Grand Canyon Disproves Creationism

[Dale]

Without reading your link I will guarantee it has no scientific evidence to support what he says. Now is a good chance for you to prove me wrong by cutting and pasting what he offered as evidence. To try and link species b y the shape of the head is absurd and not even close to scientific. When on uses "perhaps" in their explanation, you might as well stop. That is evidence they do no have any real evidence.

His explanation is just another necessary attempt to give the faithful Darwinites hope they have not believed in vain. It is amusing to me than any educated person would accept such a fairy tale.

Omega:
<< To try and link species b y the shape of the head is absurd and not even close to scientific. >>

Measurements are evidence, no matter what you think. What evidence would you accept, as I asked earlier? Besides, it's not a matter of linking species. There are massive numbers of species, genera, etc. that can be linked this way.

<< When on uses "perhaps" in their explanation, you might as well stop. >>

Scientists are cautious in their conclusions, an excellent trait. The absence of this habit among creationists is why no one listens to them.

<< It is amusing to me than any educated person would accept such a fairy tale. >>

Why would I believe that you are educated? You show no sign of knowing the Bible, or anything about the modern world.

What effort have you made to understand views different from your own? I have read an eleven hundred page book called The Evolution Cruncher, sold by one of my local churches. It piles error on top of error on top of error with no end in sight, yet creationists thought it was the last word.

 

[Dale]

Without reading your link I will guarantee it has no scientific evidence to support what he says. Now is a good chance for you to prove me wrong by cutting and pasting what he offered as evidence. To try and link species b y the shape of the head is absurd and not even close to scientific. When on uses "perhaps" in their explanation, you might as well stop. That is evidence they do no have any real evidence.

His explanation is just another necessary attempt to give the faithful Darwinites hope they have not believed in vain. It is amusing to me than any educated person would accept such a fairy tale.

This thread was started to talk about the Grand Canyon.

Have you ever been to the Grand Canyon?

How do you know more than the experts?

 

[omega2xx]

This thread was started to talk about the Grand Canyon.

I am talking about it

Have you ever been to the Grand Canyon?

Yes, have you? A river could not have cause it.

How do you know more than the experts?

No one is a real expert on how the grand canyon was formed and all the so called experts
don't agree.

 

[omega2xx]

Omega:
<< To try and link species b y the shape of the head is absurd and not even close to scientific. >>

Measurements are evidence, no matter what you think.

The only thing they are evidence is the size of the heads measured. You need some genetic evidence as to how an "A" became a "B." How can the leg of dog-like land animal(pakicetus) become the fin of a sea creature

What evidence would you accept, as I asked earlier? Besides, it's not a matter of linking species.

That is exactly what it is about . You make that statement because you can't link them, you have no transitional fossils and if evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be transitional.

There are massive numbers of species, genera, etc. that can be linked this way.

Not according to 2 of your best experts, Gould and Mayr.

Here is a statement from Mayer in his book "what is Evolution: "Wherever we look at the living biota...discontinuities are overwhelming frequent...The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates(p 189).

Gould says basically the same thing.

<< When on uses "perhaps" in their explanation, you might as well stop. >>

Scientists are cautious in their conclusions, an excellent trait.

Not when they have scientific evidence that supports what they say. There are no maybes in their explanation of whale and dino evolution. There is also no scientific evidence to support such silly and unscientific explanation. Where is their caution there?

The absence of this habit among creationists is why no one listens to them.

Wrong again. When creation scientist refute the speculations of evolution, they give the scientific reason what it is not true. Evolutionist just say something is true and expect everyone to accept it. Unfortunately many do accept what they say and it is by faith alone.



<< It is amusing to me than any educated person would accept such a fairy tale. >>

Why would I believe that you are educated?

This is not about my education and I couldn't care less if you don't think I am educated. You lack even basic knowledge of genetics.

You show no sign of knowing the Bible, or anything about the modern world.

I know the Bible much better than you do and since I am 85, I have had much more experience in the modern world that you have had.

What effort have you made to understand views different from your own?

