quote:“How did the Grand Canyon form?” is a question so commonly pondered that YouTube is rife with explanations. Go down into the long tail of Grand Canyon videos, and you’ll eventually find at a two-part, 35-minute lecture by Andrew Snelling. The first sign this isn’t a typical geology lecture comes comes about a minute in, when Snelling proclaims, The Grand Canyon does provide a testament to the biblical account of Earth’s history.”
quote:Snelling is a prominent young-Earth creationist. For years, he has given lectures, guided biblical-themed Grand Canyon rafting tours, and worked for the nonprofit Answers in Genesis. (The CEO of Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham, is also behind the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter theme park.) Young-Earth creationism, in contrast to other forms of creationism, specifically holds that the Earth is only thousands of years old. Snelling believes that the Grand Canyon formed after Noah’s flood—and he now claims the U.S. government is blocking his research in the canyon because of his religious views.
quote:Exactly why the park did not grant Snelling’s application is, of course, now the subject of a lawsuit. His project did involve collecting a sizable number of rocks, which can invite more scrutiny. In an email to Snelling filed as part of the lawsuit, a park officer said the project was not granted because the type of rock he wanted to study can also be found outside of the Grand Canyon. The park solicited peer reviews from three mainstream geologists. One mentioned the rocks could be found elsewhere; all three overwhelmingly denounced the work as not scientifically valid, a criterion the park also uses to evaluate proposals. Snelling, who holds a Ph.D. in geology, did not disclose his Answers in Genesis affiliation, nor did he explicitly say he wanted to prove the Grand Canyon is young in his initial permit application, but the reviewers became aware of his reputation.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Evolution is the state religion, but theres no use sue-ing them over it.
Let the dead bury the dead and believe whatever they want and force whatever they want on students and toursists minds and whatever.
Their choice, their responsibility.
Everybody gets what they deserve.... when they are gutless and whimpy.
The Grand Canyon was caused by the receeding Floofdwaters of the worldwide flood, but thery dont want that discussed... or known or studied.
Let them be....
Evolutyionists are used to forcing their theory on students and scientists. They are not used to answering any questions on this theory, because it is their religion. And as a religion it must be accepted by faith.... It is not science and it is not logical or rational and has no facts behind it. Evolution is a con and a LIE. A big one, but because it is forced on the gullible and on students, they must accept it. This their modus operandi...and so when faced with sane biological opposition, they can only be subjective rather than objective.
That flood nonsense was studied and disproved over 200 years ago.
"To seek the light of physical truth by reasoning of this kind, is, in the language of Bacon, to seek the living among the dead, and will ever end in erroneous induction. Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.
We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood...." (Adam Sedgwick, 1831)
That was in 1831, 20 years before Darwin wrote his book on evolution. Even before the theory of evolution, geologists had already figured out that the geologic record was not consistent with a recent global flood.
I find it quite hilarious when creationists think the Noachian flood was rejected because of the theory of evolution. It only demonstrates a complete ignorance of the history of geology.
Here's a little bit for you. This was the beginning of the end for the flood idea:
Other naturalists were critical of Diluvialism: the Church of Scotland pastor John Fleming published opposing arguments in a series of articles from 1823 onwards. He was critical of the assumption that fossils resembling modern tropical species had been swept north "by some violent means", which he regarded as absurd considering the "unbroken state" of fossil remains. For example, fossil mammoths demonstrated adaptation to the same northern climates now prevalent where they were found. He criticized Buckland's identification of red mud in the Kirkdale cave as diluvial, when near identical mud in other caves had been described as fluvial. While Cuvier had reconciled geology with a loose reading of the Biblical text, Fleming argued that such a union was "indiscreet" and turned to a more literal view of Genesis:
But if the supposed impetuous torrent excavated valleys, and transported masses of rocks to a distance from their original repositories, then must the soil have been swept from off the earth to the destruction of the vegetable tribes. Moses does not record such an occurrence. On the contrary, in his history of the dove and the olive-leaf plucked off, he furnishes a proof that the flood was not so violent in its motions as to disturb the soil, nor to overturn the trees which it supported.
