How about this...It"s still amazing that they don't come to the proper conclusion even with the evidence right under their nose.

mikem.


Texas set to open new canyon to public By MICHELLE ROBERTS, Associated Press Writer
Fri Oct 5, 10:21 PM ET



CANYON LAKE, Texas - Geologic time has a different meaning when it comes to Canyon Lake Gorge. You could say it dates to around the end of the Enron era.



A torrent of water from an overflowing lake sliced open the earth in 2002, exposing rock formations, fossils and even dinosaur footprints in just three days. Since then, the canyon has been accessible only to researchers to protect it from vandals, but on Saturday it opens to its first public tour.

"It exposed these rocks so quickly and it dug so deeply, there wasn't a blade of grass or a layer of algae," said Bill Ward, a retired geology professor from the University of New Orleans who started cataloging the gorge almost immediately after the flood.

The mile-and-a-half-long gorge, up to 80 feet deep, was dug out from what had been a nondescript valley covered in mesquite and oak trees. It sits behind a spillway built as a safety valve for Canyon Lake, a popular recreation spot in the Texas Hill Country between San Antonio and Austin.

The reservoir was built in the 1960s to prevent flash flooding along the Guadalupe River and to assure the water supply for central Texas. The spillway had never been overrun until July 4, 2002, when 70,000 cubic feet of water gushed downhill toward the Guadalupe River for three days, scraping off vegetation and topsoil and leaving only limestone walls.

"Underneath us, it looks solid, but obviously it's not," said Tommie Streeter Rhoad of the Guadalupe Blanco River Authority, as she looked out over a cream-colored limestone crevasse.

The sudden exposure of such canyons is rare but not unprecedented. Flooding in Iowa in 1993 opened a limestone gorge behind a spillway at Corvalville Lake north of Iowa City, but that chasm, Devonian Fossil Gorge, is narrower and shallower than Canyon Lake Gorge.

Neither compares to the world's most famous canyon. It took water around 5 million to 6 million years to carve the Grand Canyon, which plunges 6,000 feet at its deepest point and stretches 15 miles at its widest.

The more modest Canyon Lake Gorge still displays a fault line and rock formations carved by water that seeped down and bubbled up for millions of years before the flooding.

Some of the canyon's rocks are punched with holes like Swiss cheese, and the fossils of worms and other ancient wildlife are everywhere. The rocks, typical of the limestone buried throughout central Texas, date back "111 million years, plus or minus a few hundred thousand years," Ward said.

Six three-toed dinosaur footprints offer evidence of a two-legged carnivore strolling along the water. The footprints were temporarily covered with sand to protect them as workers reinforced the spillway, but they'll be uncovered again eventually, Rhoad said.

The Guadalupe Blanco River Authority, which has a lease from the Army Corps of Engineers to manage the 64-acre Canyon Lake Gorge site, will begin offering limited public tours of the canyon Saturday, continuing year-round on the first Saturday of the month.

Early demand for the 3-hour tours is so high they are booked for at least six months. Rhoad said the authority hopes to train more docents so dates can be added.

Visitors will not be allowed to hike the canyon on their own because the brittle limestone is still breaking from the canyon walls.

Construction on a rim trail to overlook the canyon begins this winter. Officials hope to eventually build lookout points and an educational center.

Very cool. We've been to Canyon Lake a few times when I was little. It was pretty there. Be neat to go back and see how it changed.

You are so right, mikem, they are blind.

The new canyon, (not crevasse), is 1.5 miles wide, when compared to the Grand Canyon's 15 miles, and is known to have been created in three days leads one to the question, "Wouldn't it have taken on thirty days to create a canyon only 10 times wider?", assuming the same depth, of course.

As far as depth goes, it would only take 225 days to create the same depth with the same conditions, or 6,000 feet divided by 80 feet times three days.

It amazes me that these 'scientists' still wish to believe the 'millions and millions' when common sense dictates otherwise.

The Lord is great and the Bible is correct, much to their denial, yet there is still time for them to come to wisdom and salvation.

In Christ, Angela

AMEN!!!

An 80 feet deep by 1.5 mile long canyon forms in a mere 3 days, and we are spoon fed to believe by the Evolution/Uniformitarians that the Grand Canyon formed in 100s of millions of years by a tiny snaking river called the Colorado River. "Science" has underestimated the power of water.

The Oklahoma Indians have in their oral tradition the account of the Pacific Ocean “suddenly” overrunning the Rocky Mountains out of the west and inundating the continental land in a great cataclysm… clearly this was “inertia” due to a sudden polar shift precipitated by a mass celestial bombardment. Worldwide myths appear to document this event.

Additionally, the Mississippi River Valley has topographical features indicative to massive runoff, and there exists an “ancient shoreline”, a line of dichotomy indicating the boundary of a great inland sea that once went up the Mississippi River from the Gulf of Mexico.

