THE MASSIVE GRAND CANYON—IT'S GENESES

[JIM]

As I told one reader, "The answer, I think, is obvious. Time and continual flow have little if anything to do with canyons whose walls are sheer rock, like the Grand Canyon. And we’ll even allow for a little erosion along the way. That still doesn’t cut it, however. For if erosion carved out the Grand Canyon, why hasn’t erosion carved out other old waterways, thus forming canyons of them? Again, age and continual flow have little to do with canyons whose walls are compacted rock."

​

Besides, the walls of the canyon are not sheer rock. The entire area of the Grand Canyon and the surrounding regions consists of about 40 or so layers of sedimentary rock. Some of the layers are sediment formed from conditions at the bottom of shallow seas and some are formed from desert conditions. Floods do not cause sedimentary rock formations.

 

[Mr GLee]

I would think great changes in atmospheric pressure can move solid rocks casting mountains into the Sea and up from the sea . Changing the whole face

 

[Mr GLee]

If you had any knowledge at all of such things, you wouldn't think that.

I do not have a lot put I think enough .

Why not? What was the initial pressure built up before it dropped . .depressurizing . Raising up Mount Everest.

The flood covered the entire earth . 22 feet (15 cubits) the highest before .I would think Not one peak peaking up.

Below a witness of one that was there ."Let there be" and "the floodgates opened" up went up Mount Everest.

Genesis 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

 

[JIM]

I do not have a lot put I think enough .

Enough for what? Enough to know how the Grand Canyon was formed? I seriously doubt that.

 

[Mr GLee]

Enough for what? Enough to know how the Grand Canyon was formed? I seriously doubt that.

How much? He gives us little of his faith calling us a nick name "little faith Ones" Just enough that can both hear his understanding and empower me to believe and do it to his good pleasure.

Little faith used 5 times to emphases we have no power living in earthen bodies . Peter understanding he fell short of that power prayed increase by new born again faith

Thinking of getting a tattoo . Little faith One ? LOL

What was the highest mountain before the flood that the waters covered ?

 

[CrowCross]

something like that....but not that, as I understand Psalms 104 to be describing the creation (and not the flood).

Could be, I'm going with Noahs flood:

8The mountains rose, the valleys sank down
to the place that you appointed for them.
9You set a boundary that they may not pass,
so that they might not again cover the earth.

There is the promise of the rainbow that the waters would not cover the earth again....

But either way it shows God can rise mountains and sink valleys.

 

[CrowCross]

receding water does not tend to remove the volume of dirt that you describe as being washed away. It would seem that fast flowing water is necessary...What you seem to be saying is that:

The receding waters were flood waters that stood above the earth. The receding waters would have been fast flowing. Would they not?

1. Texas was completely submerged under a considerable depth of water
2. the land of Texas was elevated such that the water ran off of the Texas area (or is it that sea level dropped causing the water to run off of the Texas area)
3 The water "running off" took a ridiculous amount of rock and and soil with it.

I have a gravel alley behind my house and when we have a downpour the rain water carves a serious rut in the alley. It is my observation that:

a. the volume of water involved is many, many times the volume of gravel that is moved
b. the gravel is only moved where the volume of water is high and it is moving with a (relatively) strong force

Regarding the Texas scenario, Genesis 8 seems to describe a steady gradual receding of the water...that doesn't seem to be a description of something that would have the force necessary to move the required volume of rock and soil. IMHO a gradual receding would simply leave virtually all of the rock and soil in place.

The water was moving fast enough to remove the recently deposited "dirt"....It's how water gaps are formed.

 

[JIM]

The receding waters were flood waters that stood above the earth. The receding waters would have been fast flowing. Would they not?

If it was a global flood, then to where was the water flowing? Let alone fast flowing. Receding floods are never fast flowing.

 

[CrowCross]

If it was a global flood, then to where was the water flowing?

Into the ocean.

Let alone fast flowing. Receding floods are never fast flowing.

Says who? Where is your evidence?

 

[CrowCross]

I do not have a lot put I think enough .

Why not? What was the initial pressure built up before it dropped . .depressurizing . Raising up Mount Everest.

The flood covered the entire earth . 22 feet (15 cubits) the highest before .I would think Not one peak peaking up.

Below a witness of one that was there ."Let there be" and "the floodgates opened" up went up Mount Everest.

Genesis 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

I agree...Mount Everest was not there prior to the flood.

 

[Simons]

But either way it shows God can rise mountains and sink valleys.

Well, if he is capable of creating a universe, then raising mountains and lowering valleys isn't really much of anything. It isn't about "can he?" it is about "did he?".

