be created by a single flood".

[Darth Rotor]

Do you have any evidence to state whether or not most people are aware that it is or is not possible that "a canyon could be created by a single flood".
I live in Texas and wasn't aware of it. I also don't follow geology and such as closely as some, such as our oil industry colleagues here.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Skeptigirl it is really hard to decide what you are talking about after you make bad claims connecting politics and religion, and off handed comments without reading and following the thread.The Republic Party's marriage with religious fundies is well documented. It wasn't a "bad claim". The thread is about an ignorant politician citing bad science in support of a political action.

And I'm pretty sure I supported my having read the posts I commented on as well as noting you may not have.



Is it?

Do you have any evidence to state whether or not most people are aware that it is or is not possible that "a canyon could be created by a single flood".Several people in the thread have said they were aware. I admit to being surprised a few people were not.

[ponderingturtle]

Did I ever mention Creationism? No. There is a good reason for that. I do not believe in Creationism.


Then what is your point?

[hokie]

And I'm pretty sure I supported my having read the posts I commented on as well as noting you may not have.

Some of us answer posts as we go rather than reading through to the last post first.

We all know you stated that you respond without reading through the posts even if you try to avoid stating that with the 'some of us' excuse. Since I do read through the posts that voids your claim that I may not have.

Your claim is still a bad claim. Your insistence that it is not a bad claim continues to show how you make bad deductions. This thread is about a politician expressing YEC. Through unknown means you extrapolate this to a bad claim about a political party and religion.

The religion and politics are two separate issues. You are casually lumping them together. You might want to take a look at the thread on how many young earth creationists there are to get a feel for how many people might believe in YEC.

[hokie]

Then what is your point?

Why aren't there new grand canyons being carved all over the planet on a yearly basis?

The point turtle is to bring up an event as a demonstration that new canyons, one I described as "no Grand Canyon", can be formed due to relatively small events.

In fact I discussed this very event with a Creationist at one of their presentations. The person claimed that this canyon was formed in a short period and was something like 1/10 the size of the Grand Canyon.

My first thought was not 'that's impossible'. What I wanted to know was what was the person measuring. They of course had measured length. They did not measure depth, width, or volume.

Had I been aware of the event I could have asked the person why the canyon was only 50 feet deep after 40 days of flood waters passing through the canyon.

I still think this is an interesting event, but it is no where near the size of events claimed by YECs when they claim a biblical origin for the Grand Canyon.

[ponderingturtle]

The point turtle is to bring up an event as a demonstration that new canyons, one I described as "no Grand Canyon", can be formed due to relatively small events.

And how does that relate to the creationist agenda?

You seem to be utterly unaware that when you start proclaiming creationist points of view you in a thread about creationism you will be taken as a creationist.

And I still have seen no pictures that show any reall removal of stone the depth seems to be from removal of dirt.

I still think this is an interesting event, but it is no where near the size of events claimed by YECs when they claim a biblical origin for the Grand Canyon.

The thing is, that this IS a creationist point.

"See in small scale how small floods can cut a canyon, so immagine how much a global flood would have cut when the whole midwest drained through it?"

[Almo]

This is an excellent point...a poorly educated electorate is the reason we have a democrat controlled congress and a democrat for president.

You hit the nail on the head!

What, you think the electorate SUDDENLY became poorly educated after being highly educated and electing Republicans to both a congressional majority and the presidential office?

:confused:

[Robster, FCD]

Wow. How did I miss this?

The Texas gorge is pretty cool, but it is a rare circumstance. Compare it to the monsoons experienced across the world. Grand canyons should be the rule and not the exception.

[Checkmite]

The point turtle is to bring up an event as a demonstration that new canyons, one I described as "no Grand Canyon", can be formed due to relatively small events.


Since the comment you were replying to was pointing out the fact that no Grand Canyons have been formed due to any "relatively small events", this silliness about a new small gorge in Texas is irrelevant to any argument or fact in this entire thread prior to your bringing it up.

[hokie]

You seem to be utterly unaware that when you start proclaiming creationist points of view you in a thread about creationism you will be taken as a creationist.

And I still have seen no pictures that show any reall removal of stone the depth seems to be from removal of dirt.

I did not push a creationist viewpoint. That conjecture is your mistake.

What I did point out was an interesting event. I made no claims about the implication of that event. Any assumptions you made after that speak about you.

