• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did the Grand Canyon take 65 million to form?

Grasshopper121212

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 27, 2021
Messages
1,583
Reaction score
331
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There are other large canyons that took a short period of time to form around the world as well. Real scientists never say science is solved. That's a political issue.

"Let me introduce you to Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington. It measures 1500 feet long, up to 120 feet deep, and 120 feet wide, winding through a hillside. A small-scale analogy to Grand Canyon it was observed to form in less than six days."

"Many believe that this 277-mile long gorge had formed over millions of years, but another famous North American landmark shows that the Grand Canyon could have been created much faster and not long ago."

"Flowers may be convinced that her new results are reliable, but other experts are not. State University of New York geologist Richard Young told Science NOW that despite this new study, "there's a lot of evidence for a young Grand Canyon."5 And California Institute of Technology geologist Brian Wernicke said, "It's hard to look at a landscape and discern its erosional history."
 
There are other large canyons that took a short period of time to form around the world as well. Real scientists never say science is solved. That's a political issue.
gcanyon2.jpg

Too late. Science already understands how many millions of years were involved in the creation of the strata exposed in the Grand Canyon.
 
View attachment 67370600

Too late. Science already understands how many millions of years were involved in the creation of the strata exposed in the Grand Canyon.
Except science isn't agreeing with it anymore. There are too many holes in this nonsense. Just because someone draws a map, puts it in a publication, doesn't make it true. I gave you actually data of formations that don't take long periods of time. All this nonsense is people who have a religious-type ideology of old earth-universe forcing timelines that are now known by scientists to be wrong. I have lots of drawings that show the formation very young.
 
All this nonsense is people who have a religious-type ideology of old earth-universe forcing timelines that are now known by scientists to be wrong.
This is bullshit. Conversely, ALL of your links come from what actually IS a religious-type ideology of "new Earth" universe. Perhaps that's why you buy the lie.

The mechanics of earth and planetary science are fairly well known, and literally dozens of unrelated sciences, quite curiously, all confirm each other's findings in their conclusions about of the age of the Earth. And, as if all that wasn't enough, physics and astrophysics, are the lullaby and sandman that finally puts that feeble revisionist "new earth" pseudo-science to sleep, once and for all.
 
Jeebus, Mary, and Joe Cocker...another embarrassment to Christianity. The promotion of pure ignorance drives people away from the religion as surely as the hate and repression and intolerance do.

Who wants to associate with such ignorance and drudgery? Who wants to be associated WITH such ignorance and drudgery and hate? No wonder the organized religion is dying out. And the actual Word of God lost, which would be a shame.
 
There are other large canyons that took a short period of time to form around the world as well. Real scientists never say science is solved. That's a political issue.

"Let me introduce you to Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington. It measures 1500 feet long, up to 120 feet deep, and 120 feet wide, winding through a hillside. A small-scale analogy to Grand Canyon it was observed to form in less than six days."

"Many believe that this 277-mile long gorge had formed over millions of years, but another famous North American landmark shows that the Grand Canyon could have been created much faster and not long ago."

"Flowers may be convinced that her new results are reliable, but other experts are not. State University of New York geologist Richard Young told Science NOW that despite this new study, "there's a lot of evidence for a young Grand Canyon."5 And California Institute of Technology geologist Brian Wernicke said, "It's hard to look at a landscape and discern its erosional history."
Are you suggesting God did something?
 
This is bullshit. Conversely, ALL of your links come from what actually IS a religious-type ideology of "new Earth" universe. Perhaps that's why you buy the lie.

The mechanics of earth and planetary science are fairly well known, and literally dozens of unrelated sciences, quite curiously, all confirm each other's findings in their conclusions about of the age of the Earth. And, as if all that wasn't enough, physics and astrophysics, are the lullaby and sandman that finally puts that feeble revisionist "new earth" pseudo-science to sleep, once and for all.
You really are clueless. You haven't a clue out there about the fact scientists are not all in on the Big Bang or old earth as well. They want to be so they can be included in the social events of the year. But, many see the problems that their models just aren't answering. When you read young earth scientist's literature, what they always say is that young earth better fits the science gathered from old earth scientists. They never say that Old earth interpretations are wrong and that they are stupid. But, that's what oyu hear from the old earth interpreters of science data. That's because you guys are all so insecure about your conclusions you have to shout down anyone that disagrees. Then, you have to make conclusions that all scientists agree with you which is a lie. When you are challenged, you then have to shout out vulgar verbiage at the top of your lungs to be heard or to try and drown out those you disagree with. Which is the liberal left Democrats mode of silencing their objectors.
 
