Summations Only

How does the flood explain the temporal-geographical distribution of species?It doesn't, it fails miserably. Like you on the age of the earth? If you can't explain the dating methods, cannot show that they don't work then logically you have to accept their results until such time as you can demonstrate with conclusive evidence that they are wrong. You're mixed up -- that's how YEC pseudoscientist fakirs work, this is well documented. A magazine, one that caters to the scientifically literate, using generally accepted science as given. Again, this is generally accepted science for scientifically literate people and the background does not need to be regurgitated, because it is understood.There are no scientific "different possible interpretations" -- just delusions of a few people living in fantasy worlds.A scientific "different possible interpretation" would be based on actual objective empirical evidence and presented in a scientific journal, not a magazine like the National Geographic. There are no such papers.Enjoy

And yet nobody is saying that the National Geographic should be providing the level of science detail that you complain is not present. When I talk about scientifically literate, I mean people that have had high school science and have a basic understanding of what is science and what is fiction. The public is being presented with a journalists article and not one required to be a scientific article. It is like a picture reconstruction of a fossil. Accepting the evidence of an old earth is part of what scientific literacy is based on -- there is so much such evidence that it is delusional to think otherwise has any support. Typical of a magazine article. If you want a more scientific treatment you are looking in the wrong place, and then using that as a straw man argument to discredit science -- that is your (rather silly and hopeless) point. There are LOTS AND LOTS of examples of scientific articles that flat out validate both Old Earth Geology and the Theory of Evolution to such an extent that they are generally accepted as the explanation for the past. There is no "Young Earth Geology" that stands up to the evidence, there is no alternative theory to evolution that stands up to the evidence.That you have had trouble understanding this is more about you than about how material is presented to you, certainly you have been given many examples of the scientific reality since you began posting, and it is evident that the problem with understanding is not in the explanations. Yeah, journalists are such nazis forcing their articles down your throat and requiring that you accept them without question.As has been said, they are writing for an audience. Based on generally accepted science, and not cater to a small segment of the population that doesn't accept scientific reality.Enjoy

Well I agree with that. I looked at the rather brief article and then to see if they listed any source material. This could be a result of new management:

quote:

---

Rupert Murdoch Takes Over National Geographic, Then Lays Off Award-Winning Staff

​

November 3, 2015

​

The memo went out, and November 3rd 2015 came to the National Geographic office. This was the day in which Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox took over National Geographic. The management of National Geographic sent out an email telling its staff, all of its staff, all to report to their headquarters, and wait by their phones. This pulled back every person who was in the field, every photographer, every reporter, even those on vacation had to show up on this fateful day.

​

As these phones rang, one by one National Geographic let go the award-winning staff, and the venerable institution was no more.

​

The name now belongs to Rupert Murdoch, and he has plans for it. The CEO of National Geographic Society, Greg Knell, tried to claim back in September that there there won’t be an [editorial] turn in a direction that is different form the National Geographic heritage. Murdoch’s move today only served to prove Knell’s words hollow, with hundreds of talented people now served their pink slips. And with the recognition that Murdoch’s other enterprises do not reflect the standards held by National Geographic, and with Murdoch’s history of changing the editorial direction of purchased properties, today’s move indicates that we can expect a similar shift for National Geographic.

---

The National Geographic we grew up with is no more, it is now a sensationalist rag. The brevity and low level of information of the article is likely because of editing.So you need to blame Rupert's people not scientists for this lapse. So you understand the scientific basis. It doesn't matter what you believe or accept, what is true will remain true regardless of your beliefs. Evolution happens every day in every generation of every species. The theory of evolution is that this is sufficient to explain the natural history of life on earth. So far no other explanation has come close.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : subtitle

So when you say the flood is the best explanation of geological depositions, shouldn't you annotate that with the provisio that it is only a partial explanation based on some evidence and that other evidence has been ignored, and thus it is a tentative conclusion ...... since you are asking for that from the National Geographic article?Enjoy

So they are blind searching in the dark, and think science is blinded ...Enjoy

Darwin's theory of evolution (by natural selection) is part of the modern theory of evolution, but not all of it, as other processes (like genetic drift and how genetic inheritance and mutation cause variations) have been added, so no, that is not acceptable as a full definition of the theory of evoution.Enjoy

Where are those other rivers and streams?Why didn't they carve grand canyons of their own? If Caused By Flood Drainage Why is the Grand Canyon Where It IS? (a thread you failed to comment on):

quote:

---

It seems that creationists are drawn to the Grand Canyon like moths to a flame ...

​

Here is a slightly different slant on the Grand Canyon debate:

​

Why does the canyon cross two high ridges when paths north and south are at lower elevations?

​

​

The darker green is higher than the lighter green, the dark green outlines would be the topographic level dividing dark from light.

​

So IF the canyon is formed by catastrophic flood flows draining the purported WWF, then:

​

1. Why are there no canyons in either the northern path following lower elevations, or the southern path following lower elevations?
   ​
2. Why does water flow from the Kanab Plateau south to the Colorado River via Kanab Creek, which starts lower than the north rim, instead of the path shown by black arrows north of the canyon?
   ​
3. Why does water flow from the Coconino Plateau north to the Colorado River via Meadow Creek which starts lower than the south rim, instead of the path shown by black arrows south of the canyon?

​

Does catastrophic flood drainage flow go magically uphill?

​

Creationists claiming the Grand Canyon is due to catastrophic flood drainage got some 'splainin' to do.

---

Those questions are directed at you to explain.Your model of sheet flow becoming streams would mean that both the northern route and the southern route would be affected and have ended up with streams of their own.There is NO evidence of such stream formation in either of these regions, instead streams developed perpendicular to these indicated flow paths and actually cut through higher and higher ground to reach the Grand Canyon. How?If you can't explain it then your model fails, badly and irrecoverably, such a total failure that you should be embarrassed to repeat it.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : subt

Because it set out to explain Darwin's original theory, not the theory of evolution or the process of evolution.If you want a good source try:

quote:

---

Welcome to Evolution 101!
by the Understanding Evolution team

​

What is evolution and how does it work? Evolution 101 provides the nuts-and-bolts on the patterns and mechanisms of evolution. You can explore the following sections: ...

---

I predict you won't get far because of cognitive dissonance causing you to reject what is said. You will find that it is well supported with evidence and description of how the conclusions are reached.A good intermediate between your (silly) example and a university textbook description, gauged for elementary, middle and high school classes.Enjoy

quote:

---

Evolution of Pelycodus
an early Eocene Primate from Big Horn Basin, Wyoming

​

​

The chart documents the evolution of the Eocene lemur-like primate Pelycodus into Notharctus. The horizontal scale is an index of molar tooth size. Each horizontal bar gives the mean (vertical bar), two standard deviations (thick horizontal bar) and range (thin horizontal bar) for the indicated number of skulls from a series of fossil deposits. The index increase from 1.0 to 1.4 is an approximate doubling in size. The inset photograph shows a reconstruction of Notharctus venticolis, the species in the upper right of the series. [diagram after Gingerich]

---

The change in size distribution from one layer to the next is MICROevolution.The overall change from the bottom to the top, including the divergence into two different species, is MACROevolution.There is no other evolution: both are covered by the Theory of Evolution.It's that simple:iIf you accept one, you accept the other.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

You are, not anyone else. If you take a cross section perpendicular to the GC (ie WNW to ESE) the areas with the black arrows are LOWER than the rims of the canyon.The is no evidence of NNE to SSW (ie parallel to the GC) rivers, streams or even rivlets. Why not? If water was flowing across these areas it should leave erosion patterns of such flow.AND because they start lower than where the GC crosses the Kaibab they should have their own "grand canyons." None are observed: why not? So flood water flows uphill? Those black lines on the picture are fault lines from the uplift. Most are perpendicular to the canyon rather than the alignment you claim. Of the many shown only one on the Kaibab Plateau flows to the canyon and has carved it's own subcanyon.At the second dark green (higher) area a fault line parallels that part of the canyon and intersects it at the northern end, but there is no canyon, no evidence of flow along that fault line, and there is even a tributary stream to the GC that crosses it.Another epic fail.Valid explanations cover all the evidence, and are supported by that (objective empirical) evidence, not just preferred, or made up, evidence forced to fit a fantasy scenario.Enjoy

Not understanding a diagram is not a refutation, it means you should try harder.Here's another post, Message 7 from If Caused By Flood Drainage Why is the Grand Canyon Where It IS? with more detail on the two low spots, particularly the northern route:

quote:

---

Interesting site - USGS topo maps interactive
http://store.usgs.gov/...OT&layout=6_1_61_48&uiarea=2%29/.do

​

You can also download maps.

