my pastor says lack of Grand Canyon delta is proof of creation

[Genesis]

Is it true that the Grand Canyon has no delta? And since it
was supposedly formed by a river, it should. Thus it wasn't
created over millions of years. Rather, by the Biblical flood.

[Coragyps]

While we wait for PS418, our local geology genius and pretty nice guy, to come by and explain a few things, why don't you wander around his website (http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/) , specifically the Grand Canyon parts. Your preacher has likly been reading some serious disinformation.

[Undercurrent]

I don't know about your pastor's claim, but it looks to me like (and ps418 would know much, much better) the grand canyon has some big meanders in it, which indicate a slow-moving river carved it. The "not having a delta'" claim seems absurd -- deltas are features from where a river meets the ocean, and the grand canyon is nowhere near the ocean.

[ps418]

Originally posted by Genesis
Is it true that the Grand Canyon has no delta? And since it
was supposedly formed by a river, it should. Thus it wasn't
created over millions of years. Rather, by the Biblical flood.

Briefly. . . First, rivers, not canyons, have deltas. Deltas form when water carrying suspended sediments slows down and deposits the sediment. This is not going to happen in the same place a canyon is being carved! Second, your pastor is incorrect -- the Colorado River does have a delta, quite a large one. Its easy to miss - it only covers about 2 million acres. :rolleyes: However, because of dams and diversions and other water management modifications of the colorado, very little water still makes it all the way to the delta at the gulf of mexico, and the the delta is mostly dry now. Third, the last two sentences in your OP are both nonsequiters. Check out the following links:

Another Step Forward for Restoring the Colorado Delta (http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?ContentID=2365)

NASA Earth Observatory: Colorado River Delta (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=4732)

Introduction to the Colorado River Delta (http://ag.arizona.edu/colorado_river_delta/delta/background.html)

COLORADO RIVER DELTA, MEXICO (http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/DAAC_DOCS/geomorphology/GEO_5/GEO_PLATE_D-12.HTML)

Patrick

[Jimmy Higgins]

Originally posted by Genesis
Is it true that the Grand Canyon has no delta? And since it
was supposedly formed by a river, it should. Thus it wasn't
created over millions of years. Rather, by the Biblical flood. Well gee, neither does the Niagara Gorge! So I guess that means the gorge was casued by a global flood. I'm saved!

....

Oh wait, no I'm not.

[Albion]

I wonder what other bits of scientific misinformation Genesis's pastor is regaling the flock with. Scientific misinformation that could have been corrected with a very small investment of effort in searching the web or reading a book about US geology if said pastor had been interested in being truthful. I wonder if Genesis will be taking Pastor's word with a pinch of salt from now on.

[Dr.GH]

Hidee Ho

I said I wasn't going to post for a while, but this was too sweet.

The fault system that separates Baja California from mainland North America and runs up the Gulf of California to San Fransico (the San Andreas) created a very deep channel. It takes a massive amount of sediment to fill that channel.

The fact that there is any delta at all (cf ps418) is evidence that the channel was first filled. The fact that the delta is massive is additional evidence that your p{eder}astor is a liar.

[MrDarwin]

Originally posted by Dr.GH
The fact that the delta is massive is additional evidence that your p{eder}astor is a liar.

Dr. GH, that last comment was uncalled for and quite beneath you. It should be quite sufficient to point out that these people are ignorant, uneducated nitwits.

[fishbulb]

Genesis:

Is it true that the Grand Canyon has no delta? And since it
was supposedly formed by a river, it should. Thus it wasn't
created over millions of years. Rather, by the Biblical flood.

Why are those the only two possiblities?

Suppose, for arguments sake, that modern geology can't explain how the Grand Canyon was formed. How does that prove the Genesis flood?

[Viti]

My Daddy says your pastor should stick to spiritual matters and stay out of teaching science :rolleyes:

[Grumpy]

Originally posted by Genesis
Is it true that the Grand Canyon has no delta? And since it
was supposedly formed by a river, it should. Thus it wasn't
created over millions of years. Rather, by the Biblical flood.

Not being a Flood Geologist, I'm not familiar with the part of the theory that describes the telltale surface evidence of an ancient, global flood. Is the pastor saying that canyons with no deltas (whatever those are) are one of those signs?

