cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Contributor

chipster22

This is a better place to discuss your 'beliefs' as opposed to science rather than the marketing page.

 

chipster22 wrote:

Why do you assume the rock layers come from different time periods?  It is more likely that they were formed over a short period of time because there is little evidence of erosion on the top of one layer before the next was laid down.  They were likely all put down over a period of about a year as the flood waters carried different sediments into the area.

 I don't assume I go by what science has discovered leaving 'belief' behind and understanding the truth by science.


How could there possibly be evidence of the Grand Canyon forming 10 or 15 million years ago unless you start with  the assumption that things took that long?  How could that be proven other than in an invalid circular argument?  No one would have been there with a stopwatch and just because we have had millions of years drummed into our heads to make evolution work doesn't mean the long time periods are true.

 You are right no stopwatch. Besides it started before man even walked the earth but geological evidence tells the truth. from Wikipedia..... 

The geology of the Grand Canyon area exposes one of the most complete and studied sequences of rock on the planet. The nearly 40 major sedimentary rock layers exposed in the Grand Canyon and in the Grand Canyon National Park area range in age from about 200 million to nearly 2 billion years old. Most were deposited in warm, shallow seas and near ancient, long-gone sea shores in westernNorth America. Both marine and terrestrial sediments are represented, including fossilized sand dunes from an extinct desert. There are at least 14 known unconformities in the geologic record found in the Grand Canyon area.


Uplift of the region started about 75 million years ago during the Laramide orogeny; a mountain-building event that is largely responsible for creating the Rocky Mountains to the east. In total theColorado Plateau was uplifted an estimated 2 miles (3.2 km). The adjacent Basin and Rangeprovince to the west started to form about 18 million years ago as the result of crustal stretching. A drainage system that flowed through what is today the eastern Grand Canyon emptied into the now lower Basin and Range province. Opening of the Gulf of California around 6 million years ago enabled a large river to cut its way northeast from the gulf. The new river captured the older drainage to form the ancestralColorado River, which in turn started to form the Grand Canyon.

 

Wetter climates brought upon by ice ages starting 2 million years ago greatly increased excavation of the Grand Canyon, which was nearly as deep as it is now by 1.2 million years ago. Volcanic activity deposited lava over the area 1.8 million to 500,000 years ago. At least 13 lava dams blocked the Colorado River, forminglakes that were up to 2,000 feet (610 m) deep. The end of the last ice age and subsequent human activity has greatly reduced the ability of the Colorado River to excavate the canyon. Dams in particular have upset patterns of sediment transport and deposition. Controlled floods from Glen Canyon Dam upstream have been conducted to see if they have a restorative effect. Earthquakes and mass wasting erosive events still affect the region.

 

As for the claim that there is no evidence that the rock was soft when it was eroded, I would say that the very fact that it is deeply eroded is evidence that it was soft when it was carved.  But then I'm starting with an assumption of a younger Earth just as you are starting with an assumption for a very old Earth.  To say there is no evidence that rock was soft shows that you can't see past your own bias.

 

For a simple example of erosion check under a water tap that drips occasionally on concrete, now if you can get around your bias imagine what a river flowing for millions of years could do.

Show me evidence that the rock was soft or that it was laid down in a short period of time.

Scientific measures show the rock at the bottom of the canyon to be many millions of years old, would have to look it up but may even be dated to billions of years old, but what the heck is a few more million unless you want to imagine an improbable happening.

Stick to the truth as proven by science not folklore and fairy tales.

Don't like the scientific findings then find research that refutes them. Real facts not dreams. 


 

45 Replies
Honored Advisor

heh heh heh

You are one tenacious bugger, Canuck  Smiley Happy 

Senior Contributor

The Grand Canyon

Funny, I was reading about the geology of the Grand Canyon and "young Earth" creation theorists just a couple of days ago. The attached is a long article, but well worth reading to understand not only the flaws in the creationist theories of geology, but for a basic understanding of why faith is not a good guide for science. The most important part of this article appears in the last two paragraphs and I believe this fellow is right in his assessment. However as ghe stated, "Creationists may come to conclusions that the geological community challenges, but as long as they present their conclusions as derived from accepted scientific methodology, rather than religion, it is unfair to reject their participation."

