Why are Creationists Obsessed with the Grand Canyon?

[MrGoodBytes]

AV

Where does this "hole" go to?

Do you have any idea what underlies the Grand Canyon?

Ah, the very man I was hoping for. Have fun.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV

Where does this "hole" go to?

Do you have any idea what underlies the Grand Canyon?

I don't know --- and since I'm just speculating in the first place --- the Grand Canyon itself could have been the hole.

Going back to my swimming pool paradigm --- fill the pool 3/4 with sand, place the pool into an Olympic-sized swimming pool, then, from the outside of the pool, and below the waterline, bore a hole into the pool about two feet, allowing water to enter the plastic pool, then percolate to the top and spray the whole of the surface with a mist.

Of course, when the Flood occurred, the two-foot horizontal line could have simply caved in under the combined weight of the ground above it, and the water above the ground.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wouldn't tectonic activity of such magnitude destroy the canyon itself?

No --- it opened the canyon wider.

Moreso, wouldn't be the remnants of the fountains themselves - the subterranean part, if you want - be detectable?

I doubt it --- since everything could have caved in.

If I understood you correctly, the GC would have been on US territory as a whole, and thus unaffected by the separation, right?

Yes --- on US territory.

Take a bed sheet and cut, say, a one-foot gash towards one edge. Now have three other people stand on each side, and at the same time, pull on all four edges. The one-foot gash will pull open, becoming a bigger gash.

This is how a canyon could have formed (from a smaller gash) inland, when God pulled the continent apart.

 

[nvxplorer]

I don't know --- and since I'm just speculating in the first place --- the Grand Canyon itself could have been the hole.

Going back to my swimming pool paradigm --- fill the pool 3/4 with sand, place the pool into an Olympic-sized swimming pool, then, from the outside of the pool, and below the waterline, bore a hole into the pool about two feet, allowing water to enter the plastic pool, then percolate to the top and spray the whole of the surface with a mist.

Of course, when the Flood occurred, the two-foot horizontal line could have simply caved in under the combined weight of the ground above it, and the water above the ground.

You do realize that the earth's crust is sitting on rock, not floating in water?

Your analogy (paradigm? ) is seriously flawed.

 

[nvxplorer]

Take a bed sheet and cut, say, a one-foot gash towards one edge. Now have three other people stand on each side, and at the same time, pull on all four edges. The one-foot gash will pull open, becoming a bigger gash.

This is how a canyon could have formed (from a smaller gash) inland, when God pulled the continent apart.

These household item analogies are really entertaining, AV. Let's see, to my knowledge, you've explained cosmology/physics using a balloon. You've explained geology using a swimming pool, and here, a bedsheet.

Funny stuff!

 

[AV1611VET]

These household item analogies are really entertaining, AV. Let's see, to my knowledge, you've explained cosmology/physics using a balloon. You've explained geology using a swimming pool, and here, a bedsheet.

Funny stuff!

Hey --- feel free to posit your own theories --- as long as they don't contradict Scripture.

 

[AV1611VET]

You do realize that the earth's crust is sitting on rock, not floating in water?

Your analogy (paradigm? ) is seriously flawed.

Fine --- make it rock then --- rock, paper, scissors --- okay with me --- I'm easy.

 

[nvxplorer]

Fine --- make it rock then --- rock, paper, scissors --- okay with me --- I'm easy.

Ah...the inevitable sarcastic "cliche response." If anything, you are predictable and consistent. I notice you use cliches as a concession. Babies and bathwater, eh?

Okay then; we take a sand filled plastic swimming pool and set it in an olympic pool filled with rock. We then poke a hole in the plastic pool. Sand comes out. How is this a supporting "paradigm" ( ) for the Flood?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah...the inevitable sarcastic "cliche response." If anything, you are predictable and consistent. I notice you use cliches as a concession. Babies and bathwater, eh?

Okay then; we take a sand filled plastic swimming pool and set it in an olympic pool filled with rock. We then poke a hole in the plastic pool. Sand comes out. How is this a supporting "paradigm" ( ) for the Flood?

Nv, one thing I do not wish to debate is one paradigm after another. Suffice it to say, I wasn't there during the Flood, the Grand Canyon exists, and Scripture is not to be contradicted.

Please, if you see flaws, feel more than welcome to build a better mousetrap.

I'm one of the easiest persons alive to discuss matters with.

 

[nvxplorer]

Hey --- feel free to posit your own theories

Theories already exist. You should try studying them.

--- as long as they don't contradict Scripture.

Yeah, who needs reality when we have a book to bury our heads in!

 

[nvxplorer]

Nv, one thing I do not wish to debate is one paradigm after another.

Please stop misusing the word "paradigm." Current geological thought and theory is a paradigm. Your meaningless pool experiment is not.

Suffice it to say, I wasn't there during the Flood, the Grand Canyon exists, and Scripture is not to be contradicted.

Your interpretation of scripture is at issue here, not "scripture." BTW, where is the Grand Canyon mentioned in the Bible?

Please, if you see flaws, feel more than welcome to build a better mousetrap.

