Why are Creationists Obsessed with the Grand Canyon?

[lemmings]

It seems like a Creationist mentions the Grand Canyon at least once in every flood thread. Why is this? There are bigger canyons in the world, look at the Mariana Trench; it is over five miles deeper at 35,000 feet. With the Grand Canyon, one can explain its creation with “rapid” erosion from the Colorado River. The Mariana Trench however relays on plate tectonics for explanation. Even Mount Everest’s growth over 4mm a year could theoretically be used by Creationists in support for their “cork Earth” theories where the surface is bobbing up and down on a giant subterranean ocean.

 

[moogoob]

Because most Creationists are American, and the Grand Canyon's a bit closer to home (and more visible!) than the Marianas trench.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Popular location, one which Creationists are likely to have visited at some point, being Americans for the most part. Why focus on a far flung underwater phenomenon that is not only more difficult to explain, but also unfamiliar to many? Creation-evolution has always been a debate of opinions and ideologies, not facts.

 

[lemmings]

I just don't see how someone can call this a rip in the Earth's crust.

Yet they compeltly ignore an object hundreds of times larger.

Most Creationists are just like parrots just repeating the same words that they hear from ICR, AIG, and Hovind; this is why we have so many PRATT lists. However their leaders should be capable of formulating new arguments that should be even harder to debate.

An obscure geological phenomenon of which we know nearly nothing about should be a prime target for those seeking to use the name 'God' as a form of superglue to fill in the gaps of science.

 

[notto]

We often obsess over what we cannot explain.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most Creationists are just like parrots just repeating the same words that they hear from ICR, AIG, and Hovind; this is why we have so many PRATT lists. However their leaders should be capable of formulating new arguments that should be even harder to debate.

I don't mention either canyon at all, and I lived right by the Marianas Trench for 3 1/2 years - and my Four Biblical Proofs Against Evolution still stand.

 

[Abongil]

Because most Creationists are American, and the Grand Canyon's a bit closer to home (and more visible!) than the Marianas trench.

Hells Canyon on the border of Idaho and Oregon is deeper. Why dont they use it?

 

[Nooj]

Most Americans are familiar with the grand pictures of the Grand Canyon. In many ways, it's a national symbol. Just like the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building. Explaining the Grand Canyon earns more brownie points with the average American. It's like how in all the disaster movies, all the prominent symbols and buildings are shown getting destroyed (Day After Tomorrow, Independence Day etc)

 

[moogoob]

I don't mention either canyon at all, and I lived right by the Marianas Trench for 3 1/2 years - and my Four Biblical Proofs Against Evolution still stand.

You lived in the middle of the Atlantic?

Edit: And on the topic of big geographical formations, what about Valles Marineris on Mars? Or the rest of the cosmos, for that matter?

 

[USincognito]

You lived in the middle of the Atlantic?

Psst, Pacific. If AV was in the Navy or Air Force he likely was stationed on Guam.

And to the OP, don't forget the other current favorite Creationist PRATT generator - Mt. St. Helens.

 

[KerrMetric]

One should always ask Creationists why there are not Grand Canyons all over the world if the flood was a global catastrophe. There should be such runoff features everwhere. Why aren't there?

 

[A4C]

The Grand canyon is a good example of Flood geology. It contains obvious sedimentary layers with masses of soil and minerals and fossillised plant and animal life consistent with these being displaced from surrounding tropical vegetated mountainous areas. It also includes evidence of catastrophic erosion of those soft sediments as massive volumes of water receded causing formations only possible by the action of such a dramatic set of geological circumstances as would be present during the period of a world wide flood.

 

[lemmings]

Can you please elaborate on how you came to this conclusion? And why is it that the others do no qualify as Flood compatible?

To me it would seem that a volume of water traveling at close, if not over, the speed of sound would result in all of the fossils, vegetation, and sediment within several hundred miles being effectively obliterated; yet we do not see this. Thus for the Flood story to be true, there must be dozens of Grand Canyons all around the world.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The Grand canyon is a good example of Flood geology. It contains obvious sedimentary layers with masses of soil and minerals and fossillised plant and animal life consistent with these being displaced from surrounding tropical vegetated mountainous areas. It also includes evidence of catastrophic erosion of those soft sediments as massive volumes of water receded causing formations only possible by the action of such a dramatic set of geological circumstances as would be present during the period of a world wide flood.

It also contains trace fossils (i.e. nests, burrows, prints) that wouldn't have formed in flood, features like sheer vertical walls or Redwall Cavern that would be impossible to form in soft sediment, angular unconformities that suggest gradual erosion within layers, and fossil sorting that precludes the type of sorting you'd get in a flood.

All in all, the grand canyon is an excellent refutation to the idea of a global flood.

 

[fasteddy]

Here we go again, trying to use logic to counter an illogical argument.
When will we ever learn?

 

[A4C]

It also contains trace fossils (i.e. nests, burrows, prints) that wouldn't have formed in flood,

All are explanable by the Flood model

features like sheer vertical walls

a result of cliff collpse due to undercutting by rapid receding water flows

or Redwall Cavern

undercuting that didn't cause collapse

that would be impossible to form in soft sediment,

rather they would be impossible to form except by a flood

angular unconformities

upheaval of previously laid down sediment during the course of the Flood

that suggest gradual erosion within layers,

the evidence suggest all erosion occurred AFTER all the sediment was laid down which really doesn't suggest long time periods

and fossil sorting that precludes the type of sorting you'd get in a flood.

On the contrary the "fossil sorting" is more idicative of a flood than any other suggestion

All in all, the grand canyon is an excellent refutation to the idea of a global flood.

Actually there is no other feasible way of formation of the Grand Canyon other than by a huge flood.

 

[USincognito]

A4C that is probably one of the worst Ad Hoc responses I have seen you post around here in a long time. You can redeem yourself by doing me a favor. Would you explain:

- what trace fossils are found in the Grand Canyon and how they are explained by the Flood.
- the composition of the rock that forms the sheer walls and how they formed during the Flood.
- the composition of Redwall Canyon and how it was formed during the Flood.
On this last two could you provide details explaining why one area was undermined and collapsed while another one was and didn't.

 

[A4C]

A4C that is probably one of the worst Ad Hoc responses I have seen you post around here in a long time. You can redeem yourself by doing me a favor. Would you explain:

- what trace fossils are found in the Grand Canyon and how they are explained by the Flood.
- the composition of the rock that forms the sheer walls and how they formed during the Flood.
- the composition of Redwall Canyon and how it was formed during the Flood.
On this last two could you provide details explaining why one area was undermined and collapsed while another one was and didn't.

And you can redeem yourself by asking for things in a polite manner otherwise you will find yourself on my ever -increasing ignore list

 

[USincognito]

And you can redeem yourself by asking for things in a polite manner otherwise you will find yourself on my ever -increasing ignore list

If you're unable to answer, that's fine. I understand.

 

[notto]

It also contains trace fossils (i.e. nests, burrows, prints) that wouldn't have formed in flood, features like sheer vertical walls or Redwall Cavern that would be impossible to form in soft sediment, angular unconformities that suggest gradual erosion within layers, and fossil sorting that precludes the type of sorting you'd get in a flood.

All in all, the grand canyon is an excellent refutation to the idea of a global flood.

And don't forget the eroded lava dams. Certain creationists always neglect to discuss the eroded lava dams when talking about the 'soft sediment' that the canyon contains.