In a Way, I Feel Like Apologizing to those who Follow my Blog Regularly and to whom I Visit their Blogs on Occasion. I haven't been Around Visiting a lot of the Blogs Lately because I've had Limited Computer Time and have Mainly been Focusing on Radar's Blog. Though his Posts are Usually Long, they are Absolutely Excellent.
I've been Thinking that I need to Post again, though, so Perhaps I'll Take something Again from the Comment Section of Radar's Blog. This Time it is from the Comment Thread below his Post, Just Over a Year Ago, I Introduced Ian Juby and Now it's Time to Add on... This Post is Excellent, if you want to Take the Time to Read it. It shows Experiments and Evidence of how the Grand Canyon could have been Created by the Great Flood. If not, another Approach would be to just Read the Comments and this may Actually Help you Decide what Parts of the Post you want to Read, though that is Long also. So Far, there are 65 Comments.
The Linked Post is about Experiments that were done that show evidence that the Formations within the Grand Canyon and Other Canyons could have been formed by Water, therefore by the Great Flood of Noah. The Later Part of the Post is About the Dating of Rocks. I Found the Post Quite Interesting.
What I want to Share with you Now, though, is another Side Issue that came up in the Comment Section, which is the Subject of Speciation. I have been a Little Confused Lately about what they call the "Speciation" Debate, for the Word Species has Changed and here is a Link that Shows how...
Fixity of Species
Here is the Comment that I Wrote about it, Only Slightly Edited and some Bold Print was Added...
Lista said...
In the Article I just gave a Link to, we see that the Word "Species" Originally Meant the Biblical Kind. I Guess the Definition Change Took Place in the Mid-to-Late 1700s, when the Word Species was Used in Scientific Circles, as part of a Biological Classification System, yet this Definition is Still being Debated to this Day.
Basically the Change is this. What used to be a Dog Species (or Dog Kind), became many Dog "Species" within the "Genus" of Dog.
When a Creationist says, though, that there is no Evidence of Natural Selection or Evolution "between Species", he does not Mean that there has been no Evolution between Breeds of Dog or Cat. He means that no Matter how Hard you Try in your Breeding, a Dog will always be a Dog and a Cat will always be a Cat. If that is Called "Genus" now, rather than "Species", then we are no Longer Talking the Same Language when Debating "Speciation" and Macro-Evolution.
It Appears that there have been Some who have been Slow at Letting Go of the Original Definition, and those in the Church Continue to Understand the Word Species in Relation to Biblical Kinds.
Since there are Two Definitions, it Makes Talking about these Subjects Difficult and yet, if the Word Species does not Relate to the Original Biblical Kind, then this Whole Concept no Longer has any Meaning or Relevance to the Actual Limits within Natural Selection and Evolution between Kinds. In Actuality, this Change in Definition does little more than Confuse the Issue.
The Only Macro-Evolution Debate that Matters is that which Relates to Kinds, not Species, and Quite Often the "Kind" is more in Line with the the Scientific Category "Genus", rather than "Species".
Be Assured, though, that Evolutionists are not Going to Win this Debate by Changing the Meaning of a Word.
If we Must, then perhaps we should just Accept the New Definition and instead of Arguing against "Speciation", simply Say, "The idea of one KIND changing into another can be argued against based on the fact that NO SUCH CHANGE HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED." This is Exactly the Same Argument as before, Except the Word "Species", that was Originally Used, has been Replaced in the Sentence with the Word Kind.
At the End of the Linked Article, Other Definition Changes are Discussed such as the Definition of Science itself and also the Definition of Conception. I guess you’ll have to Read it, if you want to Know what I Mean.
If you Are Wondering where the Word "Kind" comes from, it is a Biblical Word, taken from Genesis...
"And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.'" (Genesis 1:11, KJV)
and
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:21, KJV)
and
"And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind; and it was so." (Genesis 1:24, KJV)
The Point Being Made here is that there is no Scientific Evidence that Disproves the Biblical Account of how the World was Created.
I guess I could Add just One more Thing. It Seems that the Definition of Evolution gets Confused at Times too. If Evolution means Natural Selection and Facilitated Variation within Kinds, then I Guess there is Evidence for that, yet if Evolution Means that we Evolved from Monkeys, well, that has not been Proved, for "The idea of one Kind changing into another can be argued against based on the fact that NO SUCH CHANGE HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED."