I will ask you the same question. I did not become a Christian until I was 45. I was taught evolution in high school and in college. When I was converted I subscribe to ICR and received articles written by PhD scientist on various science subjects for many years.

I have read an eleven hundred page book called The Evolution Cruncher, sold by one of my local churches. It piles error on top of error on top of error with no end in sight, yet creationists thought it was the last word.

The Evolution Cruncher supports creation not evolution.

 

[omega2xx]

Living beings mutate, mutations change DNA which subsequently changes our proteins and morphological development.

Mutations do not change the species. When mutation cause the person or the animal to become an albino, they remain the exact same species. The human remains homo sapian and the animal remain the same species as its parents. You know "after their kind."

 

[Job 33:6]

Mutations do not change the species."

Can you prove this claim? Why wouldn't mutations produce new species?

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, have you? A river could not have cause it.

.

And why couldn't a river carve out what is now the Grand Canyon?

 

[Dale]

Without reading your link I will guarantee it has no scientific evidence to support what he says. Now is a good chance for you to prove me wrong by cutting and pasting what he offered as evidence. To try and link species b y the shape of the head is absurd and not even close to scientific. When on uses "perhaps" in their explanation, you might as well stop. That is evidence they do no have any real evidence.

His explanation is just another necessary attempt to give the faithful Darwinites hope they have not believed in vain. It is amusing to me than any educated person would accept such a fairy tale.

Since you don't respect the experts, just look at a few things anyone can see.

Have you ever noticed that a snake looks a lot like a lizard that has lost its legs?

It's obvious to me and the experts agree but they are a bit more elaborate. They say that snakes evolved from lizards who lived on muddy land where legs aren't much help. They lost the hind legs first and the front legs later. Even today, rattlesnakes are sometimes born with little tiny front legs.

Think about it.

 

[omega2xx]

Since you don't respect the experts, just look at a few things anyone can see.

Have you ever noticed that a snake looks a lot like a lizard that has lost its legs?

It's obvious to me and the experts agree but they are a bit more elaborate. They say that snakes evolved from lizards who lived on muddy land where legs aren't much help. They lost the hind legs first and the front legs later. Even today, rattlesnakes are sometimes born with little tiny front legs.

Think about it.

Close only counts in horse shoes and hand granades. I have great respect for the experts, but experts give evidence for what they say. That is what makes the experts.

Has anyone ever seen a snake give birth to a lizard? Has anyone ever seen a snake give birth to a different species of snake? Has anyone ever seen a rattlesnake give birth to another rattlesnake? Instead of comparing similarities, explain how it is possible genetically.

I think I have thought about this subject more than you have. That i one reason I reject evolution. What makes you think time will change the laws of genetics? It hasns't changed the laws of any other scientific discipline.

 

[Dale]

Mutations do not change the species. When mutation cause the person or the animal to become an albino, they remain the exact same species. The human remains homo sapian and the animal remain the same species as its parents. You know "after their kind."

How about a hundred mutations?
How about a thousand mutations?

It isn't obvious that a chihuahua is the same species as a St. Bernard, but they are. Yet the various breeds of dog could become separate species given enough time. As much as they vary, the various breeds of dog have all come about in a few thousand years.

 

[omega2xx]

How about a hundred mutations?
How about a thousand mutations?

How about a gazillion? Time will not change the laws of genetics.

mutations have no final evolutionary effect---Pierre-Paul Grasse(an evolutioinist).

It isn't obvious that a chihuahua is the same species as a St. Bernard, but they are.

Answer your won question. What species are chichuahua? What species is St. Bernard?

Yet the various breeds of dog could become separate species given enough time. As much as they vary, the various breeds of dog have all come about in a few thousand years.

The various breeds of dogs are still dogs. Where is the evolution in that. What did dogs evole into?

 

[Job 33:6]

My questions again remain ignored.

 

[JDD_III]

Since you don't respect the experts, just look at a few things anyone can see.

Have you ever noticed that a snake looks a lot like a lizard that has lost its legs?

