Replies

What *I’ve* been wondering, and I’ve asked this question on FR before and received dead silence as an answer, so I’ll ask it again, is how do evolutionists account for the fact that, if the Grand Canyon is the product of millions of years of riverine erosion through rockbed, why don’t we see many, many such grand canyons everyplace where a major river flows?

Has anyone bothered to ask creationists that if sedimentary rocks are the product of a global flood, why they are not univerally covering the Earth's surface? Or how they turned to rock so quickly? Such information could be exploited to creat faster and harder concrete. After all, the sediment would have to cure quickly in order for there to be a rock bed for the river to erode. And also, how does a global flood account for the periodic deposition of sediments that form those rocks? How does it manage to contain a layered structure if it was all deposited at once? Hydrologists would like to know that secret in order to manage erosion and sediment deposition today. And if the canyon was created by erosion in a very short time, why does it have the structure of something that was eroded over a long period of time? And if we know the rate of erosion of rock by running water, we should be able to back date when the erosion started and how much water flowed passed. Oops! That goes back milllions of years! And if the canyon was carved by receeding flood waters, why aren't there more canyons all over the southwest, or whereever bedrock is near the surface? After all, a receding deluge of such size would leave a similar footprint everywhere? Why doesn't it.

THe simple fact is that a global flood as the cause of the Grand Canyon contains too many contradictions to physical evidence.

But then again, to creationist liars, physical evidence has no bearing on the case.

Has anyone bothered to ask creationists that if sedimentary rocks are the product of a global flood, why they are not univerally covering the Earth's surface? Or how they turned to rock so quickly? Such information could be exploited to creat faster and harder concrete. After all, the sediment would have to cure quickly in order for there to be a rock bed for the river to erode. And also, how does a global flood account for the periodic deposition of sediments that form those rocks? How does it manage to contain a layered structure if it was all deposited at once? Hydrologists would like to know that secret in order to manage erosion and sediment deposition today. And if the canyon was created by erosion in a very short time, why does it have the structure of something that was eroded over a long period of time? And if we know the rate of erosion of rock by running water, we should be able to back date when the erosion started and how much water flowed passed. Oops! That goes back milllions of years! And if the canyon was carved by receeding flood waters, why aren't there more canyons all over the southwest, or whereever bedrock is near the surface? After all, a receding deluge of such size would leave a similar footprint everywhere? Why doesn't it.

Then why do the cross-beds in the layers of sandstone in the Canyon give evidence of having been formed by turbulent ocean action ("submarine sand wave deposit"), rather than by desert dune action? (Visher, G.S., 1990. Exploration Stratigraphy, 2nd edition, pp. 211–213., see pertinent experimental evidence also from Amos, C.L. and King, E.L., 1984. "Bedforms of the Canadian eastern seaboard: a comparison with global occurrences". Marine Geology, vol. 57, pp. 167–208.)

Further, your arguments are based on one, extremely simplified model which YECers proposed and have largely discarded in favour of more sophisticated theories. Hence, your questions take on the form of a straw man.

Here’s a very good link to answer many of these Biblical flood questions (in part II - the hydroplate theory) and more...

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

Also this link and several more on my FR Links page...

Another question for the evolution crowd that understand the problems with global warming (mainly warming temp data extrapolated for the past few years while ignoring known temperature fluctuations - both up and down - for every decade and/or century). How is global warming bunk but not all the uniformitarian extrapolations that naturalism and evolution has applied to earth-aging techniques?