oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006
|
Crossposted from Politics thread:
| Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,15:38) | | A lot of it is in creationist journals, and of course good 'ol Walt has done all kinds of field work and research that you refuse to even acknowledge exists. His theory about the grand canyon alone makes much more sense than a lot of secular theories out there. But, you have to actually read it in it's entirety. |
I've done so. Read it. In it's entirety. Would you like to talk about anything specific, for example a single data point from it from the section you link to?
I'll make a start anyhoo.
The first sentence is:
| Quote | | SUMMARY: Geologists admit that they do not know how the Grand Canyon formed, but for the last 140 years, they have insisted that the Colorado River carved the canyon over millions of years and somehow removed the evidence.1 |
That's quite a bold statement. And Geologists? Would not it be "geology" that would be taking that position rather then individual geologists? If it was accepted across the board that is as just a basic fact?
Interestingly, and I just learnt this myself, Wikipedia says the origin of the word is
| Quote | | Geology (from Greek: ??, gê, "earth"; and ?????, logos, "speech" lit. to talk about the earth) |
Anyway, I'm just being picky really. 1 is a footnote, and if we skip to that footnote we find the source of that initial bold statement.
Apparenty a geologist called Wayne Ranney said:
| Quote | | “Though scientists have studied the canyon for more than 150 years, a definitive answer as to how or when the canyon formed eludes them. The one thing scientists do agree on is that the canyon was carved by the erosive power of the Colorado River, but the river itself has carried away the evidence of its earlier history.” |
As you noted several times FTK, Walt does update his book often, this is taken from a book published in 2005. Walt provides more details
| Quote | | Wayne Ranney, Carving the Grand Canyon: Evidence, Theories, and Mystery (Grand Canyon, Arizona: Grand Canyon Association, 2005), back cover. |
It's a shame that it's from the back cover, as I usually find back cover blurbs to be more about selling then informing, but I guess he approved it.
In a way I can see the truth of it - what do you do if the very process you are studying contains a process that removes the physical evidence for what happened?
Walt then continues
| Quote | | (Several obvious problems with this idea are mentioned in the description for Figure 42 on page 105.) |
Obviously Walt believes there are problems, or we'd not be having this "conversation". Walt provides another quote from the author
| Quote | | To these so-called experts, the canyon’s birth remains a “hazy mystery, cloaked in intrigue, and filled with enigmatic puzzles.”2 |
Well, it's almost a quote, Walt added the "so-called experts" part. What I find odd about that is that, as we'll soon see, Walt is simultaneously disparaging and quoting one of those "so called" experts. If he's so not-expert why is he being quoted in support of Walt's case?
So far so good. Lets just test that first bold statement shall we?
Wikipedia seems to have a fair idea of how the Grand Canyon formed: | Quote | Uplift of the region started about 75 million years ago in the Laramide orogeny, a mountain-building event that is largely responsible for creating the Rocky Mountains to the east. Accelerated uplift started 17 million years ago when the Colorado Plateaus (on which the area is located) were being formed. In total these layers were uplifted an estimated 10,000 feet (3,000 m) which enabled the ancestral Colorado River to cut its channel into the four plateaus that constitute this area.
The canyon, created by the Colorado River is 277 miles (446 km), ranges in width from 4 to 18 miles (6.4 to 29 km) and attains a depth of more than a mile (1.6 km). Nearly two billion years of the Earth's history have been exposed as the Colorado River and its tributaries cut their channels through layer after layer of rock while the Colorado Plateau was uplifted.
Wetter climates brought upon by ice ages starting 2 million years ago greatly increased excavation of the Grand Canyon, which was nearly as deep as it is now by 1.2 million years ago. Also about 2 million years ago volcanic activity started to deposit ash and lava over the area. At least 13 large lava flows dammed the Colorado River, forming huge lakes that were up to 2,000 feet (610 m) deep and 100 miles (160 km) long. The nearly 40 identified rock layers and 14 major unconformities (gaps in the geologic record) of the Grand Canyon form one of the most studied sequences of rock in the world. |
In fact there is link after link after link after link after link and none of them are saying "Us so-called experts simply have no idea how it formed". And that's just from the first page of results searching for "How did the grand canyon form"?
