THE MASSIVE GRAND CANYON—IT'S GENESES

[CrowCross]

Again let's say that Texas is under a mile of water.

What happens when Texas is under, lets say 50 feet of rushing receding water?

 

[CrowCross]

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?

Using your words...quick convulsion....Recument folds show it was fast and not millions of years.

 

[JIM]

Perhaps, but you people are pretty ignorant.

Ignorant of what? I know what the Bible says.

 

[ShepherdsPie]

See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.

- Hebrews 12:25-26 (KJV)
For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge. I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

- Jeremiah 4:22-26 (KJV)

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

- Genesis 1:2 (KJV)

 

[JIM]

What is that evidence?

Concerning the Grand Canyon which is the subject of this topic, you might get ahold of "Grand Canyon Geology", edited by Stanley S. Beus and Michael Morales, published by the Oxford University Press, 2003. It contains 21 chapters, each one of which is written by one or more authorities in their respective fields. Many have spent years studying the canyon geology. It is replete with actual information and documentation of the available evidence.

There is not a word in any of the 432 pages that says anything about the canyon being formed 4500 years ago by a global flood.

 

[JIM]

What happens when Texas is under, lets say 50 feet of rushing receding water?

The highest point in Texas is Guadalupe Peak, also known as Signal Peak, is the highest natural point in Texas, with an elevation of 8,751 feet (2,667 m) above the current sea level. Thus, if Texas is under 50 feet of water, that would mean that the water level across the globe due to that global flood you are talking about is at least 8,801 feet above the present sea level. So where is that receding water rushing to?

That of course is the case for anywhere on earth. If the entire global earth was covered, where did the water recede to. There would have been no place for it to recede to.

Moreover, there is nothing in the Bible about any rushing receding water. It says only that "And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided" (Gen 8:1). Subsided to where? Evaporated? Seriously?

 

[ShepherdsPie]

The highest point in Texas is Guadalupe Peak, also known as Signal Peak, is the highest natural point in Texas, with an elevation of 8,751 feet (2,667 m) above the current sea level. Thus, if Texas is under 50 feet of water, that would mean that the water level across the globe due to that global flood you are talking about is at least 8,801 feet above the present sea level. So where is that receding water rushing to?

That of course is the case for anywhere on earth. If the entire global earth was covered, where did the water recede to. There would have been no place for it to recede to.

Moreover, there is nothing in the Bible about any rushing receding water. It says only that "And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided" (Gen 8:1). Subsided to where? Evaporated? Seriously?

Genesis 1:2 (not Noah’s flood)

 

[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.

Me?? You're the one going against the nearly complete field of geological knowledge.

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.​

Yes, the Creator, God, is the source of the Earth's make-up or composition, including geology. But there is not a single word in the whole of the Bible that says anything about the formation and the geology of the Grand Canyon, nor the geology of anywhere else on the planet.

 

[JIM]

Genesis 1:2 (not Noah’s flood)

I really do not think that Genesis 1:2 is speaking about how the Grand Canyon was formed by a global flood 4500 or so years ago.

 

[CrowCross]

Ignorant of what? I know what the Bible says.

Apparently you don't. You seem to completely ignore what the bible has to say about the flood.

2 Peter 3:5 But they deliberately overlook the fact that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world of that time perished in the flood.

 

[CrowCross]

Concerning the Grand Canyon which is the subject of this topic, you might get ahold of "Grand Canyon Geology", edited by Stanley S. Beus and Michael Morales, published by the Oxford University Press, 2003. It contains 21 chapters, each one of which is written by one or more authorities in their respective fields. Many have spent years studying the canyon geology. It is replete with actual information and documentation of the available evidence.

There is not a word in any of the 432 pages that says anything about the canyon being formed 4500 years ago by a global flood.

Thank you for that reference. You might like to get hold of a book called....Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe By Stephen Austin

 

[CrowCross]

The highest point in Texas is Guadalupe Peak, also known as Signal Peak, is the highest natural point in Texas, with an elevation of 8,751 feet (2,667 m) above the current sea level. Thus, if Texas is under 50 feet of water, that would mean that the water level across the globe due to that global flood you are talking about is at least 8,801 feet above the present sea level. So where is that receding water rushing to?

That of course is the case for anywhere on earth. If the entire global earth was covered, where did the water recede to. There would have been no place for it to recede to.

Moreover, there is nothing in the Bible about any rushing receding water. It says only that "And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided" (Gen 8:1). Subsided to where? Evaporated? Seriously?

Yes, God made a wind blow....The bible also says God made the mountains rise and the valleys sink. Psalm 104.

Here's an illustration of the hypsographic graph of the planet earth...Perhaps you can see where the water went.
View attachment 935

 

[Simons]

What happens when Texas is under, lets say 50 feet of rushing receding water?

At some point you'll start getting some erosion. So, let's have some fun with numbers.