Perhaps the pastor could elaborate on what features the Grand Canyon would have to show that would indicate it could *not* have been carved by a massive flood during a single year. Anything?

[Spaz]

haha, this reminds me of the other day when I was talking to my dad (a christian) about other religions because we got onto jehovah's witnesses being weird somehow, and he said how the jehovah's witnesses thought that hell didn't exist and that it was referring to death (the grave). Then I was saying how some people do believe the 2 death physical and spiritual thing, and about the zoroastrians (sp?) being the people that brought about hell and what did he say to that you ask? "Some people will believe anything." :eek: I was thinking, well shit he just shot himself in the foot there, but then he went on to talk about how the soul can't be destroyed because god breathed it into man. Now this is totally irrelevant to this, but it just reminded me, heh.

So, yeah, the grand canyon took millions of years to form.

[smugg]

Originally posted by ps418
...

However, because of dams and diversions and other water management modifications of the colorado, very little water still makes it all the way to the delta at the gulf of mexico...

Patrick

As a resident of Texas, I can attest to the fact that very little of the water flowing through the Colorado River makes it to the Gulf of Mexico. Very little indeed!

Actually, I think Patrick meant the Gulf of California. :)

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by smugg
As a resident of Texas, I can attest to the fact that very little of the water flowing through the Colorado River makes it to the Gulf of Mexico. Very little indeed!

Actually, I think Patrick meant the Gulf of California. :)
Thanks for that -- I was just in the process, sans map, of heavily revising my limited knowledge of US geography!

DT

[Claudia]

+ it exist rivers which have no delta!
Examples: Loire river, St Lawrence river,...

[Skydancer]

Originally posted by Claudia
+ it exist rivers which have no delta!
Examples: Loire river, St Lawrence river,...

Yep. Funny thing about that - these are rivers in the far north which have only existed in their present forms for a few thousand years. There hasn't been enough time to form massive deltas. In the particular cases of the Loire and the St. Lawrence, the rivers were originally longer (we can track their former channels out onto the continental shelves) and the current mouths are flooded estuaries. So the failure to find a delta indicates the accuracy of the standard geological scenarios.

I've never quite figured out why the lack of a delta would prove Flood geology in the first place. Are we to assume that the eroded material magically disappeared with the water at the end of the episode?

[Autonemesis]

Originally posted by ps418
However, because of dams and diversions and other water management modifications of the colorado, very little water still makes it all the way to the delta at the gulf of mexico, and the the delta is mostly dry now.

How about Gulf of California instead? Little early in the morning for rebutting nonsense, huh? :D

[Mageth]

As a resident of Texas, I can attest to the fact that very little of the water flowing through the Colorado River makes it to the Gulf of Mexico. Very little indeed!

As a resident of Texas, I can attest to the fact that very much of the water flowing through the Colorado River makes it to the Gulf of Mexico. However, none of this water flows through the Grand Canyon. It does, however, flow through the center of Austin. :D

Actually, I think Patrick meant the Gulf of California.

(don't worry, I know you meant that other Colorado River). ;)

[Mageth]

Is it true that the Grand Canyon has no delta? And since it
was supposedly formed by a river, it should. Thus it wasn't
created over millions of years. Rather, by the Biblical flood.

Someone else has alluded to this, but why would it being formed by a flood of Biblical portion supposedly produce no delta? (As Patrick indicated, there is a "delta", although due to the fact that the river empties into the "head" of the Gulf of California, the delta doesn't have the classic "delta" shape of the Mississippi).

[Boro Nut]

Originally posted by Undercurrent
The "not having a delta'" claim seems absurd -- deltas are features from where a river meets the ocean, and the grand canyon is nowhere near the ocean.

Now you are just nitpicking. It doesn't have a delta. Admit it. There is no delta in the Grand Canyon. Fact!! Our friend has simply pointed out it's single most serious flaw as a tourist attraction in my estimation, especially if you have travelled 4500 miles to find it out. I for one was expecting a delta.

Boro Nut

A waterfall would have been nice.

[Grumpy]

It's also a fact that the Grand Canyon was not carved by a glacier. It could only have been formed by flowing water -- i.e. Noah's Flood!

[Valentine Pontifex]

Following the links of Patrick's links gives this (http://www.ag.arizona.edu/colorado_river_delta/delta/background.html) page on an University of Arizona site on the delta (http://www.ag.arizona.edu/colorado_river_delta/).

Notice that the delta sediment is 5 km deep in places.

[Boro Nut]

Originally posted by Valentine Pontifex
Notice that the delta sediment is 5 km deep in places.

I thought we had established that it doesn't have a delta. This must be another delta. Anyway, I can't see how you can possibly carry 5km of sediment in a river that is less than 20ft deep. I thought they had to build the hoover dam as a strainer because it couldn't even shift the turds, never mind the sediment.

Boro Nut

[Viti]

Well since it appears Genesis is a troll and has not returned, all this info is wasted

[MortalWombat]

Originally posted by LadyShea
Well since it appears Genesis is a troll and has not returned, all this info is wasted Not entirely. Although a troll himself may not read the responses, there are certainly lurkers who do.

In that way, not only is the troll not helping his cause, he is actually hindering it by providing a means for exposing the silliness and nonsense of his position to the fence-sitters.

[BRO3886]

Originally posted by MortalWombat
Although a troll himself may not read the responses, there are certainly lurkers who do.

Correct.

[NialScorva]

Lurkers or not, I love coming to the E/C forum to read whatever tidbits of biology and geology I can glean. I've gotten so I don't care so much about the creationist aspect as to read Rufus on population genetics, Scigirl on whatever neat anatomy trivia she's come across, or Patrick on pretty much anything. Those are just the posters I associate with given themes off the top of my head, I couldn't begin to count the other contributors.

So whether or not there are creationists, don't stop posting stuff. There are lurkers and non-lurkers that just eat it up, even if it's complete overkill on a drive-by troll.

[Mageth]

What NialScorva said.

[Albion]

Genesis may not be a troll. It must not be easy to be given several authoritative sources that show quite clearly that one's pastor (a trusted authority figure standing for all the Christian virtues including the one about not bearing false witness) was being economical with the truth over a situation that wasn't hard to research. Genesis might have just gone away to have a good think about what that might or might not mean in the wider context.

One can always hope, anyway.

[BrotherMan]

Originally posted by Albion
Genesis might have just gone away to have a good think about what that might or might not mean in the wider context.

Well stated. I know it took me a couple of months to digest new information concerning evolution and how it trumps YEC et al.

[GodLessWarrior]

<- Born again Lurker





:D

[Viti]

You're all rigt of course, I have learned so many things reading posts not directed toward me. I just find it rude to post and run like that without even a "thanks for the info, I will need to ponder it"

[braces_for_impact]

Yes, a few more years of watching posts in here and I'll be able to perform open heart surgery while explaining evolution and simultaneously running soil samples on the ground and examining the local strata.

By the way, good job on always posting your sources as well.

[Thanatoast]

braces-for-impact sez:
Yes, a few more years of watching posts in here and I'll be able to perform open heart surgery while explaining evolution and simultaneously running soil samples on the ground and examining the local strata.
Be careful not to spill any of that soil into the chest cavity. Though if you do, I'm sure there are some threads here that could provide legal advice in your impending malpractice lawsuit :D

[Nostalgic Pushhead]

I once had someone claim that the grand canyon's sediment layers are reversed- the rock on the top is older than the rock at the bottom. And this prooved Noah's flood, or something.

I never got around for looking it up, since I assume I'd be wasting my time
:rolleyes:

[SULPHUR]

A simple look at the geology of the the grand canyon should convince anyone that it could not be formed at at one time. The unconformity indicates an erosional period where it it must have been above the surface of any water.

[Valentine Pontifex]

Originally posted by SULPHUR
A simple look at the geology of the the grand canyon should convince anyone that it could not be formed at at one time. The unconformity indicates an erosional period where it it must have been above the surface of any water.

The unconformity?

How about many unconformities? (Admittedly one is extremely obvious.)

[Valentine Pontifex]

I am going to bump a thread that has been sleeping for 24 months since I was given a nice little reference on the Colorada River Delta:

Salton Sea Authority: Colorado River Delta Connection (http://www.saltonsea.ca.gov/seafacts/delta1.htm)

My search of IIDB found a second thread that also discussed the issue (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=76477).

