Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 01/08/2004 7:21:37 AM PST by Scenic Sounds

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:45:24 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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.


(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bible; creationism; flood; grandcanyon; greatflood; noah; noahsflood
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 581-592 next last
To: RadioAstronomer
At 10 to the minus 43 seconds after the Big Bang, for instance--the so-called Planck time--the density must have been equal to the critical density to one part in 10 to the 60. If it had been ever so slightly higher, the universe would have collapsed quickly and there would have been no opportunity for life to form. On the other hand, had the density been ever so slightly smaller, the universe would have expanded rapidly and no galaxies, stars, or planets would have formed. Again, no life. Thus, life is the result of fine tuning the density of matter-energy at the Planck time to one part in 10 to the 60!8 But it was the result of an accident, eh?

Think of the odds of holding a particular shuffle of a deck of cards. There are 10 to the 70th different combinations that can occur. So is the particular combination of the shuffled deck of cards impossible? Obviously not. To quote Physicist, my legs are JUST long enough to reach the ground.

Don't forget that under the Inflationary Model of the BB, the matter/energy density of the Universe has no choice but to be the critical value, regardless of the initial density prior to the Inflationary Phase. Conservation of Energy demands it, the Inflationary model predicts it, and the W-MAP data confirms it.

401 posted on 01/09/2004 7:01:49 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

Comment #402 Removed by Moderator

To: longshadow
Don't forget that under the Inflationary Model of the BB, the matter/energy density of the Universe has no choice but to be the critical value, regardless of the initial density prior to the Inflationary Phase. Conservation of Energy demands it, the Inflationary model predicts it, and the W-MAP data confirms it.

Exactly. All possible state spaces are not equal.

403 posted on 01/09/2004 7:05:02 PM PST by balrog666 (Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Geesh- it doesn't take much for some people to get their nose hairs in a bunch. So what if the bookstore sells one book with an "eccentric" point of view? Is it hurting anyone?

No and it's good business too. Why shutout alternate views when this view has many adherents?

404 posted on 01/09/2004 7:06:33 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Let's not restart things when things have been going so well around here on these threads lately. Thanks.
405 posted on 01/09/2004 7:11:10 PM PST by Lead Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: Lead Moderator
Thank you.
406 posted on 01/09/2004 7:14:22 PM PST by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Markofhumanfeet
Murray

And "O'Hair".

For what it's worth, I think she was obnoxious too.

407 posted on 01/09/2004 7:18:33 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: Lead Moderator
Let's not restart things when things have been going so well around here on these threads lately.

Thanks for noticing, and thanks for not "going nuclear" as a first option.

408 posted on 01/09/2004 7:20:47 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Mr. Abuse Button is indeed back.
409 posted on 01/09/2004 7:27:08 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; PatrickHenry

Sorry, I just ran across it while websurfing and it seemed strangely appropriate here as a mood-lightener.

410 posted on 01/09/2004 7:30:41 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
"Evolution theory is about the slow change of existing living organisms over time. Creationist theory demands that new organisms be spontaneously generated. "

Creationists claim God created man from dust in one day and you think that's foolishness.

Take swamp ooze add a billion years to the equation and it becomes believable?

Sometimes it just doesn't pay to be fast at what you do...

411 posted on 01/09/2004 7:43:49 PM PST by Joshua (From the Goo, to the Zoo, to You)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA; VadeRetro
BMCDA posted a quotation from Linnaeus:

If I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of all the ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I should have done so.

I Googled the quote, and it begins:

I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character ... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none.

Thanks.

That's really interesting. I remember a number of threads in which I or another evo (VadeRetro, IIRC) posted this link, where creationists all agree that there is nothing intermediate between apes and people, they just disagree about which is which!

It's also interesting tht Linnaeus was worried about the ecclesiastics, 80-odd years before Lyell at al proved the Earth is *much* older than a simple-minded interpretation of Genesis would imply, and more than a century before Darwin.

412 posted on 01/09/2004 8:35:55 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
In that case, you may want to eschew hand grenades.

The world is divided into three types of people; those who can count, and those who cannot.
413 posted on 01/09/2004 8:55:01 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Scenic Sounds
I also heard this was reported about the Grand Canyon on PAX TV a while back. I wondered the same thing for a number of years and I convinced this is very possible. Of course no one wants to hear about anything that confirms bibical truth so that's why it's not mainstream knowledge.
414 posted on 01/09/2004 8:57:19 PM PST by pctech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
The world is divided into three types of people; those who can count, and those who cannot.

There are 10 kinds of people. Those who can count in binary, and those who can't.

415 posted on 01/09/2004 9:23:06 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
"Eins, zwei, drei, fünf," said the fearless German Sargent.
416 posted on 01/09/2004 9:36:48 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
"Coito ergo sum", said the Latin lover.
417 posted on 01/09/2004 10:00:12 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
BMCDA posted a quotation from Linnaeus: "If I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of all the ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I should have done so." I Googled the quote, and it begins: "I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character ... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none."

Thanks, I hadn't encountered that quote before, I'll add it to my collection.

If the subject matter baffles anyone, read and ponder the essay, You Are An Ape.

The point is that there isn't a single defining characteristic of the ape family that humans do not also possess. In a real taxonomic sense, we are *still* apes, just ones of the human variety. (Just as we are still primates, still mammals, and still vertebrates.)

Put another way, our differences from our ape "cousins" are ones of degree (in some cases large degree), but not of kind.

418 posted on 01/10/2004 12:26:08 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

PatrickHenry remains aloof ...
419 posted on 01/10/2004 4:49:25 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Just as funny, Gish claims Java Man is an ape, but Lake Turkana Boy is a modern human. In fact, they're incredibly similar in corresponding parts. (Real scientists consider them both to be one species, Homo erectus.)

In spite of this remarkable similarity, Gish continues to claim that the Java Man is an ape, while the Turkana Boy is a modern human. In his words, they are "very apelike" and "remarkably human" respectively. If a "human" and an "ape" that look almost identical aren't transitional fossils, what would be?


420 posted on 01/10/2004 6:35:26 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 581-592 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson