LittleNipper wrote:Catastrophism VS Uniformatarianism https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... N2NhYjMzNw Actually, all scientist now accept catastrophic events of one sort or another. Uniformatarianism deals with geologic formations and the processes involved. There was simply too much evidence for an event or several events of one sort or another, and so uniformatarianism has pretty much been forgotten.
little Nipper Uniformitarianism has hardly been forgotten. It remains the basic pattern of geological events. There are exceptions where a catastrophe breaks through the regular pattern. It is that interruption that shows a catastrophe has occurred. Why else would a person think of a catastrophe? How would you answer the questions that the link you have asked?(did you read the link?) The grand canyon is a good example of uniformitarian processes.
I find the combination of uniformity and catastrophe interesting. I could share examples from the area in which I live. I like that because with those example I can check up on the authorities and see if what they talk about is really there. We had a giant flood that involved the valley I live in as well as other valleys in the region. (actually there were multiple repeats of this flood) But Nipper there is no point in discussing the real world I live in. You do not believe that our world is a result of events in time. You believe that God created things as they are in a moment by command. You believe this was done at least twice. The flood involved recreating the world after the crust broke up . Everything was reformed to look just as if it was millions and millions of years old. I suppose you could say that if one was going to do that at all one might as well do it completely without mistakes. That would explain why geology finds patterns of events fitting together as if they happened one after the other over huge stretches of time.
You can hardly blame people for being convinced of great age by such a thorough invention.
LittleNipper wrote:Catastrophism VS Uniformatarianism https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... N2NhYjMzNw Actually, all scientist now accept catastrophic events of one sort or another. Uniformatarianism deals with geologic formations and the processes involved. There was simply too much evidence for an event or several events of one sort or another, and so uniformatarianism has pretty much been forgotten.
little Nipper Uniformitarianism has hardly been forgotten. It remains the basic pattern of geological events. There are exceptions where a catastrophe breaks through the regular pattern. It is that interruption that shows a catastrophe has occurred. Why else would a person think of a catastrophe? How would you answer the questions that the link you have asked?(did you read the link?) The grand canyon is a good example of uniformitarian processes.
I find the combination of uniformity and catastrophe interesting. I could share examples from the area in which I live. I like that because with those example I can check up on the authorities and see if what they talk about is really there. We had a giant flood that involved the valley I live in as well as other valleys in the region. (actually there were multiple repeats of this flood) But Nipper there is no point in discussing the real world I live in. You do not believe that our world is a result of events in time. You believe that God created things as they are in a moment by command. You believe this was done at least twice. The flood involved recreating the world after the crust broke up . Everything was reformed to look just as if it was millions and millions of years old. I suppose you could say that if one was going to do that at all one might as well do it completely without mistakes. That would explain why geology finds patterns of events fitting together as if they happened one after the other over huge stretches of time.
You can hardly blame people for being convinced of great age by such a thorough invention.
The vast MAJORITY of fossils found throughout the world are not possible except under very select conditions. If an animal dies and lays out in the open, it is consumed. There were no fossils found of victims of the Titanic --- just empty shoes and that was all even by the 1990's (not even 80 years after the sinking). Uniformatarians basically were men who wanted to prove the Flood never happened. Their belief was that the Grand Canyon was the result of the river wearing away the rock of millions and millions of years. We now know that there was a trapped lake that suddenly emptied and this is what eroded the land and formed the canyon.
LittleNipper wrote:The vast MAJORITY of fossils found throughout the world are not possible except under very select conditions. If an animal dies and lays out in the open, it is consumed. There were no fossils found of victims of the Titanic --- just empty shoes and that was all even by the 1990's (not even 80 years after the sinking). Uniformatarians basically were men who wanted to prove the Flood never happened. Their belief was that the Grand Canyon was the result of the river wearing away the rock of millions and millions of years. We now know that there was a trapped lake that suddenly emptied and this is what eroded the land and formed the canyon.
A simple energy calculation would help here Nipper. Take that lake and calculate the potential energy of that volume of water held to the height at which it sits. Then calculate the energy required to erode the solid rock by the volume of rock carried away from the Grand Canyon. Let me know how that goes for you.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
Thankfully, some Christians take umbrage at the young earth variety of Christian faith. See the following links for an argument in favor of uniformitarianism based upon faith in the Bible itself. Poor Nipper rejected by his own. Oh look, a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah in Nipper. And we all thought it referred to Jesus.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
LittleNipper wrote:The vast MAJORITY of fossils found throughout the world are not possible except under very select conditions. If an animal dies and lays out in the open, it is consumed. There were no fossils found of victims of the Titanic --- just empty shoes and that was all even by the 1990's (not even 80 years after the sinking). Uniformatarians basically were men who wanted to prove the Flood never happened. Their belief was that the Grand Canyon was the result of the river wearing away the rock of millions and millions of years. We now know that there was a trapped lake that suddenly emptied and this is what eroded the land and formed the canyon.
