THE MASSIVE GRAND CANYON—IT'S GENESES

[CrowCross]

The idea of a global flood is indeed through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men. It is neither biblical or scientific.

I'm so glad there was no flood...

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. 7 And by that same word, the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

 

[Mr GLee]

There appeared to be no standing water as lakes. The highest mountain 22 feet . Moisture came up.

The ocean is salty because it receives salt and minerals from rivers and streams, while rivers and streams are replenished with fresh water from rain:

He created both salt (dead) and fresh (living water) to be used as metaphors in parables Salt water, the judgment living water of the word gospel fresh

James 3:12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.

 

[JIM]

The mountains were formed when the continental plates slammed into to each other....along with volcanos in some situations.

And you believe that happened about 4500 years ago?????

 

[Mr GLee]

And you believe that happened about 4500 years ago?????

Looking at the flood from a worldly point of view it was given as the Epic of Gilgamesh around 2,000 B.C. The age of a person found on 12 tablets 125 years. When compared with the age of the pre-flood. . workable , serves as one of the parallels between the two accounts .

A vison from Christ his witness as it is written or from the wisdom of this world ?

Two as it seems is the one witness God has spoken .

Let there faithfully be and (two) it was God good

 

[CrowCross]

And you believe that happened about 4500 years ago?????

Do you have a reason as to why I couldn't believe that?

Keep in mind you never did answer the recumbent fold dilemma which points to the rapid movement of the continents and bending of the still soft layers upon layers of sediment.

The answer is, YES. This happened about 4,500 years ago.

 

[makesends]

And perhaps even as marvelous as all of that is, what is also almost beyond comprehension is that God created the human being to be able, in time, to piece together an understanding of that natural law.

What seems to us 'natural law', while granted, it is consistent, is still, by God's speaking it into existence, entirely dependent upon him, who is not dependent on it —and to my point, here, specifically not dependent on time's progression. Thus, it depends on him in every detail, 'moment by moment', and to him, that which we might call his "immediate particular notice" is no different than his "having set it into motion in every detail". We might see 'plan and power', while he sees 'intent (purpose) and act'.

It is a temporal point-of-view that sees this deistically.

 

[JIM]

What seems to us 'natural law', while granted, it is consistent, is still, by God's speaking it into existence, entirely dependent upon him, who is not dependent on it —and to my point, here, specifically not dependent on time's progression. Thus, it depends on him in every detail, 'moment by moment', and to him, that which we might call his "immediate particular notice" is no different than his "having set it into motion in every detail". We might see 'plan and power', while he sees 'intent (purpose) and act'.

There is absolutely no evidence that natural law was introduced 'moment by moment'.

It is a temporal point-of-view that sees this deistically.

I don't even know that that means.

 

[CrowCross]

You need to learn something about how sedimentary layers are formed.

I have.

What i have learned is that the layers would not sit onto of each other in an undisturbed fashion. For example if the lower strata was millions of years old we would see chasms, gorges etc. caused by river erosion and other forms of erosion.

Secondly the line of demarcation between the strata would have been destroyed by bioturbation. We don't see that.

So, apparently I have learned something about sedimentary depositions.

 

[makesends]

There is absolutely no evidence that natural law was introduced 'moment by moment'.

I don't even know that that means.

None YOU can see, anyway. The fact you don't even know what that means should give you pause about making such a statement about it.

You, like all of us, depend on your senses and logic, not realizing that you also assume much about the 'natural' state of things. The fact that you are able to (to some degree) put your assessments into words does not give those words, nor the assessments, nor even the constructions in your mind that produced the assessments, any substance.

Meanwhile, theological philosophical (logical development) concepts of the necessary attributes of the Almighty, include the fact that he is not bound by how we perceive, to such degrees as that for him to speak something into existence requires that he maintain that thing's existence. This includes not just material things, but 'natural laws', or principles. I don't claim to know what-all is implied with this. But existence is what it is because God exists. I think that natural law is not automatic, except from our perspective.

 

[Simons]

I would believe that Paul Bunyan created the Grand canyon by pulling his axe behind him before I believe the tiny underfoot Colorado River gouged it out.

So in other words, your bias against a natural explanation is so extreme that you would prefer to believe in a "fairy tale". That is very telling...and causes me to ask: Would it be possible to hold the same views as you without possessing such an extreme bias?

