Richard Dawkins disappoints again

[Job 33:6]

.

The issue is if we look at Oroville Dam we see that 100,000 cubic feet of water per second brings about catastrophic change. Just like it takes 100,000 cubic feet per second of force to create the Grand Canyon. So even in geology and environmental engineering we can laugh at their gradualism because if they do not take catastrophic theory into consideration then we have a disaster on our hands. Again we need this sort of dualism for our brain to work and function. (comedy & tragedy)

I dont understand why people keep proposing the grand canyon as being produced by catastrophic flood waters.

I would ask that people, please do try to find any erosional surface from mount st helens, or the oroville dam, or anywhere, that looks like the image below.

Oroville Disaster May Have Been Caused by Weak Soil Under Spillway

This link^ actually has a couple photos from the oroville dam release, and in both images, we see predominantly erosion of topsoil and saprolite. Topsoil is just as it sounds, its soil, and saprolites are more like a dense clay (in consistency) that you can just pick up and break with your hands, its just weathered and digested bedrock. Whereas bedrock beneath the dam, beyond degraded saprolite appears to be largely unaffected.

With the grand canyon, you have 5000+ feet of meandering erosion through a plethora of varying rock types, including through dense rocks like quartzite.

 

[Job 33:6]

It should be added that, rivers meander, so if you see erosional surfaces in the shapes of meanders, it's because the surfaces were shaped by a river.

Rushing flood waters do not meander, they are high energy waters that break through things in a linear fashion, they don't eb and flow back and forth at 180 degree angles.

Meanders by the nature of how they form, are low energy erosional features that involve some level of resistant rock or soil on either side of the stream.

This is why we do not find such extreme bows and meanders below the Oroville dam. Because the water had too much energy and simply washed all the soil and saprolite away in a chaotic linear and non-meandering event.

Whereas at the grand canyon, we see wide bows in the meanders depicted above, indicating that this feature was formed by a regular everyday river like the one seen also in the picture. Which makes sense because we can look into canyon to see the very river that formed it. Nice and easy, no complex thinking necessary, it's right there in front of us.

 

[Job 33:6]

And this is all well understood information. It all logically and scientifically makes sense. Why would super high energy flood waters turn in 180 degree angles? Well, they wouldn't.

Why would low energy waters meander? Because the waters are pushed back by rock and meanders grow wider and wider as they gradually wear away at rock adjacent to the location at which they Change direction. The bigger the meander, the longer the river has been gradually wearing away it's bow. And the grand canyon has very extreme and wide 180 degree meanders because the river has been wearing at that rock and widening it's meanders for millions of years.

And when we look at extreme floods and erosional like that of the oroville dam release, you just have a linear chaotic destruction of land in a relativly straight direction.

 

[Job 33:6]

 

[4x4toy]

The Colorado river flows west but isn't the canyon elevation higher in the west and middle than the East . that would mean meandering in the beginning wouldn't it .. Run off to begin with and finding it's way ultimately west is what I see . Mt St Helens was down hill , Right ?

 

[Job 33:6]

And lastly, we have propogating faults and angles at which rock has broken within the canyon at various positions throughout its development. Features that have superpositionally have formed prior to the erosion that these rivers have caused.

And with this, we understand that this river has been eroding through hard rock. Its not like it was eroding through sediment, because sediment doesn't fracture into low angle thrust faults nor do fractures propagate and splinter through soft sediment at rigid angles. When you break a brick, you get a nice flat or jagged angled edge. when you break a piece of yogurst, it just melts in your hand, its not rigid. Right. The rocks of the grand canyon have broken in rigid hard ways under compressional forces, prior to being eroded by wind and water as seen below.

Further...well, theres a lot more to it. Superpositionally you have things like dinosaur nests and tracks and fossils such as dinosaur fossils, only found in mesozoic layers in the middle. Nests arent constructed amidst chaotic floods.

Further, rocks of the canyon in many areas are regionally metamorphosed, which requires temperatures of hundreds of degrees high. So no dinosaur is building a nest amidst 300 degree celcius temperatures.

So that i do not continue to blabber on, to summarize, ultimately when we propose that the grand canyon formed due to a global flood, nothing about this proposal actually makes any sense.

However, it all makes perfect sense, if the canyon were simply formed by erosion from regular every day rivers over a long period of time such as millions of years.

