Grand Canyon, seriously? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Grand Canyon, seriously?


GreenDrake
06-15-2012, 06:59
What is it that religions instill in people that makes them believe that with all the sedimentary layers, uplift, fossil data, erosion and physical proof that the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years....they doubt that it happened?

I was helping my neighbor moving some rocks yesterday and a chunk of granite broke off, I inspected it and mentioned the beautiful swirls of layers along with the mica schist embedded in it. He immediately stated that it's like the Grand Canyon where people thing that it was formed over millions of years when it was formed in one great rush of water from the flood...really?

I guess I just don't get how a person can have such a belief that flies in the face of every aspect of the physical and geological sciences to refute such a wonder of time and erosion.

Syclone538
06-15-2012, 07:55
I've seriously read the argument that god made it because water wouldn't flow uphill otherwise.

Woofie
06-15-2012, 08:46
There's no changing a person who wants to remain ignorant.

FCoulter
06-15-2012, 08:58
Its because most so called christians dont know how to read Gen.

Gen. Clearly along with other scripture tells us the earth can be millions of yrs old.


When God created adam is not the time period the earth was orginally created.


Gen. Tells us the earth was void and without form. The hebrew words here means the earth was chaotic.


Does nyone think God created the earth chaotic?


The Bible s clearly how the earth became chaotic long before adam.

Gunhaver
06-15-2012, 09:32
They sit and soak up misinformation from people that take a few little facts and twist them around to support that silly idea while calling the folks that know several orders of magnitude more about the subject stupid. Happens with geology, paleontology, evolution, biology, radiometric dating, and any other science that counters the myths they'd rather believe.

Blast
06-15-2012, 10:20
I believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

I believe the "Big Bang" (actually inflation) theory is a good logical theory though it is based on circumstantial evidence. The universe is expanding so it is logical to assume it originated at a central point, there is a backround "hum" everywhere thought to be the echo of the inflation. However it is possible that "hum" might actually be dark energy which is accelerating the expansion.
Incidently, there is not enough matter in the visible universe to account for why the universe doesn't fly apart. So there must be a source for the extra gravity that holds the universe together. Scientists have dubbed this "dark matter". Again, logical theory even though no dark matter has been directly observed and identified. Although, some distant galaxies appear distorted due to gravitational lensing which no visible object can account for the phenomenon. This may be caused by swaths of dark matter scattered about.
I also believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old(current estimate. In the early 70's, the universe was thought to be 8 billion years old because the most distant object, a galaxy 8 billion light years away was detected. I even remember an article in the newspaper about it. Wasn't even a quasar.
Oh, and a quasar is the super intense energy regurgitating from a supermassive black hole feeding on stars and gas at the center of young galaxy.
I believe the universe is older than current estimate. As technology advances, we will see further and therefore the universe "ages" more.
The estimated size of the universe is about 156 billion light years across, but we can see only out to 13.7 billion light years currently giving an overall size of about 27.4 billion lights years across.
Hell, prior to 1924, scientists thought the entire universe was the Milky Way galaxy until Edwin Hubble with a new telescope determined what was thought to be nebulae turned out to be galaxies. Imagine that.
The earth is 4.5 billion years old. I am well familiar with geology. Plate tectonics shape the surface of the planet.
Volcanos, earthquakes, folding, faulting, etc.
I can go on and on in many scientific fields.

I also am deeply into psychology and philosophy, and I'm seeing more frustration, anxiety, and false superiority complexes from some of the atheists in here.

Personally, I do not know any Christians or Jews who are "Young Earthers".

ranger1968
06-15-2012, 10:30
Tell him that he has no idea what he's talking about, since granite is an igneous rock, formed through fire as lava, and the shale/ sandstone etc of the Grand Canyon is sedimentary rock, formed through time and layering of deposited materials....

Just sayin'........

Kingarthurhk
06-15-2012, 10:57
Its because most so called christians dont know how to read Gen.

Gen. Clearly along with other scripture tells us the earth can be millions of yrs old.


When God created adam is not the time period the earth was orginally created.


Gen. Tells us the earth was void and without form. The hebrew words here means the earth was chaotic.


Does nyone think God created the earth chaotic?


The Bible s clearly how the earth became chaotic long before adam.

