Grand Canyon Disproves Creationism

[Almost there]

A lot of pontificating going on regarding opinions based on interpretation of raw facts. From both sides.

It's fun to argue though.

My personal take is catastrophism. Pretty much everyone's is now, regarding geology, the Cambrian explosion, the planets, stars etc.

Uniformitarianism made sense when we had few facts to go on.

 

[Job 33:6]

@KomatiiteBIF

We can have this debate, as many people do all around the world when trying to prove "evolution". Bottom line is that it is not proven. Everything you have brought up is indeed a phenotype, the problem is we do not know the genotype. Unless we know the genotype we cannot say for certain if say Archaeopteryx is genetically as bird or genetically a reptile (dinosaur). So far genetics has demonstrated time and time again that its one species or another but not both. And the genetic differences are so significant that they are not capable of interbreeding. Hence one taxonomic group giving rise to another has not been seen in the genetics, we can make all the ASSUMPTIONS we want about phenotype. The problem still remains the same! "Evolution" is not proven... environmental phenotyipcal observations may be predicative but a bird still gives rise to a bird, a reptile a reptile and so on and so forth. If Archaeopteryx is genetically a bird where did the GENETICS switch? Science cannot prove the genetic portions yet if ever. Hence at best "evolution" is a theory. You cannot prove it here as biologist have not proven it anywhere else. I appreciate your knowledge on the subject, but you can either accept that or you can't, but currently its a fact that "evolution" is not yet proven.

GBTG

Because archaeopteryx has both bird and reptile features, i wouldnt anticipate its DNA being more in line with something like fish, than it would be a bird or reptile. Seems like a common sense approach to the situation. Granted, it is true that phenotype /=/ genotype.

Regardless, I think my points still stand about the predictability and synchronization around genetics and the fossil succession. And I think that this predictability (which does in fact exist), really only makes sense in the context of biological evolution and common descent.

And again, why else would a fish with legs exist after fish but before tetrapods, if it were not a descendant of the fish? From a geologic perspective, it seems straight forward. And if there is a feasible alternative, I would be happy to hear it.

 

[Job 33:6]

I would just add though, its morphological cladistics that make the fossil succession, a succession. Even if we did not know the genetic makeup of an archaeopteryx, or a whale or a platypus, or their ancestors...

The whale is still morphologically more similar to other mammals than it is to fish, so there isnt some bizarre confusion over where whale ancestor fossils would be in the fossil succession. they should be in more recent rocks and deposits, post the onset of mammals. And so whale ancestors are, and their fossil succession and ancestry is post mammal. And, if phenotypic makeup is completely irrelevant to demonstrating common descent, then why wouldn't we find whales in the carboniferous? Or the Ordovician?

Even if we completely ignored genetics, why would, morphologically, a predictable succession of fossils exist?

It only makes sense through evolution and common descent with modification.

 

[GBTG]

Because archaeopteryx has both bird and reptile features, i wouldnt anticipate its DNA being more in line with something like fish, than it would be a bird or reptile. Seems like a common sense approach to the situation. Granted, it is true that phenotype /=/ genotype.

This clearly demonstrates you understanding of genetics.

I would like to offer another perspective on the same progression of speciation, that just so happens to match the fossil record and accords well with the Bible...

Genesis 1:11-13 King James Version (KJV)
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Genesis 1:20-23 King James Version (KJV)
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

The word “whale” here in my opinion is mistranslated from the Hebrew, as the strong concordance number H8577 states that the same word is translated to “dragon or dinosaur” 7 times as often as any other usage. This would shift the timing of the 5th "day" significantly in regard to the amount of time represented in the 5th "day" to the 6th. Additionally "Flyer" (not necessarily fowl), was also used in the Hebrew, which could be pterodactyls and giant insects that are also seen in the fossil record prior to actual (fowl). The translators of the King James version of the bible would have to wait ~220 years before understanding what the Bible was describing. As such I don't fault them the incorrect definition selection.

The KJV translates Strong's H8577 in the following manner: dragon (21x), serpent (3x), whale (3x), sea monster (1x).

Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

I. dragon, serpent, sea monster

A. dragon or dinosaur

B. sea or river monster

C. serpent, venomous snake


And…

Genesis 1:24-31King James Version (KJV)
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Interesting that the 3rd, 5th, and 6th, “days” of creation happen to mirror the 3 major geological era’s of speciation (granted a lot of time passed between the 3rd and 5th "day")?

The Paleozoic Era: First life

The Beginning Of An Explosion Of Life Forms The Paleozoic Era is the beginning of an explosion of life forms. The Cambrian Explosion marks the era with thousands of new life forms in the ancient seas.