A simple differential estimate between the Texas canyon and the Grand Canyon can easily determine the amount of time it really took for the Grand Canyon to form, where x equals the total duration in days:

1.0m = average depth (in miles) of Grand Canyon (GC)
10.0m = average width of GC
270m = average length of GC
0.013m = average depth (in miles) of Canyon Lake Gorge (CLG)
1.5m = average width of CLG
0.022m = average length of CLG
3 = days that CLG formed
365 = days per year

EQUATION:
x = {[(1.0m × 10.0m × 270m) × (0.013m × 0.022m × 1.5m)] ÷ 3} × 365
x = {[(2,700) × (0.000429)] ÷ 3} × 365
x = {1.1583 ÷ 3} × 365
x = 0.3861 × 365
x = 140.9265 days

Hence, the Grand Canyon formed in approximately 141 days, which is within the one year duration reported in the 270 worldwide recorded accounts of an historical global inundation where the common denominator of an ark, boat, canoe, houseboat, or box was constructed to save a collection of life, i.e. the Flood or Deluge of the Pre-Hebraic Noah, the Greek Deucalion, the Celtic Patriarch, the Babylonian Xisuthrus (recounted by Gilgamos), and the American Indian Manabozo.

Blessings...

-7

Wow this is interesting! Yes the evidence is there which makes me do a YIPPEE! But I am reminded of the Rich man who wanted Father Abraham to send Lazarus to testify and warn his brothers as to keep them from this place of torment. Then Abraham's response was.....

Luke 16:29-31
29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

To most that do not except it by faith will not except the evidence placed in front of them!

The scripture clearly states...

Genesis 7:11
11. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventheenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Not only were there rains that descended but the deep broken up and floods coming from beneath the earth's surface. I am sure there were some forceful pressure that cut the surface! You have this going on for 40 days... and then the water remaining on the earth for a 150 days... you are bound to get some massive caynons and gorges!

Your Friend in Christ,
Val
Messiahiscoming

They don't talk about this kind of thing in Geology class.

Kind of does away with the theory that the Earth is many millions of year old.

I still believe in an old Earth theory..but maybe not that old.

Thanks for posting this. I love to read about this kind of thing.

Collegegirl

I couldn't get the links to some similar articles to work, when posted. Sorry.

The article said that only "dirt and topsoil" were removed by the tons of water instantly removing them. The limestone underneath wasn't disturbed. The Grand Canyon, however, was carved out of rock, which is completely different than this situation.

Sartrian,


You might enjoy reading "Footprints in the Ash (The Explosive Story of Mount St. Helens)" (by Dr. John Morris and Dr. Steven A. Austin). That book describes the effects of the Mount St. Helens eruption, and how in a matter of days geological features were formed which most geologists have assumed would have taken millions of years. In particular, in regard to your mentioning "solid rock", I quote from Section 4 of that book, a section titled "Landforms"; specifically, I quote from the subsection titled, "Rapid Erosion of a Canyon through Solid Rock":

QUOTE

How long would it take to erode a 100-foot (30-meter) deep canyon, in hard basaltic rock? On Mount St. Helens, such a canyon was formed rapidly as rock avalanched from the crater followed by other episodic, catastrophic processes.

Not much geologic work is done on a day-to-day basis by normal processes, but when enough energy is available to a system such that an "energy threshold" is crossed, extensive amounts of geologic work can be accomplished quickly. At Mount St. Helens, the "energy threshold" was crossed many times and in many ways.

Hard-rock erosion probably occurred by two energetic processes: (1) plucking and (2) cavitation. Plucking is the prying-apart action that loosens rock during large mudflows and water flows. Cavitation is a bubble-bursting process in very high-velocity flows that inflicts hammer-like blows which pulverize rocks.

You'll have to forgive me-- geology isn't my strongest body of knowledge. But I went and looked up responses to your comments that I think answer them quite suitably.



Apparently, the "canyon" after the Mount St. Helens eruption was carved through unconsolidated volcanic ash-- which is quite different than going through the harder sandstone and limestone of the Grand Canyon.

Also, from what I understand, the Grand Canyon is 100,000 times bigger than the canyon formed by Mt. St. Helens' eruption. They don't seem to be even vaguely connected.

Sartrian,

QUOTE

Apparently, the "canyon" after the Mount St. Helens eruption was carved through unconsolidated volcanic ash-- which is quite different than going through the harder sandstone and limestone of the Grand Canyon.

According to the book I quoted, it was "hard basaltic rock". Here's something I found on some apparently very scientific site, regarding rock hardness:

QUOTE

It is easy to calculate the influence of a percussion wave on the caves, generated of other rocks, if we accept that influence opposite to degree of a comparative rock hardness. Hardness has the following values for different minerals: gypsum -2, sodium chloride -2,25, calcite -3, quartz -7 [70]. Hardness of basalt can be estimated as silicate hardness:5,5 - 6. There isn't hardness of limestone. There is hardness of calcite mineral generated of calcium carbonate -3. Limestone is harder than calcite, so we accept hardness equal to 4-5 for it.

