Ice Age?

[A4C]

MB
There is much evidence that the Grand Canyon is Flood made. Anything else is mere avoidence by those who do not believe there ever was a world Wide Flood 4500 years ago according to the Bible and as referred to by Jesus.
Do you have a mandate to refute the word of God?

Perhaps I could refer you to a good book on the subject of the GC formed by the flood :

Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. Dr Steven A. Austin​

here is it's intro statement​

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Years of field research and information gleaned from different scientists and numerous sources have been combined to explain how the Grand Canyon was formed., from a Biblical Creation standpoint. A wealth of information about geology and biology to equip Christians to defend Genesis, the young Earth and a worldwide Flood.[/font]​

​

​

Perhaps after reading it you will stop insisting that the flood didn't do it​

Perhaps if you are still not satisfied as to how the Grand Canyon was formed you might like to go on a tour organised by a group of Christians who will explain it in detail for you​

Details here​

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

MB
There is much evidence that the Grand Canyon is Flood made. Anything else is mere avoidence by those who do not believe there ever was a world Wide Flood 4500 years ago according to the Bible and as referred to by Jesus.
Do you have a mandate to refute the word of God?

Perhaps I could refer you to a good book on the subject of the GC formed by the flood :

Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. Dr Steven A. Austin
here is it's intro statement


Perhaps after reading it you will stop insisting that the flood didn't do it​

Perhaps after seeing the GC for yourself, you'll realize that a global flood would never have left both sides of the GC intact.

A flood no doubt created GC, however a global flood is indefensible.

 

[A4C]

Perhaps after seeing the GC for yourself, you'll realize that a global flood would never have left both sides of the GC intact.

A flood no doubt created GC, however a global flood is indefensible.

I would be interested how a flood other than the world wide flood would be able to lay down as much sediment that surrounds the GC and then erode such mega cubic miles of it to form evidence we see today. Perhaps you would like to tell us how this happened

 

[notto]

I would be interested how a flood other than the world wide flood would be able to lay down as much sediment that surrounds the GC and then erode such mega cubic miles of it to form evidence we see today. Perhaps you would like to tell us how this happened

I would be interested to know how a global flood could lay down the sediment (including those of chemical rocks) that was hardened into ROCK BEFORE it had such mega cubic miles of it eroded. This doesn't fit a flood model. The evidence points to the sediment hardening and in many cases, being exposed to the atmosphere, wind, and other things (including animals) before it was eroded. The flood model doesn't explain any of this and until it does, it is not a valid model to explain the evidence we see.

How and when did this sediment turn to ROCK before it eroded. The evidence clearly points to the materials being ROCK before they eroded. I know this is a point that A4C has avoided in the past. I wonder if the book he recommends addresses this evidence?

How did the grand canyon form? The same way it is forming today. A river is eroding a canyon through solid rock, slowling but surely. We can see this happening today. Its not really much of a stretch. You can go see it happening yourself today.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I would be interested how a flood other than the world wide flood would be able to lay down as much sediment that surrounds the GC and then erode such mega cubic miles of it to form evidence we see today. Perhaps you would like to tell us how this happened

Not my theory, but yours (YECs).

http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r02.htm

 

[Allister]

The thing that strikes me about this argument is that A4C gives lots and lots of evidence in favour for his worldwide flood theory and he asks others for evidence with respect to their views and theories. A4C insists his evidence is valid and is provable but when evidence is given which contradicts his argument he either 1. ignores it 2. asks people to accept his theories while disregarding theirs or 3. referes to the bible.
now, if A4C's theory is based on provable ideas why does he ignore ideas that have already been proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
asking for evidence implies willingness to accept evidence, clearly A4C is not willing.


if this global flood hypothosis is indeed true is it safe to assume that all the 'soil' laid down after the flood would be in sedimentary layers, laid in a horizontal manner? now, if this is the correct thinking, and assuming that great chunks of rock have never been forced through the ground then why are their sedimentary rocks running vertical?
how is this possible if all sediments were laid down after the flood?

out of curiosity has anyone ever heard of the snowball earth hypothosis?

 

[A4C]

I would be interested to know how a global flood could lay down the sediment (including those of chemical rocks) that was hardened into ROCK BEFORE it had such mega cubic miles of it eroded. This doesn't fit a flood model. The evidence points to the sediment hardening and in many cases, being exposed to the atmosphere, wind, and other things (including animals) before it was eroded. The flood model doesn't explain any of this and until it does, it is not a valid model to explain the evidence we see.

How and when did this sediment turn to ROCK before it eroded. The evidence clearly points to the materials being ROCK before they eroded. I know this is a point that A4C has avoided in the past. I wonder if the book he recommends addresses this evidence?

How did the grand canyon form? The same way it is forming today. A river is eroding a canyon through solid rock, slowling but surely. We can see this happening today. Its not really much of a stretch. You can go see it happening yourself today.

There is only one explanation : The flood laid down the sediment and fossils, it settled and semi hardened over a period (about 1 year), the receeding flood waters eroded the still unhardened sediment causing the various formations you see today, finally only a relative small amount of water flows indeed further eroding solid rock but at a far less rate than the original formation.

Your side is like saying that the slide at the children's playground was once a solid block of steel (or plastic) because we observe that each person using it can be found a miniscule amount of the steel (or plastic) on there clothes . After measuring the rate of use and the amount on the clothes the conclusion could be drawn that the block of steel was put there about 4.5783 billion years ago.
A ridiculous conclusion you would say but no more so than what is taught about the Grand Canyon

 

[JohnR7]

There is only one explanation : The flood laid down the sediment and fossils, it settled and semi hardened over a period (about 1 year), the receeding flood waters eroded the still unhardened sediment causing the various formations you see today, finally only a relative small amount of water flows indeed further eroding solid rock but at a far less rate than the original formation.

