Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It failed because it was not designed to handle 100,000 cubic feet per second of water pressure. This is the same amount of pressure that was needed to created the grand canyon. As you admit the designers did not design it to handle that much pressure. It took a creationist to explain catastrophic theory to them.[/MEDIA]
No geologists subscribe to strict gradualism. Uniformitarian theory has superseded gradualism, and it acknowledges that catastrophic events (such as floods, hurricanes, and landslides) occur on a local scale, but maintains that the majority of change to the planet is caused by steady processes over time. The designers of the Oroville dam may well have under-designed it (for whatever reason - budget, miscalculation, belief in gradualism), but it just as easily could have been a materials issue or lack of maintenance.It failed because it was not designed to handle 100,000 cubic feet per second of water pressure. This is the same amount of pressure that was needed to created the grand canyon. As you admit the designers did not design it to handle that much pressure. It took a creationist to explain catastrophic theory to them.
It failed because it was not designed to handle 100,000 cubic feet per second of water pressure. This is the same amount of pressure that was needed to created the grand canyon. As you admit the designers did not design it to handle that much pressure. It took a creationist to explain catastrophic theory to them.
Answer your own question: Why did they not expect such a large amount of rain? In 19 years Neil Degrasse tells us that california may see a tsunami in 2036. This is a disaster they need to plan for a be prepared to handle. I keep pointing to Oroville dam as a teaching tool. A point of contact to explain to people what I am talking about. They can look at see what the damage is from 100,000 cubic feet oer second of water.
My brother bought a house in florida and they just had a big storm there. But his house can handle winds up to 110 mph. So he weathered the storm. If people are not prepared then they may suffer loss when the storms of life hits them.
Matthew 7:24-27 (ESV)
Build Your House on the Rock
24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
I would not be laughing so hard if I lived there and my house was in danger. The area I live in was created when the glaciers melted. So I have seen the results of catastrophic flooding all my life wherever I look. If we dig into the ground here the first 12 to 15 feet is going to be muck that the glaciers left behind when they melted.You didn't say whether you live near the Oroville Dam.
That is a interesting program. It is amazing that with vast overwhelming evidence for catastrophic theory there are still people that try to deny it. Somehow the drip of a faucet if only given enough time could produce the same effect as the grand canyon's 100,000 cubic feet of water per second. There are 566,336.93 drop of water in a cubic foot. That means it would take 100,000 years of gradual theory time to equal one second of catastrophic time. That translates out to one billion years for three hours. One billion years of gradualism gives you the same force & effect as three hours of catastrophic force. They are going to have to combine gradualism with the butterfly effect if they want to create that kind of force.There was actually a show on just a couple weeks ago, that talked about floods, mega floods and the great formations they've formed. But as @RocksInMyHead has stated, these formations still occur within a precept of an old earth.
And of course there is actual evidence for these mega floods. But even still, these mega floods do not produce any and every formation.
As you might recall, I informed you last week that the Grand Canyon had recorded flows at or above 100,000 cfs multiple times before the dams were built. Flows of that magnitude are hardly "catastrophic events" for a river the size of the Colorado. All it takes is a slightly heavy snowpack and a few hot days in mid-summer to get it good and melted.Somehow the drip of a faucet if only given enough time could produce the same effect as the grand canyon's 100,000 cubic feet of water per second. There are 566,336.93 drop of water in a cubic foot. That means it would take 100,000 years of gradual theory time to equal one second of catastrophic time.
Catastrophic theory produces 100,000 cubit feet of water per second. Gradualism tries to tell us that a drop of water if given enough time can equal 100,000 cubic feet of water. There simply is not enough time. Also surface exposure dating shows that all of the canyon was expose at about the some time. Surface exposure dating simply does not allow for gradualism. Perhaps you want to depend on the butterfly effect. So that a butterfly flapping his wings on one side of the world can somehow create a grand canyon on the other side of the world.And for reference, what happened there does not fit into catastrophic theory. Catastrophic theory proposes widespread, global catastrophes (like Noah's flood) as engines of geologic change, not local events.
Are you really trying to claim that 100,000 cfs is gradualism? Really? I should have been a geologist because I would be a very happy person, your always making me laugh. There is just no end to the entertainment geology provides.As you might recall, I informed you last week that the Grand Canyon had recorded flows at or above 100,000 cfs multiple times before the dams were built. Flows of that magnitude are hardly "catastrophic events" for a river the size of the Colorado. All it takes is a slightly heavy snowpack and a few hot days in mid-summer to get it good and melted.
