Grand Canyon Made By Noah's Flood, Book Says (Geologists Skewer Park For Selling Creationism)

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | January 8, 2004 | Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times

[Scenic Sounds]

How old is the Grand Canyon? Most scientists agree with the version that rangers at Grand Canyon National Park tell visitors: that the 217-mile-long chasm in northern Arizona was carved by the Colorado River 5 million to 6 million years ago.

[D Rider]

The land beneath the GC swelled upward WHILE it was being carved. (Unless you believe the water flooded uphill for some reason.) This was certainly a process which took millions of years. Perhaps someone misunderstood something, and then misapplied his understanding: I can see where the initial gorge was created like that, allowing the river to form a canyon, rather than as a meandering riverbed.

Like I said, thats the official storyline. The USGS has been mapping prehistoric stream bed alluvials. As you are aware when a stream dumps water into a lake it deposits a "delta" kind of thing. These "delta's" are found all around the rocky at approximately the same elevation. When these formations were mapped out they indicated a body of water at least as large, as the great lakes. I don't recall the they were talking about surface area or volume. Anyway, it was a really big lake.

The problem, as I see it, is that many are hung up on "millions of years", because they feel that that is their only argument against creation. Thus any new idea, that doesn't include "millions of years" is considered as a personal attack against their beliefs. Even if the GC took only 3 months to a year to cut, initially. It still would have to be taken in its overall context.

[exmarine]

Or don't you believe that some variations of a species prevail over others? And if so, don't you think that God has a role in that beyond simply choosing an outcome from on high?

Variation is true, not macroevolutionary speciation. I can't believe humans evolves from the same ancestors as chimps just because the DNA is similar. It is logically absurd. Here is the logical argument:

A is similar to B in Y. Therefore, A and B evolved from Z.

Huh? The conclusion does not follow the premise. Fallacy alert!

Oh, I might add that your atheistic view on this issue is wholly consistent with your secularistic view of law. What a surprise! It seems there is some consistency in the naturalist worldview, eh? We all begin with fundamental presupposition as to whether God exists or not - all other beliefs flow from that. One presupposition leads to another.

If you say that all life came from a proto-bacteria, you need to show me the evidence for this. Where are all of those transitional forms in the fossil record? How did life just spring up on its own? Do you know how complex a bacteria is, or even a single protein molecule? You take these to be fact on blind faith. There is zero evidence for them. The darwinists cite the same hackneyed examples over and over - peppered moth, fruit fly, etc.

[js1138]

Truth is not subject to a vote - a claim is either true or it isn't regardless of what any human being believes.

At last, something you said that I can agree on. Now all you have to do is find a way of separating true claims from false claims that everyone can agree on.

Of course there are also statements that are neither true nor false, and statements that are partly true, statements that are only true in their full context, statements that connote truth, statements that are ironic or humorous and contain poetic truth, statements of statistical probability, statements in science and engineering that are true within a range of parameters, and so forth.

[MississippiMan]

Could a mediator help to narrow this difference betwen these parties?

The truth is what it is, regardless of who believes it. The literal creationist side of the argument has been consistent. The evolution side changes its story regularly. In any event, trying to "mediate" such a thing is akin to mediating the truth--it's not possible. You can take up the notion with God one day, though, face to face. Be prepared.

MM

[exmarine]

A logical rebuttal?

Yes, I stated the fundamental tenets of the secularist/naturalist worldview and how it logically flows from non-belief in God, to belief that all reality is matter/energy, to belief that religion is silly. If this is illogical or untrue, then you need to demonstrate why. I might add on to the end of that, that if there is no God, human beings have no intrinsic worth and no God-given rights either - and I offer Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro and Hitler as examples of that worldview - we all know what happens when man thinks he makes up the rules. History tells that story irrefutably.

[Scenic Sounds]

The truth is what it is, regardless of who believes it.

Good post, but I prefer The Truth to the truth. ;-)

[VadeRetro]

Aren't they? Isn't that why churches schism?

"Schism" as a verb! (OK, I'm feeling defensive after general_re and js1138 jumped me.)

[MississippiMan]

Good post, but I prefer The Truth to the truth. ;-)

Thanks. :-)

BTW, I emailed the director of the National Park Service and shared my feelings on censorship--whether through removal of the book or relocation to the "inspirational" area of the stores--of an alternate point of view. If you get a chance, you might want to do likewise.

MM

[dangus]

It's not the "official" story line. It's physics, plain and simple. The top ridge - even on the low side - of the canyon is higher in some places than it is in some others that are further upstream. The presence of such an enormous lake doesn't change that. Even post-glacial rebounding -- which is not what happened -- takes thousands of years. Continental uplift takes millions.

Plus, its also basic physics that erosion through sandstone -- no matter how much water is flowing -- does not occur at a rate of a couple thousand feet per month, which is what you are describing.

(A great Lake, once filled the entire Nevada Basin, and had an outlet... It's only remnant is the Great Salt Lake. I don't know if it flowed out the Colorado River, but that'd seem like a likely candidate. Is this what you are referring to?)

[r9etb]

Both statements are true.

