Real Science Friday: New Island, Old Look

[aharvey]

No. They both look similar (macro scale) because of a big flow. They look different (meanders) because of the presence of a water cycle on Earth.

I guess I'm still waiting to hear in what way they look similar, particularly that is traceable to a single big brief flow.

When I said, "Below, vertically" that was because I said "below" in a previous post and I think you took it as meaning "downstream" when I meant literally "below".

Sorry, you've replaced one confusion with another!

The bank was formed by the deluge. Previous to that it wouldn't have been a wall.

These words don't really describe anything sensible to me. How does a global covering of water form a (presumably locally elevated) bank? What would it have been previous to that?

There would also have been lots of sediment on top of the hard rock layers we see today.

Is the "bank formed by the deluge" the "hard rock layer we see today" or not? Wouldn't the sediment cover the whole area, not just the elevated bank? Indeed, wouldn't an elevated bank have less sediment than the lower areas around it?

All this initial barrier that caused the deluge was conveniently destroyed.

Yes, conveniently is the operative word.

Apart from what was left behind and is now the big funnel shape we see.

You mean inverted funnel, right? You have the water flowing up the funnel, not down it.

Have you read Walt's ideas on this?

You mean on how the compromised "bank" can be part of a plateau that is not only in the offending lake but directly in front of the supposed breach? No, I confess I missed that one. I wasted enough time trying to fit his initial conditions and flood events into the laws of physics (and without contradicting each other).

:chuckle: Not quite. I'm saying they look different because after they were both formed by a large influx of water one had a water cycle in operation to keep feeding it water and the other did not.

Only all the evidence for that large initial influx was, how did you put it, "conveniently destroyed."

A couple of thousand or more.

Wow, so the Grand Canyon as we know it (all the meandering part that we actually see today, not the part of which there is no trace!) was formed by less than a couple thousand years of stream flow erosion?! And then this process suddenly stopped just when we started paying attention?

Yes.


Grand Lake.


Sure.

Okay. More on this later.

 

[Stripe]

You sound so very incredulous, aharvey. :chuckle:

 

[aharvey]

You sound so very incredulous, aharvey. :chuckle:

Can't help it. What is incredulous, but skepticism intensified? And what is science, but skepticism formalized? In this particular case, the more specifics you provide, the less tenable your hypothesis seems, and so the more intensely skeptical I become. I think this is partly why creationists so rarely provide enough specifics for their ideas to be scrutinized the way conventional science is.

 

[Stripe]

I haven't provided all that many specifics. You have asked a lot of questions in a skeptical tone of voice though.

 

[aharvey]

I haven't provided all that many specifics. You have asked a lot of questions in a skeptical tone of voice though.

Oh, I'm sorry. I was waiting for your point! Would you prefer flat out rejection of an idea without knowing anything about it or bothering to find out? Well, okay, I know that's what you did with evolutionary theory, but I'm asking if that's how you think I should be treating your Grand Canyon scenario: scornful rejection without hearing it out? Or, maybe, uncritical acceptance? Otherwise, you got informed skepticism to deal with.

 

[Stripe]

Oh, I'm sorry. I was waiting for your point! Would you prefer flat out rejection of an idea without knowing anything about it or bothering to find out? Well, okay, I know that's what you did with evolutionary theory, but I'm asking if that's how you think I should be treating your Grand Canyon scenario: scornful rejection without hearing it out? Or, maybe, uncritical acceptance? Otherwise, you got informed skepticism to deal with.

You're not informed :nono:

 

[aharvey]

You're not informed :nono:

You make a compelling case there, stipe .

Actually, I'm guessing you're not referring to the actual information I have access to, nor my ability to logically evaluate this information, but rather to those revealed truths that thus don't really depend on, well, information or interpretation. 'Coz I would have to kindly disagree that when it comes to matters geological and especially biological that you can legitimately call me uninformed. Maybe I'll turn out to be wrong (it's happened before, it'll happen again), but it won't be for being uninformed.

But if you are saying I haven't gotten my fair share of revealed truths, well, I can't exactly argue that. Sort of by definition.

 

[Stripe]

You make a compelling case there, stipe .