Let's say the whole continent is covered with 50 feet of water and let's say further that all the water from the Canadian border flows south through Texas. Here are the numbers that I propose to use:

1. It is roughly 2500 kilometres from Winnipeg to Houston

2. the water just above the Niagara Falls is flowing at 25 kilometers per hour

3. the depth of water going over the falls varies, but the average is around 5 feet

4. less than a foot of rock is eroded every year at the Horseshoe Falls (at Niagara)

Given those numbers, it would take 100 hours for water to go from Winnipeg to Houston (if it traveled at the same rate as the Niagara river). At 50 feet we would have 10 times the depth of the Niagara River and so we would have the equivalent of 1000 hours of (Niagara Falls) erosion. 1000 hours is less than 12% of a year and 12% of a foot of rock is less than 1 and a half inches. So using those numbers we would see less than an inch and a half of erosion from the surface of Texas (where the surface is rock).

Now the rock in Texas would be different than the rock at the horseshoe falls and so the rate of erosion would differ, but I trust that you can see the problem with your scenario.

 

[CrowCross]

At some point you'll start getting some erosion. So, let's have some fun with numbers.

Let's say the whole continent is covered with 50 feet of water and let's say further that all the water from the Canadian border flows south through Texas. Here are the numbers that I propose to use:

1. It is roughly 2500 kilometres from Winnipeg to Houston

2. the water just above the Niagara Falls is flowing at 25 kilometers per hour

3. the depth of water going over the falls varies, but the average is around 5 feet

4. less than a foot of rock is eroded every year at the Horseshoe Falls (at Niagara)

Given those numbers, it would take 100 hours for water to go from Winnipeg to Houston (if it traveled at the same rate as the Niagara river). At 50 feet we would have 10 times the depth of the Niagara River and so we would have the equivalent of 1000 hours of (Niagara Falls) erosion. 1000 hours is less than 12% of a year and 12% of a foot of rock is less than 1 and a half inches. So using those numbers we would see less than an inch and a half of erosion from the surface of Texas (where the surface is rock).

Now the rock in Texas would be different than the rock at the horseshoe falls and so the rate of erosion would differ, but I trust that you can see the problem with your scenario.

You are presenting a scenario with hard rock. NOT a scenario where the rock is not hardened like it is today.

After the flood the strata was still soft or somewhat soft and eroded easily.

 

[JIM]

Here's an illustration of the hypsographic graph of the planet earth...Perhaps you can see where the water went.
View attachment 935

What that says is that even if the water was deep enough to have covered Mt. Ararat at an elevation of 5100 meters, then the oceans would be nearly 100%. There would be no place for the water to recede to.

 

[CrowCross]

What that says is that even if the water was deep enough to have covered Mt. Ararat at an elevation of 5100 meters, then the oceans would be nearly 100%. There would be no place for the water to recede to.

Not if Mt Ararat was lifted up after the flood. Do you have a problem with mountains being lifted up?

 

[JIM]

Not if Mt Ararat was lifted up after the flood. Do you have a problem with mountains being lifted up?

This topic has become nothing short of absolutely ridiculous. You have the right to believe anything you want, no matter how silly. I am not stooping to engage any further.

 

[Simons]

After the flood the strata was still soft or somewhat soft and eroded easily.

So Texas was made up of soft rock (i.e. no AC/DC)....a rock that could be rather easily dissolved and washed away? In other words it was clay, sand and dirt? What about mount Ararat and the other high mountains that existed before the flood? Were they also just piles of clay, sand and dirt or had hard rock appeared in some parts of the globe, but was still under formation in other parts?...Could you show us some of this soft rock today or has all of it hardened by now? .......it just seems a little too convenient and far-fetched to me.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

And you know that how? By your vast knowledge of the subject. I suspect that you think the ones who agree with you in one form or another are the ones right on target.

And just how did they prove their way with you? By saying what you wanted them to say?

Me?? You're the one going against the nearly complete field of geological knowledge.

Yes, the Creator, God, is the source of the Earth's make-up or composition, including geology. But there is not a single word in the whole of the Bible that says anything about the formation and the geology of the Grand Canyon, nor the geology of anywhere else on the planet.

Yet you agree that God is the source of the Earth's make-up or composition. Again, if that is true, and it is, God is the author/creator of the shaping and fashioning of the entire Planet, including the Grand Canyon's geology.

You're being overly picky by insisting that certain phrases and terms are not literally alluded to in the Bible in spite of the fact they are indirectly inferred, or generally recognized, as part of God's overall creation. My guess is that in religious matters you are somewhat of a literalist—not able to recognize that many matters throughout the scriptures are inferred or strongly indicated.

And let it be said that you are not the "top notch" intelligent one, or the most highly educated professor, on this topic and on this thread. If ignorance prevails, we can at least debate who possesses the highest level—the one who indicates he knows it all or the one who knows little but is willing to learn more.​

 

[CrowCross]

This topic has become nothing short of absolutely ridiculous. You have the right to believe anything you want, no matter how silly. I am not stooping to engage any further.

Bye-bye then.