No Evidence Concerning a Quickly Created Grand Canyon Being "All Over The News"

In the thread Message 182 the assertion was made by DevineBeginning that the Grand Canyon being carved out in a matter of years rather than over a longer period of time.In message 182 DevineBeginning stated: To which I (Anglagard) replied in message 187: In message 188 DevineBeginning replied: Here is my evidence that such a claim was not all over the news. Using the search terms "Grand Canyon" and Creationism," which appered to create less clutter and more relevant hits than other combinations, here are the database search results:EBSCO Academic Search PremierASP consists of 4,650 serials of which over 100 are full-text from before 1975. Over 80% is full text from ten years ago.New York Times (NYT) 10/6/05 - Discusses age evidence put forth from both sides.New Internationalist Jan/Feb 05 - short letter to editor (not relevant)NYT 10/26/04 - about book Grand Canyon: A Different View which is a short creationist tome, the controversy of it being sold out of the science section of the GC Park bookstore, and its subsequent removal to the devotional section.Humanist Mar/Apr 04 - about book controversyParks and Recreation - about book controversy and removal of religious plaques from GC Park.Vanderbilt Television News ArchivesCovers US over 30,000 television newscasts from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and PBS back to 1968. This archive is publicly available, registration required. See Home | Vanderbilt Television News ArchiveOnly one hit: CBS Evening News on 2/27/04 - about book controversyNewspaper SourceCovers 30 US and international newspapers along with 200 US regional newspapers.NYT 10/6/05
NYT 10/26/04As covered above. InfoTrac Custom NewspapersNYT 10/6/05
NYT 11/2/04 - short letter to editor
NYT 10/26/04
Seattle Times 1/9/04 - About book controversy
Daily Telegraph 4/16/04 - short letter to editorWhile this database presently covers hundreds of newspapers, it only has ten year old or older archives from the following (all US unless otherwise noted):Arizona Daily Star
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Austin American-Statesman
Buffalo News
Capital Times
Christian Science Monitor
Cincinnati Post
Daily Herald
Daily Mail (London)
Daily news
Daily Record (Glasgow)
Denver Post
Economist
El Norte (Mexico City)
Evening Times (Glasgow)
Florida Times Union
Fresno Bee
Gazette
Grand Rapids Press
Guardian (London)
Houston Chronicle
Independent (London)
International Herald Tribune
Kentucky Post
Mirror (London)
New York Times
News & Record
Observer (London)
People (London)
Plain Dealer
Post Standard
Record
Reforma (Mexico City)
Roanoke Times
San Francisco Chronicle
Sarasota Herald Tribune
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Seattle Times
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Star Tribune
Star-Ledger
Sunday Mail (Glasgow)
Times (London)
Virginian Post
Wshington Times
Wisconsin State JournalOut of all these sources there is ONE article that may fit your description since it discusses evidence (or supposed evidence) for each position, the 10/6/05 NYT article. Notice this was a little over a year ago and therefore does not fit the description of "all over the news ten years ago."Despite being labelled a "buffon," I believe I have effectively presented evidence for my assertion there was no coverage about the Grand Canyon being carved out in a few years among any major news outlets some ten years ago. My challenge is for DevineBeginning or anyone else to provide evidence to the contrary, or in one case, retract or let their reputation concerning personal integrity suffer the consequences.Science please as it is about evidence concerning a scientific topic.Edited by anglagard, : misplaced phrase correction

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

There was a news release four years ago -
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/?id=GRNDCNYN.UAZ
(woohoo, I found it!!) titled "Grand Canyon Geologic Infant." That's a pretty good YoungEarther headline for those who don't read beyond the headline. If one reads, though, one finds: Now I saw the news item picked up by internet YEC's back in 2002, but not "all over the news." Not in the news at all in my little circle, in fact. I dug into the matter at that time, mostly to find out about the cosmogenic dating method they used in the study.I'll be interested in what DB has, too.

What's a few decimal places between friends.Unfortunately for the YEC view that is just talking about the cutting of the gouge - the formation is a whole different story. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

One of the more interesting things is that a whole series of Lava Dams formed and were later worn away in the Grand Canyon. At least 13 dams have been Identified IIRC and were formed between 10,000 and 1.8 million years ago.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

So why is it that the Grand Canyon, that for centuries was believed to be carved out over millions of years is now being shown to have been created in a matter of years? This was all over the news about a decade ago.