By that argument, you wouldn't need to keep the Sabbath. It would happen every eon or so.

Batesmotel
06-15-2012, 10:58
Personally, I do not know any Christians or Jews who are "Young Earthers".

Who am I to force my poor, mortal understanding of time on God? I believe the creative "days" spoken of in the bible are figuratively "creative periods". They could have taken billions of years.

To me it is a non issue to my faith. The actual age of the earth has nothing to do with living by the principals taught in the scriptures. I doubt geography will be on the test at the pearly gate.:supergrin:

God is not a God of confusion. He wants us to tease out the mysteries of the universe. He wouldn't create the world in six, 24 hour, earthly days and make it look old to confuse us. The earth looks old because it is old.

If it is an issue with my salvation, when I meet God, if I am worthy, I will ask him.

English
06-15-2012, 11:35
double post

English
06-15-2012, 11:40
I've seriously read the argument that god made it because water wouldn't flow uphill otherwise.

It weems obvious enough. If God drew the map of North America and then absent mindedly put high ground in the way of a big river, the sensible thing to do was excavate a route for it and charge it to unforseen exigencies. Construction companies do it all the time. He probably had a get out clause in His contract.

English

PS This probably explains all those geological strata. He had to get the stuff from somewhere to build up all that depth. To start off it was easy with nice clean stuff but then he got an infection of life and in no time at all, on a Godly scale, he had shell fish and other things messing up the purity of his geological creation. After a while of trying to sanitise it he probably gave it up as a bad job and moved on to something else.

FCoulter
06-15-2012, 12:14
By that argument, you wouldn't need to keep the Sabbath. It would happen every eon or so.

Sometimes I wonder why you respond, I guess you just like to make people laugh.

Woofie
06-15-2012, 12:18
Personally, I do not know any Christians or Jews who are "Young Earthers".

I do.

Syclone538
06-15-2012, 12:42
...
Personally, I do not know any Christians or Jews who are "Young Earthers".

I don't know if I know any in person, but I've argued with some on a state based liberty forum. The argument pretty much completely killed the forum. I and all the other atheists should have just avoided the topic completely there. Now the whole forum gets about 1 post a month.

GreenDrake
06-15-2012, 14:16
We have a majority here. Many folks in my neighborhood are fundie level christian, some so much that their kids can't even play Skylanders on the Wii with my son because it invokes "magic". The wife and I get a good laugh quite often. One even asks me how crazy people have to be to believe in evolution.

eracer
06-15-2012, 14:28
The estimated size of the universe is about 156 billion light years across, but we can see only out to 13.7 billion light years currently giving an overall size of about 27.4 billion lights years across.I'm not familiar with this estimate.

I was always of the impression that cosmologists showed that galaxies (and thus space-time) at the edge of the observable universe (currently estimated at 13.7b light-years) are traveling away from us at the speed of light, and no information can be observed past that finite 'edge.'

So where does information from 'beyond the edge' come from?

Woofie
06-15-2012, 15:59
I'm not familiar with this estimate.

I was always of the impression that cosmologists showed that galaxies (and thus space-time) at the edge of the observable universe (currently estimated at 13.7b light-years) are traveling away from us at the speed of light, and no information can be observed past that finite 'edge.'

So where does information from 'beyond the edge' come from?

According to NASA, no one knows how big the universe is.

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/5-8/features/F_How_Big_is_Our_Universe.html

packsaddle
06-15-2012, 17:11
mount st. helens rearranged an entire landscape in less than 6 years.

some large canyons (one about 17 miles long) were formed in less than one day.

only an allegiance to Pope Darwin is one forced to believe canyons take millions of years to form.

without King Charlie, there would be no need for the whole "long ages" myth.

but, as always, damaging evidence will continue to be spun/ignored by the atheists/materialists/liberals/puppets, and opposing views will continue to be ridiculed/misrepresented by those who are afraid to follow the evidence, wherever it may lead.

and the beat goes on.....