A simple energy calculation would help here Nipper. Take that lake and calculate the potential energy of that volume of water held to the height at which it sits. Then calculate the energy required to erode the solid rock by the volume of rock carried away from the Grand Canyon. Let me know how that goes for you.
My you have chosen a hard path there spotlight. How in the world are you or we going to calculate the energy required to erode the grand canyon. I might add that Nippers imaginary lake is as big as it needs to be. It should be calculable how much energy lake Bonneville dropping five thousand feet would release. What percentage of that would be moving rock?
When Lake Bonneville broke releasing large amounts of water it went down the Snake river through Hells canyon. Hells canyon is much closer to a single v shape gulch because of that. The fact that that the grand canyon of the Colorado is widely branched with side canyons proves it was not formed by a sudden lake emptying.
Central Washington state has a much better example of large floods digging big canyons. The one to the North of where I live is ten miles wide and a couple of hundred feet deep. The flood waters continued down the Columbia to the ocean. That channel cuts off side canyons carving a single trough shape due to the large volume of water.
The shape of a canyon fits the process which formed it.
Lets try to be simpler. There is a small stream a couple of blocks from my house. It flows out of the nearby mountains where in it has cut a canyon some two thousand five hundred feet deep through basalt rock. The start of the canyon is a ridge top with a stream flowing in the opposite direction toward the Snake river. There is no room for lakes or big water flows. Instead you have a small stream. To have carved the canyon since Noah time it would have to be cutting some five inches a year. I have known the stream and canyon for fifty years. If that rate was continuing there would be some 20 feet carved away in the stream bed. The real carving is too small to be visible.
Talking about the grand canyon misses the point entirely. The west is full of thousands of canyons whose depth shows erosion taking place over millions of years.
spotlight wrote:A simple energy calculation would help here Nipper. Take that lake and calculate the potential energy of that volume of water held to the height at which it sits. Then calculate the energy required to erode the solid rock by the volume of rock carried away from the Grand Canyon. Let me know how that goes for you.
My you have chosen a hard path there spotlight. How in the world are you or we going to calculate the energy required to erode the grand canyon. I might add that Nippers imaginary lake is as big as it needs to be. It should be calculable how much energy lake Bonneville dropping five thousand feet would release. What percentage of that would be moving rock?
When Lake Bonneville broke releasing large amounts of water it went down the Snake river through Hells canyon. Hells canyon is much closer to a single v shape gulch because of that. The fact that that the grand canyon of the Colorado is widely branched with side canyons proves it was not formed by a sudden lake emptying.
Central Washington state has a much better example of large floods digging big canyons. The one to the North of where I live is ten miles wide and a couple of hundred feet deep. The flood waters continued down the Columbia to the ocean. That channel cuts off side canyons carving a single trough shape due to the large volume of water.
The shape of a canyon fits the process which formed it.
Lets try to be simpler. There is a small stream a couple of blocks from my house. It flows out of the nearby mountains where in it has cut a canyon some two thousand five hundred feet deep through basalt rock. The start of the canyon is a ridge top with a stream flowing in the opposite direction toward the Snake river. There is no room for lakes or big water flows. Instead you have a small stream. To have carved the canyon since Noah time it would have to be cutting some five inches a year. I have known the stream and canyon for fifty years. If that rate was continuing there would be some 20 feet carved away in the stream bed. The real carving is too small to be visible.
Talking about the grand canyon misses the point entirely. The west is full of thousands of canyons whose depth shows erosion taking place over millions of years.
Nipper, you completely avoided or perhaps just didn't read my point. I will try again. I did read your link and it did discuss the flood in my area which I am familiar with.