Friday, May 27, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
Blogging Frustrations/Introducting a New Friend
My Blogging seems to go in Phases. Sometimes, I'm Really into it and then Other Times, I Feel Board with it. And then there are Times in which I Only have the Energy to Focus on One Blog. I Really Wish that my Moods in Relation to this were more Predictable. So Often, it just Seems that there is too much to Think about and my Mind Shuts Down.
It is Hard too to Balance Blogging and Friendship. There are so Many People Out there that are just Plain Rude and I Find Myself Feeling Unloved by Fellow Bloggers and Commenters and on my Own Blog, I Like to sometimes Write in a more Personal Way, Like I am doing Right Now, and I Wonder if I am Being a Fool for Doings so in the Midst of all the Monsters, Creepy Crawlers and Wolfs Out there.
And then there are Friendships that have Died. That is People who I used to Respect, but that I now have such a Very Low Opinion of. One in Particular doesn't even seem to Realize the Full Extent to which my Opinion of him has gone Soar. He Actually Thinks we're Still Friends.
It's hard to Keep One's Balance at Times, but you Know what? I Really want to Thank those of you have been Faithful in Reading my Blog from Time to Time. You are the One's that I Think of when I Wonder if I should be giving you more to Read.
A More Recent Friend, whose Blog is Really Excellent is Radar. He is Long Winded, yet Writes about Christian Apologetics in a Way that is Quite Impressive. Here are Two of the Posts that I have most Recently Read and that Are Truly Excellent...
Atheism, the Irrational Faith. Recapitulation, the Ludicrous Lie.
Is the Bible Scientifically Correct? Introducing Please Convince Me Dot Com.
The Comment Thread from the First of These is what Inspired the Post just below this One.
It is Hard too to Balance Blogging and Friendship. There are so Many People Out there that are just Plain Rude and I Find Myself Feeling Unloved by Fellow Bloggers and Commenters and on my Own Blog, I Like to sometimes Write in a more Personal Way, Like I am doing Right Now, and I Wonder if I am Being a Fool for Doings so in the Midst of all the Monsters, Creepy Crawlers and Wolfs Out there.
And then there are Friendships that have Died. That is People who I used to Respect, but that I now have such a Very Low Opinion of. One in Particular doesn't even seem to Realize the Full Extent to which my Opinion of him has gone Soar. He Actually Thinks we're Still Friends.
It's hard to Keep One's Balance at Times, but you Know what? I Really want to Thank those of you have been Faithful in Reading my Blog from Time to Time. You are the One's that I Think of when I Wonder if I should be giving you more to Read.
A More Recent Friend, whose Blog is Really Excellent is Radar. He is Long Winded, yet Writes about Christian Apologetics in a Way that is Quite Impressive. Here are Two of the Posts that I have most Recently Read and that Are Truly Excellent...
Atheism, the Irrational Faith. Recapitulation, the Ludicrous Lie.
Is the Bible Scientifically Correct? Introducing Please Convince Me Dot Com.
The Comment Thread from the First of These is what Inspired the Post just below this One.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The Mount Saint Helens Debate
It looks like I'm going to be doing a Post on a different subject then I at first thought. I apologize for the fact that I haven't Posted in so long. Besides feeling a little sick there for awhile, I was also pretty tied up in a Conversation that has been Taking Place on Radar's Blog. The Name of the Post is Atheism, the Irrational Faith. Recapitulation, the Ludicrous Lie. It's a very good Article, though quite Long.
What I would Really Like to Draw your Attention to now, though, is a Certain Subject that came up in the Comment Thread. This was an Extremely Long Comment Thread and Even the Part of it that I want to Share with you is Long. I Only Included that which Relates to the Mount Saint Helens Subject and the Comments may be Edited Slightly to Remove that which does not Apply to the Subject and to Keep this Post a little more Brief. Before Reading the Comments, though, Please also Read the Link that I gave them that Relates to Mount Saint Helens. Here is the Part of the Conversation that Relates to Mount Saint Helens...
Lista said...
Woolf
"Young-earth creationism is a lie, perpetrated by evil men as a means of controlling innocent, well-meaning folks like you."
Now that I am Remembering the Video that I Watched Relating to Mount Saint Helens, I am Quite Certain that you are the One who is Lying. I wonder too if I should remind you that an insult is not the same as an argument. 6:17 PM
Jon Woolf said...
Lista: "Now that I am Remembering the Video that I Watched Relating to Mount Saint Helens, I am Quite Certain that you are the One who is Lying."
Really? Now you've got me curious. What video is this? Who made it? Where did you see it? 6:59 PM
Lista said...
