Evolution question of the day (devils, comparison, America, myths)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Campbell first do you believe the earth is exactly 6000 years old or is their a range. Second just out of curiousity do you believe in the flood of Noah as well and if so when do you believe that occured?
So you believe it took X-amount of years for Victoria Waterfall to form, only because you (ASSUME) the water volume, or flow, has always been the same. And you (ASSUME,) the amount of sediment available to grind away the stone, has always been the same. And you (ASSUME,) the rock that is nolonger present, was of the same hardness as what we see today. So your conclusion is based on only what (YOU BELIEVE), and yet, not on what you know. I avoid such questions, because once you start down the road of assumptions, you enter the world of make believe. And sound science, should never be based on assumptions about the unknown.
The evidence is there in plain sight - carved out of the rock. The second pic, the evidence is there carved out of rock. Physical proof not mamby pamby crap pulled out of some mythological POV, IOW REAL SCIENCE.
You cannot answer the questions as it diminishes your worldview showing that all you hold dear to is nothing but fiction. 2000-4000 years ago there were really good scientists around unlike today where they are supposedly misinformed.
The topography of the land in Zambia/Zimbabwe (where I grew up) is relatively "flat lands" with water from the two countries converging on the Zambezi river. In dry seasons, it is possible to walk across the falls.
As you can see from this pic, relatively flat here. The watershed is huge and the Zambezi is the forth largest river in Africa
Watershed/basin
The falls in the wet season and this is mild compared to what I have seen.
The gorges zig-zag away from the falls where in earlier eons, they were the front-line of the water fall.
No assumptions, the evidence is there in the gorges showing the water erosion scars.
But I guess with you, God just did that to fool us hoomanz eh?
It does not take a rocket scientist to see the evidence of erosion over millennia in the gorges leaving an indelible fingerprint of how/where the falls used to be in eons past.
So there is nothing to assume. When you understand the bigger picture of the basin, seasonal variances, the relative flatness of the VF area, there was no sudden phenomena that suddenly carved out these gorges.
So my question remains, if these took 100,000 odd years to form, how does that tie into your 6000 year old earth.
Once you do this, we can then discuss the canyons of the world. You will not find any creation sites wrt Africa as no one here is that daft unlike some YEC theories of the Grand canyon in the USA.
We have not even started looking at the geology of river deltas and how they came about which are also much older than 6000 years.
All this is my own education from when I was at school you know Geography, Physics and Chemistry, Biology, Climatology, History - REAL science subjects we learned not mythical "creation science"
Come to Africa and get an education in geology and you will see that there is no way the earth is only 6000 years old.
From this you can clearly see the forming of a new gorge that will likely take another 50,000 years to fully form - the jutting out bit of where the water is falling)
If you look at the flow of the river in the gorges, it is obvious that the falls has receded back, some gorges are NOT part of the downstream river flow and as the area is very flat, those non river areas could not have been formed by simple rainwater flowing into the gorges after the falls receded (see the 4th and fifth gorges) This is where the water fell into the gorges from the Zambezi river in earlier eons.
As this was discovered by David Livingstone in 1855 154 years ago.
Based on your 6000 year old POV, that is 2.6% of 6000 since then. Guess what, the falls is exactly where he found it 154 years ago. Were your POV valid, we should have seen a 2.6% movement/erosion of the falls, such a high rate would be measureable say in the last 70 years with simple optical surveying equipment.
Campbell first do you believe the earth is exactly 6000 years old or is their a range? ? ? Second just out of curiousity do you believe in the flood of Noah as well and if so when do you believe that occured? ? ?
Oh , Ho , Ho , Maaaaaan!
You and everybody else are really going to pay for that one!
The evidence is there in plain sight - carved out of the rock. The second pic, the evidence is there carved out of rock. Physical proof not mamby pamby crap pulled out of some mythological POV, IOW REAL SCIENCE.
You cannot answer the questions as it diminishes your worldview showing that all you hold dear to is nothing but fiction. 2000-4000 years ago there were really good scientists around unlike today where they are supposedly misinformed.
The topography of the land in Zambia/Zimbabwe (where I grew up) is relatively "flat lands" with water from the two countries converging on the Zambezi river. In dry seasons, it is possible to walk across the falls.
