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.
Now, could the Grand Canyon be a result of this violent breakage instead of rushing water leaving the desert? Absolutely...either way, the Flood is behind it....not billions of years.
The rocks at the bottom of it, though, are billions of years old. Perhaps that's where the confusion comes from.A) there is no evidence of "violent breakage" associated with the Grand Canyon
B) The pattern, distribution of the pattern, erosion, and deposition, indicate that the agent generating the Grand Canyon was water.
C) Who said "billions of years" for the Grand Canyon? That feature is somewhere on the order of 10-15 million years old.
The rocks at the bottom of it, though, are billions of years old. Perhaps that's where the confusion comes from.
Evolution is a theory and is taught as such. No other hypothesis has anywhere near the amount of evidence that evolution has, and so it is taught alone. There is no hidden agenda behind a theory.The law of gravity and the theory of evolution do not have the same scientific backing and proof, but teachers teach both as fact.
I am all for teaching science, but not worldviews hiding behind the mask of science.
A) there is no evidence of "violent breakage" associated with the Grand Canyon
B) The pattern, distribution of the pattern, erosion, and deposition, indicate that the agent generating the Grand Canyon was water.
C) Who said "billions of years" for the Grand Canyon? That feature is somewhere on the order of 10-15 million years old.
The rocks at the bottom of it, though, are billions of years old. Perhaps that's where the confusion comes from.
I believe the focus was on consensus.Uhhh.... No. Thalidomide did not have over a century of research behind it.
There is no confusion...jpcedotal just couldn't care less about all this "evidence" stuff, or how old the Grand canyon is.
I believe the focus was on consensus.
It is not science, it is a worldview...a popular opinion...
I do not want Creationism taught in schools either btw. No, religion should be taught in school, unless it is taught as a relgion
The Grand Canyon was formed by a large quantity of water rushing back to the depths of the earth,
So did Thalidomide.
The focus was on "what's science", and yes, that involves consensus. The scientific consensus is sometimes wrong (whether it was in the case of thalidomide I neither know nor care.) So what? No one -- certainly no scientist -- is stupid enough to think that science is infallible. That science has gotten things wrong has absolutely nothing to do with whether evolution is science.I believe the focus was on consensus.
If this is true then that is a very sad commentary on science. From what I know about science they tend not to be able to deliver on what they say they can deliver on.
Another claim made with no evidence, and mountains of evidence demonstrating that it is wrong. Who do you think you are convincing by making empty assertions that flie in the face of fact?
One thing to remember, it did not rain before the Flood.
Another empty assertion with no evidence to back it.
Now, could the Grand Canyon be a result of this violent breakage instead of rushing water leaving the desert?
I'm still baffled as to what it means about "waters of the deep" anyways. Some mysterious ocean in the crust of the Earth that is larger than the reservoir of the oceans combined?
In the olden times rock was able to float on water, or so it appears.
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?