Noah's actual flood took place when the Persian Gulf was formed. The paradigm points to Pangea's Continental Drift, created by Alfred Wegener. This is also known as the largest mass extinction. Literalism means an exact mathematical formula can be used to compare one event to the other. Most likely a formula that a fifth grader can understand. Maybe we found the butterfly effect.And for reference, what happened there does not fit into catastrophic theory. Catastrophic theory proposes widespread, global catastrophes (like Noah's flood) as engines of geologic change, not local events.
Not sure why you're so hung up on the idea of gradualism. As I have already pointed out, no modern geologists subscribe to the idea of strict gradualism (i.e. the idea that only slow processes have shaped the earth). Claiming that we do is just a strawman.Catastrophic theory produces 100,000 cubit feet of water per second. Gradualism tries to tell us that a drop of water if given enough time can equal 100,000 cubic feet of water.
Citation needed.There simply is not enough time. Also surface exposure dating shows that all of the canyon was expose at about the some time. Surface exposure dating simply does not allow for gradualism.
Nope.Perhaps you want to depend on the butterfly effect. So that a butterfly flapping his wings on one side of the world can somehow create a grand canyon on the other side of the world.
Nope, that one's all you.Are you really trying to claim that 100,000 cfs is gradualism?
I don't even know where to start with deciphering this incomprehensible word salad.Noah's actual flood took place when the Persian Gulf was formed. The paradigm points to Pangea's Continental Drift, created by Alfred Wegener. This is also known as the largest mass extinction. Literalism means an exact mathematical formula can be used to compare one event to the other. Most likely a formula that a fifth grader can understand. Maybe we found the butterfly effect.
They have an article on surface exposure dating on Wiki. I can not get a link right now because wiki is locking up on me wanting a donation.Citation needed.
My "word salad" are key words for you to do a google search and actually study what we are talking about. For example the word "Paradigm". If you have amazon or google voice control then just say "Alexa Paradigm definition". If you do not have that device then you will need to type "Paradigm definition" into your google search and the definition will pop up and you can begin to learn what a paradigm is. Usually a paradigm is an exact blueprint or exact literal representation. I did drafting so I know all about how to draw a blueprint and then actually build the item. On the job I had to take the architect drawing and make the shop drawings. Sometimes I had to actually build the template for the people in the shop to use to build the items. In this regard a paradigm is different from something that is figurative and not exact. People do not understand just how exact and precise the Bible is.I don't even know where to start with deciphering this incomprehensible word salad.
I'm looking for a citation on surface exposure dating saying that the Grand Canyon surface exposure is all the same age, as you claimed. I'm aware of how surface exposure dating works.They have an article on surface exposure dating on Wiki. I can not get a link right now because wiki is locking up on me wanting a donation.
And all I'm saying is that that's a strawman. No one in the geologic community actually believes that!All I am saying is if anyone wants to convert 100,000 cubic feet per second of water to gradualism they should do the math and figure out exactly how much time that is going to add up to.
I know what the words mean. However, the way you've put them together makes no sense. That is the definition of a word salad. Maybe you could ask Alexa about that one, hmm?My "word salad" are key words for you to do a google search and actually study what we are talking about.
70 million years ago the canyon was cut within 1,000 feet of it's current depth.IN 70 million years there has LESS THAN 1,000 feet of wear.
That means at least 5,000 feet of depth was carved 70 million years ago.
I'm looking for a citation on surface exposure dating saying that the Grand Canyon surface exposure is all the same age, as you claimed. I'm aware of how surface exposure dating works.
Did you read the whole article? What about the scientific articles that it references? I might suggest reading this as well: New Clues Emerge in Puzzle of Grand Canyon's Age70 million years ago the canyon was cut within 1,000 feet of it's current depth.