As you can see from this pic, relatively flat here. The watershed is huge and the Zambezi is the forth largest river in Africa
Watershed/basin
The falls in the wet season and this is mild compared to what I have seen.
The gorges zig-zag away from the falls where in earlier eons, they were the front-line of the water fall.
No assumptions, the evidence is there in the gorges showing the water erosion scars.
But I guess with you, God just did that to fool us hoomanz eh?
It does not take a rocket scientist to see the evidence of erosion over millennia in the gorges leaving an indelible fingerprint of how/where the falls used to be in eons past.
So there is nothing to assume. When you understand the bigger picture of the basin, seasonal variances, the relative flatness of the VF area, there was no sudden phenomena that suddenly carved out these gorges.
So my question remains, if these took 100,000 odd years to form, how does that tie into your 6000 year old earth.
Once you do this, we can then discuss the canyons of the world. You will not find any creation sites wrt Africa as no one here is that daft unlike some YEC theories of the Grand canyon in the USA.
We have not even started looking at the geology of river deltas and how they came about which are also much older than 6000 years.
All this is my own education from when I was at school you know Geography, Physics and Chemistry, Biology, Climatology, History - REAL science subjects we learned not mythical "creation science"
Come to Africa and get an education in geology and you will see that there is no way the earth is only 6000 years old.
Well I have some real science for you. Yet first let me say this. You claim your pictures are evidence that what we see today, took 100,000 years to form. This of course is nonesense. Pictures do not tell you the length of time it took for something to occure. Pictures can only inform you that something did happen.
You have ignored my first post, and you have not considered anything I stated. So I will repeat this one more time.
1. You (ASSUME) the water flow is the same today as it was back then.
2. You (ASSUME) the sediment avaiable to grind away the stone is the same today, as it was back then.
3. You (ASSUME) the non existant rock was as hard as the rock we see today.
Your belief that it took 100,000 years to form is based not on what you know, it is based on what you think or believe you know. Your making (ASSUMPTIONS) about the past, without any knowledge of the past.
In just recent years, scientist were surprised to discover just how fast water erosion can occure under the right conditions. Looking to Mt. Saint Helens, water erosion from five days created gullies that resembled the Badlands. This new topography would of been believed to of occurred over thousands of years. Yet all of this happened in 5 days. So please, spare me your pictures, and your assumptions. Real science is finding out, that their past assumptions on water erosion was wrong. And since you do not know what conditions were present in the past, suggesting an accurate time frame only based on what you see today, is equally impossible.
Well I have some real science for you. Yet first let me say this. You claim your pictures are evidence that what we see today, took 100,000 years to form. This of course is nonesense. Pictures do not tell you the length of time it took for something to occure. Pictures can only inform you that something did happen.
The 100,000 years is based on known erosion rates - it is not my belief but scientific fact.
The pictures were to support what they claim showing that it is possible to actually go to the cutting face of the falls in dry season - no real winter summer there - it is always hot. But it is ironic you want us to take your figurines - man made object as proof of your YEC.
Quote:
You have ignored my first post, and you have not considered anything I stated. So I will repeat this one more time.
No if I ignored it i would not have posted the pictures, you obviously do not know what you are talking about when it comes to geology and geography or whatever the acronym in "creation science" is.
Quote:
1. You (ASSUME) the water flow is the same today as it was back then.
I posted the map of the basin (btw you can get a bigger pic on wiki), the falls, one of three on the Zambezi, is the 1st and is at the pointy bit of Zimbabwe to the northwest meaning that the water flowing in prior to the vic falls is about a third of the whole basin. One would assume that the water flowed consistently at least in the last 6000 years which would have the falls in more or less the same gorge it is today. Remember there are 9 gorges where the falls once were.
Quote:
2. You (ASSUME) the sediment avaiable to grind away the stone is the same today, as it was back then.
Yes, kinda hard not to see the walls where the water was not cutting back from have vegetation where the opposite gorge wall is shear showing the scars of erosion. Water erosion is not dependent on sediment and like I said earlier, the folk are able to go to the cutting face and take samples of the rock.
When you wash your car, you can use a HP washer or a hose pipe. All that the HP washer does is increase the pressure to remove dirt and the hose pipe will do the same eventually. I am not talking of soaping, merely spraying. The process is friction of the water under pressure be it low or high. No sediment required, leave it long enough, the paint will be eroded away too and eventually the metal.