What geologist do you have to back this theory up?

 

[A4C]

if this global flood hypothosis is indeed true is it safe to assume that all the 'soil' laid down after the flood would be in sedimentary layers, laid in a horizontal manner? now, if this is the correct thinking, and assuming that great chunks of rock have never been forced through the ground then why are their sedimentary rocks running vertical?
how is this possible if all sediments were laid down after the flood?

Might I suggest that such unconformities arise from undermining a large slab of semi hardened sediment layers during the receeding process The whole slab then either folds down (producing the classical layers bends, or the slab collapses altogether sometimes resting at 90 deg. from it's original orientation.

 

[Allister]

how do sedimentary layers of soil harden within a year?

 

[A4C]

What geologist do you have to back this theory up?

God
Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

 

[Allister]

God?
how scientific.
you're whole argument pinns on the fact that you can prove this hypothosis through reason and science yet you ignore all the scietific evidence.

 

[A4C]

how do sedimentary layers of soil harden within a year?

I said semi hardened Have you ever made a mud ball and looked at it a year later ? In fact I am talking hardened due to compaction (not dryness) under many meters (or hundreds of meters) of other sediment.

 

[A4C]

God?
how scientific.
you're whole argument pinns on the fact that you can prove this hypothosis through reason and science yet you ignore all the scietific evidence.

God is the greatest scientist I know . Not only does He know how things work, He actually designed them and began the production line.

 

[Allister]

I said semi hardened Have you ever made a mud ball and looked at it a year later ? In fact I am talking hardened due to compaction (not dryness) under many meters (or hundreds of meters) of other sediment.

i am no geologist so i cant argue this point. unfortunatly.

Quote:Originally Posted by: Allister God?
how scientific.
you're whole argument pinns on the fact that you can prove this hypothosis through reason and science yet you ignore all the scietific evidence.

God is the greatest scientist I know . Not only does He know how things work, He actually designed them and began the production line.

yes but their is no EVIDENCE for this. (the bible is not evidence)
you claim your ideas are provable and if people researched your ideas they would find them true. people have looked into the evidence you suggest (although not to disporve you but for a desire for truth) and the things they find contradict your theory.
God is not a valid agrument when your argument rests on scientific evidence.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

God
Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

And how praytell does this relate to geology? Perhaps you should explain what Paul meant by this and in what context. Either you are mistaken, or deliberately taking something out of context to bolster your argument. And please don't come back and ask me the context. You laid it out there, now let's hear it.

 

[A4C]

i am no geologist so i cant argue this point. unfortunatly.

Quote:Originally Posted by: Allister God?
how scientific.
you're whole argument pinns on the fact that you can prove this hypothosis through reason and science yet you ignore all the scietific evidence.



yes but their is no EVIDENCE for this. (the bible is not evidence)
you claim your ideas are provable and if people researched your ideas they would find them true. people have looked into the evidence you suggest (although not to disporve you but for a desire for truth) and the things they find contradict your theory.
God is not a valid agrument when your argument rests on scientific evidence.

Proving that a world wide flood happened by repeating it is as impossible as repeating evolution for various reasons, however all that I have done is present an hypothesis just as the theory of ice ages is. Now which one does the evidence line up with -I say the flood . I would expect you to show me that the ice ages does but I have seen very little attempt here to do that.

 

[notto]

There is only one explanation : The flood laid down the sediment and fossils, it settled and semi hardened over a period (about 1 year), the receeding flood waters eroded the still unhardened sediment causing the various formations you see today, finally only a relative small amount of water flows indeed further eroding solid rock but at a far less rate than the original formation.

Your side is like saying that the slide at the children's playground was once a solid block of steel (or plastic) because we observe that each person using it can be found a miniscule amount of the steel (or plastic) on there clothes . After measuring the rate of use and the amount on the clothes the conclusion could be drawn that the block of steel was put there about 4.5783 billion years ago.
A ridiculous conclusion you would say but no more so than what is taught about the Grand Canyon

No, the evidence doesn't point to 'semi-hardened' anything. Limestones (and other chemical) rocks don't 'semi-hardend'. You are again showing your lack of knowledge of both the evidence that presentes itself at the Grand Canyon and geology in general. The eroded conglomerate rocks, chemical rocks, along with the volcanic rock that has eroded shows no sign of being semi-hardened before it was eroded. It was rock, plain and simple. Often, it was rock made up of smaller rocks and sand that had turned to rock once again. We see this in the erosion material we find at the end of the canyon. Your model isn't addressing this evidence but as you show here, you are trying to change (deny) the evidence that it is obvious you are unfamiliar with. Not sure what your slide comment is intending but that is not at all an analogy to how the evidence at the Grand Canyon is interpreted by mainstream geology. Your analogy is more akin to creationists claiming that the volcanic ash 'layers' at Mount Saint Helens tells us anything about the formtion of the Grand Canyon. It is a simplification and is a poor one.

Try again.

 

[A4C]

And how praytell does this relate to geology? Perhaps you should explain what Paul meant by this and in what context. Either you are mistaken, or deliberately taking something out of context to bolster your argument. And please don't come back and ask me the context. You laid it out there, now let's hear it.

The quote was intended for the poster who asked the question of me -not as a comment to support everyone else's concerns

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

...but I have seen very little attempt here to do that.

Of course you're just kidding...right. Oh,... I see... you... are... serious.