There is an especially important link for you to read FTK:
| Quote | Estimating the age of the Grand Canyon is related to the History and Nature of Science, Science as Inquiry, and the Earth and Space Science content standards of the National Science Education Standards. With respect to the first two standards, several themes emerge. The researchers proposed using improved laboratory techniques and new data sources to make an estimate of the age of the Grand Canyon. In this way, they demonstrated the idea that science advances with new technologies. Science also seeks disconfirming evidence to existing theories as a means of gaining increased certainty regarding what we know about the natural world. If scientists fail in their attempt to find disconfirming evidence, they have succeeded in strengthening the existing theory. If they find disconfirming evidence of existing theories, then they pave the way to new lines of research, which must be further investigated. Eventually, existing theories may be either supplanted or revised in light of the new evidence, or they may be strengthened should the new evidence turn out to be unreliable or invalid.
The news sources related to this research also provide “air time” for scientists who argue alternate interpretations of Polyak and Hill’s data and who point out that Polyak and Hill may be ignoring some facts that impact their conclusion. These presentations underscore the role of argumentation and evidence based logic in advancing scientific knowledge as well as the social nature of science.
Ask your students if they know how old the Grand Canyon is. Ask them if they imagine someone knows, even if they don’t. From here, the discussion is going to go in one of two directions: (1) If they imagine someone knows, how do students imagine the someone knows how old the Grand Canyon is; what kind of evidence might have been used? Entertain all student contributions and stipulate that the students provide some justification for their response. You may need to do quite a bit of guiding and scaffolding here to lead students to support only evidence-based and logical responses. (2) If students imagine no one really knows, ask why not; what prevents human beings from knowing?
Depending on your students’ background knowledge and context you can relate the discussion to a variety of instructional goals and learning objectives. Do you want to emphasize the nature of science, evidence-based argumentation, and the social aspects of doing science? Then choose excerpts from Science Friday’s interview, which highlight these aspects in the context of real scientists doing real science and devise discussion questions for your students to reflect upon in order to increase their awareness of the nature of science. |
It's for students, but we're students right? Studying the available evidence and trying to come to a rational fact based conclusion? That's us, right?
Finally, lets return to Wayne Ranney. He notes on his blog
| Quote | Now I do not subscribe to a creationist view of the earth. I am a tried and true geologist and the evidence seems overwhelming to me that a geologic origin is responsible for the magnitude of earthly beauty we see before us. However, I do believe that the creationist controversy has been fueled in part, by some scientists desire to completely ignore, stifle, and dare I say, censor (?) the creationist view. All under the mistaken premise that if we engage creationists we somehow validate their view of earth history. This possibly wrong assumption has allowed creationist a "free pass" so to speak and they have seized on the "non-debate" and have gotten their message out quite effectively. All without any follow-up by scientists.
|
While you may agree or disagree with his stance on availability of "the book" the point is his words are being used to support something that he clearly does not support. What do you suppose the actual book is about FTK? Luckily he tells us
| Quote | | For a real geologic view of how the Grand Canyon formed, look at my book, "Carving Grand Canyon". It is a bestseller at the park (10,000 copies sold in just 20 months). It has won numerous awards including a National Outdoor Book Award - 2006. It engages readers to look critically at the evidence and doesn't attempt to stifle discussion with those who hold other views. The answer to this controversy is not to back away from creationists but to engage them! Certainly the status quo thus far has done nothing to quiet the other side. |
For a "real geologic view" read the book? Yet that seems to contradict 100% the impression Walt is giving. In the first paragraph.
Here is the blog post containing the above quotes: Link
Walt goes on to quote Wayne plenty of times more, here's another
| Quote | | “Oddly enough, the Grand Canyon is located in a place where it seemingly shouldn’t be.” Ranney, p. 20. |
Therefore the fulde?
Or instead would you like to pick a topic from the book to discuss FTK? Anything at all...
Anything you like. At all. When you are ready.
--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings
|
