Posted on 02/02/2004 3:47:15 PM PST by DannyTN
CNN reported, “A new book offering a non-evolutionist view of how the Grand Canyon was formed, featuring essays from 23 scientists (most with PhD's, many having conducted serious geological scientific research at the Canyon), is the object of an intense book-banning effort by leading evolutionists. They have demanded that Grand Canyon National Park remove the book, Grand Canyon: A Different View, from bookstores within the Park.
The book, which claims the famous area can be no older than a few thousand years (contrary to the claims of traditional secular science, which contends the canyon is millions of years old), was unanimously approved by a panel of park and gift shop personnel, the Los Angeles Times reported.”
CNN reported that the National Park Service (NPS) in Washington, D.C. is “preparing to draft a letter telling Grand Canyon administrators the book makes claims that fall outside accepted science... so it likely won’t be restocked.” Meanwhile, an NPS spokesman has confirmed that the book has been moved from the natural sciences section of the bookstore to an ‘inspirational’ one (which would thus downplay the book’s legitimate scientific message).
What is this if it is not blatant censorship? The Evolutionists have formed what amounts to a ‘cartel’ of influential liberals and agnostics who are bent upon silencing all challenges.
On the basis of elaborate non-proven theories, the Evolution Cartel now protects itself from scientific challenge by banning all books that don’t agree with their arrogant claims, which are fundamentally based on enormous assumptions that are then supported by circular reasoning.
Evolution Cartel Out of Step with Majority
According to recent poles, at least half of Americans believe in a recent “creation” of no more than 10,000 years. Some of the greatest names in science are among those who believe in recent creation.
In the 1960’s, I had the privilege of leading a scientist from the Rocketdyne Propulsion Laboratories to faith in Jesus Christ. Charles Morse then spent the rest of his life studying the Biblical account of creation and the universal flood.
Using some the world's most sophisticated computers, he set up models from scientific information that established a global flood had to have taken place.
From these models, he was able to interpret the geological records in scientific terms so that they supported a recent creation.
Evidence to Consider
Since Morse had been a naval officer in WW2, he had studied and had access to scientific oceanography data. This included the ‘mid-oceanic ridges’ with deep trenches traversing their length. These ridges extend along the length of all earth’s ocean. He also learned about the ‘river cones’, which are underwater river channels that extend along the ocean floor for over a hundred miles out from the mouth of every great river in the world.
Morse found that the Evolutionist’s explanation of the ‘river cones’ could never work. Evolutionists contend that the ‘river cones’ were etched into the ocean floor by slow moving currents that etched them out over ‘millions of years’.
(Whenever evolutionists are stuck for an explanation, they always seem to think that adding a few million more years solves everything.) But this could not explain how the underwater channels were formed.
These so called river cones are literally extensions of the rivers on the ocean floor. Only water moving at tremendous velocity would have the ability to carry the large rocks necessary to etch out such deep trenches on a line continuing out from the river on the ocean floor.
The same thing is true concerning the phenomenon of the Grand Canyon. If these were formed by slow moving currents over millions of years, why has this not taken place in other places where the rivers are about the same age?
Rivers such as Mississippi, Nile, Amazon, Euphrates, etc., should have produced similar phenomena. If the Grand Canyon is millions of years old, why has there not been more erosion of the steep cliffs?
The Biblical account of a universal flood better explains the geological phenomena of the Grand Canyon than does the evolutionist theory. If there was a universal flood, and it was caused to drain of the land rapidly as the Biblical account declares, then there would have been enormous amounts of water draining off at terrific velocity.
This would easily form the rivers and canyons we see today. And most important, it would also explain how the river cones were formed out from the mouth of every river into the ocean floor.
The fossil record is also explained best this way. Why do we find fossilized fish at the top of mountains all over the world? Why do we find evidence of sea life on land areas the world over?
Where Did The Water Come From?
Morse also dealt with the question of where the tremendous volume of water came from that would be needed to cover all the land mass of the planet.
The Bible says, “In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.” (Genesis 7:11-12 NIV)
Morse observed that there could not have been enough water stored in the atmosphere to cover the whole earth. Most of the water came from what the Bible called “the springs of the great deep…” This is where the “mid-oceanic trenches” come in.
There is evidence that there were tremendously violent eruptions that took place in these Great fractures of the earth’s tectonic plates. There is also radioactivity coming from these areas. Morse reasons from the evidence that God used some kind of nuclear reaction to burst open the great fountains of the deep and release the water stored there.
Then Morse dealt with the problem of how that much water could be removed from the land masses of the earth. The geological evidence supports that God caused enormous forces under the continental plates to erupt and force them to rise upward. This caused the water to drain off with violent velocity.
This gives the best explanation of the evidence as to how the rivers, mountains and canyons were formed. The water velocity had the carrying power and force to move great rocks so as to quickly etch out what we see today.
In the final analysis, whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist, it takes faith to come to a conclusion about how the earth was created and formed.
I believe in creation because the God I worship has the power to do any of these things. And it explains the scientifically available fact better than the evolutionist theory.
Even Darwin Found a Better Way
As a matter of fact, even Charles Darwin came to that conclusion before he died. According to Frank Charles Thompson, God used the wife of the First Admiral of the British fleet to reach Charles Darwin with the Gospel. Here is what he reported:
“God used Lady Hope, wife of the first admiral of the British Fleet, to reach Charles Darwin with the Gospel during the last years of his life. He was bedridden, and she would often visit him. One afternoon, as he was reading this Bible, she asked, “What are you studying now?” “Still Hebrews,” he replied. “I call it the royal book. Isn’t it grand?”