Are you suggesting God did something?
The flood or the ice age 10,000 years ago did. I bet on the flood for this one. And, God sent the floods from the water in the earth, water in the atmosphere and water in the heavens that surrounded the earth at the time of the flood. You probably always wondered how the people before Noah lived so long. Well, the waters in the heavens surrounded the earth shielding out much of the harmful rays of the Sun so that people just lived longer.
 
Which is the liberal left Democrats mode of silencing their objectors.
No people, of any intelligence level, should hesitate to condemn religious pseudoscience.

It's a lie, it's intentionally falsely manufactured to make a preconceived conclusion "look real", so it's a sin.
 
The flood or the ice age 10,000 years ago did. I bet on the flood for this one.
In fact it was a fault in the earth crust. The land rose and the sediments on the walls are clearly evident.
It has been there for over a million years. There is not one biblical aspect to it. There was no ridiculous flood not an ice age that formed it. That type of formation is all over the world.
And, God sent the floods from the water in the earth, water in the atmosphere and water in the heavens that surrounded the earth at the time of the flood.
No he didn't. There is no God and never has been. Every meteorological event that ever happened did so without divine help. If there was this flood that supposed to have covered the earth, where did all the water go since? Keep in mind the depth it would have been to cover Everest. Your silly story makes no sense.

You probably always wondered how the people before Noah lived so long. Well, the waters in the heavens surrounded the earth shielding out much of the harmful rays of the Sun so that people just lived longer.

The people who lived before us had smaller life expectancy the further you go back. Fossils proved that. In fact, if your referring to Moses, he did not live to 175. No man has ever done that and it is a complete lie like everything else about religion.
It appears you and facts have not been introduced yet.
 
You really are clueless. You haven't a clue out there about the fact scientists are not all in on the Big Bang or old earth as well. They want to be so they can be included in the social events of the year. But, many see the problems that their models just aren't answering. When you read young earth scientist's literature, what they always say is that young earth better fits the science gathered from old earth scientists. They never say that Old earth interpretations are wrong and that they are stupid. But, that's what oyu hear from the old earth interpreters of science data. That's because you guys are all so insecure about your conclusions you have to shout down anyone that disagrees. Then, you have to make conclusions that all scientists agree with you which is a lie. When you are challenged, you then have to shout out vulgar verbiage at the top of your lungs to be heard or to try and drown out those you disagree with. Which is the liberal left Democrats mode of silencing their objectors.
Atheism is not exclusive to democrats. That's extremely ignorant.
Try this if you think you have all the answers.
What year did God created the universe?
From what did he create it from if there was nothing beforehand?
Tell me why all these wonderful miracles etc happened in a small area in the middle East?
Why is it the bible is full of mysterious happenings like virgin births and turning water into wine etc and we know for a fact those things are impossible, so do you?
How many children did Mary have?
Get back to me please.
 
There are other large canyons that took a short period of time to form around the world as well. Real scientists never say science is solved. That's a political issue.

"Let me introduce you to Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington. It measures 1500 feet long, up to 120 feet deep, and 120 feet wide, winding through a hillside. A small-scale analogy to Grand Canyon it was observed to form in less than six days."

"Many believe that this 277-mile long gorge had formed over millions of years, but another famous North American landmark shows that the Grand Canyon could have been created much faster and not long ago."

"Flowers may be convinced that her new results are reliable, but other experts are not. State University of New York geologist Richard Young told Science NOW that despite this new study, "there's a lot of evidence for a young Grand Canyon."5 And California Institute of Technology geologist Brian Wernicke said, "It's hard to look at a landscape and discern its erosional history."
The Institute of Creation Research are religious liars who are desperate to hide their 6000-year-old theories under a lab coat of lies. Ignore them.
 
The Institute of Creation Research are religious liars who are desperate to hide their 6000-year-old theories under a lab coat of lies. Ignore them.
Let's see some actual refutation.

The hallmark of true science is the ability to test and attempt the falsify theories.

So falsify their claims.
 
Short>> Stars go through stages. Takes a loooong time. People/Scientists who study stars know what they're talking about.
Sorry, I'm not going to explain the universe/reality to you. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
You really are clueless.
Not about this subject.
You haven't a clue out there about the fact scientists are not all in on the Big Bang or old earth as well.
You haven't a clue about what I have a clue about.
They want to be so they can be included in the social events of the year.
This says more about you than it does about any scientists . . . . . and frankly, it's embarrassing for you. Or it should be.
But, many see the problems that their models just aren't answering. When you read young earth scientist's literature, what they always say is that young earth better fits the science gathered from old earth scientists. They never say that Old earth interpretations are wrong and that they are stupid. But, that's what oyu hear from the old earth interpreters of science data.
Which now reveals that it is you who are clueless. But that's OK. I'll impart some clues to you before this post is through.
That's because you guys are all so insecure about your conclusions you have to shout down anyone that disagrees.
"YOU GUYS" ???

:ROFLMAO:
Sadly, it's actually quite the reverse. It is creationists that are insecure, because the hard scientific conclusions - from many very diverse disciplines - all confirm the same thing. Throughout the planet we live on, there are mechanisms underway that are observable, quantifiable, and repeatable. Geologists understand how long it takes to produce, just for one example, metamorphic rock, because it is measurable. Glaciologists understand the dynamics that create glaciers, and the time involved in their creation and movement, because those dynamics are measurable. Vulcanologists understand the timetables of volcanic eruptions, and the records they've left throughout the planet's history. We know the mechanism of plate tectonics, the speed at which the continents move, and where they've moved from, because we measure them very accurately.

And it just goes on, and on, and on. One scientific discipline after another, each studying completely different dynamic processes, and yet all coming to the same conclusion! A planet that is billions of year old. Earth. And those are just the planetary sciences. What about chemistry? It supports the geology so . . . the same conclusion. What about the biological sciences? The same conclusion. What about the newest emerging science - genetics? Yep - that seems to be the same also. What about physics and astrophysics? Well, things like radioactive decay of heavy elements, and the speed of light, appear to be a cosmic constants. Every time we measure them, they're the same. How about that? Literally dozens of completely divergent scientific studies, and yet somehow all pointing, more or less, to the same point at our historical horizon. There is no conflict in the conclusions arrived at by science. This planet has been here for many, many millions of years.
Then, you have to make conclusions that all scientists agree with you which is a lie.
??? Nonsense. Here on planet Earth, we can't get all of any demographic to agree with anything. But fortunately, our view of the truth of the world doesn't have to be unanimous. The overwhelming preponderance of earth and planetary scientists - well over 90% - all do agree with the facts presented every day by observable reality. We live on a very old earth.

I feel sorry that you've been duped by desperate religious zealots into thinking there's any real conflict among scientists. There isn't. The tiny minority that might argue otherwise does so out of a belief in dogma - not science. They start with a belief in a new world, then make their square peg "science" fit into the round hole of reality.
When you are challenged, you then have to shout out vulgar verbiage at the top of your lungs to be heard or to try and drown out those you disagree with.
Assumes facts not in evidence. But I'm not surprised. Religious people don't believe in evidence.
Which is the liberal left Democrats mode of silencing their objectors.
I can't speak to that political model, but I can certainly understand anybody's efforts to silence the spread of misinformation. It leads to wrongheaded conclusions, and they can be dangerous to the planet, and our life on it.
 
There are other large canyons that took a short period of time to form around the world as well. Real scientists never say science is solved. That's a political issue.

"Let me introduce you to Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington. It measures 1500 feet long, up to 120 feet deep, and 120 feet wide, winding through a hillside. A small-scale analogy to Grand Canyon it was observed to form in less than six days."

"Many believe that this 277-mile long gorge had formed over millions of years, but another famous North American landmark shows that the Grand Canyon could have been created much faster and not long ago."

"Flowers may be convinced that her new results are reliable, but other experts are not. State University of New York geologist Richard Young told Science NOW that despite this new study, "there's a lot of evidence for a young Grand Canyon."5 And California Institute of Technology geologist Brian Wernicke said, "It's hard to look at a landscape and discern its erosional history."
Nice. So perhaps COVID is still questionable? Real americans. Real scientists to an obvious non-scientist, real people agree with me. See my links.
 
The flood or the ice age 10,000 years ago did. I bet on the flood for this one. And, God sent the floods from the water in the earth, water in the atmosphere and water in the heavens that surrounded the earth at the time of the flood. You probably always wondered how the people before Noah lived so long. Well, the waters in the heavens surrounded the earth shielding out much of the harmful rays of the Sun so that people just lived longer.
You're certifiable.
 
You really are clueless. You haven't a clue out there about the fact scientists are not all in on the Big Bang or old earth as well. They want to be so they can be included in the social events of the year. But, many see the problems that their models just aren't answering. When you read young earth scientist's literature, what they always say is that young earth better fits the science gathered from old earth scientists. They never say that Old earth interpretations are wrong and that they are stupid. But, that's what oyu hear from the old earth interpreters of science data. That's because you guys are all so insecure about your conclusions you have to shout down anyone that disagrees. Then, you have to make conclusions that all scientists agree with you which is a lie. When you are challenged, you then have to shout out vulgar verbiage at the top of your lungs to be heard or to try and drown out those you disagree with. Which is the liberal left Democrats mode of silencing their objectors.
Wow. Sounds like you're saying that science is just another religion. Can you parcel out how a christian should relatively assess Islam, versus Judaism, versus every other male dominator god religion you know of, versus science?
 
The flood or the ice age 10,000 years ago did. I bet on the flood for this one. And, God sent the floods from the water in the earth, water in the atmosphere and water in the heavens that surrounded the earth at the time of the flood. You probably always wondered how the people before Noah lived so long. Well, the waters in the heavens surrounded the earth shielding out much of the harmful rays of the Sun so that people just lived longer.
LOL Wont even waste my time (beyond that.) LOL
 
Let's see some actual refutation.

The hallmark of true science is the ability to test and attempt the falsify theories.

So falsify their claims.
There is nothing to falsify because they have no evidence of their nonsense. They use half-truths and blatant lies.

On January 7, 2007 the National Center for Science Education reported that Grand Canyon: A Different View, edited by Tom Vail and published by Master Books, the publishing arm of the Institute for Creation Research, and described as promoting "a young-earth creationist view of the geology of the Grand Canyon," was facing new scrutiny by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) in December 2006. The Chief of the Park Service's Geologic Resources Division recommended its removal on grounds that it "does not use accurate, professional and scholarly knowledge; is not based on science but a specific religious doctrine; does not further the public's understanding of the Grand Canyon's existence; [and] does not further the mission of the National Park Service".[61] A report by the National Center for Science Education, written by Chemist Karen Bartelt was critical of the ICR representatives and displays in the "museum."
Wiki.
 
There is nothing to falsify because they have no evidence of their nonsense. They use half-truths and blatant lies.

The problem they present to you is that the "proof" of an old earth has been falsified because the rock samples they use for dating are never from a closed system - which is true.

Dating a rock to be millions/billions of years old is a ridiculous undertaking as they can never say how much Pb was present to begin with.

Rocks from Mt. St. Helens have been dated to be thousands of years old. I watched it blow on TV, I can assure you that I am not thousands of years old ;)

In short, they are presenting a narrative born out of their own biases as if it were scientific fact. That is malpractice of the highest order.

Think what you want about creationism, but it is the creationists who actually present the scientific facts in this regard.

Again, no science - just the opinion of people with skin in the game based on acceptance of a paradigm.

There is a lot of fraud and bias in "science" - always has been.

Galileo was imprisoned for daring to go against orthodoxy. Old earth and evolution are today's orthodoxy - despite a lack of actual scientific proof.

Anyone who dares to challenge the orthodoxy is labeled a heretic and cast out.

It is the same with "global warming/climate change". Observations do not match the theory - so of course the priests don't accept the facts; rather, they to lie to the public to protect the fraud upon which their careers are dependent.
 
Think what you want about creationism, but it is the creationists who actually present the scientific facts in this regard.


BWAHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa

lol.jpeglol.jpeglol.jpeglol.jpeg
 
Grand Canyon would have formed faster than many canyons becuase the type of rock the ground is and its soil, and the fast flow of the water as there are large elevations drops through the canyon

But it would still take many millions of years and teh OP is a complete joke of garbage likely from religious nuts.

Let's see some actual refutation.

The hallmark of true science is the ability to test and attempt the falsify theories.

So falsify their claims.

For starters, it was already done earlier in the thread showing the dating of the walls of the canyon. And second, why? The OP is complete garbage and has no proof what so ever, just nonsense. And people like the OP don't give a shit about actual science. If they did, they wouldn't cite creation research website bullshit
 
\
The problem they present to you is that the "proof" of an old earth has been falsified because the rock samples they use for dating are never from a closed system - which is true.
Why do you think it has to be a "closed system" and what do you even think that means?

Dating a rock to be millions/billions of years old is a ridiculous undertaking as they can never say how much Pb was present to begin with.
Uhh yes they can.

Rocks from Mt. St. Helens have been dated to be thousands of years old. I watched it blow on TV, I can assure you that I am not thousands of years old ;)
LOL you think every rock in that volcano sprang into existence on the day of the eruption!?

In short, they are presenting a narrative born out of their own biases as if it were scientific fact. That is malpractice of the highest order.

Think what you want about creationism, but it is the creationists who actually present the scientific facts in this regard.


Again, no science - just the opinion of people with skin in the game based on acceptance of a paradigm.

There is a lot of fraud and bias in "science" - always has been.

Galileo was imprisoned for daring to go against orthodoxy. Old earth and evolution are today's orthodoxy - despite a lack of actual scientific proof.

Anyone who dares to challenge the orthodoxy is labeled a heretic and cast out.

It is the same with "global warming/climate change". Observations do not match the theory - so of course the priests don't accept the facts; rather, they to lie to the public to protect the fraud upon which their careers are dependent.
You haven't actually presented an observation that is inconsistent with the old earth.
 
Back
Top Bottom