Jump to content


Photo

National Geographic Entertains Spill-over


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
46 replies to this topic

#21 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 October 2009 - 12:20 AM

Ikester,

Did you also notice how the wear just above the water line is greater than the wear on the walls?

View Post


Yep, the difference between flood wear (above the water line).
And river wear (at the water line and about a foot or so above it).

But evolutionists will put on blurry glasses and claim they cannot see what we are talking about.

You want to know a test that would prove a flood created canyon? If someone would go to the canyon. Take a picture of the layers (a top portion) and blow it up to life size (the real size of each layer). Then take a core sample that is so many inches down (matching the the inches of the picture). Grind the rocky sand into just sand from the core sample. And then see if water will sort the layers in the same order already laid out in the picture. Which will prove that the layers were sorted by water, and not from the earth aging Geologic column. Because how would evolutionists explain away that water some how sorts the layers in the same order as age?

Maybe we can raise some money and send someone out to do this?

With all due respect to evolutionists...
Of course if any evolutionists wants to know the truth about this, they can also do this and see. But I think I know the answer to that question. For it is better to claim the river carved that Canyon, and sell the idea to the masses, than it is to actually prove it.

I have no fear of the truth.

#22 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 October 2009 - 04:23 PM

Yep, the difference between flood wear (above the water line).
And river wear (at the water line and about a foot or so above it).

But evolutionists will put on blurry glasses and claim they cannot see what we are talking about.

You want to know a test that would prove a flood created canyon? If someone would go to the canyon. Take a picture of the layers (a top portion) and blow it up to life size (the real size of each layer). Then take a core sample that is so many inches down (matching the the inches of the picture). Grind the rocky sand into just sand from the core sample. And then see if water will sort the layers in the same order already laid out in the picture. Which will prove that the layers were sorted by water, and not from the earth aging Geologic column. Because how would evolutionists explain away that water some how sorts the layers in the same order as age?

Maybe we can raise some money and send someone out to do this?

With all due respect to evolutionists...
Of course if any evolutionists wants to know the truth about this, they can also do this and see. But I think I know the answer to that question. For it is better to claim the river carved that Canyon, and sell the idea to the masses, than it is to actually prove it.

I have no fear of the truth.

View Post



All due respect and etc, have you ever read any original research papers about the grand canyon? Or done any field work? Taken a geology course?

The best people to ask are often the ones who have spent the most time in the field. Dont call him a cowboy till ya see him ride, as we say out west.

If any creationists want to know the truth about things, they could do some original research, or, read some research papers. Speculation about photos wont do it.

The easiest perspn to fool is likely ourselves; and everyone needs to look out that they are just seeing what they want to see. Dont you think so?

The last thing for a scientist to fear is "the truth". Any that I have known and that is a lot, being around University / college / college people all my life really... all of them say about the same thing, that what got them into research was curiosity, a wish to know what things are and how they work.

A new discovery is great news, not something to fear.

I wonder tho... if somehow the grand canyon was utterly proven to be say ten million years old. Is that something for Christians to fear? Id hope not. Id hope Christianity is more robust than that.


As for myself. if it were determined that the grand canyon was the product of a world wide flood a few thousand years ago, that would amount to the greatest scientific discovery of all time. I would be awed, amazed, fascinated, excited.
What is to fear? It might be the best news i ever got.

Im not out looking to see what I want to see or try to prove some predetermined idea.

#23 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 01 November 2009 - 09:48 PM

All due respect and etc, have you ever read any original research papers about the grand canyon?  Or done any field work?  Taken a geology course?

The best people to ask are often the ones who have spent the most time in the field.  Dont call him a cowboy till ya see him ride, as we say out west.

If any creationists want to know the truth about things, they could do some original research, or, read some research papers.  Speculation about photos wont do it.

The easiest perspn to fool is likely ourselves; and everyone needs to look out that they are just seeing what they want to see.  Dont you think so?

The last thing for a scientist to fear is "the truth".  Any that I have known and that is a lot, being around University / college / college people all my life really... all of them say about the same thing, that what got them into research was curiosity, a wish to know what things are and how they work.

A new discovery is great news, not something to fear.

I wonder tho... if somehow the grand canyon was utterly proven to be say ten million years old.  Is that something for Christians to fear? Id hope not.  Id hope Christianity is more robust than that.
As for myself.  if it were determined that the grand canyon was the product of a world wide flood a few thousand years ago, that would amount to the greatest scientific discovery of all time.  I would be awed, amazed, fascinated, excited.
What is to fear?  It might be the best news i ever got.

