Neanderthals, Dinosaurs?

Ronald said:

No, you just need 90 million times more water.

Click to expand...

You need water pressure. Does not matter how much water you have if you do not have any water pressure. I use to design sprinkler systems and I needed water pressure to get the job done.

Ronald said:

Nice photos, do you work for National Geographic? Probably not since you missed the story about the Burlingame Canyon carved out in 6 days by water - a smaller version of the Grand Canyon but obviously caused by less water.
When an abrupt cataclysmic flood happens, smooth rocks don't appear, that takes thousands of years.
Massive amounts of water carves out many canyons (if not all) and this powerful water traveled as far up the mountains as life goes, maybe 17k feet? That's over three miles of water. And then of course it descended for many months before the Ark came to rest at about 14k feet on MT. ARARAT.
Remember, it did not all come from the sky, it came from beneath the surface. And very possibly, an asteroid hit around the Gulf of Mexico that not only jarred the earth but created massive waves - able to travel thousands of miles.
A Canyon in Six Days!

Click to expand...

Great Info about the Burlingame Canyon - (no I was not aware of it).

Although yes, I see your point about thousands of years of water to smooth rocks; the pictures from that site of the Burlingame canyon illustrates that the massive amounts of water did carry away loose rock debris basically leaving a "clean" canyon.

Now I suppose it's also possible a similar deluge initially swept through the Grand Canyon; leaving a clean crack in the ground and subsequent millennia leave further weather erosion that rocks break off and slide down the walls of the canyon leaving lots of debris in the Grand Canyon today. Thus the Grand Canyon would have looked very different at its formation than it does today. That's a reasonable theory and I see where that could be true - and/or a combination of earthquake / water deluge being contributing factors in the formation of the Grand Canyon.

Question becomes though: where'd the water go?

And yes, there certainly are places where water does come from within the earth that is not visible from the surface i.e. there's a giant lake under Tennessee.

(Is it under Tennessee? LOL)

Tennessee Caves Hold World's Second Largest Underground Lake - Lake Scientist

I still conclude though that the primary creating force of the Grand Canyon was likely an earthquake. that "tore" the land in the middle. I base that conclusion on the shape and structure of the Little Colorado River Gorge at the south end of the canyon.

My parents and I drove around out there in the early 90's and we followed the river back to the beginning of the gorge. At the end point of the gorge it's only like 3 feet wide and 4 feet deep than the river disappears up into the hills of Arizona.

The Colorado river flows south west; with its origins up in the Rocky Mountains. So if it had been a water deluge that "carved out" the Grand Canyon; either end of the canyons "in / out" would show evidence of that based on what ever direction the water was flowing. We don't see that in the geography of the US though.

The Colorado River empties into the gulf of California and there is a huge delta in Mexico that was allegedly formed from "millions of years of the Colorado River emptying out the Grand Canyon". The only problem with that theory is though there's no delta where the river exits. The only thing that's there is the sheer drop off from the western end of the North American plate into the Pacific plate / Pacific Ocean. The river would have had to make a funny sudden sharp twist south; and that's not evidenced by current geography either.

YET; the "Great Divide" fault line runs strait through the middle of the mid west!

https://wiki--travel.com/detail/north-america-fault-line-map-6.html

Amazing what you find when you put all the pieces of evidence together!

Ronald said:

No, you just need 90 million times more water.

Click to expand...

Of coarse to displace that volume of rock, etc. in the Grand Canyon would take more water and it did.
The point is that the Burlingame Canyon does not prove that the Grand Canyon could have been formed over a short period of time because when you compare the size and volume of the two structures using the B Canyon size, volume, and days it would take the Grand Canyon 1.5 million years to be what we see today.

joshua 1 9 said:

Yes the point is that Adam had a mother and a father. This is not so clear with Eve.

Click to expand...