So, according to trained scientists (apparently geologists or geochemists), basalt has an estimated hardness of 5.5 - 6.0, while limestone has an estimated hardness of 4.0 - 5.0 . Thus, basalt is apparently harder than limestone. (Sandstone is even softer than limestone, if I understand correctly.)



A very pertinent related issue is how long it takes to form rock. A sub-section titled, "Rapid Hardening of Sediments", in that book I cited addresses this issue. Here's a quote from that sub-section:

QUOTE

The pumice fragments deposited by the eruption looked and behaved much like ordinary sand grains. Here is a question: how long does it take for soft, sandy sediments to harden into sedimentary rock? Students are taught that it takes excessively long periods of time.

Studies show that solidification speeds up when high confining pressure forces the grains together and squeezes out excess water. Elevated temperature helps too. However, the primary factor in hardening sediments is the presence of a cementing agent, which binds the grains and molecules together, much like cement binds sand and gravel together into a hard concrete.

At Mount St. Helens the conditions were far from ideal, but the near vertical slope in this photograph [of a man standing at the edge of a steep "cliff" at least 20-30 feet high] taken in 1985 consists of sediments deposited in 1980 and 1982. The canyon itself was eroded when, in an effort to stabilize Spirit Lake, the lake level was lowered by pumping. The outflow easily cut through the recently deposited sediments. Exposed to air, no longer saturated, and not under very great pressure -- hardly ideal conditions, but in less than five years, the sediments were solidified enough that they could stand at a near vertical slope, something only rather hard rock can do. It does not take long ages to form rock. It just takes the right conditions.

Therefore, the waters which created the Grand Canyon could have "cut through" softer "rock", which later hardened into what is now observed.

QUOTE

Also, from what I understand, the Grand Canyon is 100,000 times bigger than the canyon formed by Mt. St. Helens' eruption. They don't seem to be even vaguely connected.

Scale isn't necessarily a factor. However, the book I mentioned states that the canyon formed by the Mount St. Helens eruption is roughly 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon.

I have grown suspicious of anything presented to my by Creationists over the years. The site that I found said that the minerals left on Mount St. Helens, cut through by the river, were volcanic ash.

"Austin continued his presentation by showing us some of his slides of the Mt. St. Helens area. One slide was simply described as showing "strata 25 feet high deposited by Mt. St. Helens". He referred to this stratified volcanic ash only as "sedimentary rock", and observed that it took only a few hours to be deposited in layers. What was implied here, of course, was that large-scale sedimentary strata, such as the limestones and sandstones of Illinois, could be deposited in a similar, rapid manner. I asked Austin whether he had any evidence that any of the more typical sedimentary rock - limestone, sandstone, or shale, had ever been deposited rapidly, but he provided no such example. Our group's level of geologic expertise was above average, but I wonder how many less-skeptical people have left such presentations thinking that all sedimentary rocks show evidence of rapid deposition."



If basalt has a higher level on the Mohs scale, then yes, it is harder than limestone. However, the question becomes, was the material left on Mt. St. Helens really basalt?



Apparently, the walls of the Mt. St. Helens canyon slope at 45 degrees, whereas the walls of the Grand Canyon are nearly vertical throughout. This would imply that the two were formed in a different manner.



The man himself admits that the material the canyon was carved out of was sedimentary ash. Sedimentary ash is not limestone or sandstone.



I'm not quite sure I understand what you're trying to assert?

QUOTE

Me: According to the book I quoted, it was "hard basaltic rock". Here's something I found on some apparently very scientific site, regarding rock hardness:....

Sartrian: I have grown suspicious of anything presented to me by Creationists over the years.

I imagine. Not unlike my suspicion of anything presented to me by atheists and Evolutionists who are more motivated by their personal agendas than be a sincere search for the truth.

QUOTE

Sartrian: The site that I found said that the minerals left on Mount St. Helens, cut through by the river, were volcanic ash.

Interesting. I note, though, that I have provided the references for my claims (other than the generic scientific website which merely provided rock hardness comparisons). Would you care to share with me and others what "site" it is you are quoting from and referencing? I suspect it is probably "Talk.origins", or maybe "Internet Infidels", or some similar, biased, website.

QUOTE

From the unnamed website: "Austin continued his presentation by showing us some of his slides of the Mt. St. Helens area. One slide was simply described as showing "strata 25 feet high deposited by Mt. St. Helens". He referred to this stratified volcanic ash only as "sedimentary rock", and observed that it took only a few hours to be deposited in layers. What was implied here, of course, was that large-scale sedimentary strata, such as the limestones and sandstones of Illinois, could be deposited in a similar, rapid manner. I asked Austin whether he had any evidence that any of the more typical sedimentary rock - limestone, sandstone, or shale, had ever been deposited rapidly, but he provided no such example. Our group's level of geologic expertise was above average, but I wonder how many less-skeptical people have left such presentations thinking that all sedimentary rocks show evidence of rapid deposition."

Ummmm, Austin was using analogous situations to suggest the possibility that "more typical sedimentary rock" might have been deposited rapidly. As there apparently was no limestone, sandstone, or shale deposited by the Mount St. Helens eruption, and since Austin's talk was apparently centered on the evidence from the Mount St. Helens eruption, it seems nonsensical to think that Austin would have been able to provide any such example as the nameless individual quoted was requesting. Further study might at the least be expected, but the individual wants all such thought cut off right quick, lest the "standard geological model" be questioned, and another foundation in the argument against the Bible and God's existence be weakened. His (or her) lack of objectivity was showing in that quote.

Oh, and I noticed that the "author" of that quote implicitly accepted that the "strata 25 feet high deposited by Mount St. Helens was in fact "sedimentary rock", for the "author" of that quote tries to contrast the evidence Austin presents by requesting evidence that suggests "more typical sedimentary rock" might have also been deposited "rapidly". Rather than saying, "That's not sedimentary rock at all, you liar or incompetent!", the "author" asks for evidence which would address "more typical sedimentary rock", implying that what Austin referenced was "less typical sedimentary rock".

QUOTE

Me: So, according to trained scientists (apparently geologists or geochemists), basalt has an estimated hardness of 5.5 - 6.0, while limestone has an estimated hardness of 4.0 - 5.0 . Thus, basalt is apparently harder than limestone. (Sandstone is even softer than limestone, if I understand correctly.)

Sartrian: If basalt has a higher level on the Mohs scale, then yes, it is harder than limestone. However, the question becomes, was the material left on Mt. St. Helens really basalt?

If none of it was, then Dr. John Morris and Dr. Steven A. Austin promoted a blatant lie, in print - one which would be EASY to point out to others. They would have risked their entire reputations and careers for the sake of one lie, a lie which would easily be found out. That, to me, simply does not sound reasonable at all, and so I tend to be suspicious rather of anonymous individuals who are effectively accusing those two public individuals of lying. (Even if they were merely mistaken [assuming there was no basalt at Mount St. Helens which was rapidly eroded by water], the mistake would be so egregious as to undercut any respect they might have "commanded" amongst scientists and the general public.)

QUOTE

Quoting from the book, "Footprints in the Ash": At Mount St. Helens the conditions were far from ideal, but the near vertical slope in this photograph [of a man standing at the edge of a steep "cliff" at least 20-30 feet high] taken in 1985 consists of sediments deposited in 1980 and 1982.

Sartrian: Apparently, the walls of the Mt. St. Helens canyon slope at 45 degrees, whereas the walls of the Grand Canyon are nearly vertical throughout. This would imply that the two were formed in a different manner.

No, I saw the picture which the book referenced (after all, I was quoting from the copy of the book I have in my possession), and the walls there were very nearly vertical. Bear in mind that the quote does not claim that the walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon are nearly vertical throughout. It is not necessary to the point they made that the walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon be nearly vertical throughout, by the way. Nice attempt to sidestep the issue raised, though. (Oh, and the Grand Canyon is far older than the canyon formed by the Mount St. Helens, and so, having been exposed for thousands of years, as opposed to only a couple of dozen, other weather processes would have had time to help form the walls of the Grand Canyon. But, I will take a page from your book, and question your source which claims that the walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon slope at only 45 degrees, whereas the walls of the Grand Canyon are nearly vertical. Please provide a reference which justifies those two claims.

QUOTE

Quoting from "Footprints in the Ash": At Mount St. Helens the conditions were far from ideal, but the near vertical slope in this photograph [of a man standing at the edge of a steep "cliff" at least 20-30 feet high] taken in 1985 consists of sediments deposited in 1980 and 1982. The canyon itself was eroded when, in an effort to stabilize Spirit Lake, the lake level was lowered by pumping. The outflow easily cut through the recently deposited sediments. Exposed to air, no longer saturated, and not under very great pressure -- hardly ideal conditions, but in less than five years, the sediments were solidified enough that they could stand at a near vertical slope, something only rather hard rock can do. It does not take long ages to form rock. It just takes the right conditions.

Sartrian: The man himself admits that the material the canyon was carved out of was sedimentary ash. Sedimentary ash is not limestone or sandstone.

You seem to forget that I quoted portions from that book which addressed two separate, but related, issues. The above quote addresses how quickly rock can harden, not how catastrophic geological processes can quickly cut through rock. You completely missed the point.

QUOTE

Me: Therefore, the waters which created the Grand Canyon could have "cut through" softer "rock", which later hardened into what is now observed.

Sartrian: I'm not quite sure I understand what you're trying to assert?

I don't know how I could state it any clearer, actually.