As already stated, these theories already exist, are scientifically demonstrable, and they contradict your interpretation of scripture. It's quite obvious that your interpretation is flawed (much like your household item experiments).

I'm one of the easiest persons alive to discuss matters with.

Is that right? Where can I find some of this discussion? So far, all I've seen is, "If it disagrees with my interpretation of the KJV Bible, it is wrong." That's not very conducive to discussion, now is it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Theories already exist. You should try studying them.

Yeah, who needs reality when we have a book to bury our heads in!

I'll study any theory, as long as it doesn't contradict Scripture.

You guys want me to say the earth is 4.55 billions years old --- fine --- I say it --- but then you'll have to accept the fact that God created it 4.55 billion years old, and you're not willing to do that.

You wanna say the Grand Canyon proves this or that --- fine --- I'll go along with it; but I will not, will not, will not allow your paradigms to contradict the Scriptures.

It's that simple.

You think sola scripturists are a thing of the past, and you have a LOT of learning still to do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please stop misusing the word "paradigm." Current geological thought and theory is a paradigm. Your meaningless pool experiment is not.

Once again then, if you feel my swimming pool model is seriously flawed, then please come up with a viable model yourself that satisfies the two input parameters:

1. The Grand Canyon exists.
2. The Scriptures cannot be contradicted.

 

[nvxplorer]

I'll study any theory, as long as it doesn't contradict Scripture.

I can't imagine going through life with such fear. Especially when the object of fear is one's own mind.

You guys want me to say the earth is 4.55 billions years old --- fine --- I say it --- but then you'll have to accept the fact that God created it 4.55 billion years, and you're not willing to do that.

You wanna say the Grand Canyon proves this or that --- fine --- I'll go along with it; but I will not, will not, will not allow your paradigms to contradict the Scriptures.

I've bolded the key words. Authoritarians are so transparent.

It's that simple.

It's that simplistic. That's the problem.

You think sola scripturists are a thing of the past, and you have a LOT of learning still do do.

There's that authoritarian expression of power again. I don't live in fear of anything. Perhaps your words would hold more weight with someone who does.

 

[A4C]

If the scientist are not going to confirm to us (creationists) that the world was formed in a certain way (creation) and was modified dramatically ( the Flood) in another way than as creationists we have no other option but to use our own limited knowledge and apply our God given intelligene to come to our own conclusions. We can be no more criticized for our lack of scientific expertise than a scientist can be held responsible for his ignorance of the significant truth of God's Word .

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'll study any theory, as long as it doesn't contradict Scripture.

And mainstream geology doesn't contradict "scripture," so there's no reason not to study it.

You guys want me to say the earth is 4.55 billions years old --- fine --- I say it --- but then you'll have to accept the fact that God created it 4.55 billion years, and you're not willing to do that.

What God may of may not have created is a religious belief, not a fact. Why shuold we "accept" it?

You wanna say the Grand Canyon proves this or that --- fine --- I'll go along with it; but I will not, will not, will not allow your paradigms to contradict the Scriptures.

What you will or will not, will not, will not allow doesn't really affect much.

And since the Grand Canyon doesn't contradict "Scripture," but just a narrow, outdated view of them, it's a moot point.

It's that simple.

Reality rarely is.

You think sola scripturists are a thing of the past, and you have a LOT of learning still do do.

No, we're well aware that Bible worship is alive and well.

 

[nvxplorer]

Once again then, if you feel my swimming pool model is seriously flawed, then please come up with a viable model yourself that satisfies the two input parameters:

1. The Grand Canyon exists.
2. The Scriptures cannot be contradicted.

The second parameter is ambiguous, therefore a reliable model cannot be constructed.

If I change the second parameter to "AV's interpretation of scripture cannot be contradicted," then your premise that such a model can exist is false. You may as well ask me for a model that describes 1) The existence of flighted birds; 2) Flight is impossible.

 

[lemmings]

I'll study any theory, as long as it doesn't contradict Scripture.

Whatever happend to "Teach the Contoversy"?

You guys want me to say the earth is 4.55 billions years old --- fine --- I say it --- but then you'll have to accept the fact that God created it 4.55 billion years, and you're not willing to do that.

That is the stance of most thesic evolutionists, and most evolutionists are theisic and believe in a god.

You wanna say the Grand Canyon proves this or that --- fine --- I'll go along with it; but I will not, will not, will not allow your paradigms to contradict the Scriptures.

What would you say when I tell you that YOUR scriptures counter over 4,000,000,000 other people's scripture?

sola scripturists

Can you please provide me with a definition of this.

Once again then, if you feel my swimming pool model is seriously flawed, then please come up with a viable model yourself that satisfies the two input parameters:
The Grand Canyon exists.
The Scriptures cannot be contradicted.

I'll go with the first requirement, but untill you prove biblical inerrancy and thus the existance of your god, I will have to waith on the second one. If you wish for some of our theories satisfing the first requirement, please read some of the millions of textbooks published every year by various educational organisations.

 

[AV1611VET]

Allllllright then, am I good to checkmark this thread for deletion, or is there anything else I can help you guys with?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Whatever happend to "Teach the Contoversy"?

Did anyone ever actually buy into that line of humbug?