 

[BobRyan]

Well, I took to keeping up on my evolution once again and recently (well, last year) purchased a used copy of Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth. Dawkins is obviously the well-known evolutionist spouting what he thinks is conclusive proof of evolution

Certainly he is the loudest that the atheists have come up with.

 

[The Barbarian]

Whereas at the grand canyon, we see wide bows in the meanders depicted above, indicating that this feature was formed by a regular everyday river like the one seen also in the picture. Which makes sense because we can look into canyon to see the very river that formed it. Nice and easy, no complex thinking necessary, it's right there in front of us.

It's quite understandable. Old rivers in low areas meander, because there is less energy in the water, and that causes erosion on the outside of any bend, with deposition on the inside. This makes bends become more and more extreme.

However, entrenched meanders, as noted in the Grand Canyon or the Snake River, are caused when old, meandering rivers are uplifted, as happened in those areas. The river speeds up, cutting deeper into the existing bed, trapping the river into the existing channel.

Can't happen suddenly. It only happens in cases of mature rivers that are uplifted and rejuvenated.

 

[4x4toy]

What, this little ditch ?

 

[Job 33:6]

It's quite understandable. Old rivers in low areas meander, because there is less energy in the water, and that causes erosion on the outside of any bend, with deposition on the inside. This makes bends become more and more extreme.

However, entrenched meanders, as noted in the Grand Canyon or the Snake River, are caused when old, meandering rivers are uplifted, as happened in those areas. The river speeds up, cutting deeper into the existing bed, trapping the river into the existing channel.

Can't happen suddenly. It only happens in cases of mature rivers that are uplifted and rejuvenated.

sure.

 

[dcalling]

Directly observed. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa. Speciation, in other words. And as you have been reminded, honest YE creationists have already admitted there is strong evidence for macroevolution. Would you like me to show you, again?

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

The question is how do you know the taxons are evolved and not created?

 

[The Barbarian]

The question is how do you know the taxons are evolved and not created?

The existence of transitional forms between taxons. And even more convincing, the lack of any such transitional forms where the evidence says there shouldn't be any. No feathered mammals. No whales with gill arches.

Among many, many other things, most notably genetic data. The same data that will tell you about the ancestry of humans will show you common descent. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

 

[dcalling]

And lastly, we have propogating faults and angles at which rock has broken within the canyon at various positions throughout its development. Features that have superpositionally have formed prior to the erosion that these rivers have caused.

And with this, we understand that this river has been eroding through hard rock. Its not like it was eroding through sediment, because sediment doesn't fracture into low angle thrust faults nor do fractures propagate and splinter through soft sediment at rigid angles. When you break a brick, you get a nice flat or jagged angled edge. when you break a piece of yogurst, it just melts in your hand, its not rigid. Right. The rocks of the grand canyon have broken in rigid hard ways under compressional forces, prior to being eroded by wind and water as seen below.

Further...well, theres a lot more to it. Superpositionally you have things like dinosaur nests and tracks and fossils such as dinosaur fossils, only found in mesozoic layers in the middle. Nests arent constructed amidst chaotic floods.

Further, rocks of the canyon in many areas are regionally metamorphosed, which requires temperatures of hundreds of degrees high. So no dinosaur is building a nest amidst 300 degree celcius temperatures.



So that i do not continue to blabber on, to summarize, ultimately when we propose that the grand canyon formed due to a global flood, nothing about this proposal actually makes any sense.

However, it all makes perfect sense, if the canyon were simply formed by erosion from regular every day rivers over a long period of time such as millions of years.

Your video actually makes sense, i.e. why rivers are curved. However the picture
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/grandcanyon-goosenecks_meandering_river.jpg

has to be formed by some much more powerful water body, since there are all cuts and no deposits.

 

[dcalling]

The existence of transitional forms between taxons. And even more convincing, the lack of any such transitional forms where the evidence says there shouldn't be any. No feathered mammals. No whales with gill arches.

Among many, many other things, most notably genetic data. The same data that will tell you about the ancestry of humans will show you common descent. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

Except you don't know if those so called transitional forms are actually evolved or designed.

So let's use whales for example. since no whales with gill arches, whales must be evolved from mamals from land right? What genes needs to mutate to get it from the ancestor of rodhoctus to more whale like? Do you just assumed or have actual evidence (not some jumping fossiles, but either breed it in a lab , or show how you can change the DNA code piece by piece under natural or lab conditons to form a whale).

 

[The Barbarian]

Except you don't know if those so called transitional forms are actually evolved or designed.