The Mesozoic Era: The Age of Dinosaurs

The Mesozoic Era begins where the upheavals of the Permian Extinctions end. A mass extinction at the end of the Permian Period had eliminated most of the species of life that had existed throughout the Paleozoic Era. Sometimes called the Age of Dinosaurs because this era becomes dominated by dinosaurs and reptiles.

The Cenozoic Era: Age of Mammals

The Cenozoic Era is the last and most recent of the geologic periods. Its name means “new life” coming from the Greek root kainos, meaning “new,” and zoic, “life.” While this new life came to refer to mammals-thus coined The Age of Mammals- this new life could have just as easily been the angiosperm or flowering plants, the insects, the newest fish (teleostei) or modern birds. All of these groups, including the mammals, continued to evolve during this present Era.

What's the likelihood that Moses just happened to get the order right thousands of years before any science could prove any of this accurate?

Warm regards, GBTG

 

[The Barbarian]

A lot of pontificating going on regarding opinions based on interpretation of raw facts. From both sides.

It's fun to argue though.

My personal take is catastrophism. Pretty much everyone's is now, regarding geology, the Cambrian explosion, the planets, stars etc.

Uniformitarianism made sense when we had few facts to go on.

Uniformitarianism does not deny catastrophic/discontinuous events. The men who first proposed the theory included such events in their theory. You are perhaps thinking of gradualism.

 

[Almost there]

Uniformitarianism does not deny catastrophic/discontinuous events. The men who first proposed the theory included such events in their theory. You are perhaps thinking of gradualism.

No, but my terminology may be old. This is what I called it in the 70's. I remember learning how the planets gradually formed, and how evolution gradually brought us where we are, among other things, way back in the 1960's.

None of that stuff is considered remotely accurate today. Which makes you wonder, what things are we teaching today that will be scoffed at in a couple of decades.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, but my terminology may be old. This is what I called it in the 70's.

That isn't what scientists meant by "uniformitarianism", ever.

I remember learning how the planets gradually formed, and how evolution gradually brought us where we are, among other things, way back in the 1960's.

None of that is about uniformitarianism, either.

None of that stuff is considered remotely accurate today.

We can see planets forming around new stars. It's not sudden. Likewise, the evolution of humans was not sudden.

 

[Job 33:6]

This clearly demonstrates you understanding of genetics.

I would like to offer another perspective on the same progression of speciation, that just so happens to match the fossil record and accords well with the Bible...

Genesis 1:11-13 King James Version (KJV)
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Genesis 1:20-23 King James Version (KJV)
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

The word “whale” here in my opinion is mistranslated from the Hebrew, as the strong concordance number H8577 states that the same word is translated to “dragon or dinosaur” 7 times as often as any other usage. This would shift the timing of the 5th "day" significantly in regard to the amount of time represented in the 5th "day" to the 6th. Additionally "Flyer" (not necessarily fowl), was also used in the Hebrew, which could be pterodactyls and giant insects that are also seen in the fossil record prior to actual (fowl). The translators of the King James version of the bible would have to wait ~220 years before understanding what the Bible was describing. As such I don't fault them the incorrect definition selection.

The KJV translates Strong's H8577 in the following manner: dragon (21x), serpent (3x), whale (3x), sea monster (1x).

Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

I. dragon, serpent, sea monster

A. dragon or dinosaur

B. sea or river monster

C. serpent, venomous snake


And…

Genesis 1:24-31King James Version (KJV)
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Interesting that the 3rd, 5th, and 6th, “days” of creation happen to mirror the 3 major geological era’s of speciation (granted a lot of time passed between the 3rd and 5th "day")?

The Paleozoic Era: First life

The Beginning Of An Explosion Of Life Forms The Paleozoic Era is the beginning of an explosion of life forms. The Cambrian Explosion marks the era with thousands of new life forms in the ancient seas.

The Mesozoic Era: The Age of Dinosaurs

The Mesozoic Era begins where the upheavals of the Permian Extinctions end. A mass extinction at the end of the Permian Period had eliminated most of the species of life that had existed throughout the Paleozoic Era. Sometimes called the Age of Dinosaurs because this era becomes dominated by dinosaurs and reptiles.

The Cenozoic Era: Age of Mammals

The Cenozoic Era is the last and most recent of the geologic periods. Its name means “new life” coming from the Greek root kainos, meaning “new,” and zoic, “life.” While this new life came to refer to mammals-thus coined The Age of Mammals- this new life could have just as easily been the angiosperm or flowering plants, the insects, the newest fish (teleostei) or modern birds. All of these groups, including the mammals, continued to evolve during this present Era.