I Believe that we got it from the Christian Research Institute. The video was excellent. You can call it Lies if you want to, but I've seen it and do not agree with you.
What is actually revealed is the Arrogance of those who continue to believe in Traditional Science and in their very Stubborn refusal to admit it when the possibility that they might be wrong is revealed.
Jon Woolf said..
Lista: "I Believe that we got it from the Christian Research Institute."
Ah. That explains a lot.
(A List of Credentials, Click on the Time Stamp Below this Comment if you want to see them.)
Never trust a creationist. Never.
Lista said...
It doesn't matter what your credentials are, Woolf. Evidence is Evidence and I've been around long enough myself to realize that scientists are biased and even those who have impressive creditals are biased, so please forgive me when I tell you that I am not Impressed.
That Mount Saint Helens Video Impressed me, but you do not and I will Trust who I Want to, Thank You. 9:49 AM
Jon Woolf said...
Lista: "That Mount Saint Helens Video Impressed me, but you do not and I will Trust who I Want to, Thank You."
[shrug] Your choice. Though I think you're a bit foolish to trust anyone without looking at the facts for yourself -- not edited videos, but the original evidence, the fossils and rocks exactly as they're found Out There. 4:00 PM
Lista said...
Woolf,
Fossils and Rocks?! Are you Kidding?! I'd Like to Hear you Explain Away how a 100 Foot Deep Canyon was Formed in Less then one Day. Here is a Quote from Mount St. Helens - Evidence for Genesis.
"The events associated with the volcano’s explosion accomplished in seconds, hours, or just a few days, geologic work that normally would be interpreted as having taken hundreds or even millions of years."
I'd just Like to Hear you Try and Explain that One, Woolf. I don't Think that it Takes a Scientific Genius to Understand the Above Statement and Here's another Quote, Emphasis Added by me...
"Now I remember being taught in school that when you saw a canyon with a river running through it, you ASSUMED that the river took a long time to erode the canyon."
Don't you see? That is just the Problem. Scientists ASSUME much more Often then they Know.11:52 AM
Jon Woolf said...
Lista: "I'd Like to Hear you Explain Away how a 100 Foot Deep Canyon was Formed in Less then one Day.
"I'd just Like to Hear you Try and Explain that One, Woolf. I don't Think that it Takes a Scientific Genius to Understand the Above Statement."
Understand it, no. Understand why it's wrong ... well, still no, but it does take a little more information to do that. Specifically, it requires knowing that the 'canyon' AiG is talking about was eroded through soft, loose volcanic ash, not through hard rock. No geologist would be stupid enough to claim that digging a 'canyon' through ash would take millions of years.
Lista said...
Woolf,
The Point is that if a 100 Foot Deep Canyon can be Formed in less than a Day by any means at all, then this makes it Likely that the Grand Canyon also was Formed in far less Time then Millions of Years. This is, therefore, Evidence that the Traditional Thinking of Geologists in how Canyons are Formed is not Correct and that the Earth may Indeed be Younger than we had at One Time Thought.
Jon Woolf said...
"The Point is that if a 100 Foot Deep Canyon can be Formed in less than a Day by any means at all, then this makes it Likely that the Grand Canyon also was Formed in far less Time then Millions of Years. "
[sigh]
Go get your garden hose and hook it up. Try to use it to dig a hole in the backyard dirt. Not too hard, is it? That's what happened with the 'canyon' near Mt St Helens.
Now go try the same thing on the asphalt street or concrete sidewalk. Not so easy, is it? That's more like what happened with the Grand Canyon. Except that the rock of the Inner Gorge is even harder than concrete.
Lista said...
Woolf,
The Actual Geology of the Part of the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, that is now Missing, can not be Known.
Anyone who Knows anything about Erosion Knows that what Erodes Away First is all the Soft Material and what Remains is that which is Harder. In a Young Canyon, like the One Near Mount Saint Helens, what remains is Softer because the Rain and Snow has not had the Time to Finish the Job so that Only Hard Rock Remains.
Ok, so I've Just Admitted that Natural Erosion may have Finished the Job, yet if a Catastrophe Started the Process, the Time Period of the Rest of the Erosion would be Considerably Shortened. The Fact Still Remains, though, that "The events associated with the volcano’s explosion accomplished in seconds, hours, or just a few days, geologic work that normally would be interpreted as having taken hundreds or even millions of years."
This is a Significant Piece of Evidence. So Creeper's Claim that "YEC has nothing to offer." is Simply not True.
Lista said...