Animal Mother
06-15-2012, 18:02
mount st. helens rearranged an entire landscape in less than 6 years.

some large canyons (one about 17 miles long) were formed in less than one day.

only an allegiance to Pope Darwin is one forced to believe canyons take millions of years to form.

without King Charlie, there would be no need for the whole "long ages" myth.

but, as always, damaging evidence will continue to be spun/ignored by the atheists/materialists/liberals/puppets, and opposing views will continue to be ridiculed/misrepresented by those who are afraid to follow the evidence, wherever it may lead.

and the beat goes on.....
The only beat going on is creationists clinging to discredited nonsense as if it actually supported their erroneous version of events. The disturbing part is that they continue to do so even after their errors are pointed out, as in the case of comparing Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon.

Kingarthurhk
06-15-2012, 19:09
Sometimes I wonder why you respond, I guess you just like to make people laugh.

If you believe God is so anemic that it took him eons for each stage of creation, then the Sabbath you keep is meaningless.

FCoulter
06-15-2012, 19:46
If you believe God is so anemic that it took him eons for each stage of creation, then the Sabbath you keep is meaningless.That is not what I said,please get with the program before responding.

Animal Mother
06-15-2012, 21:03
If you believe God is so anemic that it took him eons for each stage of creation, then the Sabbath you keep is meaningless.The evidence shows the Universe has been around for billions and billions of years, should that be ignored in favor of your specific interpretation of the Bible or should the understanding of the Bible be viewed through a filter of known facts?

Kingarthurhk
06-15-2012, 21:40
That is not what I said,please get with the program before responding.


Its because most so called christians dont know how to read Gen.

Gen. Clearly along with other scripture tells us the earth can be millions of yrs old.


When God created adam is not the time period the earth was orginally created.


Gen. Tells us the earth was void and without form. The hebrew words here means the earth was chaotic.


Does nyone think God created the earth chaotic?


The Bible s clearly how the earth became chaotic long before adam.

Again, where are you getting millions of years old?

Kingarthurhk
06-15-2012, 21:41
The evidence shows the Universe has been around for billions and billions of years, should that be ignored in favor of your specific interpretation of the Bible or should the understanding of the Bible be viewed through a filter of known facts?

The Univese I can accept. The earth, I can't.

Blast
06-15-2012, 21:55
I'm not familiar with this estimate.

I was always of the impression that cosmologists showed that galaxies (and thus space-time) at the edge of the observable universe (currently estimated at 13.7b light-years) are traveling away from us at the speed of light, and no information can be observed past that finite 'edge.'

So where does information from 'beyond the edge' come from?

These are articles several years old. There have been other estimates... 93 billion LY across, 78 billion LY across. No one knows for sure of course.

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-05-24/tech/universe.wide_1_early-universe-cosmic-microwave-background-light-years?_s=PM:TECH

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jan/cosmos-width

http://www.universetoday.com/36469/size-of-the-universe/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5051818/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/new-study-super-sizes-universe/#.T9v4ZxcS1gg

Gunhaver
06-15-2012, 22:08
mount st. helens rearranged an entire landscape in less than 6 years.

some large canyons (one about 17 miles long) were formed in less than one day.

only an allegiance to Pope Darwin is one forced to believe canyons take millions of years to form.

without King Charlie, there would be no need for the whole "long ages" myth.

but, as always, damaging evidence will continue to be spun/ignored by the atheists/materialists/liberals/puppets, and opposing views will continue to be ridiculed/misrepresented by those who are afraid to follow the evidence, wherever it may lead.

and the beat goes on.....

Here's a question;
Is the field of geology just completly useless to humans? Do we not have people that can locate oil fields, mineral deposits, work out foundational stability for construction, and hundreds of other useful things? How are they doing all of this on the back of completly flawed science? Or is the science only wrong where you disagree with it?

Animal Mother
06-15-2012, 22:12
The Univese I can accept. The earth, I can't.Why not? That's what the evidence shows.

Kingarthurhk
06-15-2012, 22:12
Here's a question;
Is the field of geology just completly useless to humans? Do we not have people that can locate oil fields, mineral deposits, work out foundational stability for construction, and hundreds of other useful things? How are they doing all of this on the back of completly flawed science? Or is the science only wrong where you disagree with it?

I believe he is saying he has a problem with the interpretation. The same oil is still there, the same coal is still there. The disagrement is how it came about, not that it is not there.

Kingarthurhk
06-15-2012, 22:37
Why not? That's what the evidence shows.

That is what an interpreation shows. However, there are x-factors that negate that prefered interpreation.

http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/Out_Of_Place_Artifacts/OOPARTS.html

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna


http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences29.html


http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity.html


The same things, yet a very different interpretation.