"70 million years ago to within about 1,000 feet (300 meters) of its current depth"
64-Million-Year Controversy: Grand Canyon Age Debated
It could be that different parts of the canyon eroded away and were carved out at different periods of time. The point is that the catastrophic process is very rapid. California, Texas, Florida & Puerto Rico this season have all seen the worst natural disasters ever. There is nothing new about what I am saying. Eldredge and Gould established punctuated equilibrium back in 1972 based on the study of the Cambrian Burgess Shale Formation. Gradualism does not have much to do with anything. Not geology and not evolution. Even you admit that: "The majority (or at least a significant fraction) of the geologic community still advocates a rapidly-carved canyon beginning around 5-6 million years ago." So you pretty well concede my point that the canyons were rapidly carved.it hinges on the idea that the Grand Canyon is actually made up of at least two different canyons that were joined by a process called headward erosion over time
The occurrence of catastrophic events has nothing to do with Catastrophic Theory, which proposes that all features on the planet (mountains, canyons, valleys, the oceans, etc) were created by catastrophic events. Certainly some were, but there is plenty of evidence that the majority of the planet's geography was formed slowly. This is not gradualism either - it is Uniformitarianism, which merely states that the processes we see active today were also active in the past. We see both slow, gradual processes and rapid, catastrophic processes active on the planet today. We see the marks that these processes make on the landscape and the deposits they leave behind. And we see echoes of those same marks and deposits in the rock record, which backs up Uniformitarian theory. As we see in most things, the issue is not black or white - gradualism or catastrophism - but a combination of the two. Mostly gradual, but with plenty of catastrophic events as well.It could be that different parts of the canyon eroded away and were carved out at different periods of time. The point is that the catastrophic process is very rapid. California, Texas, Florida & Puerto Rico this season have all seen the worst natural disasters ever. There is nothing new about what I am saying. Eldredge and Gould established punctuated equilibrium back in 1972 based on the study of the Cambrian Burgess Shale Formation.
Good, glad we could clear that up. I only had to say it, what, three times? Four? I assume that you'll stop using this strawman now.Gradualism does not have much to do with anything. Not geology and not evolution.
I mean, if you consider 5-6 million years to be rapid, I guess. It's certainly rapid in a geologic sense, but that doesn't exactly fit a literal biblical narrative.Even you admit that: "The majority (or at least a significant fraction) of the geologic community still advocates a rapidly-carved canyon beginning around 5-6 million years ago." So you pretty well concede my point that the canyons were rapidly carved.
Clearly, if it happened, it was a catastrophic event. Most likely on a local scale rather than global as we don't see any evidence left by a global flood.Moses establishes The Paradigm for these flood events based on the story that we read about Noah and His flood. Clearly Noah's flood was not a casual gradual event but a catastrophic one.
I figured I would make a thread on the geology of New York, to see what Young Earth Creationists might think.
The discussion begins with the diagram below.
Genesee Group (NYDg;4)
Sonyea Group (NYDs;5)
Angola and Rhinestreet Shales (NYDwf;4)
Machias Formation (NYDcy;4)
At the base, limestone. Limestone largely consisting of microscopic carbonaceous shells. Derived from deep sea shelled organisms. These are rocks formed at great depths.
Dark carbonaceous shales (identified in the figure as black shale facies) are rich in organics. Formed in anoxic environments without oxygen for decomposition. With higher amounts of organic material, shales take on a dark black color. With less oxygen, oxygen poor environments yield precipitation of sulfide minerals.
These dark shales form in an environment also of a deep sea, but with influence from nearby deposition of sediment.
Above the black shale facies are mudstone-sandstone facies. Shales again, but with higher oxygen content. Shallow waters allow for circulation of oxygen forming minerals like hematite (FeO2) and Magnetite (FeO3). The rocks take on a lighter hue. Sandstones, formed in shallow marine and terrestrial environments (much like the sandy beaches of today).
These are the rocks of shallow marine and a terrestrial beach like environment.
Above these rocks still, the Catskill Devonian red beds. Highly oxidated. Lithologies found in fining upward sequences with turbidites, sorted by density, with conglomerates (rocks formed in tumbling depositional environments).
-----------------------------------------------------
Collectively, we have 5 groups of rock, each group having the sequence of rocks above.
Beyond that further, atop the Devonian shale is glacial till (unsorted, not deposited by water), glacial moraines, drop stones, glacial striations, lakes in a north to south direction (carved by glaciers moving in a north to south direction)
These are traits of Pleistocene ice ages.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Uniformitarianism has a simple explanation. The Acadian Orogeny.
As continental crust advances from the ocean in a western direction into what was then central america, mountain ranges are eroding, depositing sediment. Deltas form along the mountain range. Sea level rises, deeper waters give rise to anoxic carbonaceous shales. Sea level drops, the sea becomes aerated, more oxidized minerals form, rocks change color and chemistry.
Fast forward to the pleistocene epoch, ice comes down from the north, carves the great lakes and finger lakes, then deposits unsorted glacial till as it melts away.
And the fossils match. No dinosaurs in NY as the rocks are twice as old as the earliest dinosaurs. No mammals, no birds. Tetrapods are present (as predicted, tetrapods are of the devonian period). No bunny rabbits. Just devonian tetrapods and fish.
--------------------------------------------------------------
How could such a complex geology ever be explained as something to have formed within 6000 years?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?