One man postulated the current column, a column which is only theory I might add and has never been observed in nature. Have you studied Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon in detail to see how they were formed? There is no possible way the Colorado river formed the latter, but the former gives clues how a canyon could form very very quickly. Absolutely wrong in so many ways.
Have you never seen the Grand Canyon? It's geology? Read about it? Even schoolchildren do an exercise to determine how long it took to cut it. And it's all easily verified if you want to attempt it.
Oh, and, by the way, Mt. St. Helens canyons are not composed if sedimentary stone, limestone, or granite, they are layers of mud and ash. Again, the facts are all easily verifiable, even by schoolchildren.
The facts are irrelevant when one's faith is so weak that it cannot survive truth.
Have you never seen the Grand Canyon? It's geology? Read about it? Even schoolchildren do an exercise to determine how long it took to cut it. And it's all easily verified if you want to attempt it.
Have you ever bothered to look at any other evidence other than what your evolution buddies present you? I would hasten to say, no. Have you ever seen a river flow uphill 3,000 feet? That river did not cut that canyon. It was formed rather rapidly at the flood.
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v15n1_grandcanyon.asp
Oh, and, by the way, Mt. St. Helens canyons are not composed if sedimentary stone, limestone, or granite, they are layers of mud and ash. Again, the facts are all easily verifiable, even by schoolchildren.
Rather a schoolchild willing to learn than one WILLFULLY ignorant. I doubt very seriously that you have ever considered flood geology, or studied Mt. St. Helens eruption and the geology of that catastrophy. For those who care to learn, there are many articles online and elsewhere. Here is one of them:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-157.htm