The geological evidence of the GC itself indicates otherwise. Of course, there's always the idea that God gave it a fake geological history to fool us...
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The geological evidence of the GC itself indicates otherwise. Of course, there's always the idea that God gave it a fake geological history to fool us...The Grand Canyon is not a product of "geological activity over time."
It occurred in a [pun intended] split second.
And, its always possible that geologists can't really distinguish between 'a little water and a lot of time' and ' a lot of water in a little time.'The geological evidence of the GC itself indicates otherwise. Of course, there's always the idea that God gave it a fake geological history to fool us...
Write an article for peer review if you have other views.And, its always possible that geologists can't really distinguish between 'a little water and a lot of time' and ' a lot of water in a little time.'
given that there was no memoPerhaps Georges Lemaître didn't get the memo?
And the big "If".If you don't like what a scientist called it (primordial atom), then what do you call this "baby universe"?
You can't possibly imagine how little I care about that.Write an article for peer review if you have other views.
If you cant, well then your views dont matter.
And the big "If".
the "If" that rests on a presupposition already refuted.
What I like, does not matter.
What I dont like... again DOES NOT MATTER.
Well, they're the experts and they say there are multiple lines of evidence that indicate it took a very long time to make. So whose word has the most credibility - the many experts in a field of science dedicated to just this kind of study, that have studied it for many years, or some bloke off the internet who believes mythical stories are real?And, its always possible that geologists can't really distinguish between 'a little water and a lot of time' and ' a lot of water in a little time.'
What's in a name? Although it might help if you understand that it bears no relation to what an atom means today or even in Democritus' time. Le Maitre was speculating, and it turns out not to be quite what he speculated.Then I'll go ahead and call it what he called it: Primordial Atom.
I already know your stance on science.You can't possibly imagine how little I care about that.
Well, as Twain said, “A man can’t be comfortable without his own approval.”Well, they're the experts and they say there are multiple lines of evidence that indicate it took a very long time to make. So whose word has the most credibility - the many experts in a field of science dedicated to just this kind of study, that have studied it for many years, or some bloke off the internet who believes mythical stories are real?
As Hume said, “He is happy whom circumstances suit his temper; but he is more excellent who suits his temper to any circumstance.”Well, as Twain said, “A man can’t be comfortable without his own approval.”
What's in a name? Although it might help if you understand that it bears no relation to what an atom means today or even in Democritus' time. Le Maitre was speculating, and it turns out not to be quite what he speculated.
And, its always possible that geologists can't really distinguish between 'a little water and a lot of time' and ' a lot of water in a little time.'
Maybe in the case of the GC there was more water than they can imagine.Well they at least *think* they can.
For example, in contrast to the Grand Canyon of the Colorado, the
Channeled Scablands - Wikipedia
and the
Dells of the Wisconsin River - Wikipedia
come from the catastrophic and sudden draining of Glacial Lakes Missoula and Wisconsin, respectively.
The land forms are quite different than of slowly carved canyons.
Maybe in the case of the GC there was more water than they can imagine.
My point was that the geologists know the difference and that the Grand Canyon is clearly a slowly formed gash in the rock and it eroded slowly (ie, not in a flood). Any attempt to counter argue that enters into fantasy geology or requires a deity to form the canyon quickly in a shape that *looks* like it took a long time.
Why didn't the Mississippi River do the same thing?
And then there was Mount St. Helens, which was observable and on a much lesser scale than the Biblical Flood:
RAPID EROSION AT MOUNT ST. HELENS
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?