Funny, the bible that I have says that God made Adam from the dust of the ground and breathed life into him... So.. where was his mother at this point?

joshua 1 9 said:

How long does it take to build a car? Less then a day. Around 17-18 hours if you have all the parts. The question is, how long does it take to make the parts that you use to build a car? Genesis 2:7 "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." How long did it take God to make the dust of the ground that He made man from? According to Science about 12.9 Billion years.

Click to expand...

Oh, I thought He made that on Day Three.

joshua 1 9 said:

My son is a computer engineer. There is a LOT that goes into setting up an factory assembly line. One it is all set up and running, you can make your product pretty fast. I saw a tree company cut down and grind up a 50 year old tree in two or three hours. But how long did it take to make the equipment that they needed to be able to get rid of that tree so fast. They could feed the tree into the grinding machine and get rid of it in maybe 10 or 15 min. There would still be a mess to clean up though.

Click to expand...

My son is also in Computer engineering... He said that the amount of information in the DNA of any organism is so complex of a program that it could not have come by chance.

@lasthero

JacksBratt said:

@lasthero

View attachment 261099
View attachment 261100

Click to expand...

Would you post a link please. Thanks

Halbhh said:

Anyone should be sure to put their faith not in theories people invent about Genesis 1 through 3, but instead in Christ Jesus -- your only hope and the only basis of hope and salvation you can have -- and as He said, to build your house of faith on the rock of hearing and doing as He said (not as people speculate about Genesis, etc.) -- Matthew 7:24-27.

If you do, you won't worry much about speculation A or speculation B, or C, D, E...G...Z29...people have invented about Genesis chapters 1 through 3.

Click to expand...

Can't add anything to that. You nailed it.

joshua 1 9 said:

Adam in the Bible was create on day 8 around 5990 years ago.

Click to expand...

Since all the viewpoints are really theories, based on using assumptions which the people either are aware of, or unaware of, but still use, then here's one aspect I think more people should consider --

Before the fall, Adam had Life (in some sense) in the Garden with the eternal One walking there with him, and with the Tree of Life in the Garden.

That creates the possibility, even the likelihood, that 'time' in the garden was....not at all like ordinary time we know here outside the Garden.

Therefore, an unknown amount of time passed in the outside Earth, while Adam was with God in the Garden with the Tree of Life there.

While a person could try to speculate the amount of time in the outside world was X or Y or Z, it's just not anywhere in scripture I know of, though I'm always happy to hear people's ideas.

In this view, any accounting of number of years from after Adam began ordinary mortal life outside the Garden, after the fall, isn't telling us how long passed in the normal time of our mortal world since Adam was created. As some random examples, a thousand years of ordinary Earth time could have passed before Adam fell, or 10,000, or 190,000, etc.

JacksBratt said:

...

Click to expand...

Halbhh said:

Before the fall, Adam had Life (in some sense) in the Garden with the eternal One walking there with him, and with the Tree of Life in the Garden.

That creates the possibility, even the likelihood, that 'time' in the garden was....not at all like ordinary time we know here outside the Garden.

Click to expand...

Genesis 5 3 When Adam was 130 years old, he had a son in his own likeness, after his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 And after he had become the father of Seth, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 So Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

The Bible is clear about the this. We determine that Adam lived around 5990 years ago based on the genealogies. Also science is reasonably sure that time has been consistent from the beginning.

ilovejcsog said:

How can you say this?

Click to expand...

I say this because of our understanding of DNA. According to science Adam was a real person and Abraham was a real person and a lot of people are descended from them. They are far from holding the record. Genghis Khan holds the record at 16 million descendants. Because ONLY his descendants could own land. Still a lot of people in the middle east are descended from Abraham and Adam.

I can understand you forming your opinion based on reading your Bible. Today we have a lot of additional information that God has give us from Science. So we can use this information to arrive at a more accurate understanding of what we are reading in our Bible. Our understanding of DNA is VERY recent. Most of what we know we have discovered in the last 50 years.

ilovejcsog said:

I imagine that the flood had mostly to do with what the G canyon is now.

Click to expand...

