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.

[r9etb]

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

Awwwww .... garshk. (Scuffs dirt with toe.)

[Gargantua]

Just kidding.

What I was saying is that many other "grand canyons" were formed by The Flood (Noah's), but most of them are now under the oceans. The oceans rose alot after The Flood.

;-/

[Hunble]

My theology is rather simple and basic:

God is life, and life is God.

It is impossible to have one without the other.

Yes, atheist have abused the theory of evolution for their own political reasons. I have no argument with that statement.

Alamo-Girl, as a fellow software engineer, you and I both know that debating a subject will not provide results.

Theories, and how they can be implemented, is how we invent new products. If a theory is false, then it will be rapidly replaced with something that does fit the facts.

I do enjoy these debates, as it helps me to understand the average scientific knowledge of fellow Freepers.

[r9etb]

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.

That's why I like you so much.

[PAR35]

Here is some info I googled up which you all can use in your erosion calculations. Niagara falls is moving upstream at a rate of several feet a year. The falls are some 3000 feet (all 3 falls) long, and the drop is about 170 feet.

"The sheer power of the water has eaten through the riverbed at a rate of almost 1.2m/4ft a year. Even in the past 300 years, the erosion has changed the Falls from a slight crescent into a great horseshoe shape."

Simple math gives a (very) rough number: 4 x 170 x 3000 = over 2 million cubic feet of rock a year.

[r9etb]

Alamo-Girl, as a fellow software engineer, you and I both know that debating a subject will not provide results.

Waaayyyyy off-topic, on something I haven't paid attention to for quite some time.

What is the current thinking on the feasibility of creating true artificial intelligence?

[Gargantua]

Evolution is Man's tracking of the decay of Life on Earth after our Fall from Grace in the Garden. What academia refers to as "Evolution" is actually once-pure species mutating as a result of genetic decay.

[mombonn]

#25 is a fascinating observation. Thank you.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your reply and your beautiful statement of faith:

God is life, and life is God. It is impossible to have one without the other.

I also agree with you that debate does not produce results but is informative (especially to those lurking).

If a theory is false, then it will be rapidly replaced with something that does fit the facts.

Strangely, Doctor Stochastic and I were recently discussing this very issue which he calls "save the phenomenon". Naturally, I strongly agree that is good science but am troubled that some scientists may be more concerned with "saving the theory".

He assures me that such scientists are only being cautious, but I am concerned that it results in American scientists moving in baby-steps letting the Chinese, Japanese, Indians and Europeans get too far ahead.

[Alamo-Girl]

You are so very kind to me, r9etb! I like you, too! Hugs!!!

[Hunble]

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..

That Sir, is what a true scientist is all about. Adapt the theory to explain the known factual information.

Obviously, as new factual information is obtained, the theories will be modified.

Will Dalkins be proved to be absolutely correct? NO!

As a scientist trying to understand the factual data presented before him, Dawkins did an outstanding job.

Next to my bed, I have the book "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" by Stephen Jay Gould. I must admit, that book has been difficult to read, but the factual information has been outstanding.

Why is that book so difficult to read? That 1433 page book must weigh over 4 lbs and is a physical challenge to read in bed!

[rdb3]

Here's an experiment: 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.

That sounds like one heck of a water bill! ;-)

[Alamo-Girl]

What is the current thinking on the feasibility of creating true artificial intelligence?

We are very blessed on this forum to have one of the top information theorists in the field posting on Free Republic! I'm pinging tortoise now for an authoritative answer to your question.

[Theophilus]

I've met some Calvinists who claimed God is purposely fooling man

No we just observe that God purposely makes fools: "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction"

[Junior]

Well, it's a whole lot more feasible than a lightning bolt¹.

¹First off, I don't believe the Flood caused the Grand Canyon. Creationists simply have no inkling of actual geology. Secondly, the "lightning bolt" refers to one of the whackier theories put forth by a former Freeper who shall not be named...

[Hunble]

I was ignoring that change of topics.

Human intelligence by computer?

When a man can understand how a woman thinks, then a computer can be programmed to perform that function.

Until then, the task is simply impossible!

How humans think, is obviously much more involved than the simple processing of input data.

That is why men and women are so different in how they process the exact same information.

[GluteusMax]

No problem my friend, since you can obviously provide a well documented example of a new organism suddenly being created.

Why yes I can. It's a written account by the guy who did the creation. However you've already rejected it as hooey. So I guess you're looking for ANOTHER documented example.

Or, are you saying that no new organism have been created since the Earth was created, as documented in the book of Genesis?

BTW, your strawman that creationists believe nothing new has occurred since the original creation is really quite annoying. Adaptability and change WITHIN a species is well documented. New species suddenly appearing via mutation or evolution has no documentation however. There is no contradiction here. We are well designed, obviously, and can adapt to the parameters we can expect to face on this planet.

If you can remove the emotion and observe your own body and all of life on this planet, it is painfully obvious that there is a designer. To credit random chance for what is observable takes far greater faith than Creationism. Evolution denies logic and well-established scientific principles. (e.g. the notion that a more complex and organized state can spontaneously arise from a less organized state without intervention.) For that matter, why would SEXUAL reproduction make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, hmmn? Much more elegant and efficient to stay at the one cell self-replication, wouldn't you say?

[js1138]

Waterfalls are relevant, but not, I think, to the Colorado River. The problem is that the canyon and its river do not physically resemble the Niagra. If you are going to propose a scientific explanation, then you need to back it up with relevant math and expermental data. I just wonder why no one in the creationist camp is taking this obvious path, even though they want to be taken seriously as scientists.

[Godfollow]

"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."

That a worldwide flood may have occurred some 4,000 years ago seems hardly to be a separation of church and state issue. Especially since there was a "scientific symposium held in 2000 to resolve the question of how the canyon was formed dissolved in acrimony and adjourned without consensus, he said."

[Dr._Joseph_Warren]

If I remember my childhood years correctly, the Grand Canyon is just a furrow created by Paul Bunyan and Babe the Ox. There better be a book about this at the same Grand Canyon store!