Did the Grand Canyon take 65 million to form?

[rahl]

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. \

you will not find a single scientist anywhere on the planet that things the universe/earth is 6,000 year old lol. WTF is wrong with you?

 

[rahl]

The flood or the ice age 10,000 years ago did. I bet on the flood for this one.

There has never, at anytime in all of the 4.5 billion year history of the earth, been a global flood. We know this empirically.

 

[rahl]

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.

ok

Formation of the Grand Canyon 5 to 6 million years ago through integration of older palaeocanyons - Nature Geoscience

The age of the Grand Canyon is fervently debated. Thermochronological reconstructions of canyon incision show that although parts of the canyon were carved more than 50 million years ago, two key segments formed less than 6 million years ago, implying that the canyon is a young feature.

www.nature.com

 

[Superfly]

What a stupid thread. We are all stupider for having read it.

 

[Lisa]

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.

What is this closed system that you are babbling about? I've never heard of such a claim.

The eruption of Mt St Helens would not have change the age on the rock. The eruption did not create new rock when half of the cone slide down the side or blew out. Who is telling you that it did?

What a stupid thread. We are all stupider for having read it.

That is being very generous.

 

[Lursa]

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

What facts do they present? And how can they be facts when they cannot even prove their is a Creator?

 

[Grasshopper121212]

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.

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.



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.

Were you to see the fault do this? No. And, by the way, most scientists believe the Colorado river carved out the Grand Canyon, not land rising. See, you atheists can't even come together on your own theories or observations. And, you haven't been around for a million years to have seen any of this. The fossils at every level are extremely complex, but the ones in the bottom layers, such as the trilobites, are even more complex than the ones nearer the top, such as corals. No evolutionary sequence here! Here's a couple articles for you:

The Grand Staircase

Grand Canyon, with its multi-layered sides, is well known to creationists—years of creationist research and writing have secured its place in Flood geology and creationist literature. The Grand Canyon strata are (mostly) from the Paleozoic “Era,” supposedly from about 550 million to 250 million...

www.icr.org

Grand Canyon: Is It Really 'Exhibit A' For Evolution And The Old Earth?

Grand Canyon has a special place in my heart. I have spent a lot of time there, both on research trips and the ICR Grand Canyon Tours. To me, Grand Canyon is a clear testimony to the Biblical flood and the young earth. In school, Grand Canyon was "Exhibit A" for evolution, uniformity, and...

www.icr.org

‘Grand Canyon’ of Greenland Formed by Genesis Flood

A massive canyon rivalling Grand Canyon has been discovered beneath the ice on Greenland, and uniformitarian scientists are explaining it as a consequence of flooding.1 We couldn’t agree more. Greenland canyon is as deep as Grand Canyon and is about 450 miles long.2 It is too old to be a result...

www.icr.org

God truly left evidence of Noah's Flood by carving in stone.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

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.

Instead of playing the dead liberal atheist hand of Democrats, try applying real science and real cognitive logic and reasoning instead of childish insults and name calling. But, that's what you want is people not to know knowledge because it might prove the existence of God and the truth of the Bible. You always clamor for empirical evidence yet refuse to acknowledge it when thrown in your face.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

??? 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.

This is the typical response of atheists or old earth-universe religious people. It's called, safety in numbers. Just like the farse Global Warming fruitcakes that had to change the name to Climate Change because the earth began to cool. Remember back in the 1970's when the overwhelming preponderance of planetary scientists claimed we were heading into another ice age? Oops! Remember that 90% of the scientists in periods of history that proved the earth was flat? Or, today, claim that the Big Bang and man is the cause of Climate Change is settled science. Or, even how the Grand Canyon was formed. Scientists used to say it was a river that carved it out over millions of year. Hundreds of millions of year. Now, it was an upheavel due to faults and happened only a million years ago. Well, why not 4,500 years ago then due to catastrophic events that happened during Noah's flood? Like that's the purpose or belief that science is settled. You are doing the same thing here. Planetary science is not settled. It's about observation of the past in which we did not live nor were able to record. Yet, the Bible is a record of the past. God's past. Again, creation scientists don't claim that their evidence or conclusions are fact either. They simply put out that their conclusions answer problems of old earth claims that even scientists have. Yet, you seem fearful of this? Why?

 

[Lisa]

Instead of playing the dead liberal atheist hand of Democrats, try applying real science and real cognitive logic and reasoning instead of childish insults and name calling. But, that's what you want is people not to know knowledge because it might prove the existence of God and the truth of the Bible. You always clamor for empirical evidence yet refuse to acknowledge it when thrown in your face.

Please positively prove that your creator deity exists in an empirical way that does not use the bible or religious faith to do so.

The fact that you need to use personal attacks speaks volumes about the soundness of your arguments.

 

[wist43]

Learn some perspective... science is about asking questions and seeking answers.

It is not about validating opinions to the exclusion of contrary views and data. It is not about silencing anything outside of orthodoxy.

 

[Schism]

Instead of playing the dead liberal atheist hand of Democrats, try applying real science and real cognitive logic and reasoning instead of childish insults and name calling. But, that's what you want is people not to know knowledge because it might prove the existence of God and the truth of the Bible. You always clamor for empirical evidence yet refuse to acknowledge it when thrown in your face.

I've learned that only Christ can heal the blind, open their eyes, and make them able to see truth.

Some people will stand in front of a burning building on television news and report that there is no riot, only peaceful protesting.

Believe it or not, they are behaving normally. They are born of this world. It's actually not even their fault, they and you were born this way.

For example, you didn't always believe what you know to be true today. The truth was revealed to you by God.

 

[Schism]

Please positively prove that your creator deity exists in an empirical way that does not use the bible or religious faith to do so.

The fact that you need to use personal attacks speaks volumes about the soundness of your arguments.

It can't be done. Christians are wasting their time. The only person that can convince you or anyone that God exists is He, Himself.

Go back to sleep. It'll all be over soon.

 

[Lisa]

??? 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.

This is the typical response of atheists or old earth-universe religious people. It's called, safety in numbers. Just like the farse Global Warming fruitcakes that had to change the name to Climate Change because the earth began to cool. Remember back in the 1970's when the overwhelming preponderance of planetary scientists claimed we were heading into another ice age? Oops! Remember that 90% of the scientists in periods of history that proved the earth was flat? Or, today, claim that the Big Bang and man is the cause of Climate Change is settled science. Or, even how the Grand Canyon was formed. Scientists used to say it was a river that carved it out over millions of year. Hundreds of millions of year. Now, it was an upheavel due to faults and happened only a million years ago. Well, why not 4,500 years ago then due to catastrophic events that happened during Noah's flood? Like that's the purpose or belief that science is settled. You are doing the same thing here. Planetary science is not settled. It's about observation of the past in which we did not live nor were able to record. Yet, the Bible is a record of the past. God's past. Again, creation scientists don't claim that their evidence or conclusions are fact either. They simply put out that their conclusions answer problems of old earth claims that even scientists have. Yet, you seem fearful of this? Why?

Noah's flood didn't happen because that amount of water does not exist. Where would it have come from and where did it drain to if it did exist? The idea of a catastrophic flood is plagiarized from the even older poem Gilgamesh.

Gilgamesh flood myth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Grasshopper121212]

you will not find a single scientist anywhere on the planet that things the universe/earth is 6,000 year old lol. WTF is wrong with you?

Every creation scientist received their degrees in science from the same universities that old earth scientists have. Not only that, creation scientists worked in old earth science for years, decades before realizing they were trying to fit square pegs in round holes with their attempts to prove old earth. Just by your statement, you can see the falsehood of your thinking. You can't because you are closedminded. Why? What have you to gain by rejecting the questions creation scientists bring up. There are symposiums and debates with both sides that go on all the time and many of them have been recorded. Your method on this is to absolutely refuse to read what the other side has to say. And, try to get others not to listen. What do you have to fear? That God exists? Why does that cause fear within you?

 

[mrjurrs]

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.

Your example is a non-example. What people saw in six weeks was the erosion of the soil that created the canyon. The earth that was eroded was there long before the canyon started forming.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

It can't be done. Christians are wasting their time. The only person that can convince you or anyone that God exists is He, Himself.

Go back to sleep. It'll all be over soon.

You are partially correct. You do have to ask God if they exist. The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. It's funny that within this thread that we have people who demand that everyone ignore creation science altogether. Yet, you want empirical evidence of the existence of God. While creation science doesn't directly put the Godhead on the TV screen, it does provide evidence of a creator. Even your science is proving the same that there is intelligence with the creation of the universe. Creation science is an attempt to bring empirical evidence to the truth of the Bible. That, in of itself, doesn't prove the existence of the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But, for those who believe that God is the author of the Bible through visions, prophecy and inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it does strengthen their testimonies of the Godhead of the Bible. It gives them hope, faith and charity. What does your science give you?

 

[rahl]

Every creation scientist received their degrees in science from the same universities that old earth scientists have.

There is no such thing as a creation scientist.

Not only that, creation scientists worked in old earth science for years, decades before realizing they were trying to fit square pegs in round holes with their attempts to prove old earth. Just by your statement, you can see the falsehood of your thinking. You can't because you are closedminded. Why? What have you to gain by rejecting the questions creation scientists bring up. There are symposiums and debates with both sides that go on all the time and many of them have been recorded. Your method on this is to absolutely refuse to read what the other side has to say. And, try to get others not to listen. What do you have to fear? That God exists? Why does that cause fear within you?