The only time the Zambezi is muddy is during extreme floods constituting added sediment, the rest of the times it is relatively crystal clear. The sediment argument falls flat as if there were high sediment levels, this would translate into sandbanks in the gorges, but you mostly see rocks. However this little deflection will eventually come in handy when we discuss river deltas and their age.
When the water falls, it erodes the base of the face as can be seen in the dry season pic and the rocks below are as a result of collapse due to gravity. These rocks are washed downstream in the wet seasons and as they tumble become fragmented and smaller and smaller. The evidence is seen by comparing rock sizes in the 9th gorge to the 1st gorge
Quote:
3. You (ASSUME) the non existant rock was as hard as the rock we see today.
No assumptions. In the dry season, one can go to the rock face in the gorge itself and get samples. These are not theories, these are facts. Based on the samples, erosion rates can be replicated and accelerated like the HP washer, calculated and an accurate calculation derived as to the age of the falls.
Quote:
Your belief that it took 100,000 years to form is based not on what you know, it is based on what you think or believe you know. Your making (ASSUMPTIONS) about the past, without any knowledge of the past.
Yup it is based on what I think which is based on science. BTW I was born in Livingstone about 10 miles from the falls. There are no assumptions. Calculations are based on factual evidence from "the scene of the crime" I am no geologist, but no one will make a claim w/o facts to back it up. There are no assumptions. However, this is more plausible than some weird priest making calculations based on very subjective ages of certain folk in the bible to come to a conclusion of 6000 odd years for the age of the planet.
Quote:
In just recent years, scientist were surprised to discover just how fast water erosion can occure under the right conditions. Looking to Mt. Saint Helens, water erosion from five days created gullies that resembled the Badlands. This new topography would of been believed to of occurred over thousands of years. Yet all of this happened in 5 days. So please, spare me your pictures, and your assumptions. Real science is finding out, that their past assumptions on water erosion was wrong. And since you do not know what conditions were present in the past, suggesting an accurate time frame only based on what you see today, is equally impossible.
You are talking here of lamers - volcanic ash is mixed with water and of course that is going to cause faster erosion. But there are no volcanoes here as I showed you the topography is relatively flat.
What you fail to understand, each gorge was once the place where the river flowed over the edge. See the arial pic. There are gorges that are not part of the river course. How were they formed? At one time they were part of the water fall. You can even see it in action in the 1st gorge where the Zambian side (bottom of photo) the water flows to the center (up on the pic) and the Zimbabwe side (top) flows down to a common outlet in the center into the 2nd gorge.
The 4th and 5th gorges (top left) clearly show the same effect as the 1st gorge
The meandering (zig-zag) is not as a result of water flow in typical river meanderings, these gorges were cut out of the rock by the falls.
Like I said, based on your 6000 years, in the last 70 years, part of the 2.6% erosion effects would have been able to be measured using optical surveying equipment. The 2.6% comes from the 154 years since Livingstone discovered the falls. IOW 154/6000 x 100 = 2.6%. Trouble is, it has not moved since he discovered it, still the same 1st gorge - maybe a few inches if that.
The 100,000 years was what we learned at school in Geographical Science.
Previously when we discussed this I provided the wiki link. You can google it now and all the info there matches what we were correctly taught.
This is the Kango cave here in SA and as you can see there are both stalagmites and stalactites. Here we can use your sediment albeit in dissolved mineral form.
While you try to unsuccessfully debunk the Vic falls age, you may also look into just how the pesky cave growths were formed. In this part of the cave we see a pillar which has formed by the joining of the stalagmite and stalactite. The growth of these are dependent on the flow of water at a steady slow rate so that the minerals can adhere to the existing stalagmites and stalactites during the occasional drip that falls. The Kango caves are in a very arid area of the country (almost desert) so the only water that would cause this is the rain water seeping through, there is no spring or river on the mountain and rainfall there is pitifully minimal. This part of the cave is essentially dry now as it is near the entrance. The bat droppings that were shoveled out were also an indication of the age of the cave >6000 years.