It's obvious to me and the experts agree but they are a bit more elaborate. They say that snakes evolved from lizards who lived on muddy land where legs aren't much help. They lost the hind legs first and the front legs later. Even today, rattlesnakes are sometimes born with little tiny front legs.

Think about it.

Have you read the Genesis account? Have snakes always been legless?

Which came first? The snake or the lizard? Do you think creationistic views are not comfortable with the idea of loss of function?

Can you prove this claim? Why wouldn't mutations produce new species?

Define a species? I would say, clue: species does not necessarily = kind.

 

[Job 33:6]

@JDD_III

A species being a genetically unique group of organisms, with less genetic variation between groups than differences of a genus level, but moreso than differences among a family (cousins, second cousins, third cousins etc.).

 

[Dale]

Have you read the Genesis account? Have snakes always been legless?

Which came first? The snake or the lizard? Do you think creationistic views are not comfortable with the idea of loss of function?



Define a species? I would say, clue: species does not necessarily = kind.

The inability of creationists to define what a Biblical kind is has been remarked on CF before. A Biblical kind apparently means whatever creationists want it to mean at the moment.

 

[JDD_III]

The inability of creationists to define what a Biblical kind is has been remarked on CF before. A Biblical kind apparently means whatever creationists want it to mean at the moment.

And there are 26 different versions of species according to one non-creationist source:
Species Concepts in Modern Literature

The problem is not one simply for creationists. The problem with kind is we cannot go back to the beginning and see what defined kinds. Also if genetic entropy is true, it is likely that what we see now is very different to what was true in the beginning. E.g. there was likely greater ability to reproduce with large variation among offspring vs today. This is why as well for a period of time humans could mate with immediate relatives without detrimental genetic defects.

Maybe these days a tiger and lion can mate but their offspring are unable to. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that there might have been one ancestor of both a tiger and lion in the beginning and that the genetic information was created in one kind to allow for those and other species.

So in that case you could say a kind was a family. Button are trying to shoehorn in a different classification (unknown) with what modern science classifies now which is problematic.

As said though, even modern science cannot always agree on things like species classification. People disagree - that doesn't really prove anything.

 

[omega2xx]

My questions again remain ignored.

I gave you info that you could answer your own question.

 

[Ancient of Days]

Geologists believe in Uniformitarianism, that most features of the Earth's surface were created by slow, steady action of natural forces over long periods of time.

Creationists believe that the Grand Canyon was either formed during Noah's Deluge or by one or more sudden, catastrophic flash floods. Neither of these creationist views holds up to scrutiny.

The Grand Canyon has at least eleven layers, eleven major strata. One massive worldwide flood would not have laid down such a complicated series of strata. For even the top layer to have been laid down by a one-year flood is impossible.

"The fossils occurring in these deposits indicate that the topmost layers are at least 250 million years old, and represent life forms that do not exist today. Limestones are formed by the slow deposition of microscopic marine creatures. There is absolutely no way that these creatures could have laid down deposits hundreds of feet thick in the one year period of the Genesis flood."

The Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado River, which has four tributaries, the Little Colorado, the San Juan, the Dolores and the Green River. The Green River alone travels 720 miles from its origin in Wyoming. A flash flood could not create such a complicated landscape, including U-turns in the Colorado River and also in its tributaries.




Source:
Creationist Grand Canyon Argument

You copy and pasted that from a textbook didn't you... I can tell by the usual evolutionist logical fallacy's.

 

[Dale]

You copy and pasted that from a textbook didn't you... I can tell by the usual evolutionist logical fallacy's.

No, I did not copy that from a text, except for the part in quotes.

If you think I need to, you have no idea who you are talking to.

If there are any logical fallacies in the OP, please point them out.

 

[omega2xx]

No, I did not copy that from a text, except for the part in quotes.

If you think I need to, you have no idea who you are talking to.

If there are any logical fallacies in the OP, please point them out.

It is not logical fallacies that is your problem, it is a lack of evidence. Talk is cheap. Why have all of the rivers bigger and stronger than the Colorado not formed canyons? A better explanation is that God formed the Grand Canyon with its river.