That's good. But this does bring us back to Bob E's resurrection of a claim he'd previously recanted (as per Johnny's post). Like most bad creationist ideas, it has amazing powers of regeneration.
Which brings me back to my original post to you. You can't view these canyons in isolation; they are part of a much larger landscape, which appears to be very different in these cases. The models/explanations for the canyons need to be consistent with their larger landscapes, which, again, are very different.
Which is just plain silly from a geological point of view. The EVIDENCE should derived consistently.
Speaking of silliness, this post is truly a marvel of concisely packaged silliness!
Yes.
Because they both involve water, gravity and rocks. You're (plural) the ones who seem so confident that the two are different. This is what I would assume is going against the evidence available.
If you want an answer to this I suggest you call him. He most likely isn't going to respond here. He might re-recant, but, to tell the truth, I don't think it's all that big a deal. The point is obvious enough without having to raise side issues in order to avoid it.
Let's see, can anyone think of anything else besides really big canyons that involves water, gravity, and rocks? You can do better than this, stipe. For the third time I'll point out that the processes being discussed here do not only involve the canyons themselves, but the entire regional landscape in which the canyons are contained. Which, surely you agree, are utterly different for the canyons under question, despite the similarity of the canyons themselves (and let's be clear on what this similarity consists of: they're BIG. Right?)
There is an obvious point, and an obvious side issue, but I think you've got them switched. The only evidence that the Grand Canyon and the (name of the Martian?) Canyon resulted from the same phenomena is that they are both big, which counts as evidence only if you forgo that whole chain of logic requirement; and there's plenty of evidence that the circumstances surrounding these canyons were very different (the physical topology surrounding these canyons, for one thing!). So why do you keep wasting your mental energies on this side issue? Why not focus on the more important issue, namely the bad habit creationists have of dropping ideas whose flaws reach a certain critical level of embarrassment and then resurrecting them again when they think no one's looking?
Jukia, I think Bob's point is that scientists were saying this about Mars, the very same scientists who reject the idea of a global flood on Earth. Although to capture Bob's essence we'll have to say it again, this time with more ridicule: the very same scientists who reject the idea of a global flood on Earth, a planet that is even now 3/4 covered with water, are saying that Mars, a planet with not the faintest trace of water, was once covered with a global layer of water.Jukia said:
It is my opinion that all canyons are formed by a combination of the effects of water, gravity and rock type. Yes, the conditions can be different. But with so much distance and so little information why are you so certain that processes on Mars are not comparable with processes on Earth?
What is something other than water, gravity and rocks that might have formed the two canyons?
I'm not really concerned about your analysis of Bob. If you have a problem with him .. call him up.
Actually, I'm quite certain that geologic processes on Mars are comparable to those on Earth (you know, that whole uniformitarianism thing Creationists claim to despise). I'm also quite certain that you are fully aware that the same process can lead to very different results under different circumstances, and that you are fully aware that the same process operating under very different circumstances could lead to a superficially similar result. It sounds like you're confusing process (e.g., erosion) with scenario (e.g., a catastrophic flood carving out a big canyon in a few hours). And therein lies the rub. For the third time, let me point out that the scenarios (all of which rely on the same basic geologic processes) proposed to explain these canyons make predictions not only about the canyons themselves but also about the geographic region surrounding the canyons. Feel free to port the Martian scenario over to the Grand Canyon. I'm really curious where all the players (you know, the vast, elevated inland lake, the thin collapsing barrier, etc.) are today.
Again, same process, different scenario.
Maybe someday. Why do you think a forum dedicated to the public musings of this guy is an inappropriate place to comment on his public musings?
We agree, but it is you that is certain that Mars happened one way and Earth another.
Your musings are entirely appropriate. I just don't see their relevance in a reply to me.
Did the crust break and the water flowed into the crack or did the water run away from the stretch? Where is the water now? Could any of the processes you implied here operate on Earth?
How can you say that? Where have I ever claimed any special knowledge on this topic, much less "certainty"? Certainty is the usual mindset of the creationist, not the scientist. What I have repeated stressed is that, despite your feeble efforts to pretend otherwise, scientists who do work on these questions are not simply sitting in a dark room sealed off from the outside work, making up from whole cloth, two different scenarios, one for Mars, one for the Grand Canyon, completely unaware of what the two canyons, much less the two regions look like. They're derived from data, tons of it. About the entire region, not just the canyons. And if you're so convinced that one scenario best explains them all, then why don't you enlighten us with the details?
stipe said:
You are pointing out right here that you believe the two scenarios to be from vastly different processes. Do we have the data to show this difference or not?
Noted.
The single common scenario I'm positing is water, gravity and rocks. Is that acceptable?