The age of the sediments is thought to be late Neoproterozoic. The stratigraphy of the Kango inlier (near Oudtshoorn, within the southern, east-west-striking branch of the Cape Fold Belt) has been subdivided into two successions--the Goegamma and Kansa Subgroups, separated from one another by a clear unconformity.
How about that, a half to a billion years old give or take 0.3 and yes if you click the 1st link, the dating was not done with C14, these are minerals.
I am looking forward to how this all happened in 6000 years.
The 100,000 years is based on known erosion rates - it is not my belief but scientific fact.
The pictures were to support what they claim showing that it is possible to actually go to the cutting face of the falls in dry season - no real winter summer there - it is always hot. But it is ironic you want us to take your figurines - man made object as proof of your YEC.
No if I ignored it i would not have posted the pictures, you obviously do not know what you are talking about when it comes to geology and geography or whatever the acronym in "creation science" is.
I posted the map of the basin (btw you can get a bigger pic on wiki), the falls, one of three on the Zambezi, is the 1st and is at the pointy bit of Zimbabwe to the northwest meaning that the water flowing in prior to the vic falls is about a third of the whole basin. One would assume that the water flowed consistently at least in the last 6000 years which would have the falls in more or less the same gorge it is today. Remember there are 9 gorges where the falls once were.
Yes, kinda hard not to see the walls where the water was not cutting back from have vegetation where the opposite gorge wall is shear showing the scars of erosion. Water erosion is not dependent on sediment and like I said earlier, the folk are able to go to the cutting face and take samples of the rock.
When you wash your car, you can use a HP washer or a hose pipe. All that the HP washer does is increase the pressure to remove dirt and the hose pipe will do the same eventually. I am not talking of soaping, merely spraying. The process is friction of the water under pressure be it low or high. No sediment required, leave it long enough, the paint will be eroded away too and eventually the metal.
The only time the Zambezi is muddy is during extreme floods constituting added sediment, the rest of the times it is relatively crystal clear. The sediment argument falls flat as if there were high sediment levels, this would translate into sandbanks in the gorges, but you mostly see rocks. However this little deflection will eventually come in handy when we discuss river deltas and their age.
When the water falls, it erodes the base of the face as can be seen in the dry season pic and the rocks below are as a result of collapse due to gravity. These rocks are washed downstream in the wet seasons and as they tumble become fragmented and smaller and smaller. The evidence is seen by comparing rock sizes in the 9th gorge to the 1st gorge
No assumptions. In the dry season, one can go to the rock face in the gorge itself and get samples. These are not theories, these are facts. Based on the samples, erosion rates can be replicated and accelerated like the HP washer, calculated and an accurate calculation derived as to the age of the falls.
Yup it is based on what I think which is based on science. BTW I was born in Livingstone about 10 miles from the falls. There are no assumptions. Calculations are based on factual evidence from "the scene of the crime" I am no geologist, but no one will make a claim w/o facts to back it up. There are no assumptions. However, this is more plausible than some weird priest making calculations based on very subjective ages of certain folk in the bible to come to a conclusion of 6000 odd years for the age of the planet.
You are talking here of lamers - volcanic ash is mixed with water and of course that is going to cause faster erosion. But there are no volcanoes here as I showed you the topography is relatively flat.
What you fail to understand, each gorge was once the place where the river flowed over the edge. See the arial pic. There are gorges that are not part of the river course. How were they formed? At one time they were part of the water fall. You can even see it in action in the 1st gorge where the Zambian side (bottom of photo) the water flows to the center (up on the pic) and the Zimbabwe side (top) flows down to a common outlet in the center into the 2nd gorge.
The 4th and 5th gorges (top left) clearly show the same effect as the 1st gorge
The meandering (zig-zag) is not as a result of water flow in typical river meanderings, these gorges were cut out of the rock by the falls.
Like I said, based on your 6000 years, in the last 70 years, part of the 2.6% erosion effects would have been able to be measured using optical surveying equipment. The 2.6% comes from the 154 years since Livingstone discovered the falls. IOW 154/6000 x 100 = 2.6%. Trouble is, it has not moved since he discovered it, still the same 1st gorge - maybe a few inches if that.
The 100,000 years was what we learned at school in Geographical Science.
Previously when we discussed this I provided the wiki link. You can google it now and all the info there matches what we were correctly taught.
