Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flood not the Cause of the Grand Canyon -- Not a Biased Opinion
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 211 of 215 (212862)
05-31-2005 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Minnemooseus
05-31-2005 2:00 PM


Re: Frosting
minnemooseus writes:
Anyway, frosting in itself is not an indicator that the final deposition is eolian.
I guess it's a good thing I did not suggest that frosting alone was a sure-fire indicator of wind-blown processes; however, together with spherical grains and internal structure, it is good evidence for such.
p.s. My Glossary of Geology (outdated at 1980?) states that 'aeolian' is a synonym, but does not state which usage is preferred. I go back and forth depending on how lazy I am at the moment.
edited to add smilie
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 06-01-2005 12:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-31-2005 2:00 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-21-2005 7:15 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
adrenalinejunkie
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 215 (218506)
06-21-2005 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by roxrkool
05-31-2005 2:19 PM


I have a layman's question. Since marine fossils are found on the top layer, a layer that has been dated at 250,000,000 million years old, (and that being the youngest layer) then are we saying the Grand Canyon area (although the "area" may have moved due to continental drift) was once under the sea, and then LATER after the sea receded, it was cut out over however many years by the Colorado and other forces like wind, flash floods, creation of a possible lake Bidahochi, the Hualapai Drainage system etc... Is that the current thought basically?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by roxrkool, posted 05-31-2005 2:19 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by NosyNed, posted 06-21-2005 8:41 PM adrenalinejunkie has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 213 of 215 (218525)
06-21-2005 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by adrenalinejunkie
06-21-2005 7:15 PM


Marine deposits and the grand canyon.
I have a layman's question. Since marine fossils are found on the top layer, a layer that has been dated at 250,000,000 million years old, (and that being the youngest layer) then are we saying the Grand Canyon area (although the "area" may have moved due to continental drift) was once under the sea, and then LATER after the sea receded, it was cut out over however many years by the Colorado and other forces like wind, flash floods, creation of a possible lake Bidahochi, the Hualapai Drainage system etc... Is that the current thought basically?
Generally, that is the current thought.
There are interspursed marine and non-marine layers in the rocks making up the grand canyon. It was underwater at various times.
I believe it is still rising up as North America plows into the pacific. Which is, IIRC, when it started to life as the Atlantic opened up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-21-2005 7:15 PM adrenalinejunkie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-22-2005 2:01 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
adrenalinejunkie
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 215 (218572)
06-22-2005 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by NosyNed
06-21-2005 8:41 PM


Thanks! It seems to me that the debate comes into play when YEC try to explain the Grand Canyon in terms of Noah's flood. I wonder, as a student of the Bible myself, if the debate is ultimately pointless. The Bible is perfectly consistent with an old earth, and has always been, especially geologically speaking. Even Bible Literalists (a minority) have taken that position since the turn of century (uh... the one before last!...man I'm gettin' old) or even earlier. Seems to me, considering the findings of science so far, that appears to be the correct way to interpret it. I've always thought so, myself, just from the text, but science also seems to bear that out.
There's still plenty to debate about of course. lol Certainly there is a debate about how long human beings have been around, or Noah's flood, etc... But from a Biblical standpoint, the one thing that it WOULD claim is that at some point before human beings existed, and later with Noah, the Grand Canyon would be under water. There may have been other times in the ancient past, well, obviously there must have been. Still, none of those instances are required to cut the Grand Canyon out of the rock if the earth has been around for 5 billion years. And Noah's flood would have been extremely brief anyway, and would have occurred after the canyon was formed to a great extent.
So I guess my point is, I can, from my perspective as a student of the Bible, easily and literally fit what I'm hearing about the Grand Canyon into the Bible account. There are other issues that I might debate, but not the Grand Canyon. Occasionally, what we are debating isn't necessarily what the Bible says, but what people claim the Bible says. And occasionally the people are wrong on both counts. Having said all that, we're all still learning.
This message has been edited by adrenalinejunkie, 06-22-2005 02:05 AM
This message has been edited by adrenalinejunkie, 06-22-2005 02:06 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by NosyNed, posted 06-21-2005 8:41 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2005 1:27 PM adrenalinejunkie has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 215 of 215 (219002)
06-23-2005 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by adrenalinejunkie
06-22-2005 2:01 AM


Genesis Flood and the GC
"I can, from my perspective as a student of the Bible, easily and literally fit what I'm hearing about the Grand Canyon into the Bible account."
No, you can't.
You can't take the Genesis Flood as being literally true and fit it into current knowledge of geology either about the Grand Canyon or anything else. The Genesis Flood is depicted as a global flood deep enough to inundate all mountains. If such a thing were possible it would have left a permanent record on every geological feature worldwide, including the GC. It is not there. If you accept that the Genesis account is actually a faulty and embellished translation of an earlier account of a local flood of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers - well, ok then there is no problem.
On edit: Another way of saying this is that there is zero geological evidence that the GC was completely underwater within the past 10,000 years - which should easily encompass the Noah story, whatever its origins.
This message has been edited by deerbreh, 06-23-2005 01:34 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by adrenalinejunkie, posted 06-22-2005 2:01 AM adrenalinejunkie has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024