The Flood = many coincidences

The grand canyon is obvious proof that the flood did happen. Here's why: In the Grand Canyon, rock representing three main stages of evolution claimed to span 150 million years is missing. It is impossible that no sedimentary layers were formed over the extremely long period of 150 million years, and the reason evolutionists give for the missing layers is that erosion took place. One problem with this is that scientists have found no evidence of erosion on such a scale in the Grand Canyon. The layers either side of the 150 million years of missing rock are flat against each other, rather than having the uneven surface one would expect from erosion.Even for evolutionists the geologic timescale is unreliable. Fossils only found within certain layers are referred to as 'index fossils' as evolutionists often use these to date specific rock layers. On many occasions index fossils have been discovered far earlier or later than they were supposed to have existed: in these situations the fossils are no longer used as index fossils, proving that dating via index fossils is purely speculative.I mean have you seen a flash flood take place it washes everything away or how about a tsunami?http://www.drydeadfish.co.uk/...ation_flood_theory/index.phpEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Muck up and hide apparent spamish link. Tweak formatting a bit.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Found and completed apparent source link (had been just the home page, thus I thought it was some sort of spam).

Here is a picture (from Wikipedia) of the layers of the Grand Canyon. Would you be willing to indicate the layers you're referring to so that we can get a better grasp on the point you're trying to make? Again, more specificity would be a great help. If you have links to reliable websites or reports that show the purely speculative nature of dating, or even that geologists rely solely on 'index fossils' to calculate the age of various rock layers, we'd be more able to address your points. Yes, it takes everything awayexcept the mountains. Flash floods (even those lasting 40 days ) do not stick around long enough to create the kind of water erosion seen in the world's canyons. The Biblical Flood would have had to have been made up of 'magical water' capable of eroding at rates exponentially greater than the rates at which water today can erode rock and soilalong with having other properties.And theories that propose 'magical' processes are not, by definition, scientific.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

And this is also presumably evidence of something.But what?

Yea cause scientists are lying bastards and if you go a bit notrth from the grand canyony you do not find the Navajo sandstone a younger lair that has not been fully eroded away and it is not true that if you go even further North You do not find younger rocks like scientists say you find In Bryce canyon Common you will have to do better than scientists are lying cause they normally dont or they loose their grants.And yes the search for evidence of this magical flood ended along time ago because no evidence was found if there was a magical flood then you should find evidence of this flood in your back yard.can you tell me how your magical flood created this vally

You're arguing that erosion leaves uneven surfaces behind, and that the top boundary of layers of Grand Canyon that scientists claim are a result of erosion, being relatively smooth and continuous in most places, are evidence that erosion could not be responsible for the missing layers.You'll have to explain to us why you think erosion should create uneven surfaces. Erosion is what wears rugged mountains down to flat plains over the course of some tens of millions of years. Erosion is analogous to sandpaper, which takes down the highest uneven parts of wood first just as erosion takes down the highest features of a landscape first. If you're even a little familiar with archaeology then you know that certain types of pottery are representative of certain eras and cultures. Sometimes a type of pottery is discovered to have also existed outside what was originally considered its era or culture, and then that pottery can no longer be considered conclusively representative anymore.The same is true of index fossils. Sometimes it is discovered that an index fossil existed for a broader expanse of time than was originally thought, and then that index fossil can no longer be considered indicative. This is pretty much what you just said, and its hard to see where you think the problem lies. I can see where it would be a problem if scientists persisted in using an index fossil after it had been invalidated for that purpose, but you're not accusing them of doing that.You're instead concluding that index fossils are speculative. Fossils in the geologic column are a record of change over time. The deeper you go the more the fossils differ from modern forms. Very few fossils are found everywhere throughout the geologic record, and some are found in only narrow regions of geologic layers and are also ubiquitous and therefore very useful in identifying the geologic time period, and we call these index fossils.But index fossils are just a shortcut way of identifying a geologic layer. Context (the layers above and below) are also very helpful and often definitive, and radiometric dating is frequently able to provide a very definitive date.If index fossils were truly an indication that the geologic timescale is unreliable then we'd expect to be able to find any kind of index fossil in any layer, but we don't. Index fossils are only useful when they are found only to exist in a restricted range of geological time, and so only fossils that fit that criteria are used as index fossils.--Percy

Why is that "impossible?" All an area needs to do is stay out of the water for that long, and it can be unsedimented. Try San Saba County, Texas, or a big portion of Quebec if you need an example.

Please address the issues I raised in Message 386, above. You are trying to change the subject while ignoring what I actually posted.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I'm sorry but that is absolutely false. Please take my suggestion because you are way out of your depth when it comes to the Grand Canyon.Please start learning by reading the thread Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

GDay, Really ?
I'm from Australia.
Can you tell me the details about this flood from the Australian aborigines' religion please ? Where did you learn about it ? Please link to your source.KapyongEdited by Kapyong, : Minor fix.

Hi Oliver, Welcome aboard, Well, it is not obvious to me. How does this 150 million years of missing rock prove the biblical flood? Can you give us a little more detail to your thoughts on this?Which layers are above and below the missing layers? Do you mean geologists? So, there is no evidence of erosion in the Grand Canyon? I wonder why they call it The Grand Canyon, then?

---

Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are out of alignment. -- S.ValleyWhat if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

There are several here.

Well I say atomic parts of sediment or rocks is not about the real processes of forces moving sediment or rock or larger pieces of earth.
yes they would include everything that deals with dirt but naw.
Chemicals are for chemists .
Geology is about earth formations and not intimate formations within earth formations.
Show me the rocks if your claiming to understand the past from the rocks.

Geology to me is about process pushing dirt or heavier earth material about. Cooling mechanisms are not a geological study but only become geology after the cooling is over.
One can always break everything into its atomic structure. however geology is about finished products and rearranging these products.

Excellent point. iN fact its not just religion but almost every people group has a flood story especially if that oral or written history was written down long ago.
Its exactly as it would be if there had been a great flood and so it would dominate every peoples memory of their origins.
The bible just fleshes out the story.

And presumably this is "exactly as it would be" if there was a Santa Claus.There isn't, by the way. But don't you think it's odd that everyone except the Jews forgot the one really useful aspect of the story?The important moral to take away, surely, is that there's one God, namely Yahweh, who kills people when he's pissed, and who disapproves of such things as polytheism, idol-worship, and so on and so forth.Instead, they forgot all about that. Instead the Greeks, for example, remembered that Zeus sent Deucalion's Flood --- and of course they knew that Zeus was fine with polytheism, just loved idol-worship, and was OK with them sodomizing teenage boys.Apparently the human race is like someone who drinks and drives, crashes his car killing his wife and children, is paralyzed from the waist down, is jailed for ten years, and the thing he learns from the incident is not "don't drink and drive" but "I was going at exactly 83 miles per hour, which is a prime number". Yeah? In what way does the Bible "flesh out" this story: What this has in common with the story of Noah's Flood is that it has a flood in it. And that it's got a magical being in it. And that it's not true.