 

Full article here (please read). The Coconino Sandstone formation in the middle of what are supposed to be flood deposits are something the creationists have to ignore or try and explain how wind-blown deposits can occur under water. If they can prove it through science, I am all ears. Too often, in explaining how the earth was formed in a short time or how Noah's flood created vast geological formations, something has to be ignored or overlooked...or....only one small formation is picked, to the exclusion of all the others.

 

So if they can prove their theories through science, OK with me. We shouldn't shut them out and we should let them have a say, but if they are going to use science to prove their "beliefs," then it does have to be based on solid science.

 

Why in the world creationists can't believe in God, evolution and science all at the same time is beyond me, because I believe it all and I also believe for God to have set forth all these wonderful things that make evolution and the geological formation of this Earth possible is way, way more amazing than just saying it was created...period.

Senior Contributor

Re: heh heh heh


@BA Deere wrote:

You are one tenacious bugger, Canuck  Smiley Happy 


Now why would you say that BA?

I just hate to see someone putting out misinformation.

Always amazes me that farmers of all people will argue that evolution can not/did not happen and then go right back to selecting 'better' animals or plants to produce more and better food.

If they are able to evolve things why can't nature given billions of years do the same through selection of the fittest.

It is a shame that intelligent people will put those false hoods out and think what it does to the learning experience of their children having that false info embedded in their minds. Shame!

Senior Advisor

Re: heh heh heh

I believe in evolution. Evolution was created by God.

Senior Contributor

Re: The Grand Canyon

Interesting read Knapper.

I am always asking proponents of wild theories to post links to actual scientific results to substantiate their claims.

Now you point to an article that says some 'experts' use a little smoke and mirrors to try to imply things that are not true. Guess their god thinks it is Ok to fudge the truth if it suits your goal. Personally since I understand there are no 'gods' I much prefer to tell the truth and look for legitimate differences in scientific studies to improve on our understanding of the world around us. 

The article makes a good point that many theories were originally turned down by the establishment until the weight of proof eventually overwhelmed the old beliefs, so it is always good to allow new ideas to be floated BUT they must be backed up by good science not just folklore.

Come to think of it many times 'the establishment' that rejected good theories was religion based.

Senior Contributor

Re: heh heh heh


@r3020 wrote:

I believe in evolution. Evolution was created by God.


Well keep 'believing' but you need some proof to make it true.

Real proof not just old stories.

Senior Advisor

Re: heh heh heh

It is scientific. It is the only explanation of how everything evolved from nothing.

Honored Advisor

Re: heh heh heh

I just really find this funny Canuck, Chipster innocently posts something about soil erosion and you come in and cold-cocked him Smiley Very Happy then try and start it up here.  I guess I have to do my bimonthly Bible lesson, ok here we go.  The Earth is 4  1/2 billion yrs old, I`m the Deacon in my Lutheran church and must confess, I don`t know exactly where this "young earth" "6,000 yr old" business comes from.  My guess is they count all the begats in Genesis and add 7 literal days.  But that is wrong, I beg folks to read Genesis carefully, on the 6th day man was created, God rested on the 7th ...Then created Adam and Eve..that was the start of the 2nd earth age, Adam was created to `till the soil` and Jesus can be traced back to him, also the 10 tribes of Israel.  What I`m saying isn`t easy to swallow or politically correct, if you`re getting the jist of what I`m saying.  Noah`s flood, Noah`s family was the only pure family left for Jesus to decend from, so a local flood happened read about Gen chap. 6.   This is the problem, churches at some point decided it was easy to make nice little stories, however atheists like you can come in and make a mockery of them "Oh so the earth is 6,000 yrs old??  Here`s a 50,000 yr old wooly mammoth tooth, how did that happen?? ROTFLMAO".  I Love the folks that argue young earth, but they really need to arm themselves better because the atheists are out for battle.    

Senior Contributor

Re: heh heh heh


@r3020 wrote:

It is scientific. It is the only explanation of how everything evolved from nothing.


Evolution theory is scientific.

A 'god' being involved has never been proven by any science I have seen.