Actually, we do. As you might know, even YE creationists admit that they are strong evidence for evolution. But more impressively, we never find transitional forms where there shouldn't be any.

So let's use whales for example. since no whales with gill arches, whales must be evolved from mamals from land right?

That and thousands of other little facts that show they didn't. Thing like genes, atavistic legs in whales, ungulate digestive systems, and of course, numerous transitional forms that only show up where evolutionary theory says they should. At some point it becomes foolish to exclaim "Ah, another coincidence!"

What genes needs to mutate to get it from the ancestor of rodhoctus to more whale like?

Rodhocetus. It's "Rodhocetus." And for example, the hoxd12 and hoxd13 genes.
https://allscienceconsidered.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/a-whale-of-a-discovery-5hoxd-genes-and-the-evolution-of-cetacean-flippers/

 

[The Barbarian]

has to be formed by some much more powerful water body, since there are all cuts and no deposits.

Nope. It's just normal meanders that have become trapped. If you look straight down on it, the bed has the same form as other ancient rivers; it meanders, cutting the same shape. But it became trapped when the land was uplifted. That rejuvenated it, and made it run faster, cutting more quickly into the existing bed, and "entrenching" the bed into that fixed pattern.

 

[Job 33:6]

Your video actually makes sense, i.e. why rivers are curved. However the picture
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/grandcanyon-goosenecks_meandering_river.jpg

has to be formed by some much more powerful water body, since there are all cuts and no deposits.

what do you mean "there are no deposits" ? Are you saying that there is no sediment deposited anywhere in that stream from upstream? Do you understand that, when a meander forms, it forms via eroded material from the sides of the stream. And where there is eroded material, there is by default, deposited material, because eroded material deposits downstream.

Are you proposing that the eroded material is not depositing anywhere and that its just disappearing in thin air?

Here is actually an image of the calorado river that cuts through the grand canyon.

Notice how, on the left of the meander, the water is cutting into the rock, and on the right of the meander, there are gravel/cobble deposits.

So what do you mean "there are no deposits"?

Here is another image

Notice in the first meander at the bottom left of the image, deposits on the left, and erosion on the right. And everywhere there is a meander, we can see deposits.

There are deposits everywhere. And your response is that there are no deposits? After everything said above, this is all you can say?

 

[Job 33:6]

@The Barbarian

Dcalling has difficulty logically matching concepts to create responses.

Notice this "So let's use whales for example. since no whales with gill arches, whales must be evolved from mamals from land right? What genes needs to mutate to get it from the ancestor of rodhoctus to more whale like? ".

His second statement gives the appearance that he doesn't understand what the first sentence means, because they are unrelated. He never really responded to the first statement, he just sort of...spoke around it without acknowledging it.

Same with the meander topic, he states that there are no deposits. And yet, by the nature of how physics exist that produce meanders, there has to be deposits, because you cant have a stream erode rock, but then have that eroded rock not be deposited.

There is some kind of a disconnect in his...ability to understand the material. I don't know why this is, just don't be surprised if he doesn't understand the concepts that you share with him.

And @dcalling, if youre wondering about the final destination of that sediment, or at least prior to it going into the ocean, just google "calorado river basin" and "calorado river delta".

There multiple massive areas where water is carrying the sediment out to sea.

"Prior to the construction of major dams along its route, the Colorado River fed one of the largest desert estuaries in the world. Spread across the northernmost end of the Gulf of California, the Colorado River delta’s vast riparian, freshwater, brackish, and tidal wetlands once covered 7,810 km² (1,930,000 acres) "

The deposits from the calorado river basin are so vast, that people literally are taking pictures of it from outer space. Because its so big, that there is no way anyone other than someone from outerspace, could take a photo of it in whole.

 

[The Barbarian]

I blame it on politics. People are now treating scientific questions as though they can be settled by the best propaganda. We see it in climate, in the gun debate, in immigration, and so on.

And I'm ashamed to admit that it's not just the extreme right doing it these days. Not a good thing for America.

 

[Job 33:6]

I blame it on politics. People are now treating scientific questions as though they can be settled by the best propaganda. We see it in climate, in the gun debate, in immigration, and so on.

And I'm ashamed to admit that it's not just the extreme right doing it these days. Not a good thing for America.

Makes sense.

Any idea why he would say that there are no deposits at the grand canyon? Is this not a strange response? To everything said above, his only response was "there are no deposits". But anyone with eyeballs and a brain, can see that there are deposits? What is he getting at?