from your link"
"Catastrophic geologic events are not generally part of the uniformitarian geologist’s thinking, but rather include events that are local or regional in size. One example of a regional event would be the 15,000 square miles (39,000 square km) of the Channeled Scablands in eastern Washington. Initially thought to be the product of slow gradual processes, this first came into question in 1923 when J. Harlen Bretz presented a paper to the Geological Society of America suggesting the Scablands were eroded catastrophically.18 For the next 30 years Bretz was ridiculed for his theory, but in 1956 additional information was presented supporting the idea. Over the next 20 years, the evidence was pieced together to show the Scablands were, in fact, catastrophically eroded by the “Spokane Flood.”19 This Spokane flood was the result of the breaching of an ice dam that had created glacial Lake Missoula. Today, the United States Geological Survey estimates the flood released 500 cubic miles (2,000 cubic km) of water, which drained in as little as 48 hours, gouging out millions of tons of solid rock. "
What I was considering is that the shape of the erosion in these channels cut by this massive repeating flood is entirely different from the grand canyon. They are very broad, shallow and with a floor which is generally flat with scatter pothole shapes gouged out. This is result of two considerations. First the Basalt rock is hard and does not wash away easily. In fact most of the erosion is limited to non rock soil and sand layers elsewhere on top of the basalt. Second a large volume of water does not cut a narrow path like a canyon because being large it spreads out over a wide area.
Basalt, which as shown does not wash away easily even with huge amounts of water is the material of the Blue Mountains in southeastern Washington state. The canyon I was describing being very familiar with is cut through this rock by a small stream. I could consider a side canyon in which a a smaller stream has cut its own canyon. This smaller stream is the sort you can hop over and dries up at the end of August.
The canyons in these mountains are above the path of the Spokane floods. They start at the top of the mountains and have no basin to draw any large amounts of water from. They drain the snow and rain falling on the mountain itself.
huckelberry wrote:My you have chosen a hard path there spotlight. How in the world are you or we going to calculate the energy required to erode the grand canyon. I might add that Nippers imaginary lake is as big as it needs to be. It should be calculable how much energy lake Bonneville dropping five thousand feet would release. What percentage of that would be moving rock?
When Lake Bonneville broke releasing large amounts of water it went down the Snake river through Hells canyon. Hells canyon is much closer to a single v shape gulch because of that. The fact that that the grand canyon of the Colorado is widely branched with side canyons proves it was not formed by a sudden lake emptying.
Central Washington state has a much better example of large floods digging big canyons. The one to the North of where I live is ten miles wide and a couple of hundred feet deep. The flood waters continued down the Columbia to the ocean. That channel cuts off side canyons carving a single trough shape due to the large volume of water.
The shape of a canyon fits the process which formed it.
Lets try to be simpler. There is a small stream a couple of blocks from my house. It flows out of the nearby mountains where in it has cut a canyon some two thousand five hundred feet deep through basalt rock. The start of the canyon is a ridge top with a stream flowing in the opposite direction toward the Snake river. There is no room for lakes or big water flows. Instead you have a small stream. To have carved the canyon since Noah time it would have to be cutting some five inches a year. I have known the stream and canyon for fifty years. If that rate was continuing there would be some 20 feet carved away in the stream bed. The real carving is too small to be visible.
Talking about the grand canyon misses the point entirely. The west is full of thousands of canyons whose depth shows erosion taking place over millions of years.
How about a simple comparison then, say the Missoula glacial lake.
We have 20,000 cubic miles of water removing 50 cubic miles of material.
The Grand Canyon had 1009 cubic miles of material removed so that would require 403,600 cubic miles of water to do the job. That's two thirds the volume of the Gulf of Mexico.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
We have 20,000 cubic miles of water removing 50 cubic miles of material.
The Grand Canyon had 1009 cubic miles of material removed so that would require 403,600 cubic miles of water to do the job. That's two thirds the volume of the Gulf of Mexico.
Spotlight, that makes an interesting and worthwhile estimate to consider. It makes a point but I could add that it is likely to be seriously underestimating the needed water. Much of the material removed in the Spokane floods was not solid rock but instead either gravels from the glaciers or loose dust and sands. The areas eroded in eastern Washington are broad layers of basalt covered in over 100 feet of loose soil(gone in the flood paths). That oose material is volcanic ash mixed with windblown sand and dust. Water moves that windblown material comparitively easily, the basalt is resistant. In fact it is worth considering how little water will move solid rock that it is not able to get underneath. The water flows over the top and the rock stays put unless it is broken into pieces which can be pushed along by the water.(as in loose stones in a stream bed which wash down stream) .. Adding, I do not mean to say that solid basalt layers did not get removed. Some did.
huckelberry wrote:Spotlight, that makes an interesting and worthwhile estimate to consider. It makes a point but I could add that it is likely to be seriously underestimating the needed water.
I have to err on Nipper's side otherwise he will cry foul. So even seriously underestimating it looks ridiculous. Maybe Nipper will rejoin with his worn defense of lack of belief in uniformitarianism? You used to be able to fit more water into less volume in the past "don't ya know."
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