You Know Woolf,
Once I've Given this some Thought, I have Realized that your Comment about Rock Being Harder to Erode through than Ash was Actually Quite Deceptive and the Reason Why is because in Light of the Information I just Added, this is Irrelevant. Let's Review this Again.
"Anyone who Knows anything about Erosion Knows that what Erodes Away First is all the Soft Material and what Remains is that which is Harder."
Based on this Reality, the Hard Rock that Remains at the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, is in no Way Representative of that which was Washed Away. What you have Done, Woolf, is Insulted my Intelligence, for in order for me to Buy what you just said, I would have to Know Absolutely Nothing about Erosion.
This Brings me Back to the Subject of Bias. To not View that which was Learned from Mount Saint Helens as Evidence is nothing more than Bias and to Call what is Offered by Evolutionism Evidence and what is Offered by YEC not Evidence can not be Called anything but Biased Arrogance. 1:11 PM
Jon Woolf said...
In the area of the 'Little Grand Canyon,' the ash and pyroclastics are something like 400 feet deep. The canyon penetrates less than half of that. Below that ash lies the old soil layer, and below that lies bedrock. The bedrock below the valley is itself the remains of older eruptions, so it's also largely consolidated pyroclastics, not "lava cap."
Lista: "the Actual Geology of the Part of the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, that is now Missing, can not be Known."
Well actually, yes it can. Downstream of the Grand Canyon lies a large depression in the crust known as the Salton Trough. The sedimentary rock that fills this depression is called the Imperial Formation. The sediments of the Imperial Formation are clearly derived from the excavation of the Grand Canyon -- so clearly that we can identify specific sediments within the Imperial as coming from specific layers of the Colorado Plateau rocks.
Lista: "Based on this Reality, the Hard Rock that Remains at the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, is in no Way Representative of that which was Washed Away."
You can't have meant that the way it sounds. You can't really mean that you think the Grand Canyon simply dug out soft rock, and left the surrounding harder rock intact. Nobody smart enough to operate a computer could think that. 6:39 PM
Lista said...
Woolf,
"Downstream of the Grand Canyon lies a large depression in the crust known as the Salton Trough."
Obviously anything that was Soft Like Ash would have Washed away and what Remains, even in this "Large Depression" is going to be the Heavier Stuff. This is Common Knowledge, not just in Relation to Erosion, but Also in Relation to Gold Panning.
Obviously there is going to be some Erosion of the Canyon Walls. That's been Taking Place for Quite Some Time. That's what you see in the "Salton Trough" and as to the Colorado Plateau Rocks, any Soft Stuff from Colorado has been Washed Down Stream and there is no Way for you to Prove Otherwise.
Erosion, Woolf, is the Process of Removing the Soft and Leaving the Hard. That is how Rock Formations are Formed. Go to Any National Park that has Rock Formations of any Sort at all and that is what they will Tell you, because that which is Hard does not Erode Away as Quickly.
Apparently, those who Work at National Parks and who Write the Information in their Visitors Centers must be too Dumb to Operate Computers.
Anonymous said...
"What you have Done, Woolf, is Insulted my Intelligence, for in order for me to Buy what you just said, I would have to Know Absolutely Nothing about Erosion."
If anything, Woolf has assumed that you know more about erosion than you apparently do - which would mean he has actually complimented your intelligence.
Here is a site with some useful info to allow you to catch up - Soil Erosion Site
Lista said...
Well Anonymous,
I Checked Out your Link and read some of it, but from what I can Tell, it is about "Soil" Erosion, not the Erosion of Rocks and Harder Materials, nor does it Talk about Canyons. It is Mostly in Relation to Farming and the Loss of Soil and Nutrients. My Discussion with Woolf has to do with what was Eroded Away in the Forming of the Grand Canyon and all I am saying is that Initially it was Soil and not Rock.
Sorry, but there is nothing in the Linked Website that you Left for me that Talks about the Erosion of Rocks and therefore, all that I have said still Stands.
What I would Really Like to Draw your Attention to now, though, is a Certain Subject that came up in the Comment Thread. This was an Extremely Long Comment Thread and Even the Part of it that I want to Share with you is Long. I Only Included that which Relates to the Mount Saint Helens Subject and the Comments may be Edited Slightly to Remove that which does not Apply to the Subject and to Keep this Post a little more Brief. Before Reading the Comments, though, Please also Read the Link that I gave them that Relates to Mount Saint Helens. Here is the Part of the Conversation that Relates to Mount Saint Helens...
Lista said...