But let us deflect to caves shall we?
Aah those pesky stalagmites and stalactites.
This is the Kango cave here in SA and as you can see there are both stalagmites and stalactites. Here we can use your sediment albeit in dissolved mineral form.
While you try to unsuccessfully debunk the Vic falls age, you may also look into just how the pesky cave growths were formed. In this part of the cave we see a pillar which has formed by the joining of the stalagmite and stalactite. The growth of these are dependent on the flow of water at a steady slow rate so that the minerals can adhere to the existing stalagmites and stalactites during the occasional drip that falls. The Kango caves are in a very arid area of the country (almost desert) so the only water that would cause this is the rain water seeping through, there is no spring or river on the mountain and rainfall there is pitifully minimal. This part of the cave is essentially dry now as it is near the entrance. The bat droppings that were shoveled out were also an indication of the age of the cave >6000 years.
The age of the sediments is thought to be late Neoproterozoic. The stratigraphy of the Kango inlier (near Oudtshoorn, within the southern, east-west-striking branch of the Cape Fold Belt) has been subdivided into two successions--the Goegamma and Kansa Subgroups, separated from one another by a clear unconformity.
How about that, a half to a billion years old give or take 0.3 and yes if you click the 1st link, the dating was not done with C14, these are minerals.
I am looking forward to how this all happened in 6000 years.
So the 100,000 years was based on (KNOWN) erosion rates?
1. Ok, can you give me the rate of water flow per cubic feet, for each year of the 50,000 years?
2. And can you tell me how they determined the hardness of the now, non existant rock from 50,000 years ago?
3. And what was the quanity of sediment that was available, that acted as an abrasive , and how did that abrasive very from year to year over the 50,000 years?
4. And what was the ratio of hard rocks that made up the abrasives from 50,000 years ago?
5. And does the cubic water flow rate very because of other factors?
6. And can you give us the dates of all the major flooding that have occured over the last 50,000 years? Also could you supply me the dates of any catastrophic flooding?
7. You said it was always hot there, yet can your provide us with a time scale showing us it has remaind hot over the span of 50,000 years?
Now since you said science claims their 100,000 year age is based on known erosion rates, and I am only asking to go back 50,000 years, and not 100,000 years, this should be no problem. And since you base everything on scientific evidence, it is important that we have this information. Otherwise your science is just guess work. And before we go to caves, we really need to nail down these facts first. And I don't assume anything over the past 6,000 years. I leave the time fantasies up to believers in evolution. I'm more of a fact man myself.
Last edited by Campbell34; 03-22-2009 at 11:37 AM..
Hoo boy you certainly lack comprehension skills don't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
So the 100,000 years was based on (KNOWN) erosion rates?
Yes - do you think they pulled that number out of their a$$?
Quote:
1. Ok, can you give me the rate of water flow per cubic feet, for each year of the 50,000 years?
No and it is 100,000 years
Quote:
2. And can you tell me how they determined the hardness of the now, non existant rock from 50,000 years ago?
I alredy answered that - please read.
Quote:
3. And what was the quanity of sediment that was available, that acted as an abrasive , and how did that abrasive very from year to year over the 50,000 years?
Answered that too, abrasives have nothing to do with the erosion, you are trying to find a reason where none exists. I told you the water is mostly clear, no volcanoes, no muddy waters except for occasional abnormal flooding, the last one was in 1964 which I actually saw. My late dad took hordes of 8mm cine so I have a record even though my young memory was sketchy.
Quote:
4. And what was the ratio of hard rocks that made up the abrasives from 50,000 years ago?
Rocks did not carve out the gorges, water erosion did. I told you there are no sand banks in the gorges.
Quote:
5. And does the cubic water flow rate very because of other factors?
I don't know, there have been droughts were the falls did not flow at all so factor that in too.
Quote:
6. And can you give us the dates of all the major flooding that have occured over the last 50,000 years?
Dumb question
Quote:
7. You said it was always hot there, yet can your provide us with a time scale showing us it has remaind hot over the span of 50,000 years?
These are dumb questions and you know it. Were you in the Garden of eden, were you there 2000 years ago when Jesus was born? I thought not.
