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.

[BigBobber]

My model does not require vast amounts of water to be released over a short period, as yours does.

In my model, God created the world over billions of years, so untold numbers of Grand Canyons have been formed and obliterated through the eons. There is nothing in my model that requires lots of Grand Canyons all over at any point in time. Yours does because you only allow a compressed timespan for geologic processes to work.

Now can you address the other two points in my first post?

[js1138]

I don't know about high speed. There is a limit to the speed of water falling under gravity -- I suspect this is quite a bet less than the speed of water propelled by pumps. In any case, this is a simple problem in engineering. Run the tests using the kinds of rock found in the canyon, using some reasonable values for the quantity of water available in a flood (where is the water draining to?) and extrapolate.

[dangus]

<<The above is just an illustration of the fact that your experiment is making a lot of assumptions. <<

Yes, but those assupmtions are consistent with creationism. The sandstone must have been MADE hard, since it takes a heck of a lot longer than a couple thouand years to turn sand into sandstone. And if the feature was made by the ordinary receeding of water, we actually could guess how much water. Here's a hint: not much. You'd have a few month's worth of erosion, and not at a very fast rate. Actually, one other poster posted the real kicker: Geological upheaval has gone on since the erosion started: The water would have to had run UPHILL early on in the process.

[Hunble]

Geological upheaval has gone on since the erosion started: The water would have to had run UPHILL early on in the process.

Think about it.........

[BigBobber]

Sandstone is a generic term. Some sandstone is harder than basalt, some is as soft as soil.

[r9etb]

Creationist Theory: God created all forms of life on Earth. HOW?

Actually, I'll address this one honestly. Let us suppose that you or I decided to create "life," and that we had the wherewithal to do things like move atoms and molecules around to suit our needs. (Technology seems to be approaching this level of ability.)

Don't you believe that, with enough smarts, time, and effort, we could invent a mechanical "something" along the lines of what we now recognize as life? Well, of course we could!

And if you and I could do it, so could God -- who, as Creator of heaven and Earth, would certainly have the time, smarts, and ability to do such a thing.

IMHO this brings us to the real issue: whether or not God exists. The 6,000-year creationists are acting out on their fears that he doesn't exist, and the "evolutionary athiests" (such as Richard Dawkins) are acting out on their fears that He does.

The rest of us tend to be dragged along by one side or the other, unless we manage to pull ourselves out of that particular current. As for me, I know God exists, and He has been active in my life. Thus, although the "jots and tittles" of things like evolution vs. creation are interesting, I can't really work up a lot of passion over them.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Gee, maybe they can have a televised book burning...

[r9etb]

Once again, can you provide us a SINGLE EXAMPLE of a newly created organism?

Can you provide the evolutionary lineage of the horseshoe crab? According to the fossil record, horseshoe crabs just appeared.

[Diddle E. Squat]

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

LOL, some here will label you the anti-Christ if you suggested that the days in the Genesis account of creation are figurative rather than literal. Nevermind that figurative language and illustrations are replete throughout the Bible. I guess I'm going to Hell now for even bringing it up...

[Alamo-Girl]

I'm very much enjoying your discussion and would like to make a quick observation. r9etb, you said:

That said, I have to confess that I'm baffled by those folks who expend so much time and effort on this 6,000 year deal. Even as an article of religious faith, it just doesn't matter.

I find the angst particularly curious in light of our current knowledge of relativity.

In the presence of extreme gravity (such as a black hole) time is much slower. For instance, forty years may pass on earth relative to a single week near an event horizon, etc.

From the space/time coordinates of the singularity at the beginning (big bang) of this universe, in a seven day period, nearly 15 billion years would pass from the space/time coordinates of earth. When one considers that the only entity who could testify to the creation is God, then it makes sense that the time reference in Genesis would be relative to the beginning, not the object of creation.

Also, when one considers relativistic time - at the space/time coordinates of the beginning - the appearance of species is virtually instantaneous though from the space/time coordinates of earth it would appear to be a very gradual process.