---

I don't know which is funnier - the "centuries" assertion or the "matter of years" assertion.If it was all over the news a few years ago, I suspect we'd have been hearing a lot more about it.

Jar is back among us and we get roxrkool?Maybe I'm not living so badly after all. Hallelujah.___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Yup. Dalrymple's paper on dating them is interesting, too: K-Ar ages of Pleistocene lava dams in the Grand Canyon in Arizona. A particularly ignorant creationist once claimed that Dalrymple admittd in that paper that K-Ar dating seldom works.

And I still want to know why the flood carved through a high-spot in the area instead of going around it like every other flow of water known.Why aren't there parallel canyons to the south and north where the land is ... lower?Welcome back Rox (I've missed that boot) - hope your defense went well.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I still want to know how the river carved a gorge over a mile deep in some places through soft sediments without it collapsing.And how the sediments lithified afterwards.

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

Thanks, RAZD. My defense is actually on Monday 9AM.

And how some of it is heat treated and some is not.Rox said that some of the bottom layers were transformed by heat and pressure: Message 19
Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

no no no! Spam is a no no. Welcome to EvC, chitty..but first read the Forum Guidelines. Edited by AdminPhat, : chitty spammy

Hello Chitty and welcome to EvC.One rule we have around here is that we don't debate websites. You need to put forward any arguments you agree with in your own words and use sites as a reference to certain facts that underpin your views.The site you reference starts of with a lot about the age of the earth. That doesn't belong here as much as it belongs in the "Dates and Dating" forum.You probably should start by reading over:
Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
then if you have answers to the points raised there please post them.

oops, sorry......how about this...I think a sizeable problem for evolutionists is the lack of erosion in the layers deposited in the Grand Canyon. If each layer was exposed to the elements for millions of years, why are there no signs of erosion or chemical weathering? Instead of the required erosion for the evolutionary model to be true, we find a multitude of layers with no signs of erosion or chemical weathering which extend in a straight line for miles. This is just the kind of picture you would expect from sediment deposited very quickly by a catastrophic flood. Geologist Dr. Steven Austin, in his book, “Grand Canyon: Monument To Catastrophe,” says,For more than one hundred years, geologists have attempted, in a very deliberate manner, to explain the erosion of Grand Canyon by uniformitarian agents. The elegant notion that the Colorado River eroded Grand Canyon slowly, during tens of millions of years, has been demonstrated repeatedly to be at odds with the empirical data. Most geologists familiar with the geology of northern Arizona, have abandoned the antecedent river theory. [End of quote]If the Grand Canyon was a product of erosion over millions of years, where did all the eroded material go? According to Vail, prior to the construction of the Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado, as much as 500,000 tons of sediment per day, or 5,000 tons per second, were transported by the river. If this process took 70 million years or so to evolve, a chunk of earth five miles thick covering 137,800 square miles of drainage area would have been eroded. The question is, “Where is it?” Vail said, “This massive amount of material is nowhere to be found between the Canyon and the sea, as we would expect.” [End of quote]According to Dr. Austin,The less-rational explanation of Grand Canyon erosion by stream capture (enlargement of a precocious gully) involves an accident of incredible improbability. Both the antecedent-river and stream-capture theories have the extraordinarily difficult problem of disposing of the products of tens of millions of years of river erosion. Thus, evolutionary and uniformitarian theories have failed to explain the history of the erosion of Grand Canyon.Evolutionists cannot explain the Grand Canyon by their model. They attempt to buttress their beleaguered cause with errant dating of rocks and fossils. They make incorrect assumptions that create long, bogus ages. Three of these false assumptions follow:1. They assume that the history of the world and its creatures have evolved over hundreds of millions of years, when in truth the day it was created (around 6,008 years ago), it appeared to have history, but in fact was only seconds old.2. The doctrine of uniformitarianism is an assumption that declares that all processes of nature have occurred at a steady pace since the beginning of time. This is foundational to evolution’s claims of great age. Unfortunately for them, there were two instant influxes of tremendous energy that could not be considered uniform by any thinking person - one was the six days of creation and the other was the worldwide flood.3. The first two assumptions make and support assumption number three which concerns the huge ages projected by radioisotope dating. Keep in mind that when 2 + 2 = 5, all of your mathematical computations will be incorrect, no matter how eloquently you present your case.There is an article with references to these facts that underpin my views, which can be found here... // The Grand Canyon — Is It Just Over 6,000 Years Old? - GODSAIDMANSAID.COM