Gunhaver
06-15-2012, 23:01
I believe he is saying he has a problem with the interpretation. The same oil is still there, the same coal is still there. The disagrement is how it came about, not that it is not there.

They don't just randomly poke around in the ground looking for oil and coal. The entire science of geology as it's understood tells them where to look. Bad science is useless and doesn't get results and therefore looses funding pretty fast. It's not propped up and subsidized because of somebody's preferences for what they'd like to be true. The very facts that young earthers deny tell geologists where that stuff is as well as many other things.

Animal Mother
06-15-2012, 23:03
That is what an interpreation shows. No, that's what the facts show.
However, there are x-factors that negate that prefered interpreation.

http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/Out_Of_Place_Artifacts/OOPARTS.html This is why you get ridiculed. I mean, this and the whole kangaroos in the middle east thing. All science, across all disciplines supports a 4 billion year old earth, but we should discard it based on a bell a guy claims to have found but didn't produce until 65 years later and a hammer that's been debunked with such regularity that even other creationists don't buy it?
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna What does dinosaur DNA have to do with the age of the Earth?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences29.html Really? Footprints again? Didn't we just go through this? You abandon discussions when you can no longer support your position in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence, but then bring the exact same things up again a month later?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity.htmlI'm not even sure what this one is trying to claim, but I do notice a complete dearth of evidence.
The same things, yet a very different interpretation.Only one of which, the scientific position, is based on any evidence.

Kingarthurhk
06-15-2012, 23:14
If I was worried about being made fun of, I wouldn't come here.

Kingarthurhk
06-15-2012, 23:18
They don't just randomly poke around in the ground looking for oil and coal. The entire science of geology as it's understood tells them where to look. Bad science is useless and doesn't get results and therefore looses funding pretty fast. It's not propped up and subsidized because of somebody's preferences for what they'd like to be true. The very facts that young earthers deny tell geologists where that stuff is as well as many other things.

http://creationwiki.org/Flood_geology

Animal Mother
06-16-2012, 00:00
If I was worried about being made fun of, I wouldn't come here.
Clearly you're not worried about scientific realities or facts.

Animal Mother
06-16-2012, 00:01
http://creationwiki.org/Flood_geologyFrom your link: "Creation geology is based on the assumption that the Biblical flood described in the book of Genesis was a real and historical event of global magnitude, and is therefore also known as flood geology. Creation geologists seek primarily to show that Earth's geologic features are best interpreted within the scope of this Biblical cataclysm; including sedimentary strata, fossilization, fossil fuels, submarine canyons, plate tectonics, salt domes and frozen mammoths. "

In other words, "Assume the Flood happened. Now make the evidence fit that assumption."

You won't find anywhere in legitimate science where that is the practice.

Kingarthurhk
06-16-2012, 00:04
From your link: "Creation geology is based on the assumption that the Biblical flood described in the book of Genesis was a real and historical event of global magnitude, and is therefore also known as flood geology. Creation geologists seek primarily to show that Earth's geologic features are best interpreted within the scope of this Biblical cataclysm; including sedimentary strata, fossilization, fossil fuels, submarine canyons, plate tectonics, salt domes and frozen mammoths. "

In other words, "Assume the Flood happened. Now make the evidence fit that assumption."

You won't find anywhere in legitimate science where that is the practice.

I am not seeing the problem. Your philosophy is "Assume Evolution happened and there is no God. Now make the evidence fit that assumption."

Animal Mother
06-16-2012, 00:17
I am not seeing the problem. I actually believe that, despite the fact that you could see it by the simple expedient of reading what's been written here.
Your philosophy is "Assume Evolution happened and there is no God. Now make the evidence fit that assumption." No, it isn't. That's something you should know since it's now been explained to you a number of times. I don't assume evolution, I conclude that evolution has occurred because it has been observed happening and because that's what the evidence supports.

Nor do I assume there is no God. I merely ask that if such a being does exist, and if their existence is going to factor into our understanding of the natural world, someone somewhere produce evidence of that existence.

I can't be blamed for the failure of such evidence to appear.

Gunhaver
06-16-2012, 03:32
Here's a good place to check out those young earth arguments before you submit them.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html