Woolf
"Young-earth creationism is a lie, perpetrated by evil men as a means of controlling innocent, well-meaning folks like you."
Now that I am Remembering the Video that I Watched Relating to Mount Saint Helens, I am Quite Certain that you are the One who is Lying. I wonder too if I should remind you that an insult is not the same as an argument. 6:17 PM
Jon Woolf said...
Lista: "Now that I am Remembering the Video that I Watched Relating to Mount Saint Helens, I am Quite Certain that you are the One who is Lying."
Really? Now you've got me curious. What video is this? Who made it? Where did you see it? 6:59 PM
Lista said...
I Believe that we got it from the Christian Research Institute. The video was excellent. You can call it Lies if you want to, but I've seen it and do not agree with you.
What is actually revealed is the Arrogance of those who continue to believe in Traditional Science and in their very Stubborn refusal to admit it when the possibility that they might be wrong is revealed.
Jon Woolf said..
Lista: "I Believe that we got it from the Christian Research Institute."
Ah. That explains a lot.
(A List of Credentials, Click on the Time Stamp Below this Comment if you want to see them.)
Never trust a creationist. Never.
Lista said...
It doesn't matter what your credentials are, Woolf. Evidence is Evidence and I've been around long enough myself to realize that scientists are biased and even those who have impressive creditals are biased, so please forgive me when I tell you that I am not Impressed.
That Mount Saint Helens Video Impressed me, but you do not and I will Trust who I Want to, Thank You. 9:49 AM
Jon Woolf said...
Lista: "That Mount Saint Helens Video Impressed me, but you do not and I will Trust who I Want to, Thank You."
[shrug] Your choice. Though I think you're a bit foolish to trust anyone without looking at the facts for yourself -- not edited videos, but the original evidence, the fossils and rocks exactly as they're found Out There. 4:00 PM
Lista said...
Woolf,
Fossils and Rocks?! Are you Kidding?! I'd Like to Hear you Explain Away how a 100 Foot Deep Canyon was Formed in Less then one Day. Here is a Quote from Mount St. Helens - Evidence for Genesis.
"The events associated with the volcano’s explosion accomplished in seconds, hours, or just a few days, geologic work that normally would be interpreted as having taken hundreds or even millions of years."
I'd just Like to Hear you Try and Explain that One, Woolf. I don't Think that it Takes a Scientific Genius to Understand the Above Statement and Here's another Quote, Emphasis Added by me...
"Now I remember being taught in school that when you saw a canyon with a river running through it, you ASSUMED that the river took a long time to erode the canyon."
Don't you see? That is just the Problem. Scientists ASSUME much more Often then they Know.11:52 AM
Jon Woolf said...
Lista: "I'd Like to Hear you Explain Away how a 100 Foot Deep Canyon was Formed in Less then one Day.
"I'd just Like to Hear you Try and Explain that One, Woolf. I don't Think that it Takes a Scientific Genius to Understand the Above Statement."
Understand it, no. Understand why it's wrong ... well, still no, but it does take a little more information to do that. Specifically, it requires knowing that the 'canyon' AiG is talking about was eroded through soft, loose volcanic ash, not through hard rock. No geologist would be stupid enough to claim that digging a 'canyon' through ash would take millions of years.
Lista said...
Woolf,
The Point is that if a 100 Foot Deep Canyon can be Formed in less than a Day by any means at all, then this makes it Likely that the Grand Canyon also was Formed in far less Time then Millions of Years. This is, therefore, Evidence that the Traditional Thinking of Geologists in how Canyons are Formed is not Correct and that the Earth may Indeed be Younger than we had at One Time Thought.
Jon Woolf said...
"The Point is that if a 100 Foot Deep Canyon can be Formed in less than a Day by any means at all, then this makes it Likely that the Grand Canyon also was Formed in far less Time then Millions of Years. "
[sigh]
Go get your garden hose and hook it up. Try to use it to dig a hole in the backyard dirt. Not too hard, is it? That's what happened with the 'canyon' near Mt St Helens.
Now go try the same thing on the asphalt street or concrete sidewalk. Not so easy, is it? That's more like what happened with the Grand Canyon. Except that the rock of the Inner Gorge is even harder than concrete.
Lista said...
Woolf,
The Actual Geology of the Part of the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, that is now Missing, can not be Known.
Anyone who Knows anything about Erosion Knows that what Erodes Away First is all the Soft Material and what Remains is that which is Harder. In a Young Canyon, like the One Near Mount Saint Helens, what remains is Softer because the Rain and Snow has not had the Time to Finish the Job so that Only Hard Rock Remains.