What's the likelihood that Moses just happened to get the order right thousands of years before any science could prove any of this accurate?

Warm regards, GBTG

I'd have to ask you when or where it is in Genesis that whales are created then. As they are not things that "creep on the ground", as identified in Genesis 1:24-25. Much like beasts identified in Job, i would think it is stating that God first created creatures of the sea and sky, then creatures of the earth, then mankind.

But even still, mammals predate birds in the fossil succession, so it wouldnt make sense to state that birds came before things that creep upon the land, as birds succeeded morphologically through common descent, from land based creatures.

Genesis 1:20-21 i think is pretty distinct,
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

River monster, sea serpent, leviathan, sea monster, whale, these are words that indicate sea creatures. While mesozoic dinosaurs, well, by definition, dinosaurs are terrestrial. There are no aquatic dinosaurs, just aquatic reptiles like ah, plesiosaurs for example.

So, im not sure that I could agree with your consideration.

I think to understand both Genesis and the fossil succession and/or biologically evolution, the two need to be considered exclusively. An interpretation of the fossil record, I think should be made independently on its own. For example, nobody should read Genesis, and assume that there are hidden bird fossils that predate mammals because birds were described before mammals in scripture. Rather, look at the fossils, and derive its own truth from itself. And scripture also shouldnt be manipulated by what the succession appears to show. We shouldnt try to make genesis say that land animals came before birds, just because mammals and land animals predate birds. It too should be considered independently.

Then once both have been independently analysed, then the comparison can be made

Not that you havent done this, but I just dont think you will gain much support with this interpretation (from hardcore scripture people or science people), and i just dont agree that, derivation of truth should go down the same route as this explanation leads us.

 

[Job 33:6]

Which really, if you think about it, it would make more sense that, if evolution were true, a species which originated from the water, would walk on land before taking to the skies. Just because its easier for something like a fish to find use for land based life (in wet muds where they can stay moist and burrow n such), than for a fish to find easier use of life say...in a tree (dry, hard to reach for any extended period of time etc.). Because a fish cant really get into a tree, but a fish can creep on land (like mudskippers). And this is what is present in the succession as well as in everyday life.

So, it makes more sense that life would go from sea to land then to air. The difficult part would then be to ask, well what does that mean then if scripture appears to state that sea monsters were created, and winged animals, then land animals.

 

[Job 33:6]

@GBTG What im trying to say is, I dont agree with the interpretation of Genesis 20-23, in that it is speaking about the creation of dinosaurs. I think its a stretch. But you know, everyone is entitled to an opinion and an interpretation, so its fine regardless.

 

[The Barbarian]

Which really, if you think about it, it would make more sense that, if evolution were true, a species which originated from the water, would walk on land before taking to the skies. Just because its easier for something like a fish to find use for land based life (in wet muds where they can stay moist and burrow n such), than for a fish to find easier use of life say...in a tree (dry, hard to reach for any extended period of time etc.). Because a fish cant really get into a tree

So, it makes more sense that life would go from sea to land then to air. The difficult part would then be to ask, well what does that mean then if scripture appears to state that sea monsters were created, and winged animals, then land animals.

Mammals evolved before birds, but there were flying creatures long before there were mammals. Dragonflies, for example, were flying long before mammals or even tetrapods appeared.

 

[Job 33:6]

Mammals evolved before birds, but there were flying creatures long before there were mammals. Dragonflies, for example, were flying long before mammals or even tetrapods appeared.

That picture is of a fish on a branch sticking out of water, its not of a terrestrial area. But this still justifies my position in depicting an animal taking to a phyical ground, before the skies. And mudskippers and catfish commonly skip across land from puddle to puddle. What they dont do, is hang out and build nests in trees and glide from tree to tree in terrestrial areas. So i dont think your photo takes away from my point.

It makes more sense that an animal would find use for something like feathers, where they glide through the air with feathers. Rather than trying to glide through water with feathers. Or try to use feathers to help them swim. It makes more sense that birds would come from a terrestrial setting. Because they are more successful and better suited for land than water, even water fowl like geese. Birds dominate in an air medium, not the medium of water or underground. And so, it makes more sense that their most recent origins were in an environment above water and above ground.

But that is a good point that non fowl flyers, non birds, were present, in the skies prior to mammals.

 

[The Barbarian]

That picture is of a fish on a branch sticking out of water, its not of a terrestrial area.