Unfortunately, every geological or biological piece of "evidence" I've ever seen presented by Creationists has ended up being inordinately easy for scientists to logically refute as being mistaken or outright lies. That, compounded with the fact that I can't even count how many times I've seen Creationists try to back up their arguments with cherry-picked quotes-- I just have a hard time trusting anything they say anymore.



It was from Talk:Origins. Very perceptive! Now, why, exactly, would Talk:Origins be biased? I'm curious.

But you're right. It wasn't responsible of me to post my quote without the original source. Forgive me, that's a very bad habit.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/bartelt1.html



The problem is that the situations aren't analagous, which makes the analogy deceptive at worst, and misguided at best. To say that the formation of the canyon on Mt. St. Helens can prove that the Grand Canyon formed the same way is silly.



Well, the ash was compacted into sediment. And the ash was made out of rocky minerals. Hence, to say that the build-up on Mount St. Helens is "rock sediment" is correct. But to obfuscate by saying that the sedimentary formation on Mt. St. Helens was even vaguely similar to the sedimentary formation of the Grand Canyon is incorrect. Diamonds and graphite are both carbon, but to say that diamonds have the same physical properties as graphite because they're "the same thing" is incorrect.



I've heard lies from Creationists before. Vague lies that people will be willing to believe because they sound good. I've heard, for instance, that "the Earth's magnetic field is decaying," in order to justify the argument that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old, when in reality, the magnetic field isn't decaying-- it's just changing its orientation. So I'm willing to accept as a possibility that these men were either misguided, or just simply liars. It's not too hard to imagine, especially considering that they've already come to a conclusion before hunting for evidence-- which is horrible scientific practice.



So you say. Why should I believe your comment unless you provide evidence of this picture? Besides, from what I understand of the refutations of your argument, the point is that if the walls of the Mt. St. Helens canyon are sloped in that way, it's proof that the canyon walls were made out of a very soft material easily washed out by water in a short period of time. If the walls of the Grand Canyon are vertical, it shows that water didn't wash out the canyon quickly, but instead eroded out the relatively hard rocks (compared to the compacted ash of Mt. St. Helens) of the canyon over millions of years.



Which weather processes would have formed vertically-walled canyons?



Fair enough.

Lava canyon:
http://jessstryker.com/national-parks/moun...sthelens08w.JPG

Grand Canyon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Canyon_midday.jpg

As you can clearly see, the walls of the lava canyon are much more bowed, more similar to a shallow bowl than the upjutting walls of the Grand Canyon.



The quote you provided talks about how the compacted ash of the Mt. St. Helens canyon being cut into a canyon could explain the formation of the Grand Canyon in equally short time-spans. And I refuted it by commenting on the fact that ash is not the same as limestone or sandstone, and cannot be washed out in the same way. The author's assertions are incorrect because he assumes that ash acts in the same way, geologically, as harder rocks.



And I don't know what you mean to ask. I can hazard a guess, but you'll have to forgive me if I don't respond to what you asked.



Limestone was formed 300 million years ago in the shallow inland sea. Sandstone was formed somewhere between 210 to 110 million years ago at the bottom of that same inland sea. They would have hardened into solid rock a very long time before the river cut through it. Besides, if the river had cut through this hypothetical "soft rock" the same way as Mt. St. Helens, wouldn't the Grand Canyon be as shallow around the walls as the Mt. St. Helens canyon? Also, the Grand Canyon has distinct layers of rock that the river cut through. If all of the rock formed at the same time, and was cut through at the same time, wouldn't the rock be one homogeneous mineral layer rather than multiple, differently-formed layers?

The Mt St Helens deposit is not sedimentary rock.

Watch a highway or any paved road for that matter. It rains and rains and the erosion is barely perceptible in months or years.

Watch dirt that has no vegetation. It washes away quickly.

Lithified sedimentary formations do not erode as dirt does.

The Grand Canyon has lithified sedimentary formations, not nicely stacked dirt.

Sandstone does not form at the bottom of shallow seas.

It bothers me that ridiculous comparisons like this that are totally bogus somehow are felt to be needed to prove the Bible is true.

Jack,

QUOTE

Watch a highway or any paved road for that matter. It rains and rains and the erosion is barely perceptible in months or years.

Ummmm, the claim regarding the Mount St. Helens eruption is that there were two processes which could carve through rock, and at least one of which was present due to the eruption (I believe it was rapid water flow combined with pulverization from large, mobile rocks) which aren't present in "rains and rains" over months or even years on a highway or paved road. A better comparison would be how quickly a highway might erode if subjected to hailstorms with large hail, over a period of hours or days. I imagine they would erode quite a bit more quickly than from mere rain.

Now, Dr. Morris and Dr. Austin said the eruption carved through "hard basaltic rock" (if I remember correctly). Is that "sediment", or even harder than sediment? If not, then are you claiming that they are incompetent, or liars? Those seem to be your only two options, if you are going to dispute their which I quoted. Are you a trained geologist, Jack?