Your claim of dirt is baseless. The photos and the text say bedrock.

[hokie]

Since the comment you were replying to was pointing out the fact that no Grand Canyons have been formed due to any "relatively small events", this silliness about a new small gorge in Texas is irrelevant to any argument or fact in this entire thread prior to your bringing it up.

I said it was no Grand Canyon. I also stated that the Texas gorge event has been used by the creationist agenda. I would think that people reading this thread should be aware of claims made by creationists and have an understanding of the claims.

[jay.tarnoff]

P.Z. Myers posted this on Pharyngula a couple of days ago. What really amazes me is that she repeats that the earth is only 6,000 years old more than once... without flinching. It wasn't a simple slip of the tongue; I am pretty sure this is what she really believes.

I guess this is another point of evidence to show that power (in the form of government) does not equal intelligence (in the form of knowledge).

[ponderingturtle]

What I did point out was an interesting event. I made no claims about the implication of that event. Any assumptions you made after that speak about you.

So you are then just intentionaly derailing the thread?

Your claim of dirt is baseless. The photos and the text say bedrock.

What photos show bedrock?

[Olowkow]

Olowkow I am not supporting any particular position. Rather I am pointing out an interesting event that was purposely kept off the radar by the researchers that wanted to observe the area.

Your question is "So what?" The point is that a canyon can be cut in a relatively short period of time, not thousands of years or billions.

"...kept off the radar.." by whom? Where did you see that? Conspiracy? It looks like Comal County engineers have gone out of their way to show the devastation of what the overflow from a dam can do. If I remember correctly, the flow cut into a well known fault and exposed many layers of strata that they wanted to use this opportunity to do research. Perhaps they did not want people climbing around on it.

I said "so what" because I'm pretty sure most of us know what damage a dam failure can cause, as well as pyroclastic flows from erupting volcanoes.

Your posts sounded like you were advocating the YEC claims that the Grand Canyon could have been scoured by a 40 day flood. Apparently that is not what you were claiming. This "trench" is not even a canyon, let alone a Grand Canyon, as you point out. This involves thousands of cubic yards of rock and soil displaced, while the Grand Canyon is 2500 cubic miles, an amount that is mind boggling to ponder having been moved in 40 days.

Incidentally, the scouring force of water on rock is usually strengthened by the fact that the water contains suspended aggregate such as sand.

[Subduction Zone]

Who says that bedrock has to be hard? On the farm that I grew up on in Minnesota there were some outcroppings of St. Peter Sandstone in some of our gullies. If you wanted to get a sample of it you did not take a hammer to it, you took a shovel. It was extremely weakly cemented. It might have a slightly harder outer crust where it was exposed to the air, but it only took a scratch to get past that. After that is was loose sand for all practical purposes. When you have an event that erodes bedrock you have to take into account how "strong" the bedrock is.

[Greg_in_CO]

What really amazes me is that she repeats that the earth is only 6,000 years old more than once... without flinching. It wasn't a simple slip of the tongue; I am pretty sure this is what she really believes.

And yet many Americans still see nothing wrong, hell, dangerous with people like this making policy decisions. It was telling that both Obama and McCain declined Shawn Otto's invitation to ScienceDebate 2008 during the campaign but instead opted to respond to a written questionnaire; blatant pandering to the segment of the electorate that insists that magic will solve their problems.

[hokie]

What photos show bedrock?
What photos do not show bedrock?

[hokie]

It staggers me when people think that the earth is young. It's a misconception that will last a long, long time. YECs know about trees and have their glib comments on the subject. What they do not hear about are varved clays. When I tell them there are varved clays with over 20,000 layers they are for whatever reason unable to spout the same glib comments. It illustrates that the statements are made without any knowledge of the reasons why it is so. I suspect this Arizonian has no idea why they say what they say.

Does anyone know if they give a reason for this claim?

[Olowkow]

..... I suspect this Arizonian has no idea why they say what they say.

Does anyone know if they give a reason for this claim?
I seem to meet a lot of these lately, for some reason. I speak out, unfortunately. Their claim now is that it does not matter if someone believes that the earth is 6000 years old. They can still be gainfully employed. My response is, well perhaps as a bookkeeper. Just kidding.:) In a way they have a point though. But, wouldn't it be nice if your daughter or son could be a scientist? I am frustrated, so generally, I just don't discuss this stuff.