​

Northern Route

​

I captured this shot of where rte 89 crosses the ridge north of Grand Canyon:

​

​

The contours are at 40ft intervals and the two markers are on the 5600 ft contour with no other contour between them, so we know the highest point is less than 5640 ft.

​

The rims of the canyon are 7250 ft (south) and 7750 (north) ... and the high point of the Kaibab plateau is over 8400 ft ...

​

So the water would need to cut through (7250-5640 =) 1,610 ft of Kaibab Plateau before it gets to the elevation of the Rte 89 pass ...

​

A location that does not show any evidence of a water erosion channel across the ridge.

​

There's another pass a bit more north where another road crosses the Plateau, and its highest elevation is ~5800 ft and the width of water at the 7000 ft elevation is wider than the Grand Canyon ...

​

A location that does not show any evidence of a water erosion channel across the ridge.

​

That's a lot of water to just disappear or magically NOT flow downhill.

​

Southern Route

​

The highest elevation on the southern route shown is ~6460 ft, still ~800 ft below the canyon rim and this too would have a wide span of water at the 7000 ft elevation.

​

A location that does not show any evidence of a water erosion channel across the ridge.

​

Conclusion

​

Any flood flow that could have cut the canyon in its current location with the ridge intact would also have cut drainage channels in these locations. There is no evidence of drainage channels across these passes. There was no flood flow.

​

If flood flow carved the Grand Canyon then there should be at least two other canyons that would have been carved at the same time.

---

1,610 ft is a LOT of delta elevation to wave away and ignore.Repeat: NO sign of water erosion across this section: no canyon, no river, no stream, no rivulet, nada.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Well, I also have trouble with the dates for that lake spill over model being ~5million years ago, as the speleothems (Age of Grand Canyon and Cave Speleothems ) show older dates for the formation at 17 million years ago, at the western end and that the upper end dates to about 800,000 years ago.Enjoy

you have an extra f at the end of the arizona map image link

And the thin black lines on the picture are the actual tectonic fault lines in the area. The open minded observers will note that none parallel the canyon, but most run perpendicular to it. One at the east end drains the Kaibab plateau from the north side (from the "N" at the end of "CANYON") and has formed a canyon, presumable the "model" Faith assumes for the whole canyon. Another at the west end runs NNE-ish and comes near the canyon wall at one point, and up to the canyon at another with no canyon formed.The total lack of any alignment of the canyon with a tectonic fault line is evidence against this big crack model Faith is espousing.Enjoy

Another handwaving creationist, doesn't explain the different ages of uranium with the layers formed, with most decayed (oldest) trapped in the inner layers, covered by successively younger (less decayed uranium) layers.In other words it says nothing about the actual empirical objective evidence. Only if you ignore the actual evidence. As usual. See Radiometric Dating - Christian Perspective for a better source of information on this dating technique. Except that there is no relationship to the Grand Canyon speleothems. Which is a lot of speculation around one area, and it lacks any good reference to actual published science articles: the only recent paper (ref 4) actually contradicts what he says:

quote:

---

a b s t r a c t A combination of d 13 C and d 18 O analyses with U—Th disequilibrium dating on a stalagmite and groundwater from the deep and extensive Arch Cave network on northeastern Vancouver Island has produced a preliminary 12,200 y paleoclimatic profile. Speleothem depositional rates vary from 6 to 41 mm/ka and are consistent with the ''Hendy'' test for speleothem deposition under high-humidity equilibrium conditions. Relative to present day conditions, warmer periods are indicated at the end of the Younger Dryas, during the Holocene maximum, a possible Medieval Warming event, with the warmest period represented by a narrow peak at 8000 y BP. Relatively cooler periods are recorded at 3500, 8200, 9300 and 11,500 y BP with indications of minor cooling during the Little Ice Age and indi-cations of relatively dry conditions during the earlier part of the Younger Dryas followed by warmer wetter conditions. The profile shows excellent agreement with other paleoclimatic indicators locally, most notably some partial speleothem records from Vancouver Island and Oregon, and some high-resolution global records such as the Greenland ice cores and speleothems from the Hulu Cave, China.

​

Preliminary paleoclimate reconstruction based on a 12,500.... Available from: Just a moment... [accessed Jun 02 2018].

---

BOLD added. Seems to validate the age derived rather than question it, in spades.The only other non-creationist pseudo-reference is a 1987 article ... again, the practice of creationists using old information ...The site is junk-science for the gullible wanna-believers, not valid science.Enjoy