The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is this evidence for a giant flood?  (Read 6561 times)

Offline itisus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Is this evidence for a giant flood?
« on: 16/04/2009 03:00:06 »
The recent Darwin issue of a (free) slick magazine from a Young Earth Creationist group (and Morris family business) included an article on the Santa Cruz River in Argentina.  The relevance was that the "geology correspondent" author camped where Darwin had camped.  He described a stream embedded in a dark steep-walled canyon, and a large rounded light colored rock perched on the other side of the canyon.  He concluded that the present river could not have eroded that canyon (and deposited that erratic rounded rock) in any length of time, so the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation is a Great Flood (lasting perhaps 40 days).  He was clearly an authority since he was there.

One unmentioned peripheral detail is that the river is sourced by two glaciers, clearly receded from earlier times.  I have seen them.

Can you think of another explanation?  Tough question, eh?
« Last Edit: 16/04/2009 23:48:38 by chris »


 

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
Re: Is this evidence for a giant flood?
« Reply #1 on: 16/04/2009 04:48:05 »
Must have been a flood...40 days sounds about right...what else could possibly move whole boulders?  ;D

 

Offline Mazurka

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
    • View Profile
Re: Is this evidence for a giant flood?
« Reply #2 on: 16/04/2009 10:21:06 »
Clearly it is a large scale desication crack following the flood, that now happens to have a glacier fed river.
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Is this evidence for a giant flood?
« Reply #3 on: 16/04/2009 20:05:09 »
I am not even going to pander to the creationist - it is pure horse-shite.

To believe that there is only one way a supreme being can act is in itself just plain stupid and thus this person writing the article is lacking in any real cognitive reasoning ability. His own holy book says that "God works in mysterious ways." So why cannot the science of geology and Christianity co-exists?

This is a subject that just claws at my guts. I was raised as one of the unquestioning multitude and taught not to question anything i was told. That, for me, is a sure way to damnation as one must find their own salvation ON THEIR OWN.

I need to stop right there. The heresy of literalism strikes again.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Is this evidence for a giant flood?
« Reply #4 on: 17/04/2009 10:23:21 »
I am not even going to pander to the creationist - it is pure horse-shite.


Spot on, I couldn't agree more.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Is this evidence for a giant flood?
« Reply #5 on: 18/04/2009 23:08:51 »
The religious stuff is irrelevant.

I'm a bit surprised JimBob didn't include a link to something about the Channeled Scablands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channeled_scablands
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Is this evidence for a giant flood?
« Reply #6 on: 19/04/2009 15:32:35 »
The religious stuff is irrelevant.

I'm a bit surprised JimBob didn't include a link to something about the Channeled Scablands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channeled_scablands

Then the anti-Darwinist fools might say - oh look, floods! - without reading the part that says the process that formed the Scablands happened thousand of timed over and over again.
 

Offline stereologist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
    • Stereothena
Is this evidence for a giant flood?
« Reply #7 on: 19/04/2009 23:08:41 »
I once calculated how much water it takes to flood the earth to cover Everest. It takes 14 Atlantic oceans to do it.

I think the author had a reasonable conclusion - the river as it is today did not move the rock there.

After that his conjecture of a cataclysmic worldwide flood seems a bit extreme. Might as well have said UFOs, a long lost tribes of Druids, dinosaurs, or a rugby team with an unusual idea about exercise.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Is this evidence for a giant flood?
« Reply #8 on: 20/04/2009 19:23:00 »
The religious stuff is irrelevant.

I'm a bit surprised JimBob didn't include a link to something about the Channeled Scablands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channeled_scablands

Then the anti-Darwinist fools might say - oh look, floods! - without reading the part that says the process that formed the Scablands happened thousand of timed over and over again.

People like this, who selectively cherry-pick certain bits of data but ignore the context that gives it meaning will always exist and there's nothing we can do about that, but you shouldn't let them dictate what you talk about.

Let the idiots say their idiotic things; it's their nature, it's what they do.  Let them say what they like and be wrong; it's people who say things that are wrong that spur other people into finding out what's right.
 

Offline Bass

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1338
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • View Profile
Is this evidence for a giant flood?
« Reply #9 on: 25/04/2009 00:23:38 »
...a large rounded light colored rock perched on the other side of the canyon.  He concluded that the present river could not have eroded that canyon (and deposited that erratic rounded rock) in any length of time, so the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation is a Great Flood (lasting perhaps 40 days). 

Can you think of another explanation?  Tough question, eh?

As to the erratic boulder...

1.  Ice rafting from Antarctica, or Greenland, or any number of other glaciated terrains, past or present.
2.  extraterrestrial
3.  10,000 neolithic pygmies shoved it there from the Amazon using logs as rollers
4.  light colored??  Must be pumice, which has a density so low it can float on water

Any one of these hypotheses is at least as valid as the biblical flood drivel.  I agree with JB, this creationist poppycock doesn't warrant a serious reply.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Is this evidence for a giant flood?
« Reply #9 on: 25/04/2009 00:23:38 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums