Grand Canyon Created During Biblical Noah's Flood?

[Liv]

a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces...

“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,”

Source

Been to the Grand Canyon. Big hole. Guess it's now officially God's drainage ditch to hell!

[RebelSnake]

This is just wrong.

[BecauseHeLives]

I suppose it wouldn't make a lot of sense that a canyon could be created by water running uphill.

[A Person]

What a curious statement. Perhaps you would care to elucidate.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces...

“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology”

I guess the next step will be to forbid NASA to state that the Earth isn't the center of the Universe...

[Liv]

God or no God, it's a damn nice hole.

[BecauseHeLives]

God or no God, it's a damn nice hole.

There is no such thing as a hole. Only the absence of something.

[A Person]

Like an explanation for your comment:

I suppose it wouldn't make a lot of sense that a canyon could be created by water running uphill.

[BecauseHeLives]

Like an explanation for your comment:

I suppose it wouldn't make a lot of sense that a canyon could be created by water running uphill.

I think you know exactly where I'm going with this so why play the games?

[BecauseHeLives]

well I'm lost. Someone explain it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... /flood.asp

[PotatoStew]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC365_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC365.html

[A Person]

I was wondering if you knew enough basic geology about it to explain it in your own words. However clearly you don't since you didn't even link to the right article. This is the article I assume you meant to link to:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... canyon.asp

The North Rim of the Canyon is over 8,000 feet (2,500 m) high! For the Colorado River to carve the Canyon, it would first have to hack its way half a mile (over 700 m) uphill! Water just doesn’t do that, especially when there’s the opportunity to flow downhill in a different direction.

Your article is an attempt to discount the occurrence of wind-deposited sediments with land dwelling dinosaur tracks in the middle of sediments supposedly laid down by a flood.

There's not much point in trying to rebut the article since you don't know enough geology to even find the right one.

[BecauseHeLives]

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/gr-canyn.html
http://www.rae.org/bits16.htm
http://creationwiki.org/Grand_Canyon_wa ... ood_waters
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... canyon.asp

[BecauseHeLives]

There's not much point in trying to rebut the article since you don't know enough geology to even find the right one.

I sense a little arrogance in your post. Maybe you should have somebody check that out for you.

[A Person]

The suggestion that the Grand Canyon could be deposited and then carved out in one or two years a few thousand years ago is so ridiculous that it's on the intellectual level of claiming that angels push the planets around.

It takes no intellectual capacity at all to post a few links without reading or understanding them. So far you have displayed no capacity to argue or discuss any scientific position. Please prove me wrong.

The mathematics of slope stability are well developed. Try to model a slope of an unconsolidated, saturated sediment (including the peizometric effects on shear strength as a result of rapid drawdown) and you'll find that you cannot get a slope of anything close to that of the Grand Canyon, for more than a height of a meter or so. Anything more than that and the slope will simply fail and slump to form a slope of something around 35 degrees.

Mining would be a lot easier and more profitable if you could.

Maybe you should look at the 'canyon' of Mount St Helens and compare it with the Grand Canyon (I have). Even allowing for the St Helens sediments not being saturated, the morphology is very different. Now consider that slopes are not linearly scalable (that darned square-cubed law) and you'll get some idea of how silly the suggestion is to anyone with a basic knowledge of the subject and why ICR and AiG have no scientific credibility.

If this sounds arrogant then so be it, please prove me wrong by presenting a logical argument.

[RebelSnake]

We've done Noah's flood before here
http://greensboring.com/viewtopic.php?t=1406
This explanation has the ring of truth to it. A Person, how do you view this particular scenario?

[A Person]

Which particular explanation in that thread were you referring to?

The global Noah's flood is so completely contradicted by visible evidence and so completely lacking in supporting evidence that it (and the idea of a young earth) was dropped as soon as geology began to be studied (by Christian scientists).

Walt Brown's hydroplate hypothesis is ingenious but silly. Simple analysis of the energy exchanges, rock strengths, continental galloping etc. shows that a) it could not happen and b) if it did Noah would be boiled.

It's rather like taking an almost complete jigsaw puzzle of a scene in Holland, and armed with scissors, glue and a hammer making a picture of Jesus' face. The facts that the pieces don't fit together, there are more holes than picture and looking closely at the face reveals tulips and windmills are then ignored. When you point out that the Holland scene is a better fit, they point out that not all the pieces are fitted yet and that this particular piece here might be in the wrong place.

I'll be happy to discuss any particular aspects of the evidence with anyone prepared to put them in their own words and prepared to discuss and learn. But a link to the ICR can only be met with a corresponding link to talk origins without entering the brains of either.

So if BHL would like to ask a specific question I'll do my best to explain it politely and explain why this piece seems to be a windmill, not Jesus' bow tie.

[RebelSnake]

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

Columbia University geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman wondered what could explain the preponderance of flood legends. Their theory: As the Ice Age ended and glaciers melted, a wall of seawater surged from the Mediterranean into the Black Sea.

I was refering to this particular theory.

[iamlookingup]

Check out http://www.sixdaycreation.com

The gentleman who runs that website lives in Greensboro, and from what I can tell, he's not boring.

BTW...why do YOU think Greensboro is "boring"? I've lived here for 26 years, and while it's no NYC, neither is it lacking activity. Be PROUD of your city! Don't put it down!

[Liv]

Check out http://www.sixdaycreation.com

The gentleman who runs that website lives in Greensboro, and from what I can tell, he's not boring.

BTW...why do YOU think Greensboro is "boring"? I've lived here for 26 years, and while it's no NYC, neither is it lacking activity. Be PROUD of your city! Don't put it down!

I would, but I already paid the domain up for a few years, sorry.

[RebelSnake]

Check out http://www.sixdaycreation.com

Typical creationist fantasy. Only thing this site is good for is a good laugh.

[A Person]

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

Columbia University geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman wondered what could explain the preponderance of flood legends. Their theory: As the Ice Age ended and glaciers melted, a wall of seawater surged from the Mediterranean into the Black Sea.

I was refering to this particular theory.

AT present I'd classify that as a hypotheses rather than a theory. The big problem is that it doesn't satisfy the biblical requirement for a flood that covered the entire earth. If one is prepared to accept that Noah's flood was regional, not global,
then there are several candidates. But then you'd have to acknowledge that Genesis is not (edit ) actually literally true.

One thing that puzzles me about flood apologists is the concept that if it's NOT mentioned in the Bible then it could have happened.
Walt Brown has huge volumes of rocks ejectected high in the atmosphere and crashing down on Earth, continents sliding around at stupendous speeds (the same continents that are he claims are made of sediments eroded and deposited by the flood) Several hundred miles in a few days?

All the mountain ranges were then formed causing the Earth to roll 35-40 degrees. (Just for fun calculate the inertial forces)

This was then followed by an ice age that carved the glacial features of Canada and Northern Europe.

But the Bible doesn't even hint at any of this. In the day that

As the crack raced around the earth, the 10-mile-thick crust opened like a rip in a tightly stretched cloth. Pressure in the subterranean chamber immediately beneath the rupture suddenly dropped to nearly atmospheric pressure. This caused supercritical water to explode with great violence out of the 10-mile-deep “slit” that wrapped around the earth like the seam of a baseball.

Noah loads all the animals onto the ark. It then rains - no "huge rocks came crashing from the sky". Then "The waters prevailed upon the earth" not "boiling water fell to earth" and "huge waves the size of mountains"

Just a simple "The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained" Not "Great mountains were thrust from the bowels of the Earth" or "The stars of the sky moved so that the Seven stars were no longer in the North but in the East"

Instead we have a lot of detail about how Noah went forth, killed and burned a few precious animals, planted a vineyard, made wine and got drunk - in the middle of an Ice Age?

Which is why I think that fundamentalists should forget about trying to pretend it's science and simply say "It was a miracle, God can do anything He wants"

[RebelSnake]

The big problem is that it doesn't satisfy the biblical requirement for a flood that covered the entire earth. If one is prepared to accept that Noah's flood was regional, not global,
then there are several candidates. But then you'd have to acknowledge that Genesis is actually literally true.

A lot of myths do have a kernel of truth buried deep in their core. And I don't see Noah's flood being any different. When all the ice started melting after the last ice age and the ocean levels started rising, forcing the waters of the Mediterranean across the Bosporus into the Black Sea, I can only imagine the terror of the people caught in the rising waters with no where to go fast enough to escape drowning. I see this as a real life explanation of the Noah myth that ancient people understandably attributed to an unseen deity.

[Sanjuro]

What really ticks me off is they have been forced to place that kids book in the canyon's giftshop.. "Formation of the Grand Canyon-A Christian's view"

A federally funded, parks service operated, naturally formed location that is pushing a religious agenda?? What happened to seperation of church and state?

I've been there, not sure how many of you actually have. I imagine quite a few. I can't believe that there would be anyone who has actually visited this place, that wouldn't be taken aback by its sheer size and grandeur. Just to walk the trails is proof enough it took a LONG LONG time to carve out. To say it happened in mere days or a couple thousand years is shouting ignorance into the wind of obviousness.

.

[A Person]

Just to walk the trails is proof enough it took a LONG LONG time to carve out.

The proof is in the variety of paleoenvironments exhibited in the various strata. 1st year undergraduate geology explains that a geologist must seek to recognize and explain the paleoenvironment under which the deposit was formed. Water or wind, estuarine mudflat, deep ocean, warm shallow sea, riparian, aerobic or non aerobic, fossils in a biocenose or transported. There is a huge difference between a bone or shell pile from transported remains and a biocenose. A geologist that cannot do that is not likely to graduate.

The Canyon has a variety of paleoenvironments and biocenose which demonstrate that there had to be time (lots) for these to develop.

I have edited my post above "But then you'd have to acknowledge that Genesis is actually literally true." should of course say "But then you'd have to acknowledge that Genesis is not actually literally true."