I used to be messed
up on drugs. Now
I'm messed up on the
Lord!
Posted on 01/08/2004 7:02:31 PM PST by blam
Noah claim annoys scientists
Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Friday January 9, 2004
The Guardian (UK)
Noah and his ark have entered the choppy waters of a debate about the age and geological history of the Grand Canyon. For years, geologists have held that the 217-mile-long canyon in Arizona was fashioned by the Colorado river between 5m and 6m years ago, and contains some of the oldest exposed rocks on Earth.
But now a book sold in the offical Grand Canyon park bookstore suggests that it was created by the flood that is reported in the book of Genesis.
Grand Canyon: A Different View, by a local trail guide, Tom Vail, claims that years of erosion had nothing to do with the canyon's creation. Instead, its shape can be attributed to the Old Testament flood - meaning that it is only a few thousand years old.
The book's presence in the bookstore has created a rumpus between creationists and evolutionists.
Vail writes: "For years, as a Colorado river guide, I told people how the Grand Canyon was formed over the evolutionary timescale of millions of years.
"Then I met the Lord. Now, I have a different view of the canyon, which according to a biblical timescale, can't possibly be more than a few thousand years old."
The claim has prompted the American Geological Institute and seven scientific bodies to flood the National Park Service with complaints, in which they call for the book to be removed from the shop.
So far, the book remains on sale - although it has been moved from the natural sciences section to the "inspirational reading" department.
"We struggle," Deanne Adams, the park service's chief of interpretation for the Pacific region, told the Los Angeles Times.
"Creationism versus science is a big issue at some places. We like to acknowledge that there are different viewpoints, but we have to stick with the science. That's our training."
The Grand Canyon superintendent, Joe Alston, is seeking advice from National Park Service headquarters in Washington.
The book has sold out, but is being reordered.
| Rank | Location | Receipts | Donors/Avg | Freepers/Avg | Monthlies | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | New York | 1,127.00 |
33 |
34.15 |
669 |
1.68 |
308.00 |
19 |
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
Uh-huh.
Can't add a thing to that.
It's a religious thing for them, too.
Dinosaur fossils were placed in the earth by Satan to deceive mankind into disbelieving Genesis
Umm... you're joking, right?
Actually, as shown by the Mount Saint Helens eruption and also the Washington State Scablands, large geological formations such as the Grand Canyon can form rapidly under the intense hydraulic pressure of floodwaters. If you think about it, isn't it a bit incredulous to believe that a canyon a mile in diameter was carved by that slender little blue strand of a river at the bottom? If this wasn't about creation-evolution, wouldn't the burden of proof be on those who argued that major flooding didn't erode it?
If the Grand Canyon is, say, forty million years old and Ice Ages occur, say, every forty thousand years, then the Grand Canyon must have been covered with ice over a thousand times in its history. Odd that the Colorado River can leave its mark, but being covered by an ice pack a mile thick a thousand times -- for centuries at a time -- does not.
Couple of questions if you have time. Since we can easily see that there are creatures "beneath" us that cannot possibly ever fathom many things we understand, we can see that there could be a being above us, understanding things we can't understand. That's God. Extend it: He's omnipotent (can do anything). He can create something out of nothing (at least that is how it would appear to us). So say He creates a Universe. How "old" does it look the moment He creates it? What does such a question even mean? I think if you look into it, you will find that there exists no scientific concept for a physical object that has no age! One more thought: if we discard our conditioning to believe that "scientific" methods have "proven" that things are "really old" (it's a belief, and I will challenge you here to prove that you are a scientist who understands any scientific dating method beyond carbon 14) we might think of a young Earth as more a test of our faith (in this age only -- "old Earth as science" is fairly new) than a cruel joke by God.
Yes, but some Creationists have claimed that.
No joke
Generally speaking, most often because they don't have a whole lot of confidence in their own views and don't want to admit it to themselves (or others). There are a few other reasons as well, none any more or less valid.
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.