Quote:
Now since you said science claims their 100,000 year age is based on known erosion rates, and I am only asking to go back 50,000 years, and not 100,000 years, this should be no problem. And since you base everything on scientific evidence, it is important that we have this information. Otherwise your science is just guess work. And before we go to caves, we really need to nail down these facts first. And I don't assume anything over the past 6,000 years. I leave the time fantasies up to believers in evolution. I'm more of a fact man myself.
Well if you did not understand the car wash scenario, I am afraid you will not accept any type of proof based on science.
BTW you are not a fact man. That fallacy has been proven time and again here by the links your provided that were subsequently debunked as being false in one way or another. Your whole POV is based on a YEC and specifically a global flood some 4000 years ago that never happened. But let us not turn this into an ark thread just yet - I know you are itching to.
Here we have - for the casual observer enough pictorial evidence to debunk your YEC POV.
But let us not detract. I accept the age of the falls as 100,000 years. You claim it all must have happened within a time frame of ±6000 years - I am holding you to all the claims in past threads. I am asking YOU to explain to the readers how this could have happened in 6000 years so the onus is on you to prove your POV not mine to prove the 100,000 years which is not my personal claim but was taught to all scholars in the then Northern and Southern Rhodesia colonies of GB. Unless of course you want to deflect to some UK based conspiracy of "twisting" facts or teaching us ebul science?.
See with the Vic falls, there are no creation sites that try and explain this so you have to do this w/o their help this time. Unlike your Ark and red sea myths, google provides extensive photographic evidence, if you dislike Wikipedia, you will now have to read up on various other encyclopedias available on the net to try and come up with a rebuttal.
The last time we discussed this I provided the links to my information, so either go back and read those posts or google.
Seeing you have managed 7 questions, what say you? I seriously doubt you thought them up yourself. I told you I am no geologist and my knowledge is based on what I learned at school but we of course learned REAL SCIENCE
But let us not ignore the caves, that is even more convincing that the age of the planet is >6000 years. You will of course need to google to find out how long it takes a stalactite to grow 1cm. When you have done that I will find out for you how tall that pillar is in the pic I provided. We can then take your findings and then divide that into the height. That will at least give us the age of the cave more or less.
You see with these pesky mineral cave dwellers, there is no way increased water flow would allow it to happen because then the cave would flood or the minerals would not have time to solidify in mild evaporation between those drips in a relatively high humidity.
The caves were 'discovered' in 1780 by a local farmer named Van Zyl. That is 229 years ago and if we do the math
229/6000 x 100 = 3.82% of your YEC age of 6000 years. Thus in the last 229 years we should have seen the equivalent of nearly 4% growth in stalactites of course at that rate, in the last 70 odd years, there should be ample records of these growths which by the use of modern instrumentation would be easily recordable? I wonder why there are none.
If the Victoria Falls is not it, the Kango caves will be the waterloo on your YEC timescale - there is no wiggle room here for anyone. We know what minerals are found in the formations and based on measurements of water seepage, the age of formations are obviously millions if not billions of years old as no one has lived long enough to record any tangible growth of the formations. BTW there are still caves closed to the public where the process has not been disturbed. In areas where the process still happens, tourists broke off souvenirs and the ones where they have been broken off, have not shown any new growth whatsoever although they are wet.
Maybe you should send some of your YEC "scientists" here to SA and let them do an expose on the "stupid" SA scientists seeing they have been cited by folk like National Geographic. Maybe they will be able to explain how it all happened in 6000 years.
Oh and BTW, a global flood (salty water and all) would probaly have destroyed the formations where they are still growing - only seen pics myself but the non public caves have no lighting and the water can still be seen dripping and the points of the formations are still sharp/pointed.
Any other non USA folk who have caves or waterfall gorges in their country can chime in here too. I am sure this phenomena is not restricted to Africa. IIRC Australia has some good caves too.
"I'm more of a fact man myself".....Now that has to be one of the funniest things you have ever written here!
Now here are some real facts...
An expanse of bedrock along Hudson Bay, Canada, may be a chunk of crust that formed not long after the solar system was born nearly five billion years ago, according to a new study.
How old is the Grand Canyon?
Scientists now say that at least part of the canyon is 16 million to 17 million years old. Find out how cave formations helped answer age-old questions about the Grand Canyon’s age.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.