[Hunble]

Sir, I was in full agreement with your last post, except for this one statement:

the "evolutionary athiests" (such as Richard Dawkins) are acting out on their fears that He does.

Dawkins may have shared political views that I do not agree with, but his basic data and interpretations have been demonstrated to be valid.

I respect any scientist that is willing to adapt and fit a new theory to the known data.

They key words are: Known Data.

[r9etb]

I don't know about high speed. There is a limit to the speed of water falling under gravity -- I suspect this is quite a bet less than the speed of water propelled by pumps. In any case, this is a simple problem in engineering. Run the tests using the kinds of rock found in the canyon, using some reasonable values for the quantity of water available in a flood (where is the water draining to?) and extrapolate.

I think there'd be some very large technical hurdles to surmount. After all, you've got to consider the unbelievable energy available in a large river such as the Columbia or the Colorado. Also, I believe there'd be some significant scaling issues (I think it'd be a Reynolds Number issue).

Still, places like the Columbia Basin do seem to show that it is quite reasonable to theorize about significant geological features forming in short geological time periods.

Do I think that's what happend with the Grand Canyon? No. But that doesn't mean it never happens.

[Hunble]

You have nothing but respect from me, and your words of wisdom have always been paid attention to.

Personally, I have never understood this debate.

God created all life on Earth, and the theory of evolution is the scientific study of how it was done.

So, what is the problem?

[Gargantua]

In my model, untold numbers of Grand Canyons have been formed and obliterated through the millenia as a result of The Flood and both prior and subsequent plate-tectonic activity.

The most obvious one that remains today happens to be the one that formed well above what then became sea level. The ones that formed below what became sea level were covered by the receding waters of The Flood, and they are all over the 75% of the planet now covered by water.

Next?

[Hunble]

Giggle

Now I must admit, the Reynolds number of the Colorado river was not something that I ever thought about before.

Now if I was flying an airplane over the Grand Canyon, then the Reynolds number would be important to me.

I give you an A+ for using a scientific terms.

[Hunble]

The most obvious one that remains today happens to be the one that formed well above what then became sea level. The ones that formed below what became sea level were covered by the receding waters of The Flood, and they are all over the 75% of the planet now covered by water.

Can you translate that into English?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the kudos and encouragements! I also look forward to reading your posts, Hunble!

So, what is the problem?

If both sides would check the ideology at the door, there would probably not be so much anger.

But on the one hand, some metaphysical naturalists (atheists) have asserted evolution theory as proof that God does not exist. And on the other hand, some religionists have countered that evolution theory is bad science or not science at all.

Personally, I wish both sides would stand back, take a deep breath, and look at all of science including the physics, information theory and math. I would also like them to ask the deep philosophical questions only with the full plate of science of front of them.

[Dataman]

The flap at the Grand Canyon highlights what officials say is a problem for the national park system: how to respect visitors' spiritual views that may directly contradict the agency's accepted scientific presentations and maintain the necessary division of church and state.

Don't forget, Dan, that most of the criticism hides behind the mythical separation of church and state. The sissified high priests of evolution can't come out and say "We can prove you wrong and us right," because they would embarrass themselves.

[Gargantua]

That is English. Can you learn English?

Complex thought processes aren't for everyone, but then... they don't try to be. ;-)

[r9etb]

God created all life on Earth, and the theory of evolution is the scientific study of how it was done. So, what is the problem?

We're in agreement on the first part. I don't know that I can really credit evolution as the sole explanation of "how," however. If God created life, there's no reason to assume that he didn't create it with a specific goal in mind (us, for example). This tends to push things in the direction of "intelligent design."

In fact, if one is a Christian, one might plausibly state that that the incarnation of God in Jesus -- the central fact in all of history -- suggests that God did indeed have a specific goal in mind.

Back to Dawkins for a moment. The problem he and others face is that they have to explain why the fossil record contains those "creation-looking" discontinuities -- whole new types of animals (i.e., horseshoe crabs or cockroaches) suddenly appearing "out of nowhere." In their attempts to explain the process, they tend to rule out the hand of God in the process. Dawkins -- a militant atheist -- did this explicitly.