You will not find a single scientist, anywhere on earth that thinks the earth is 6,000 year old.

 

[Lisa]

You are partially correct. You do have to ask God if they exist. The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. It's funny that within this thread that we have people who demand that everyone ignore creation science altogether. Yet, you want empirical evidence of the existence of God. While creation science doesn't directly put the Godhead on the TV screen, it does provide evidence of a creator. Even your science is proving the same that there is intelligence with the creation of the universe. Creation science is an attempt to bring empirical evidence to the truth of the Bible. That, in of itself, doesn't prove the existence of the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But, for those who believe that God is the author of the Bible through visions, prophecy and inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it does strengthen their testimonies of the Godhead of the Bible. It gives them hope, faith and charity. What does your science give you?

Religious doublespeak 101. See; Circualr logic.

 

[iguanaman]

Are you suggesting God did something?

They believe the "great flood" formed the canyon overnight. That is what they are leaving out here.

 

[Schism]

You are partially correct. You do have to ask God if they exist. The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. It's funny that within this thread that we have people who demand that everyone ignore creation science altogether. Yet, you want empirical evidence of the existence of God. While creation science doesn't directly put the Godhead on the TV screen, it does provide evidence of a creator. Even your science is proving the same that there is intelligence with the creation of the universe. Creation science is an attempt to bring empirical evidence to the truth of the Bible. That, in of itself, doesn't prove the existence of the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But, for those who believe that God is the author of the Bible through visions, prophecy and inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it does strengthen their testimonies of the Godhead of the Bible. It gives them hope, faith and charity. What does your science give you?

I'm simply suggesting that they can't hear, see, or touch the truth. Even if God appeared in the sky and said, "Hello, I'm God" they would claim it was an anomaly of the atmosphere and 100 scientists would agree.

This is normal behavior for those who are separated from God from birth.

 

[Lisa]

They believe the "great flood" formed the canyon overnight. That is what they are leaving out here.

That amount of erosion is not physically possible, even in a lab setting with artificial means. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that happened.

 

[iguanaman]

You are partially correct. You do have to ask God if they exist. The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. It's funny that within this thread that we have people who demand that everyone ignore creation science altogether. Yet, you want empirical evidence of the existence of God. While creation science doesn't directly put the Godhead on the TV screen, it does provide evidence of a creator. Even your science is proving the same that there is intelligence with the creation of the universe. Creation science is an attempt to bring empirical evidence to the truth of the Bible. That, in of itself, doesn't prove the existence of the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But, for those who believe that God is the author of the Bible through visions, prophecy and inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it does strengthen their testimonies of the Godhead of the Bible. It gives them hope, faith and charity. What does your science give you?

No one can "ask" God anything and that is the problem. Science gives us data that is the result of evidence. You have none of that. Faith is not evidence of anything. Also there is no such thing as "creation science". It is nothing but hooey.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

Your example is a non-example. What people saw in six weeks was the erosion of the soil that created the canyon. The earth that was eroded was there long before the canyon started forming.

Did that make sense to you? The earth that was eroded away to form the Grand Canyon was there long before as well. The point is, it doesn't take 250 million years or even one million year to form a canyon like the Grand Canyon. Massive canyons are a global phenomenon. Common global features require a common global explanation. And the receding phase of the Flood provides us with the perfect conditions to carve large canyons. The sheer volume of water that had to drain off the continents provides the water necessary to rapidly carve these canyons in a matter of weeks or a few months. These canyons didn’t need a lot of time, just sufficient volumes of floodwaters. The fossils at every level of the Grand Canyon are extremely complex, but the ones in the bottom layers, such as the trilobites, are even more complex than the ones nearer the top, such as corals. No evolutionary sequence here! I find it humorous that 50 years ago, scientists said it took 250 million years to form and now that is one million year. Pretty soon it will be down to 100,000 years, then 10,000 years then 4,500 years.

 

[Lursa]

I'm simply suggesting that they can't hear, see, or touch the truth. Even if God appeared in the sky and said, "Hello, I'm God" they would claim it was an anomaly of the atmosphere and 100 scientists would agree.

This is normal behavior for those who are separated from God from birth.

Or...those of us who believe in God on faith and faith alone, dont need to desperately seek and grasp at 'facts' and pseudoscience in order to prove He exists.

All this desperate scrambling to defend crap pseudoscience...which does nothing but reveal how science education failed so many people...does is show that these people have weak faith. The stronger the need to PROVE God exists...the weaker the true faith in Him and His Word.