Jump to content

Anyone know the story behind this?


Recommended Posts

Sounds like one heck of a jökulhlaup.


From the logs, I am guessing that h2owatcher left a "needs archived" log and geoawareHQ disabled it to review the science on the cache page.


I leave reviewing to the reviewers, so I'll not speculate on the process after that.


I will say, though, that this is why I try to cite my sources on the cache page so that everyone knows from where I got my information. edit: just saw that this was also done with this cache, so I'll stop guessing now.

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment

Recently we were planning a trip to eastern Washington and I came across this cache:



It has been disabled for a while with no updates. Anyone know why or have any background about it?


Well, I can take a stab at it.


This EC is not entirely upfront in its intent. What is clear is that the author is bending evidence to fit a theory and it is not likely that this cache will ever clear the review process.


He does not directly say it but he is attempting to prove the existence of a global flood by offering one piece of evidence (Iceland flood) and projecting that condition to prove there was only one Missoula flood rather than the well documented multiple floods. If he can convince us that only one Missoula flood did all the damage we see in Washington and Oregon then we should be able to see that all the major erosion and sedimentation across the entire planet was created by one flood.


His education question #4 has us look at the east wall of the Grand Coulee and count the number of rhythmites we see in that wall. But the problem here is that the wall is not made up of rhythmites (flood deposited sediments) it is made up of multiple basalt lava flows. Missoula flood rhythmites formed in the slack water canyons not in the raging, scouring waters in the flood torn coulees.


His statement that there was only one ice age and that it lasted only 700 years doesn't help his cause either.


I have had problems with some ECs using descriptions from Roadside Geology books and unintentionally applying them to the wrong rocks in the wrong locations but this EC has an agenda that is not based in science.

Link to comment

Well, it was sound enough to get published.


Yes, this was my big question. How do earthcaches with inadequate or inaccurate scientific support get published?


I'm guessing it had something to do with deleting found logs he did not approve of.


The cache was "Disabled pending review by GSA."


One of the deleted logs pointed out the problems that could not be overcome by information on the cache page so the cache was disabled. I don't know if there was PM between the cache owner and the GSA in an attempt to fix the problems.


Edit for typo.

Edited by Team Sagefox
Link to comment

I found that cache last year and noticed that all the references are from well-known "creation science" sources and that the cache definitely had an agenda. At that time, there were also posts from Bruce Bjornstad (Missoula Floods expert) on the page along with rebuttals and personal attacks (relatively mild ones having to do with BB's lack of knowledge about geology, but still . . .) from the CO. I don't know if those sources were part of the original cache listing or were added later, or if the original reviewer was unaware of their lack of scientific credibility. Unfortunately, it appears that the CO has died, so it is unlikely that this will ever be cleared up. Thanks for logging an NA, Team SageFox.

Link to comment
Archived by GSA, due to concerns about the science and educational quality of the description and logging tasks.


Today I ordered: "Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood", and "The Missoula Flood Controversy and the Genesis Flood", both by Michael J. Oard who is the author of most of the cut-and-paste discussion on this earthcache page.


I suspect these will be the ultimate bend-facts-to-meet-the-theory books. I have read some creation-science material on-line but I need to read someone's theory start to finish to get a fair picture. I do consider what they say and how it might mesh or clash with the many publications on the Missoula Floods. And I will review other books and papers about one Missoula Flood v. multiple floods to get a wider perspective.


What I don't get right now is that if the Missoula flood came after the Genesis Flood, according to Oard, why does it matter if there was more than one Missoula flood. Why did grandpaloren get so worked up over this point - that is what I am left with through all this.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...