[anthrosciguy]

Now you are just nitpicking. It doesn't have a delta. Admit it. There is no delta in the Grand Canyon. Fact!! Our friend has simply pointed out it's single most serious flaw as a tourist attraction in my estimation, especially if you have travelled 4500 miles to find it out. I for one was expecting a delta.

Boro Nut

A waterfall would have been nice.

It was almost as disappointing as finding out the Alamo didn't have a basement.

[Vortex]

Why should the Grand Canyon — a comparatively small area, really — be proof of a GLOBAL flood? Would it not be more proof if all the continents were, instead, as high as the base of the Grand Canyon (which would not, in this case, actually exist), and mountains only as high as 3,000 years' worth of plates colliding or folding? There's a certain lack of sense here.

[regis]

Vortex87 Quote: . . . There's a certain lack of sense here.


Yes, there is: It's called xtianity.


:devil1:

[Rob0t X]

kind of off topic but...

if any of you live near a delta you should go check it out, they are wonderful places, usually very high in biodiversity.

[OneWayTraffic]

He's been here longer than most of the people posting. 5 years and 6 posts if my eyes don't deceive me. What gets me is how someone can be a member of here for years and still post that. It's not like we don't have a million threads on the Grand Canyon.


Edited to add: Apologies to Genesis. He's clearly neither creationist nor troll. I did a post search on him. I'd guess he's just looking for expert rebuttal.

[TomboyMom]

This is a perfect example of what I meant in my post (in GRD, if I remember correctly) about Christians and their "heads I win; tails you lose" style of argument.
Christian: the lack of delta on the grand canyon proves flood rather than geological change.
Atheist: Actually the Colorado river has a huge delta.
Christian: Well I still believe in the flood.

Why do we bother?

[glennallen]

I'm not so far removed from de-conversion to point out that it is no small thing to even question what your pastor/spiritual mentor tells you.

Even more so if this person walked you thru a conversion prayer, led you thru a Bible study, etc.

To go on to research what they are telling you - when you are led to believe that your pastor/mentor is filled with the Holy Spirit is a step that few ever take.

So Kudos to Genesis - and thanks to many who helped my own investigations throughout the last few years.

[phrog]

It's been many moons, we're talking '60s here, but I attended the Baptist church. Never a mamber but I had a few disscussions with the Pastor. His wife had the biggest boobs I had ever seen on a woman. The Pastor talked back then of the grand canyon one pass after the flood idea. Even as a 16 year old kid I rolled my eyes every time he got on it. He also cheated at golf. I think it was the golf thing that confirmed me Atheist.
(I mean really big boobs, she could fall flat on her face and her nose would never touch the ground.)

[Crucifiction]

I think a lot of the problem is that people simply aren't prepared with enough scientific knowledge to ever question something that their Pastor might tell them "supports Creation" or "supports Flood Geology" or whatever. Most Christians believe their pastor is telling the truth, and if he tells them that "X supports the Bible", then they are unlikely to look it up to verify his statement, because they trust both in him as a person and in his intelligence, both scientific and dogmatic. Thus, we need to arm people with knowledge; and if I may go off topic a bit, is why we need to oppose the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in schools and do everything we can to give knowledge about evolution and non-theistic "creation" theories to the general populace.

[OneWayTraffic]

Click here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/search.php?searchid=541211) to see all previous posts by Genesis. Since he posts like once a year I'm sure he won't reply to this. But it's clear from context that he's not a creationist. Sounds like an atheist or agnostic to me. I can't quite square that away with his user name or this thread though. :huh:

[Graculus]

Don't forget that the pastor is probably the victim of a con job, as well.

Really, if Genesis believes that honesty is a good thing, he might want to have a quiet chat with the pastor (atlas with pic of Colorado delta in hand), and point out that not everyone that calls themselves "Christian" is honest.

[Professor]

Not entirely. Although a troll himself may not read the responses, there are certainly lurkers who do.

In that way, not only is the troll not helping his cause, he is actually hindering it by providing a means for exposing the silliness and nonsense of his position to the fence-sitters.

Well I found this thread to be very interesting, and it never hurts to have one more counter-argument to creationist claims. So thanks to all of you who posted here.