No, but the deposit left on the mountain was sediment. Hence, the claim that in some way, the terrain was "sedimentary" is correct after a fashion. Sediment is simply "particulate matter transported by a fluid flow."



Unless the stratified sedimentation is composed of layers of ash. Then, yes, water would wash through it (relatively) quickly.



Correct.



"The formation of sandstone involves two principal stages. First, a layer or layers of sand accumulates as the result of sedimentation, either from water (as in a river, lake, or sea) or from air (as in a desert)."

"The Seaway was created as the Pacific and North American tectonic plates collided, causing the Rocky Mountains to form in western North America. With high eustatic sea levels existing worldwide during the Cretaceous, waters from the Arctic Ocean in the north and the Gulf of Mexico in the south met and flooded the central lowlands, forming a sea that transgressed (grew) and regressed (receded) over the course of the Cretaceous."

If you want to believe the Grand Canyon was formed in a short period of time fine.

Sandstone would only be a facies formed near shore.

Jack777,


Are you going to respond to my previous post? Or do you consider your above post that response? If the latter is the case, I am extremely disappointed, but not surprised.

I am not going to call them liars and unless I reviewed their work specifically I am not going to say they are incompetent. I worked with Austin's roommate at Penn State. Some of us evaluated Austin's PhD work in the field. None of us called names or said things as you suggest. I think his work is advanced silly science. I find it hard to believe he got his doctorate based on what he did. He worked hard though.

I am educated and trained as a Geologist.

Jack777,

QUOTE

I am not going to call them liars and unless I reviewed their work specifically I am not going to say they are incompetent. I worked with Austin's roommate at Penn State. Some of us evaluated Austin's PhD work in the field. None of us called names or said things as you suggest. I think his work is advanced silly science. I find it hard to believe he got his doctorate based on what he did. He worked hard though.

Forgive me for doubting you, then. I am duly impressed with your expertise, and forthwith renounce all of Austin's work on the Grand Canyon, and on Creationism. I refuse to be associated with someone whose science is called "silly" by an anonymous Internet poster.


Perhaps you'd like to address one of my previous questions:

QUOTE

Now, Dr. Morris and Dr. Austin said the eruption carved through "hard basaltic rock" (if I remember correctly). Is that "sediment", or even harder than sediment?

If you claim that the eruption was not carved through "hard basaltic rock", then you would effectively be claiming that Dr. Morris and Dr. Austin are either incompetent, or liars, or both. If you say they are not liars or incompetent, then you would implicitly be admitting that the eruption carved through "hard basaltic rock", in which case the relevant question is as in my quote above: Is "hard basaltic rock" basically "sediment", or even harder than sediment"; or is it a very "soft" sort of rock?

You baited me to answer you and then I get mocking sarcasm. Great Christian witness.

Baiting is similar to trolling. Mocking is something you should foresake.

Again, whatever you want to believe is fine with me.

Jack777,

QUOTE

You baited me to answer you and then I get mocking sarcasm.

I did not "bait" you to answer - I asked you some simple, straightforward, questions, and your response was to claim to have expert knowledge about Austin's educational background, as well as expertise in the field. But you didn't support your claims, which is why I responded with gently mocking sarcasm. My point being, I know the specifics of Austin's educational background, and of his scientific claims in this case, but the same is not true of me for yours - you might be telling the truth, and have valid scientific points, but as you seem unwilling to provide me with sufficient information to judge whether or not you do, the first thing that comes to my mind is that you're just blowing smoke.

QUOTE

Great Christian witness.

Thank you. I'd say it's far better than attacking the credibility of some Christian scientists, and then refusing to provide support for the attack and refusing to answer some simple questions.

QUOTE

Baiting is similar to trolling. Mocking is something you should foresake.

Like I said, I did not "bait" you. On the other hand, you might want to consider how it appears to others when you refuse to answer some simple questions regarding your expertise, and regarding some relevant scientific issues. I have had to ask you these simple questions at least twice now, and in your resulting responses you have carefully avoided addressing the issues and questions, instead choosing to cloud the matter by attacking me. You yourself are behaving a bit like a troll. Are you a troll, or are you genuine? You can prove you are genuine by simply answering the questions - namely, prove your educational background (who you are, basically), and answer my questions about "hard basaltic rock". Until you do, you should expect to receive gentle mockery for your posts which try to evade the questions.

I did not claim to have expert knowledge about Austin. You can take what I said however you want.

If that is your version of a great Christian witness then fine.

It is not my postion that the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days. One reason is that the Bible does not claim that. The other is because it is not true.

The top portion, you may call it a canyon but what about the bottom portion? It takes millions of years for the bottom which made it possible for the top to be carve out to be a canyon in 3 days?

Jack777,

QUOTE

I did not claim to have expert knowledge about Austin. You can take what I said however you want.