They do indeed come out on land and climb trees.

And mudskippers and catfish commonly skip across land from puddle to puddle. What they dont do, is hang out and build nests in trees and glide from tree to tree in terrestrial areas. So i dont think your photo takes away from my point.

They've evolved limbs to the point that they can move about on ground and climb trees. Yes, they can't fly yet. At present, fish can glide in air, but don't have powered flight.

It makes more sense that an animal would find use for something like feathers, where they glide through the air with feathers.

Only one kind of flying animal uses feathers. Others use membranes over bones. The evidence is that feathers were evolved for heat retention and display, and only later became useful for flight.

 

[Job 33:6]

They do indeed come out on land and climb trees.



They've evolved limbs to the point that they can move about on ground and climb trees. Yes, they can't fly yet. At present, fish can glide in air, but don't have powered flight.

Only one kind of flying animal uses feathers. Others use membranes over bones. The evidence is that feathers were evolved for heat retention and display, and only later became useful for flight.

Ok and...as we can see, the fish there again is in an aquatic environment. Just because an animal might waddle up on a tree branch, sticking out of the water, doesn't make it a terrestrial animal. Its not hanging out in a terrestrial area flying from tree to tree, its skipping from water to water. And it doesnt have feathers, thats right, because feathers wouldnt benefit an aquatic animal in the way that they benefit terrestrial animals. So my point still stands.

There are many features birds have, indicating they are more suited for living on land, than in the sea. And it is sensible to presume that their history before becoming birds, likely was land based, at least in more recent times.

So, if one had to guess, which came first in the fossil succession, land based animals or flying fowl/birds, most people with common sense would say that land based animals would likely have come first (if evolution were true), and low and behold, in the fossil succession, they do.

I think what needs to be pointed out here is that, im making this statement with reference to Genesis. Which appears to be stating that fowl, came prior to land based animals.

 

[Job 33:6]

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Its not like genesis 1:20 is saying that God brought forth fish, oh and flying fish, because thats the only kind of animal that in a round about way could have been said to fly, that existed before land based animals.

Meanwhile, when we think of fowl that my fly above the earth, or other animals that might fly above the earth, typically we think of birds, or if we wanted to stretch it, flying reptiles and flying insects. But even these are more, morphologically suited for land based flying, not flying underwater (if there ever was such a thing). Nobody ever picked up a pterodactyl and said "yup, this was aquatic, I can tell by the density of its bones". And if one had to guess, "if evolution were true, would we find land based reptiles before pterodactyls?", the answer would be yes. And we do. And its common sense that, if evolution were true, birds would have come from land based animals, because they are more similar to land based animals and are more derived for land based life, than aquatic life. So presumably thats where they would have come from.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ok and...as we can see, the fish there again is in an aquatic environment. Just because an animal might waddle up on a tree branch, sticking out of the water, doesn't make it a terrestrial animal.

Oh, it still spends a lot of time in the water. It's just that it also spends a lot of time walking on land, and climbing trees.

And yes, I get your point on why birds would have come from land-based animals.

not flying underwater (if there ever was such a thing).

 

[jamesbond007]

I suppose there are more atheist geology GC trips, damned imho, but for my money I'd take this one. White water rapids. Power of water. Compression. Rapid formation. Fast descent from river level. Sheets of rock never seen before.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon-facts/grand-canyon-nine-days-below-rim/

 

[joshua 1 9]

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.

Right tell that to the people at Oroville dam. They had to deal with the same catastrophic force that created the grand canyon. They were dealing with 12,600 cu ft/s of water pressure.

There is a chance in 2036 that California will have to deal with enough catastrophic force to make Oroville dam look like childs play. Just like Japan had to deal with a lot of catastrophic force from the tsunami there.
giant tsunami waves

 

[The Barbarian]

Right tell that to the people at Oroville dam. They had to deal with the same catastrophic force that created the grand canyon. They were dealing with 12,600 cu ft/s of water pressure.

The evidence shows something quite different. How a "catastrophic force" could produce nearly vertical walls of soft sediment over a mile high or convoluted meanders with walls of soft sediment over a kilometer high is something no one has been able to explain.

Observations at Mt. St. Helens shows that such walls slump after ten meters or so.

 

[Dale]

I suppose there are more atheist geology GC trips, damned imho, but for my money I'd take this one. White water rapids. Power of water. Compression. Rapid formation. Fast descent from river level. Sheets of rock never seen before.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon-facts/grand-canyon-nine-days-below-rim/

There is no such thing as "atheist geology."

There are people who have their eyes open, however.