Ok, so I've Just Admitted that Natural Erosion may have Finished the Job, yet if a Catastrophe Started the Process, the Time Period of the Rest of the Erosion would be Considerably Shortened. The Fact Still Remains, though, that "The events associated with the volcano’s explosion accomplished in seconds, hours, or just a few days, geologic work that normally would be interpreted as having taken hundreds or even millions of years."
This is a Significant Piece of Evidence. So Creeper's Claim that "YEC has nothing to offer." is Simply not True.
Lista said...
You Know Woolf,
Once I've Given this some Thought, I have Realized that your Comment about Rock Being Harder to Erode through than Ash was Actually Quite Deceptive and the Reason Why is because in Light of the Information I just Added, this is Irrelevant. Let's Review this Again.
"Anyone who Knows anything about Erosion Knows that what Erodes Away First is all the Soft Material and what Remains is that which is Harder."
Based on this Reality, the Hard Rock that Remains at the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, is in no Way Representative of that which was Washed Away. What you have Done, Woolf, is Insulted my Intelligence, for in order for me to Buy what you just said, I would have to Know Absolutely Nothing about Erosion.
This Brings me Back to the Subject of Bias. To not View that which was Learned from Mount Saint Helens as Evidence is nothing more than Bias and to Call what is Offered by Evolutionism Evidence and what is Offered by YEC not Evidence can not be Called anything but Biased Arrogance. 1:11 PM
Jon Woolf said...
In the area of the 'Little Grand Canyon,' the ash and pyroclastics are something like 400 feet deep. The canyon penetrates less than half of that. Below that ash lies the old soil layer, and below that lies bedrock. The bedrock below the valley is itself the remains of older eruptions, so it's also largely consolidated pyroclastics, not "lava cap."
Lista: "the Actual Geology of the Part of the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, that is now Missing, can not be Known."
Well actually, yes it can. Downstream of the Grand Canyon lies a large depression in the crust known as the Salton Trough. The sedimentary rock that fills this depression is called the Imperial Formation. The sediments of the Imperial Formation are clearly derived from the excavation of the Grand Canyon -- so clearly that we can identify specific sediments within the Imperial as coming from specific layers of the Colorado Plateau rocks.
Lista: "Based on this Reality, the Hard Rock that Remains at the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, is in no Way Representative of that which was Washed Away."
You can't have meant that the way it sounds. You can't really mean that you think the Grand Canyon simply dug out soft rock, and left the surrounding harder rock intact. Nobody smart enough to operate a computer could think that. 6:39 PM
Lista said...
Woolf,
"Downstream of the Grand Canyon lies a large depression in the crust known as the Salton Trough."
Obviously anything that was Soft Like Ash would have Washed away and what Remains, even in this "Large Depression" is going to be the Heavier Stuff. This is Common Knowledge, not just in Relation to Erosion, but Also in Relation to Gold Panning.
Obviously there is going to be some Erosion of the Canyon Walls. That's been Taking Place for Quite Some Time. That's what you see in the "Salton Trough" and as to the Colorado Plateau Rocks, any Soft Stuff from Colorado has been Washed Down Stream and there is no Way for you to Prove Otherwise.
Erosion, Woolf, is the Process of Removing the Soft and Leaving the Hard. That is how Rock Formations are Formed. Go to Any National Park that has Rock Formations of any Sort at all and that is what they will Tell you, because that which is Hard does not Erode Away as Quickly.
Apparently, those who Work at National Parks and who Write the Information in their Visitors Centers must be too Dumb to Operate Computers.
Anonymous said...
"What you have Done, Woolf, is Insulted my Intelligence, for in order for me to Buy what you just said, I would have to Know Absolutely Nothing about Erosion."
If anything, Woolf has assumed that you know more about erosion than you apparently do - which would mean he has actually complimented your intelligence.
Here is a site with some useful info to allow you to catch up - Soil Erosion Site
Lista said...
Well Anonymous,
I Checked Out your Link and read some of it, but from what I can Tell, it is about "Soil" Erosion, not the Erosion of Rocks and Harder Materials, nor does it Talk about Canyons. It is Mostly in Relation to Farming and the Loss of Soil and Nutrients. My Discussion with Woolf has to do with what was Eroded Away in the Forming of the Grand Canyon and all I am saying is that Initially it was Soil and not Rock.
Sorry, but there is nothing in the Linked Website that you Left for me that Talks about the Erosion of Rocks and therefore, all that I have said still Stands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)