I can't stand it so I must post this creationist respond if you can (page 2)

I have no problem with an old earth. Remember that Genesis first tells us that God created the heavens and the earth. Then it goes into the preparation of the earth for man. The "let light be" and all that stuff could easily be from the perspective of the earth itself. Assuming that the earth was shrouded in dense smoke from all the volcanic activity prior to that preparation, the Genesis story could easily represent how one at the surface would've viewed things going on. Scientific theories as to the conditions of the earth before it had anything like the present atmosphere don't rule that out entirely.
I also don't see why a much longer length for each creative "day" isn't possible. I think the text can justify a much longer length. So, why not?
Forscher

Forscher

Triple A has a point about the buckling of the earth's crust being a potential cause of the rock formation you mention Skyman. As I mentioned earlier, I don't know enough about the strata there to do any more than speak in generalities.
Forscher

skyman

I agree. What gets me is when ever a discussion of creation starts someone alway brings up the Grand Canyon because of this one scientist that wrote a book about his thinking. What is funny his actual partners disagrees with his conculsions and are not shy about telling the world the man is wrong and the evidence proves him wrong. I went to a movie that was proving creationist wierd thinking about six day and on animals that all animals lived with Adam on, and on, they went. When they came to the Grand Canyon they claimed this was their greatest proof. So I went home and did my open minded research. The evidence really disproves the Grand Canyon as proof for thier ideas

Forscher

I can't say I diagree Skyman. If the rock bed was entirely sedimentary, or of an igneous rock of a certain type, then the man might have a point. But you mention Granite, a dense igneous type which is a horse of a different color. Now, it could've been buckled in order for it to be raised. Some of the separation could be due to that. But that is only theorectical. A really thorough survey would have to be done to determine just how much of the separation could be due to such a cause. I seriously doubt THAT thorough a survey has ever been done (one would have to be deliberately looking for that) and I doubt it will ever be done. So your conclusion has to be accepted unless a creditable survey shows otherwise.
One scientist I know of says much the same thing that you mentioned. But the example he uses to prove his point is observed phenomenon around Mt. St. Helens. But that occured in newly laid pyroclastic rock, a rock so different from granite that it is like comparing apples and oranges. If all the igneous deposits in the Grand Canyon were pyroclastic, he might have a point. But you tell me they are not. So his point is just doesn't hold water. I have to accept that absent, proof to the contrary.
I touched on the other possiblity for a younger age for the Grand Canyon. During the Great Flood the earth's crust buckled. Causing the Granite and other deposits to separate and rise. The river, which used to flow through under trememdous pressure and was fiiled with grit, smoothed out the sharp edges over the last four thousand years giving a much older appearance. That is a theory which can fit what is observed. However, a thorough survey to determine the validity of that theory would have to be done. Until then, it remains as a speculative theorem and nothing more.
Forscher

Shining One

>I see 44 people have looked at this post they all must agree with my post or can not disprove real reasoning.

Catastrophism could have caused the grand canyon. Are you really daft enough to think that because no one reponds to your post that you are correct? BTW, how would you know what proves what, are you another internet scholar that uses 'talk origins' as his gospel?
Rex

Forscher

Ahhh! nice to see you have graced us with your presence Rex. I am afraid I haven't seen enogh of you to understand the animosity of Satanus and others. Have they just simply lumped you into the "Fundie" catagory like some of them like to do with me? Or what?
Forscher

DocBob

Skyman wrote:

I can't stand it I got to post. The Grand canyon Actually disprove Creationist Because Granit Rock is the toughest of rocks found on Earth. The Grand canyon has areas filled only with Granit Rock. No earth flood can cause the Granit to dissolve only time can, only millions of years can do this. Plus if the Canyon did prove Creationist correct then every continent on earth would have at least two Grand Canyon on each continental divide. So am I to believe that only the Western USA had the GREAT FLOOD. Because that is what the Grand Canyon would prove if the creationist are true.

1. It's spelled GRANITE, not GRANIT 2. The primary rock layers in the Grand Canyon, starting from the top are:

Kaibab Limestone Toroweap Formation Coconino Sandstone Hermit Shale Supai Formation Redwall Limestone Mauv Limestone Bright Angel Shale Tapeats Sandstone Vishnu Schist

3. Granite (Zoroaster Granite) is exposed at the very bottom of the canyon

skyman

Grand Canyon National Park - Nature & Science

The oldest, crystalline rocks are chiseled into the craggy cliffs of the Granite Gorges. Nearly 40 identified rock layers form the Grand Canyon’s walls. ... Three “Granite Gorges” expose crystalline rocks formed during the early-to-middle Proterozoic Era (late Precambrian). Originally deposited as sediments and lava flows, these rocks were intensely metamorphosed about 1,750 million years ago. Magma rose into the rocks, cooling and crystallizing into granite, and welding the region to the North American continent.

GRANITE GORGES????????????????????????????????????????????? that is something and by the way I watched a PBS story that had the other scientist that said the exsact same thing I just said about the Granite but they mentioned the Granite Gorges.

fahrvegnugen

Kaibab Limestone Toroweap Formation Coconino Sandstone Hermit Shale Supai Formation Redwall Limestone Mauv Limestone Bright Angel Shale Tapeats Sandstone Vishnu Schist
Yes my understanding is that the Grand Canyon is primarily made up of layers of shale (mudstone), sandstone, and limestone. It is these alternating layers of sedimentary rock which are responsible for the shape of the canyon walls, alternating between vertical faces and crumbling sloped layers, depending on the strength of the rock layer. Here is a diagram illustrating the layers and the time periods in which they formed:

I can't stand it so I must post this creationist respond if you can

Share this