Dinosaurs would still be here.

[River Jordan]

When you find it let me know

I know where I got it. From here: Stratigraphy in Archaeology and The Grand Canyon | Real Archaeology

yes. in rapid succession.

How exactly does a flood lay down a layer of metamorphic rock, then a layer of solid sandstone, then a layer of shale, then a layer of limestone made up of marine microfossils, then a different layer of limestone with different microfossils, then a layer of yet another type of limestone with siltstone, mudstone, and conglomerate in it, then a layer of eolian sandstone, then a layer of different types of sandstone, then a layer of different sandstone siltstone, then a layer of shale, then a layer a eolian sandstone, then a layer of gypsum and shale, then a layer of limestone, and then thin layers of sandstone, mudstone, and shale.

Keep in mind that each of these layers are very distinct, both geologically and the fossils they contain.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Nobody does. That's why all Wikipedia articles have references, so you can follow up and see where they got the information from.

I have seen them, I disagree

Do you have a better method?

There is no method. If youi believe the bible. and believe that the old earth and what was perished in the flood. meaning there is nothing left which would show us what it was even life. then you would know there is no way to actually determine anythign pre-flood.

 

[BCP1928]

lol.

He has a doctorate. in the science of geology

you just hurt your own cause.. I can't trust you when you make claims like this. it just shows your bias.

We base our "claim" on an evaluation of Snellings work. You think we never heard of him before? Don't know where he works? Haven't read at least some of his books?

 

[River Jordan]

you can read Andrew spellings views. he has a few books.

one of them is earth catastrophic past.

You can also watch a documentary called I believe "Is genesis history" there are two parts. one is the creation of mountains.

in these documentaries, multiple scientists are used to discuss things, The grand canyon is one of them

Those aren't science. They're apologetics material from Protestant Christian apologetics ministries.

 

[BCP1928]

I have seen them, I disagree

Then your criticism should be directed to the sources you disagree with, not Wikipedia.

There is no method. If youi believe the bible. and believe that the old earth and what was perished in the flood. meaning there is nothing left which would show us what it was even life. then you would know there is no way to actually determine anythign pre-flood.

Sounds like Last Thursdayism.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I very much doubt you have, otherwise you would actually present it, for one thing.

when people say there is no evidence. It is logical to determine they would not believe evidence if you showed them.

I have seen it in books, I have seen it in documentaries. and I have seen it at a museum..

two things lead me to believe it was not cut out the way most believe (by a river) as it would have to flow uphill.

If the river carved the canyons. why have not all rivers carved canyons (another reason to doubt)

we have seen evidence of how massive floodwaters or dam breaks have cause canyons to be formed in days or hours.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

when people say there is no evidence. It is logical to determine they would not believe evidence if you showed them.

I have seen it in books, I have seen it in documentaries. and I have seen it at a museum..

two things lead me to believe it was not cut out the way most believe (by a river) as it would have to flow uphill.

If the river carved the canyons. why have not all rivers carved canyons (another reason to doubt)

we have seen evidence of how massive floodwaters or dam breaks have cause canyons to be formed in days or hours.

Present the evidence that the Grand Canyon wasn't formed by the Colorado River eroding the sandstone rocks beneath it.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Then your criticism should be directed to the sources you disagree with, not Wikipedia.

Sounds like Last Thursdayism.

sounds like nothing anyone says will change your mind, hence your biased.

Please take your criticisms elsewhere..

 

[Frank Robert]

They have found widespread evidence of all these things

Gee! I must have missed it. Would it be a goodfella and provide some links to the widespread evidence?

 

[River Jordan]

Not if the industry is for the most part. anti God.

To be honest, it really bothers me to see Christians claim that science and scientists are anti-God. I'm a scientist and I've never once seen anything to indicate that, either during my education or in my career. OTOH, I have seen lots of fundamentalist Christians be anti-science.

they wanted to all line up with the new theory which was started around the time darwin came out with his theory. based on another scientists view that the earth was millions of years old.

That's not true at all. Geologists were moving away from flood geology as early as the late 1700's, and by the early 1800's (before Darwin's Origin of Species) it was settled.

Try and be more careful with claims like that. We Christians are to be truthful in all we do.

it does not mean it is proven however. no one knows how old the earth is. No one was there in the beginning.. so it is all a guess..

If "you have to see it before you can study it" was a rule, forensic science wouldn't exist and we could only convict people of crimes that had eye witnesses.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Present the evidence that the Grand Canyon wasn't formed by the Colorado River eroding the sandstone rocks beneath it.

I gave you one peace of evidence.

The mouth of the river as it enters grand canyon would have had to flow uphill. Carved out the canyon, then come out the other end back down to ocean level.

that goes against science.

 

[River Jordan]

lol.

He has a doctorate. in the science of geology

you just hurt your own cause.. I can't trust you when you make claims like this. it just shows your bias.

Again, that just makes him a college graduate. That he went on to work for a Christian apologetics ministry removes him from the category of "scientist".

so you got a college degree and became a truck driver

he got a college degree, then a masters degree, then a doctorate. and has worked in the field since then

but he is n9t a scientist.

It does not matter who he works for. He works in the field of geology. You may not agree with him, but to say he is not a scientist again, just shows your bias.

To repeat, he works for a Christian apologetics ministry where he agreed to work under an anti-scientific framework. Therefore he is not a scientist.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Gee! I must have missed it. Would it be a goodfella and provide some links to the widespread evidence?

I have given a few

but considering the attitudes I have seen in here. I doubt anyone would change their minds, it appears as if you have all made up your mind.

 

[Frank Robert]

creation scientists.

"creation scientist" is widely considered an oxymoron

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Again, that just makes him a college graduate. That he went on to work for a Christian apologetics ministry removes him from the category of "scientist".

oh so if he went to work for a secular ministry, he would be a scientist.

I am done here my friend, Your bias is overwhelming

Just because he worked for that ministry does not mean he changes science to agree with that view. that is not how science works.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I gave you one peace of evidence.

The mouth of the river as it enters grand canyon would have had to flow uphill. Carved out the canyon, then come out the other end back down to ocean level.

that goes against science.

So why is the upper part of the Grand Canyon, and the Colorado River too, at an elevation of 2875 feet while both end at Lake Mead at 1126 feet of elevation?

If the Grand Canyon couldn't have been formed by the Colorado River, why does the canyon perfectly follow and reflect the meanders of the river?

 

[BCP1928]

sounds like nothing anyone says will change your mind, hence your biased.

Please take your criticisms elsewhere..

Why should creation science be free of criticism in a science forum, a forum in which non-creationists are invited to participate?

 

[BCP1928]

oh so if he went to work for a secular ministry, he would be a scientist.

I am done here my friend, Your bias is overwhelming

Just because he worked for that ministry does not mean he changes science to agree with that view. that is not how science works.

You forgot, we are familiar with his works and can see that's exactly what he does.

 

[River Jordan]

oh so if he went to work for a secular ministry, he would be a scientist.

A secular ministry? What is that?

I am done here my friend, Your bias is overwhelming

So you're not going to say one word about the specific strata in the Grand Canyon, despite how you've presented yourself as an expert? Do you appreciate how bad that makes you, and by extension, our faith look?

I'm embarrassed for you.

Just because he worked for that ministry does not mean he changes science to agree with that view. that is not how science works.

He literally agreed to do exactly that. Everyone who works at AiG does.

 

[dlamberth]

when people say there is no evidence. It is logical to determine they would not believe evidence if you showed them.

Than show us the evidence. That's simple enough.