OK -- so you're basically saying what I thought you were saying: that the evolution of human intelligence took place over fewer than 3 million years. That's a pretty large leap in a pretty short time. What this does is lend credence to the idea that we might very well expect to see divergence in mental abilities between, say, Asians, Africans, and Europeans. 100-200K years is actually a pretty long time, in relation to the short evolutionary timeline you're proposing. So I think it would be reasonable to expect to see mental abilities that are different, because they're adapted to different environments. (I won't claim that any particular one is "better".)

Can such things be measured? I don't really know -- it might be possible to construct tests to objectively measure certain talents. For I know, it's already been done....

[MEGoody]

"No supporting factual evidence has been presented of an occurrence of spontaneous generation."

If this is a flaw with the creationist side of things, it is obviously a flaw with The evolutionist side of things. Both believe in spontaneous creation - they just believe in different causes.

[balrog666]

SHOE FOLLOWER: No, no, no. The shoe is a sign that we must gather shoes together in abundance.

GIRL: Cast off the shoes! Follow the Gourd!

SHOE FOLLOWER: No! Let us gather shoes together!
GIRL: Follow the Gourd! The Holy Gourd of Jerusalem!
HARRY: Hold up the sandal, as He has commanded us!
ARTHUR: It is a shoe! It is a shoe!
HARRY: It's a sandal!
ARTHUR: No, it isn't!
GIRL: Cast it away!

[MEGoody]

"OK, then disputes over Biblical interpretation should be settled by majority vote."

Actually, I think that is how the major denominations arrive at their statements of faith.

[VadeRetro]

OK -- so you're basically saying what I thought you were saying: that the evolution of human intelligence took place over fewer than 3 million years.

No, you're basically doing what I thought you were doing, playing "twist and shout." The evolution of human intelligence has occurred over our entire history as a species (and we weren't exactly brainless when we diverged from the rest of the apes).

That's a pretty large leap in a pretty short time.

We didn't do very much at all in the very short time in question, the last 150K years. Which is what I have been saying. Where in my posts is the justification for your propping up this strawman for your target practice?

What this does is lend credence to the idea that we might very well expect to see divergence in mental abilities between, say, Asians, Africans, and Europeans.

What this does is show that you're making a point of not reading. I'm not interested.

[lugsoul]

You must get mighty tired building all those strawmen. I have not stated, nor do I hold, an atheistic view of these issues or an anti-Christian view. This exchange began with me simply pointing out that geology is not "Darwinism", which led to your typical rant that "it is all the same anti-Christian crap." It is not, and you probably know it but can't help yourself. You'd probably call Jesus himself an "anti-Christian" if he disagreed with your views.

[exmarine]

You must get mighty tired building all those strawmen. I have not stated, nor do I hold, an atheistic view of these issues or an anti-Christian view. This exchange began with me simply pointing out that geology is not "Darwinism", which led to your typical rant that "it is all the same anti-Christian crap." It is not, and you probably know it but can't help yourself. You'd probably call Jesus himself an "anti-Christian" if he disagreed with your views.

Let me ask you straight up so that we can achieve some clarity here. My position is clear - so let's make yours clear shall we? Do you believe that God is Creator or that the universe and life created itself? Do you believe the rights such as life and liberty and property are God-given? Do you believe there is a reality beyond material reality?

You do hold a secular view on law. Our previous exchanges make that quite clear. Why don't you give me the big picture?

[Clean_Sweep]

"Much later in life I saw that the jagged edges of the Grand Canyon are much more logically explained as evidence of a quick wash-thru than a slow process."

Not only are your observations correct, they are accepted by the rangers at the park. (well they may not go for the fast part) but they don't quaestion that water from other that the river cut the canyon. It's so obvious that the side canyons were formed by water decending down them. However it's also plain to see that the amount of water had to be in huge amounts not the little that is collected by them now.

Acually you can see the giant basin that surrounds the canyon in all directions for untold miles. What has not been explained is what caused the rim to uplift after the water was gone.

[exmarine]

A logical rebuttal? To your use of the "anti-Christian" tag for everything that is not in total agreement with YOUR worldview? Give me a break. In your mind, anything that is not in agreement with exmarine on matters of science, faith, law or politics is automatically "anti-Christian."

Many Christians hold beliefs that are NOT consistent with the biblical worldview. For example, many Christians voted for Clinton, rather than for moral principle, as if Jesus is not Lord over political life and all of life. Many other Christians believe in neodarwinism, a belief that is inconsistent with the bible. Many Christians do not believe that the bible is the Word of God, which creates a big problem in that it leaves them with no way for God to exercise His Lordship over their lives, and as a result, they buy into all of the changing moral norms of the culure (as if moral truth changes somehow).

So, to answer your question, many Christians hold unChristian beliefs. Simple fact. And sometimes this makes them indistinguishable from nonChristians in their heterodox statements. I don't know if that is you or not, I am just stating a fact about the state of American Christianity today.

[Clean_Sweep]

Ok back to the canyon. "Take home a chunk of rock from the area around the grand canyon. Pour running water over the rock for the next 1 year. See how fast the rock washes away."

First who is to say the water washed away rock? The whole bottom of every water covered land mass is usually MUD!! And that is exactly what was washed away, 5000 ft of mud and clay.

[PatrickHenry]

300 ?