Joined: Sep. 2009
|Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,04:31)|
|Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 29 2009,21:40)|
|Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 29 2009,12:30)|
|Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 28 2009,22:14)|
|Really in a man's mind they lost the battle. To a man who had lost his 10 year old son the alienation of suffering fractured his weak convictions of a deity. What can replace an innocent son? Against his own wife's pleading in letters he rejected revelation and the concept of God. |
So as he sat on the Santa Cruz River valley and sees the river he agrees with Lyell and others before him that the random runnings of a small river had over many more years than Newton would have imagined carved out this valley.
Watch this:Santa Cruz River
That's some really bogus geological interpretation in that video, baboo.
Austin faults Darwin for not interpreting the Santa Cruz as a catastrophic glacial flood plain (a la the channeled scablands in Washington) yet Austin's evidence FOR such an interpretation consists of nothing but small "boulders" that look to be barely 25 CM across.
Compare that to the actual features of the channelled scablands, with enormous house-sized blocks lifted up and carried hundreds of miles, giant potholes formed by real boulders scouring out concavities, braided channels cut deep into the Earth.
The Santa Cruz has none of that, just a typical meandering river plain with typical spring-flood-type small boulders.
Perhaps you should actually watch the video before you make statements referring to cobbles of 25 cm. One only need to watch the first 3 minutes to see Austin climbing the basalt cliff where there are many many boulders as tall as him and as wide. This would make for several tons a piece and of the same composition as the mountains upriver.
As well, it is Darwin that journaled a 15 ft boulder, not Austin.
As for the scablands, they were ignored for 40 years by the unformintarian science community after in 1923 J Harlan Bretz proposed water flow as a cause for them.
I watched the video, and the section you're referring to is while Austin is on the north (basalt-strata) side of the river. At 2:09 in the video, Austin's camera cuts to the "boulder bar" on the south side of the river. The camera cuts back and forth a few times.
It is that boulder bar that is composed of cobbles and small boulders. Yes, Austin mentions Darwin talking about an erratic (a single LARGE boulder) deposited by glaciation. Big deal.
Let's say Austin is right about that bar being the product of large-scale floods. In fact, I'm quite willing to stipulate (for the sake of argument) that Austin may be right. So what?
I'd like to hear YOU say what you think it means if Darwin was wrong about the basalt strata continuing on the south side of the river and the possibility of flooding depositing that boulder bar. What do YOU say it means?
I'll continue this friendly-style discussion as long as you wish to remain civil and address MY points as well. You can start with my question above.
Oh, and as for Harlan Bretz' channeled scablands -- it is simply false to say that the scientific community "ignored" the topic. It was the subject of decades of controversy and papers flying back and forth in geological journals. See: http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/bretz_re.html or http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/corley2/missoula.htm
Bretz' big mistake was in ignoring the work of Joseph T. ("JT") Pardee, who HAD nailed -- a year before Bretz published anything on the scablands -- the source of the Missoula flooding. Bretz was only at odds with the geological community because he FAILED to present that source/mechanism for the scabland origins.
|"Bretz's original proposal lacked two key items: |
1) a mechanism for producing the huge volumes of water necessary, and
2) evidence that excluded all other possible interpretations to the satisfaction of most scientists. While philosophical differences *may* have been an influence, they are not sufficient to account for the reaction Bretz received.
In fact, with the eventual availability of more evidence, a plausible mechanism, and evidence for that specific mechanism (e.g., Pardee's work), most geologists quickly accepted Bretz's hypothesis."
"Ignored?" Hardly. As you're going to find out, Austin and his creo-cohorts have a very malleable view of what constitutes "honesty."
I would like to be civil and I will also ignore uncalled-for sarcastic slams (not from you deadman). We are all human beings who breathe the same air, even if we don't agree.
What do I think it means? Scientifically, I think rapid water flow from a very large flood is the most likely explanation. You have the mountains 5 miles upstream which would be the source of cobbles and boulders. The valley is 200 ft deep and very wide, and the rocks go to the top. It is probable that the water filled the valley and possibly even widened and deepened it. I can not say more scientifically.
Yes I think a river can cut a canyon, but it is helped by floods, large debris, rocks and boulders in carving the canyon. There is alot of power in a large rapid flowing volume of water or other material, such as mud.
A 150 foot deep canyon was cut in 1 to 5 days at Mt St Helens by a mud slide.