Im not out looking to see what I want to see or try to prove some predetermined idea.

View Post

So why not discuss the evidence?

#24 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2009 - 03:01 PM

So why not discuss the evidence?

View Post



There is no 'flood" evidence to discuss.

#25 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 02 November 2009 - 09:05 PM

There is no 'flood" evidence to discuss.

View Post

Denial cannot erase the evidence or the threads in which it's already been discussed.

#26 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 November 2009 - 11:51 PM

There is no 'flood" evidence to discuss.

View Post


Really, then how do you explain the Grand Canyon. Are you suggesting the Colorado river cut those valleys out of that mountain range over millions of years?

#27 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 November 2009 - 11:53 PM

Really, then how do you explain the Grand Canyon. Are you suggesting the Colorado river cut those valleys out of that mountain range over millions of years?

View Post

Er. Yes. (sure, you weren't asking me, but still.)

#28 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 14 November 2009 - 07:01 AM

Hey! The textbooks say the canyon was formed over millions of years. Case closed! :lol:

#29 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 15 November 2009 - 12:34 AM

Really, then how do you explain the Grand Canyon. Are you suggesting the Colorado river cut those valleys out of that mountain range over millions of years?

View Post



Okay what is so surprising about that?

You act as if you don't think that water could cut down through a mountain in any amount of time.

I'm guessing that you would rather believe that there was a great basin of water that went over a spill-way and then down cut through all that granite in a few moments.

Wait a minute...

Your argument against the colorado river cutting down is impossible, then it would mean any amount of water could not do it.

Simply because the amount of water flowing in the millions of years would easily equal the amount of water possible in that supposed basin. Actually it would probably surpase it multiple times. So yeah not even the flood could do it.

Either it was always there, or it was cut by water. If it was cut by water then it could have been done in the millions of years that it took, or it could have been done in a few moments.

So my question is this. Can you point me to any evidence to show that the entire world was underwater at the same time?

Larry doesn't think so, but then again I know he isn't the final say on Creation.

Check out his post 13

#30 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 November 2009 - 05:48 AM

Er.  Yes.  (sure, you weren't asking me, but still.)

View Post


So water can flow up hill, over mountains, for millions of years, in order to cut down through those mountains (over millions of years)?

#31 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 November 2009 - 06:03 AM

Okay what is so surprising about that?

View Post


Quite a lot actually, but we’ll hopefully get to that later

You act as if you don't think that water could cut down through a mountain in any amount of time.

View Post

I never said that. So please don’t deduce a false accusation, or insert a false premise into the simple question I asked. (I kept it simple for a reason. )

I'm guessing that you would rather believe that there was a great basin of water that went over a spill-way and then down cut through all that granite in a few moments.

View Post


Sorry, but that wasn’t part of the question. Nor was your assumptive presupposition into my simple question.

Wait a minute...

View Post


Ahhh, the sarcastic moment for emphasis just prior to your attempted point

Your argument against the colorado river cutting down is impossible, then it would mean any amount of water could not do it.

View Post

Nope, once again, you are assuming and presupposing way ahead of yourself. While all along, you could have simply answered the question.

Simply because the amount of water flowing in the millions of years would easily equal the amount of water possible in that supposed basin.  Actually it would probably surpase it multiple times.  So yeah not even the flood could do it. 

View Post

Again, your assumption is incorrect. And had you simply answered the question, your muddy logic would have had a clearer vision to reason with.

Either it was always there, or it was cut by water.  If it was cut by water then it could have been done in the millions of years that it took, or it could have been done in a few moments.

View Post


No argument there Javabean. But, again, you are way ahead of yourself in your assumption.

So my question is this.  Can you point me to any evidence to show that the entire world was underwater at the same time?

View Post


It wasn’t a part of the simple question that only required a simple answer. And, apart from your enthusiasm for presupposition (that you read into my simple question), you might have actually been able to see where this was going.

#32 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 November 2009 - 06:04 AM

Hey! The textbooks say the canyon was formed over millions of years. Case closed! :P

View Post


:lol:

#33 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 15 November 2009 - 08:49 AM

So water can flow up hill, over mountains, for millions of years, in order to cut down through those mountains (over millions of years)?

View Post



No one ever postulated that water flows up hill. Looking at Topographical maps of the grand canyon will show where the water came from to form it.