 

[Simons]

The receding waters were flood waters that stood above the earth. The receding waters would have been fast flowing. Would they not?

The water was moving fast enough to remove the recently deposited "dirt"....It's how water gaps are formed.

Well the description seems to be of a steady, gradual receding. Further, the fast following water needs to be at the level of the stone and soil. (Think of an ocean floor...not a lot of churning going on at the deep levels and whatever churning occurs just moves material around within the churned up area). If Texas was covered with water a mile deep and then whatever (was holding that water in place) disappeared in an instant, then the flow would be rapid and powerful, but the flow would be well removed from the land of Texas. At first the flow would be a mile removed from the soil and it would only be at the end that the flow would be next to the surface of the land. A flood receding is just not going to give you enough strong flow at the surface to move the rock and dirt to create the features that you saw in Texas.

 

[Simons]

Simons:

On the other hand, some of your inferences and conclusions relating to the Flood do not, at least to me, seem to coincide with the same scriptures. Tell me, how do you understand, "...and the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered” [Gen. 7:18-19].
​

​

I understand those verses to be describing a very deep flood....The question for me is: Should I interpret that story literally or allegorically or in some other way? If a literal interpretation flies in the face of available geological evidence, then I don't think denying reality to accommodate a literal interpretation is a wise approach.

at this point we have been discussing: What is the reality of the geological evidence?

 

[JIM]

Well, if he is capable of creating a universe, then raising mountains and lowering valleys isn't really much of anything. It isn't about "can he?" it is about "did he?".

Exactely! So did He? There is no evidence that He did anything of the sort 2500 years ago. But there is plenty of evidence what has actually happened over the last many millions of years.

 

[CrowCross]

Well, if he is capable of creating a universe, then raising mountains and lowering valleys isn't really much of anything. It isn't about "can he?" it is about "did he?".

The bible says He did.

 

[CrowCross]

Well the description seems to be of a steady, gradual receding. Further, the fast following water needs to be at the level of the stone and soil. (Think of an ocean floor...not a lot of churning going on at the deep levels and whatever churning occurs just moves material around within the churned up area). If Texas was covered with water a mile deep and then whatever (was holding that water in place) disappeared in an instant, then the flow would be rapid and powerful, but the flow would be well removed from the land of Texas. At first the flow would be a mile removed from the soil and it would only be at the end that the flow would be next to the surface of the land. A flood receding is just not going to give you enough strong flow at the surface to move the rock and dirt to create the features that you saw in Texas.

As the water level dropped...it would take away the surface sediment with it.

 

[CrowCross]

Exactely! So did He? There is no evidence that He did anything of the sort 2500 years ago. But there is plenty of evidence what has actually happened over the last many millions of years.

What is that evidence?

 

[Simons]

As the water level dropped...it would take away the surface sediment with it.

At what point? Again let's say that Texas is under a mile of water....when that starts to recede it is the water at the very top that moves and it isn't anywhere close enough to the sediment/surface to significantly erode it....it would be only after most of the water has gone that you would get enough water movement next to the sediment to move a significant volume of that sediment. Think about how much water you would need for your scenario: to carve the top of the buttes flat and then move all that soil and rock out from around the buttes. Ask yourself how much water would be needed to erode all that rock and how much water would be needed to suspend all that soil, sediment and rock bits so as to move it. Your theory just doesn't hold water.

 

[Simons]

The bible says He did.

you are right....I was sloppy with my answer. I should have said: It isn't about "can he?" it is about "did he?" ...and if he did, then the next question is "how?" So yes, he raised mountains and lowered valleys, but did he do it with a quick convulsion or with geological processes that took millions of years?

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Of course not. That you would even look to the Bible for geological information on the Grand Canyon, or for any geological information at all, is sheer foolishness. It tells me that you really do not understand what the Bible is and what it is for.

The author, unlike you, at least has some knowledge of geology.

Jim:

No offence meant, but in your replies to me and others on this subject, you are coming over as someone who thinks he has fully matured and anyone else who carries a different view is uninformed. Well, welcome to the class of perfection!

I have never claimed to be a geologist. But I have read and evaluated many professional geologists—some are way off-center and others are right on target. I possess a level of knowledge on the subject, thanks to those geologists who have proven their way with me. But since you seem to be possessed with a know-it-all attitude on this topic, you do not fall into the class who "have proven their way with me."

Calm down! Some of the sentiments of some of us just might possibly be correct and you might be incorrect in your neck of the same woods. Furthermore, you claim geology is not a biblical subject, yet I assume you believe a Higher Power created the universe and the Earth. And if so, that Creator is the source of the Earth's make-up or composition, including geology.

Have a good night - get some good rest. It will help clear your mind.​