You said you personally knew his undergraduate or graduate school roommate, if I recall correctly, and that you had personally gone over his PhD thesis, either before it was approved or after.

QUOTE

If that is your version of a great Christian witness then fine.

It's certainly better than falsely accusing someone of "baiting", and then not answering their simple and straightforward questions, and evading those questions at least three times.

QUOTE

It is not my position that the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days. One reason is that the Bible does not claim that. The other is because it is not true.

The Bible most certainly does claim that the Heavens and the Earth were created within a 6-Day period. Were you aware that in ALL other cases in the Old Testament, when the Hebrew word for "day" was associated with a number (as in "the fourth day", or "after 21 days", etc.), a literal 24-hour period was clearly meant? Were you aware that in all other cases in the Old Testament, when the phrase "evening-morning" was used, it clearly referred to a 24-hour period, a "day"? Were you aware that the Bible, in Genesis, describes each of the 6 days of Creation by saying, "So the evening and the morning were the [x]th day"? And, it is true that God created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 literal days. "Gravitational time dilation" can explain the apparent age of distant stars being in the billions of years, yet the Earth and Solar System being created in 6 literal "Earth-days", for example.

You might enjoy reading, "In Six Days", a book giving testimonies of 50 scientists explaining why they believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth in a literal 6 day period. Each chapter is fairly short, consisting of the testimony of an individual scientist (ranging from 1-2 pages to maybe 4-5 pages each, I believe).

Well, thanks for the feedback. The earth was not created in six literal days according to the Bible. That is not what those passages mean. Let me guess the earth and universe are only 6000 years old in your mind.

Jack777,

QUOTE

Well, thanks for the feedback. The earth was not created in six literal days according to the Bible. That is not what those passages mean. Let me guess the earth and universe are only 6000 years old in your mind.

Did you even read my prior post? Either you didn't, or you have never heard of "evening-morning". And, yes, the Earth and Universe are only around 6000 "Earth-years" old. I take it you also have never heard of "gravitational time dilation", nor of "white holes", nor of the book, "Starlight and Time".

What I am trying to say is this: The earth was not created in six literal days according to the Bible. That is not what those passages mean. Let's say you are correct, which you are not, that the heavens and the earth were created in 6 literal days, even though the Bible does not teach this. Those passages do not teach that.

Here is the Creation Story:

Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The definite article is not present in the Hebrew.

In Beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

In The Second Person of the Trinity, Elohiym created the Heavens and the Earth.

Here is the Creation Story again:

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The definite article is not present in the Greek.

In Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:2

The same was in the beginning with God.

The definite article is not present in the Greek.

The same was in Beginning with God.

John 1:3

All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.

That is the Creation Story, start to finish.

Well, Who is this Beginning?

We know Him as Jesus.

He is the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last.

Jack777,



To repeat myself:


- "Evenings-mornings".

- All other times that the word "day" is used with a numerical descriptor in the Old Testament, "day" means a 24-hour period.


Therefore, the Bible absolutely and quite clearly teaches that the Creation took place over 6 literal 24-hour periods, or "Earth-days".

You need to study the Bible.

Jack777,


I have studied the Bible. If you can show where my specific claims regarding "evening-morning" and "days plus numerical descriptors" are incorrect, please do so. Otherwise, your suggestions won't carry much weight.

Just think about it.

Jack777,

QUOTE

Just think about it.

And you don't think I have, deeply and over a long period of time? Why is it you refuse to address my two points which I believe I've now repeated for your consideration at least three or four times? If you continue refusing to address those questions, then I will treat you as I do "DaDad" - I will not respond directly to you again.

I did not say that the days were not literal 24 hour days. I don't have a problem with that.


Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Jack777,


Okay, then explain how the following, which I quote from your post,

QUOTE

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

does not indicate that it was on the second day that God created "the firmament" (whatever that was or is). And, lest you seek to argue that the passage cited only means that God called the firmament "Heaven" on the second day, but did not create it on the second day, I quote another portion from your post,

QUOTE

Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

There is no "naming" taking place here. Now explain why the above passage wouldn't indicate that God created the "two great lights" (obviously, the Sun and Moon) and the stars ON the fourth day. (Please stick to Scripture, and do not try to justify your argument by reference to "science" or scientific theories or hypotheses or stories.)

Where does it say in the passages I posted for you that God created anything on the fourth day?

Jack777,

QUOTE

Where does it say in the passages I posted for you that God created anything on the fourth day?

QUOTE

Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
....
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
....
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Any particular reason we shouldn't understand that to mean that those "two great lights" (and the stars also) were created on the fourth day?

I think the Universe and the Earth is old. VERY old.

But I know who created it all.

I presented the story of Creation. I then said the verses after Genesis 1:1 that I presented are not that story. You assume otherwise. I do not.

The Universe is very old, I agree.

Well, I asked you to show me that the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days. I know you do not want me to just suppose things. So far it is just your opinion that this is so.