 

[Simons]

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

Could you please refer me to one peer-reviewed paper (in a reputable geology journal) that shares your conclusion that: "Recumbent folds show it was fast and not millions of years"? Fast forming recumbent folds would not necessitate creationism....so surely there must be a bunch of such articles in the geology journals.

 

[CrowCross]

So in other words, your bias against a natural explanation is so extreme that you would prefer to believe in a "fairy tale". That is very telling...and causes me to ask: Would it be possible to hold the same views as you without possessing such an extreme bias?

You hold an extreme bias.

A fairy tale makes more sense then the uniformitarian old earth models do.

 

[CrowCross]

Could you please refer me to one peer-reviewed paper (in a reputable geology journal) that shares your conclusion that: "Recumbent folds show it was fast and not millions of years"? Fast forming recumbent folds would not necessitate creationism....so surely there must be a bunch of such articles in the geology journals.

Of course "Fast forming recumbent folds would not necessitate creationism".....we're talking about the catastrophic world wide flood.

But, if you want to see a rapid creation....read on:
An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation. Here's where i got that from.

 

[JIM]

Of course "Fast forming recumbent folds would not necessitate creationism".....we're talking about the catastrophic world wide flood.

But, if you want to see a rapid creation....read on:
An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation. Here's where i got that from.

The following is a fairly detailed scientific analysis and debunking of Gentry's theory of polonium halos.

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

www.talkorigins.org

 

[CrowCross]

The following is a fairly detailed scientific analysis and debunking of Gentry's theory of polonium halos.

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

www.talkorigins.org

If you want to learn more about polonium decay you can visit this page. Apparently Talk origins didn't.

Seeing how you don't trust the bible concerning creation and the flood as well as the well documented science that supports both....how is it you trust the bible to show you the Gospel?

 

[JIM]

If you want to learn more about polonium decay you can visit this page. Apparently Talk origins didn't.

About the last place I would go for any serious study of anything scientific is answersingenesis..

Seeing how you don't trust the bible concerning creation and the flood as well as the well documented science that supports both....how is it you trust the bible to show you the Gospel?

I trust the Bible concerning creation and the flood; I believe what it says about both. I certainly do not trust your interpretation of such.

 

[CrowCross]

About the last place I would go for any serious study of anything scientific is answersingenesis..

Oh, but the anti-bible Talk Origins is OK?

I trust the Bible concerning creation and the flood; I believe what it says about both. I certainly do not trust your interpretation of such.

Do you really trust the bible or what so-called "science" says against the bible?
You're so-called science tells us a dead person can't rise from the grave on day 3....the bible says it happened.

T.O. presents evolutionism as fact....in a previous post you presented T.O. as a rebuttal. I would then also imagine you believe there position on human evolution.

 

[JIM]

Oh, but the anti-bible Talk Origins is OK?

For science stuff, yes.

Do you really trust the bible or what so-called "science" says against the bible?
You're so-called science tells us a dead person can't rise from the grave on day 3....the bible says it happened.

Science doesn't say a dead person can't rise from the grave on day 3.

T.O. presents evolutionism as fact....

It generally just presents the scientific data and the interpretation of it. In some cases, that does support evolution.

 

[Simons]

You hold an extreme bias.

Surely, every now and then it has got to bother you that more than 99% (or is it 99.9%) of geologists with PhDs disagree with your interpretation the geological evidence. Accepting the nearly unanimous consensus of the experts is hardly evidence of an extreme bias on my part.

A fairy tale makes more sense then the uniformitarian old earth models do.

It seems what you do is to take a great deal of pride in interpreting scripture in a very rigid, literal fashion and see that approach as being the mark of a more faithful Christian... not altogether unlike the Roman Catholic Church that was offended by Galileo’s suggestion that the earth moved around the sun. Fortunately you don't have the power to imprison your opponents

 

[CrowCross]

For science stuff, yes.

Science doesn't say a dead person can't rise from the grave on day 3.

Oh really????? Do you know what happens to a dead body after day 3? The blood pools, it bloats, rigor mortis .....hoe does science not say a dead man can rise from the dead on day 3?

When will you as a christian acknowledge the truth of the bible?

It generally just presents the scientific data and the interpretation of it. In some cases, that does support evolution.

It appears you do support evolutionism.