When she mentioned how popular his theory of evolution had become he gave her an anguished look and said, “I was a young man then, with uninformed ideas. I thought out queries and suggestions, wondering all the time … and to my astonishment, those ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them."
Later Darwin asked Lady Hope if she would share the Word of God with some of his friends in his summerhouse. She asked, “What shall I speak about?” He replied, “Jesus Christ and His salvation. Is that not the best theme?”
Dr. Victor Pierce, an Oxford scholar, says, “When some one tells you evolution explains everything, tell them that Darwin discovered a better theme — “Jesus Christ and His salvation.”
It's not the only gorge of the Colorado. It flows in a gorge pretty much all the way from the Utah-Colorado border, through Canyonlands, and then though the now submerged Glen Canyon. And then below the Grand Canyon here was a Black Canyon of the Colorado, partly submerged by Hoover dam.
Would it be too much to ask that you religious types maintain a little common civility?
Macroevolution is a belief system and completely, absolutely unprovable, therefore not science -- by definition.
'Macroevolution' is a fiction concocted by creationists who found they could no longer tenavbly argue against evolution per se.
I love that piece. You can own just about all of his music on 3 CDs. He spent most of his time on chemistry and running a hotel out of his house!
I don't reject the Young Earth Theory. I don't believe that the evolutionists have sufficiently made their case. Especially when you see how much circular reasoning on dates exist in their work and how far off the Potassium Argon initial assumptions can be.
A 15-billion year old universe doesn't compromise my faith in God either, but it would surprise me. There are some unfilled timelines in the bible. We don't know for sure what God started with at the beginning of creation although "without form" does not give itself easily to the earth having history before that. We also don't know how long Adam was in the garden before the fall, and whether the age recounted in the Bible includes that time.
Thus the most reasonable explanation if the earth is older is a miscommunication on the "days" in which God created things. After all it does raise questions of how did God create the soil, if there wasn't sufficient time for microbrial break down, etc. That's nor really a problem for me, as I think God can say let there be soil and there is, and plenty of it. I don't buy that God needs to use only natural processes that we understand. I think His understandingy of physics and technology are literally lightyears ahead of us. I think it's vain when some scientists claim He couldn't have done it.
No flood, as claimed by many evolutionists, however destroys the credibility of Genesis and with it the other four books of Moses. Since these books contain instructions such as how to judge whether a person is a prophet or not and key prophecies. Thus the prophets are thrown into doubt as well. And if the prophets are uncertain then how much faith do you put in the messianic prophecies? The whole foundation of the "recorded" version of God's history of interaction with man, crumbles. Although one is still left with an incredible set of prophecies that were fulfilled in time. If part of of the foundation is false, then who can be certain which parts are true and which parts are false?
I think there is a lot of evidence for the flood. I also think there are a lot of questionable assumptions in the old earth theology of evolutionists. So much so that they resort to strong arm tactics to deal with competing theories, rather than address those theories on their merits.
You can think whatever you want of Mrs Denny. She did report being an eyewitness to Darwin's conversion. Given that none of Darwin's family substantiates his conversion, I don't think Hal should have used it. But it is possible Darwin converted, it's also possible he told Mrs Denny what she wanted to hear, which would explain why Darwin never said anything to his family. Hal didn't lie in quoting Mrs Denny any more than Bush lied when he quoted the British intellegence. Mrs Denny and the British intelligence did say what they said. That we can't independently substantiate it does not mean it wasn't true.
Well Genesis doesn't mention every species of animals, it simply mentions animals, later scripture does mention a behemoth with a tail like a cedar tree and also a leviathan. We don't know what these animals were but they were apparently massive.
Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
The problem with evolution is that scripture records the plants and animals being made in 7 days. And later reiterates that it was 7 days morning and night. Now certainly it's possible that there is a miscommunication and the time periods were much longer, but I don't think so. For one, I think God is capable of creating the species without using evolution. Secondly, I'm not sure there is really much evidence of evolution. There are extinct species, but I don't see much in the way of transitional forms, certainly not as much as we would expect. And the Cambrian explosion of species certainly hasn't been explained adequately.
Finally, God knows the future, and apparently has a special relationship with time in order to do so. Therefore it's unlikely that there has been a miscommunication. One can certainly look around and see different interpretations of scripture and know that miscommunications occur. But I think that the vast majority of these are the fault of the readers, and not knowing the scriptures well enough. Or they would easily recognize that the way they take certain scriptures out of context is not the correct reading.
Well actually the Potassium Argon method should. According to the theory the Argon boils out of new rock and therefore the quantity of Argon in new rocks should at least prevent the method from being used.
However tests from some 18 different recent volcanic flows demonstrates that the Argon doesn't sufficiently boil out of the rock and that there is sufficient excess Argon in new rock to cause the rock to be dated as millions of years old.
Thus the whole method is doubtful and with it all the assumptions made about the age of rock layers and fossils found within.
Shall we see if you can come up with a better model than evolution? (Ummm... peer reviewed and not some screed off of a creationist web site). Lets see the original published papers out of a recognized scientific journal.
Except Genesis had the time line in the wrong order. Unfortunately, whether you like it or not, it is in error.
Did not say that. However peer review weeds out most of the crackpot ideas. Dancing elves on the far side on the moon may be an idea, however, I don't think it will make it into the "Astrophysical Journal".
I personally see "creation science" just about as credible.
"The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is a good start."
The big bang could very well be consistent with God creating the universe. However, there are aspects of the big bang that leave me scratching my head. Concepts like the universe expanding faster than the speed of light. Or that the universe was much bigger in size than a single point but that the big bang happened everywhere at once.
Some of these concepts inherent in the big bang, leave me scratching my head and coming to the conclusion that "Y'all just don't know do ya?".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.