Jack777,

QUOTE

I presented the story of Creation. I then said the verses after Genesis 1:1 that I presented are not that story. You assume otherwise. I do not.

Let me see if I've got this straight: You claim to have presented the story of Creation (of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and stars, I take it), and you claim that the account in Genesis 1, following verse 1, of God's creating the Earth, life, the Sun, Moon, and stars, and man within 6 Days DOESN'T present the story of Creation (specifically, I suppose, of God's creating the Sun, Moon, and stars)? On what BASIS do you propose to reject those verses from Genesis as being accounts of the Creation, when they quite obviously are intended as accounts of the Creation, and especially when God Himself indicates they are intended as accounts of the Creation when He says (paraphrased), in commanding Israel to work 6 days and rest the 7th: "' Six days you shall work,..., for in six days God did all His work (created)' "? Whether or not you agree that those 6 days refer to literal days is not the point here - the point is that the Bible, and God Himself, consider the account of those 6 days as the account of, the story of, Creation. Contrary to your assumption.

QUOTE

Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
....
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
....
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

QUOTE

Me: Any particular reason we shouldn't understand that to mean that those "two great lights" (and the stars also) were created on the fourth day?

Jack777: Well, I asked you to show me that the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days.

The above quote from Genesis shows that the Sun and Moon were created on the fourth day. The additional comment, "he made the stars also", likewise indicates that the stars were created on the fourth day (and I've already pointed out to you how they could be billions of years old, yet have been created on the fourth day of Creation). The same reasoning ("evening-morning", "were the [x]th day") shows that the Earth was created on the first day. All within 6 days. Oh, and lest you argue that God did some creating ("the heavens and the earth") prior to the 6 days mentioned in the Genesis Creation account, I refer you to the fact that the command to honor the Sabbath is based on the "assumption" that God did ALL of His creating within those 6 days. If He didn't, and did some "additional" creating before or after those 6 days, then the entire basis for honoring the Sabbath (the "7th day") is lost, and God's Own description of His having done all of His creating in those 6 days is a mistake or a lie.

as per the bible..........

before the Flood (3000 BC):

1. men lived very long lives............methuselah lived over 900 years
2. the climate was very different than now..............it had NEVER rained, before the Flood
3. the geography was very different from now.............tremendous layers of sediment and fossils were laid down during the Flood.............where did all that sediment come from?...............the whole earth surface was in a horrific uproar, during the Flood


My point is:
the lying evolutionists are trying to explain the evidence ,,,,,,,,,while assuming that the earth has always been the same as now..............

the Truth is:
during the Flood, tremendous changes occured:
1. biological
2. climate
3. geography, oceans, etc


where did the great coal beds and oil deposits come from?

in my County, there are 100-foot-thick-beds-of-pure-clam-shells , overlaid by only 70 feet of dirt...........we live near the ocean.............where did zillions of the clams come from?............why are they in pure deposits, with only a few shark teeth intermingled?

evolution doesn't provide any clue!

only the Bible makes any sense.

In other words you cannot demonstrate there was a 6 day creation period.

What does evolution have to do with this topic?

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.



Using Moses as a spokesman, God told Israel to keep the Sabbath (Saturday, the seventh day of the week)..............why?...........BECAUSE GOD CREATED EVERYTHING IN A 6 DAY WEEK OF CREATION, AND GOD RESTED ON THE SABBATH.

Jack777,

QUOTE

In other words you cannot demonstrate there was a 6 day creation period.

With all due respect, are you spiritually blind? It appears so, in which case all I can do is say, "Watch out for the ditches of Evolution, and of (so-called) 'science' contradicting God's Word." If you don't recognize that Genesis clearly states that there was a 6-day Creation period, and that the command to honor the Sabbath implicitly limits ALL of God's creative activity to that 6-day period, then there's no sense trying to reason with you, I'm afraid.

Thought so.

Jack777,

QUOTE

Thought so.

Me too. I have attempted to engage you in reasoned discussion, but you have either refused or been unable to do so, as the post prior to your latest shows. As it is, you have challenged me to show from the Bible where it says or indicates that the Creation took 6 days. I did so, at least twice, and your only response has been to say things like,

QUOTE

I presented the story of Creation. I then said the verses after Genesis 1:1 that I presented are not that story.

QUOTE

Well, I asked you to show me that the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days. I know you do not want me to just suppose things. So far it is just your opinion that this is so.

QUOTE

In other words you cannot demonstrate there was a 6 day creation period.

I presented Scripture, reasoning, explanation, comparison, and about everything else in support of the truth. You, on the other hand, respond without in any way directly dealing with what I've posted. In no sense is that engaging in reasoned discussion on your part. I'm not sure why that is, Jack, but it doesn't speak well for you.

I've got better things to do than dance around with someone who won't deal with the issues. I warned you earlier about this, so I will from here on treat you like DaDad - I will not respond directly to any of your posts. Good job.