#34 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 15 November 2009 - 09:02 AM

I never said that. So please don’t deduce a false accusation, or insert a false premise into the simple question I asked.  (I kept it simple for a reason. )


I apologize for deducing a false accusation, but It did seem like your question had an air of incredulity to it. So I simply reacted to that. I see that in a later post you were more concerned with the idea of water flowing up hill.

Ahhh, the sarcastic moment for emphasis just prior to your attempted point


It wasn't meant to be sarcastic, but more of a flow of thought as I responded to your post. Although I do love sarcasm from time to time, and its possible I use it too much.

Unfortunately most of my friends can't tell if I'm being sarcastic or not. I'll remember to edit my posts a little more before I post them.

Nope, once again, you are assuming and presupposing way ahead of yourself. While all along, you could have simply answered the question.


You are correct, i failed to answer the actual question asked. I pointed out in a round about way that you need the water to cut it down.

It wasn’t a part of the simple question that only required a simple answer. And, apart from your enthusiasm for presupposition (that you read into my simple question), you might have actually been able to see where this was going.

View Post


Simple questions often have profound meaning and results.

#35 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 November 2009 - 10:41 AM

I apologize for deducing a false accusation, but It did seem like your question had an air of incredulity to it.  So I simply reacted to that.  I see that in a later post you were more concerned with the idea of water flowing up hill.
It wasn't meant to be sarcastic, but more of a flow of thought as I responded to your post.  Although I do love sarcasm from time to time, and its possible I use it too much. 

Unfortunately most of my friends can't tell if I'm being sarcastic or not.  I'll remember to edit my posts a little more before I post them.
You are correct, i failed to answer the actual question asked.  I pointed out in a round about way that you need the water to cut it down. 
Simple questions often have profound meaning and results.

View Post


Thanks for your honesty Javabean. I was asking a simple, unpretentious question. That was all :lol:

#36 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 November 2009 - 12:12 PM

No one ever postulated that water flows up hill.  Looking at Topographical maps of the grand canyon will show where the water came from to form it.

View Post


Actually, if you postulate that the Colorado River cut the Grand Canyon out of that mountain range, you are postulating that water flows up-hill. Because, if you look "at Topographical maps of the grand canyon" you'll soon notice that the top of the Canyon is around 4,000ft higher than where the Colorado River enters the Grand Canyon.

And it doesn't matter how many millions or billions of years you posit, it would still be a miracle.

#37 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 November 2009 - 01:33 PM

So water can flow up hill, over mountains, for millions of years, in order to cut down through those mountains (over millions of years)?

View Post

Nobody said it did. If, millions of years ago, the top of the grand canyon were still higher than the ends, then yes, that would be slightly more loony. But nobody was suggesting that.

#38 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 November 2009 - 01:47 PM

Nobody said it did.  If, millions of years ago, the top of the grand canyon were still higher than the ends, then yes, that would be slightly more loony.  But nobody was suggesting that.

View Post


When you make the assertion, you have to accept ALL the parameters that come with it :lol:


I always thoroughly enjoy the inference of speculation whenever the word IF is used, as if it holds any kind if authority. There are no facts to suggest that either end of those mountains are much different than they are today (let alone all the height in between the two ends).

Also, if you want to play the if game, so... What if the top of those mountains were even higher than they are now? That would make it even a greater miracle!!

But none of this changes the fact that the river entering the canyon is around around 4,000ft lower than the area that it (the river) would have had to start cutting the canyon.

So, yes, postulating the Colorado cutting the canyon through those mountains infers the miracle of water flowing "up-hill" to do so.

#39 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 15 November 2009 - 03:06 PM

Actually, if you postulate that the Colorado River cut the Grand Canyon out of that mountain range, you are postulating that water flows up-hill. Because, if you look "at Topographical maps of the grand canyon" you'll soon notice that the top of the Canyon is around 4,000ft higher than where the Colorado River enters the Grand Canyon.

And it doesn't matter how many millions or billions of years you posit, it would still be a miracle.

View Post



Water also has the habit of going underground when that is the easiest path to take. So it can under-cut mountains if the topography makes it so.

#40 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 15 November 2009 - 03:07 PM

Thanks for your honesty Javabean. I was asking a simple, unpretentious question. That was all  :lol:

View Post



You are welcome Ron! I try to make amends when I made a mistake. :P




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users