When Sedgwick visited Paris at the end of 1826 he found hostility to Diluvialism: Alexander von Humboldt ridiculed it "beyond measure", and Louis-Constant Prévost "lectured against it". In the summer of 1827 Sedgwick and Roderick Murchison travelled to investigate the geology of the Scottish Highlands, where they found "so many indications of local diluvial operations" that Sedgwick began to change his mind about it being worldwide. When George Poulett Scrope published his investigations into the Auvergne in 1827, he did not use the term "diluvium". He was followed by Murchison and Charles Lyell whose account appeared in 1829. All three agreed that the valleys could well have been formed by rivers acting over a long time, and a deluge was not needed. Lyell, formerly a pupil of Buckland, put strong arguments against diluvialism in the first volume of his Principles of Geology published in 1830, though suggesting the possibility of a deluge affecting a region such as the low-lying area around the Caspian Sea. Sedgwick responded to this book in his presidential address to the Geological Society in February 1830, agreeing that diluvial deposits had formed at differing times. At the society a year later, when retiring from the presidency, Sedgwick described his former belief that "vast masses of diluvial gravel" had been scattered worldwide in "one violent and transitory period" as "a most unwarranted conclusion", and therefore thought "it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation." However, he remained convinced that a flood as described in Genesis was not excluded by geology.
Thats a joke, modern geology did not start with wikileaks it started with the creation of atoms, dirt, matter, right from the Creation process of the Lord.....
Dirt and geology did nto start with a BIG BANG that exploded dirt together and laid layers upon layers.
Geology is a science until it gets into evolution backing, and the everything took a billion year s theory and dementia.
Hence geology and archeology and evolution are in bed together confirming one anothers theories, so as to try and force their religion on students and adults. How sad, but real searchers search and study and learn science and facts and truths.
Design and Intelligence wins, lack of design and lack of intelligence always loses.... always as in ALWAYS.
Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.
Being told to "Fuck you I can fucking write whatever I want" by CatsEye to me is against the rules of civil debate, but this board says otherewise and allows evolutionists do write such vulgar comments without punishment.
Evolutionists are used to forcing their theory on students and scientists. They are not used to answering any questions on this theory, because it is their religion. And as a religion it must be accepted by faith.... It is not science and it is not logical or rational and has no facts behind it. Evolution is a con and a LIE. A big one, but because it is forced on the gullible and on students, they must accept it. This their modus operandi...and so when faced with sane biological opposition, they can only be subjective rather than objective.
As I suspected it's a lot of toppling of straw man concepts of the Flood, such as "...the assumption that fossils resembling modern tropical species had been swept north 'by some violent means'" and ..."Buckland's identification of red mud in the Kirkdale cave as diluvial, when near identical mud in other caves had been described as fluvial" and the idea that it had to be a violent torrent, and so on.
Not a word about the strata interestingly, which occur on a scale more commensurate with a worldwide Flood than the little local events that are so easily dismissed as local because they are. Also the abundance of fossils. The strata are probably in there somewhere but it's not in these quotes.
So basically they debunked the geological effect of the Flood on the basis of a few ill-thought-out examples here and there. Some red mud in a cave is a pretty puny bit if evidence for the Flood. Tropical fossils being found in the north probably IS evidence of the Flood but they aren't taking into account that a biblical understanding of the pre-Flood world would have expected it to have a far more temperate climate, even closer to tropical, than after the Flood, and violence wouldn't necessarily have been required of the Flood in any case. There probably was violence during different phases of the Flood, but there's no need to attribute it to the whole event.
Those are typical arguments anti-Floodists come up with still, totally inadequate.
You say the Flood was disproved over 200 years ago. I think you owe it to us to show us how it was disproved.
We have shown it to you Faith, hundreds of times. Message 806 is one recent example.
The Bible proves the Biblical Flood never happened.
The utterly sill idea that there has ever been a world-wide flood during the over 200,000 years modern humans have exoisted is as dead as the nonsense of Adam & Steve or the Garden of Eden or the Exodus or the "Fall" or the Conquest of Canaan or ...
The fact that you choose to remain ignorant of reality is not support for the fantasy called the Biblical Flood.
Anyone today claiming the Biblical Flood ever happened is simply wrong, sill and to be pitied.