The flood concerning the dinosaurs had to do with plate techno-tics and the break up of the super continent Pangaea. Noah's flood had to do with the creation of the Persian gulf. It is currently believed that the Garden of Eden that we read about in our Bible is under the Persian Gulf.

JacksBratt said:

My son is also in Computer engineering... He said that the amount of information in the DNA of any organism is so complex of a program that it could not have come by chance.

Click to expand...

Frances Collins is the leading expert on DNA. He believes that DNA is the language of God. I even read his book on that subject.

joshua 1 9 said:

Genesis 5 3 When Adam was 130 years old, he had a son in his own likeness, after his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 And after he had become the father of Seth, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 So Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

The Bible is clear about the this. We determine that Adam lived around 5990 years ago based on the genealogies. Also science is reasonably sure that time has been consistent from the beginning.

Click to expand...

I'd guess that like 95% of Christians know that Adam lived something well north of 500 years in the scripture, and that maybe the majority could even say "Over 800" -- it's just common knowledge among Christians, really.

I think it's my fault, my poor writing, that caused you to guess wrongly what I was trying to say. Sorry about that!

joshua 1 9 said:

They would have lived 2,000 years apart. We have to study science and then we can look at our Bible to see what God has done from the beginning. Science helps us to understand our Bible. History helps us to understand our Bible also. The man in Genesis one was created on day 6. Adam in the Bible was create on day 8 around 5990 years ago.

Everything fits if you go by Gerald Schroeder where each day is half the length of the day before. This means you look at everything from the perspective of "In the Beginning". We can not go to the end and look back, we have to go to the beginning and look forward.

Click to expand...

Beam me up Scotty, I think this is the wrong planet and I'd like to go home. Wait a minute, stand by Scotty. JOSHUA, approaching the Bible this way will certainly lead you astray. I can appreciate that you value what Francis Collins says, and in regards to His DNA research, if he figured Adam lived 5990 years ago, I'll agree with that. But chapter 2 is just additional information about chapter 1. It is and has been a Hebrew literary form of communication in which a story or message is outlined in the first paragraph or few pages, then the writer goes back and expounds on it in the following chapter.
A theologian of layman does not refer to science first to understand the Bible. I never heard that from any of them. Scientists will insist that you should, but not spirit-filled Christians. The Bible is spiritually duscerned. And I think that explains the confusion here. I don't really care about the Grand Canyon, I dont accept an old earth story with the TOE as an influence behind it ... well got to go ... Scotty energize.

Neogaia777 said:

If you believe everything in Genesis was literal, or was just about this place only, alone, then your delusional, sorry...

And just forget the fact that has all been proven to be scientifically impossible as well...

Click to expand...

Proven "scientifically impossible" really?

Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered

Now seeing how this is a secular science article; their interpretation of the time line is not a Biblical one; yet - Gee! Look at what science found! That sounds an awful lot like Genesis!

Neogaia777 said:

So, in my mind, there has to another explanation, and just because I may not know right now, what it or that specifically is (though I have a general idea and some theories that go along with them/that), Anyway, it does not mean that you are right and I am wrong, etc, when in fact you have to be wrong in light of the evidence, etc...

Click to expand...

Well at least, you are humble enough to confess that maybe you really don't know the whole truth?

Now the question becomes; what does the Bible tell us about how we are to interpret it? We are suppose to compare Scripture with Scripture. That will tell us how to interpret Genesis; not some theory we concoct in our own minds because we don't like what we are reading!

Yet, "in light of the evidence" depends on how you interpret the evidence you're looking at! I've said this before. At that point it boils down to "world views". What are we going to believe in the light of what the Scripture actually says.

Neogaia777 said:

It just means that I am willing to change and alter my own perceptions in light of the evidence and to go along with the evidence or obvious truth or truths and you are not, so...?

Click to expand...

No, I change my mind base on what I find after digging around in the Scripture. Not "my own perceptions in life of the evidence to go along with" (what I think) "is evidence or obvious truth"

Proverbs 3:
5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil.