The TRVE history of the Flood...

I'm not talking about the shape of the walls, I'm talking about the width of the canyon.

Once again, it wouldn't flow downhill. There wouldn't be a downhill. You remember how you sometimes claim to have read my geology textbook?I suggest that you do so. But you do object when we look too closely. This is not a question of psychoanalysis, this is just what you do. Painting a red clown nose on the face of Christ crucified does not defend the faith.

A distinction without a difference.

I agree Faith which is why I point out when you pervert and misrepresent what the Bible says or try to pretend it is inerrant and without error or not simply written by humans and reflect the beliefs of their time and culture.I try to defend the faith against those who try to make Christians look ignorant and Christianity look stupid.

What is the shape of a canyon without walls? It is a prairie. Not exactly the image of the Grand Canyon.

Yes I should have anticipated that twist. Amazing how many ways there are to destroy the truth.

And amazing how many ways there are to misunderstand what one would think was a simple point. The shape of the walls means their widening toward the top, not their nonexistence. Sigh.

Exactly Faith. The shape seen at the Grand Canyon is a classic example of what a relatively slow moving river creates over long periods of time as opposed to what is created by either a flood or glacier.Changes leave evidence and that evidence is the witness to what happened in the past.The Grand canyon is simply yet more evidence there was never a Biblical Flood at least during the time the canyon existed.But of course the Bible itself is great evidence that neither of the Biblical Flood myths were ever to be taken as literal since there are two different mutually exclusive folktales as well as absurdities like the green olive branch or the idea that 40 days and 40 nights of rain could actually flood much of anything other than a plain.

I would suggest that we can draw some conclusions, but let's take your statements at face value. If we cannot conclude anything about the force of the Flood, when you talk about carving the Grand Canyon in less than one year, by your own admission, you are speculating well beyond the words of the Bible. When you claim that some caves in France and Spain were carved by the Flood without citing a single geological feature, and without any description whatsoever of what France or Spain looked like before the flood, you are talking even more trash.Yes, I understand that you can draw some stuff from the Bible and extrapolate, but given that when talking about regions of the world well outside of the middle east, on which the Bible is utterly silent regarding the pre-flood terrain, you are not extrapolating at all. You are simply making up stuff out of whole cloth based merely on the Bible saying there was a flood.If this is a Bible study forum in which real science is off topic, then certainly made up BS, commonly know as Creation Science, particularly the stuff you make up on your own, isn't really germane either. You ought at least to point to some commentary etc. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

We might say the same thing about the Illiad.

The fact that King Hygelac's raid into Frisia, described in Beowulf, is a historical event of the early 6th century doesn't mean that the monster Grendel and his mother actually existed.

Nobody treats Beowulf as a historical document to live your life by. And it only has one author unlike the Bible which was written by many different authors over about 1500 years all agreeing with each other and teaching the same doctrine through different historical events. It's so silly to make such comparisons.

To the extent that it is historical then I would assume its dates are useful for tracking historical events. That doesn't make it anything at all like the Bibble. See previous post on Beowulf.

I do happen to think my extrapolations about what the Flood would have done, which are pretty much in line with most creationist thinking, make your silly thoughts hardly worth reading.

Except of course, that is simply not true Faith. Not all the authors of the Bible stories agreed with each other or taught the same doctrine. The fact that there are at least two different flood myths and two different creation myths including two entirely different descriptions of the God Character are clear and compelling evidence that the authors certainly did not agree with each other.