Actually, I'm guessing you're not referring to the actual information I have access to, nor my ability to logically evaluate this information, but rather to those revealed truths that thus don't really depend on, well, information or interpretation. 'Coz I would have to kindly disagree that when it comes to matters geological and especially biological that you can legitimately call me uninformed. Maybe I'll turn out to be wrong (it's happened before, it'll happen again), but it won't be for being uninformed.

But if you are saying I haven't gotten my fair share of revealed truths, well, I can't exactly argue that. Sort of by definition.

Nope. I'm referring to the fact that you have started asking screeds of questions that I can't answer easily without having a grasp on even what I'm saying yet.

 

[aharvey]

Nope. I'm referring to the fact that you have started asking screeds of questions that I can't answer easily without having a grasp on even what I'm saying yet.

Um, well, yeah, I guess it makes sense that you can't answer questions easily without having a grasp on even what you're saying yet. I've actually got a lot of stuff on my plate right now. I'd rather not spend it arguing with someone who doesn't even understand what they are saying yet. Take your time, figure it out, then let me know when you've got a scenario that works and that you can discuss. And don't worry if this turns out to be one of those things you refer to in the other thread as a "God did it.'

 

[Stripe]

I have a scenario I can discuss.

 

[aharvey]

I have a scenario I can discuss.

Well, since you gave that impression many pages ago, you'll have to pardon my, er, skepticism now.

 

[Stripe]

Well, since you gave that impression many pages ago, you'll have to pardon my, er, skepticism now.

You're skeptical because I haven't changed anything I've said?

 

[aharvey]

You're skeptical because I haven't changed anything I've said?

No, I'm skeptical of your claim that you have a scenario to discuss because earlier in this thread you generated a lot of posts about a scenario that it turns out you didn't actually grasp at the time you were discussing it. Once burned, twice shy?

 

[Stripe]

I understand what I was saying and I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[aharvey]

Nope. I'm referring to the fact that you have started asking screeds of questions that I can't answer easily without having a grasp on even what I'm saying yet.

I understand what I was saying and I don't see anything wrong with it.

Of course you don't, and yet you kinda imploded when I started asking questions. Look, you can't leak out dribs and drabs of your scenario and then complain that I'm asking questions before you've had a chance to lay out your entire case. Why else would you provide little incomplete bits if you didn't want commentary along the way. If you have an entire case to lay out, and it is for some reason wrong to question anything less than the entire case, then lay out the entire case.

 

[Stripe]

Of course you don't, and yet you kinda imploded when I started asking questions. Look, you can't leak out dribs and drabs of your scenario and then complain that I'm asking questions before you've had a chance to lay out your entire case. Why else would you provide little incomplete bits if you didn't want commentary along the way. If you have an entire case to lay out, and it is for some reason wrong to question anything less than the entire case, then lay out the entire case.

You misunderstood that quote. Let me fix it:

I'm referring to the fact that you have started asking screeds of questions (that I can't answer easily) without (you) having a grasp on even what I'm saying yet.

 

[aharvey]

You misunderstood that quote. Let me fix it:

I'm referring to the fact that you have started asking screeds of questions (that I can't answer easily) without (you) having a grasp on even what I'm saying yet.

Actually, I covered that possibility as well:

"Look, you can't leak out dribs and drabs of your scenario and then complain that I'm asking questions before you've had a chance to lay out your entire case. Why else would you provide little incomplete bits if you didn't want commentary along the way. If you have an entire case to lay out, and it is for some reason wrong to question anything less than the entire case, then lay out the entire case."

 

[Stripe]

So what's the problem then? You're upset because I'm not hijacking this thread? :chuckle:

 

[aharvey]

So what's the problem then? You're upset because I'm not hijacking this thread? :chuckle:

No, you complained that I asked too many questions before you'd even finished explaining yourself. As if I starting asking these questions while you were still typing.

But you're being too modest if you think you haven't already hijacked this thread pages ago. When's the last time anyone's weighed in on Bob Enyart resurrecting his "scientists claim global flood on Mars!" bit?

 

[Stripe]

I answered that. You guys weren't happy with the answer and kept asking me more questions.