Hi -Sky-,
You seem to be missing the point. The Grand Canyon and Mt. Saint Helens are valid topics in this thread only to the extent that they touch on this thread's topic, which is how small changes can over time create large effects. This is what happens in geology, and this is what happens in evolution.
It's not really relevant to the topic that you don't believe the Grand Canyon formed gradually. If the Grand Canyon is not a good example for you of small changes accumulating over time then there are many other examples we can supply to make clear the way evolution works. But you did make a couple errors that are worth correcting just for purposes of creating an accurate record in this thread.
3/4 of the earth surface is sedimentary layers. (water born)
And fossils only exist when buried rapidly by sediment.
You can't have the flood both deposit and erode the same sedimentary layers, and as mentioned earlier, a flood cannot carve canyons in the landscape it covers. That takes the focused flow of a river.
You're not up to speed. The most plausible public theory is that a plate uplift gave way and an inland sea to burst through and cut the canyon in months. But I enjoy defending "mainstream science" when they already agree with biblical concepts.
...
"The modern Colorado River did not carve the Grand Canyon in the last few million years," Dr. Elston said. "The canyon was already there."
Dr. Elston believes the Grand Canyon is even older, millions and millions of years older, than mainstream geology, and that it was formed by rivers even more ancient than the Colorado, not by a global flood a mere 4500 years ago. You're citing in support of your position someone who disagrees with you even more than mainstream geology.
Your many short posts and frequent errors indicate that you're not taking sufficient time and care.
Do your own research.
At EvC Forum you're expected to support your position yourself, not ask those who disagree with you to do it for you. This is from the
Forum Guidelines:
- Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.