|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The TRVE history of the Flood... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
All funneled through the canyon at the current size of the river? As I say, it may have increased or decreased its rate of flow over time, but yeah, more or less.
What about the enormous width of the canyon? What about it?
But none of this is relevant since the canyon was cut all at once at the end of the Flood about 4200 years ago, by probably half the amount of the Mediterranean Sea rushing into cracks, carrying broken up strata with it. Over the sides, too. Rushing water wouldn't have caused meanders: these are only caused by leisurely water.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't claim I have to see living dinosaurs, the bones are good enough evidence for their existence in the past. Why?
But there is nothing IN the past to verify your theory of the isotopes. What is there in the past to verify your dinosaurs theory?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So the meanders were cut after most of the Flood had drained away, leaving flat plains in some areas, across which some streams continued to flow, such as the Kaibab Plateau. the meanders are all far to the East in the canyon, right? So you're willing to claim that a meander that deep and wide could have been incised by ordinary non-magical water in a mere 4000 years?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I think a lot less than 4000, maybe even less than a hundred. Then you don't get to say that it's "absurd" to think that the Grand Canyon could have been carved in millions of years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't think that river could have carved out the BREADTH of that canyon even in a million years. It might cut down fairly deep. But the breadth is just a function of the depth, and of the physical properties of the rock.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The point is, as long as you have no way of actually seeing into the past, all your dates are guesses about how long anything would have taken in reality. "As you have no way of actually seeing into the past, your dinosaur theory is a guess about how we got all those fossils."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
That's true. Everything in the past is a matter of interpretation. Great, so, now the existence of dinosaurs is mere cloudy speculation. When you guys, in order to deny specific knowledge about the past, have to deny that it can be known at all, it shows how weak your case is. We don't have to resort to that, we can say, hey, let's look at the evidence and learn about the past! Imagine two suspects for a crime. One says: "I want to be cleared, so please take my fingerprints, take my DNA, look under my fingernails, swab my hands and clothing for gunshot residue, use UV to look for blood spatter, by all means search my home and vehicle, I will cooperate fully." The other says: "There's no point in doing any of that, the past is fundamentally unknowable and looking at the evidence will never resolve what happened." We know, don't we Faith, which man is supported by the evidence, and which man has something to hide?
The advantage we believers in the bible have is that we actually have a document that describes an event in the past. You guys have nothing but guesses. Not at all, we have loads of documents describing events in the past. I could write one myself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Eighteen miles at its widest, and various buttes it had to carve around. No way. Show your working?
The look of the canyon fits a great cataract of water pouring over all the sides ... Which sides? Have you tried to visualize what you're talking about?
The river is a puny instrument for such a job. 7 times the volume of the Med, remember? That's a lot of water.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
NO, you know I didn't say that. I agreed that your THEORY about thye dinossaurs isn't provable. The EXISTENCE of dinosaurs some time in the paqst is certainly proved. The bones prove it. I was talking about your dinosaur theory. The theory that postulates, based on the present existence of a bunch of funny-shaped rocks, that the world was once inhabited by giant reptiles that no-one's ever seen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The amount of water that has been flowing for the last 4000 years isn't the same as the amount that would have initially broken into the canyon. It might have bene more, actually, who knows? Yes, I said it was a ballpark figure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
My theory is interpretation too. What we argue is plausible interpretations. The point is that the claims by Old Earthers and evolutionistas are NOT the ironclad facts they claim they are. They're just ... very very very plausible interpretations. Wait, isn't that pretty much what a fact is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Nope. It's a trustworthy document attested by 3000 years of use. It may be useful if you want to know who to stone to death, but it hasn't worked out that well as an underpinning for science, has it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
There's no point in continuing in this hopeless debate about the Bible, but I think it's been quite reliable as a clue to events in the past, certainly the occurrence and timing of the Flood. It gives enough facts to track time as well as enough to lead to evidence for the Flood. The rest of you operate on your own fallen methods, the interpretations of your own fallen minds, not reliable at all. Whereas you used your equally fallen mind to decide to treat the Bible as a science textbook. You may never have used your mind after that, but you did use it to get to that point. In that respect, we're in the same boat. The difference is that I used my "fallen mind" to look at the evidence and you used your "fallen mind" to look at a book which contains stories about ghosts, giants, witches and talking animals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes, astronomy has the means to verify its theories, as I thought I said. The telescope. But this is like saying "geology has the means to verify its theories: radiometric dating". Who verifies the telescope? No human has been further than the moon, but we use telescopes to look at the stars.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If you are denying that there are such obstacles in the wide part of the canyon I'll take it back until I can come up with the evidence. I thought it was pretty obvious from lots of photographs. It was the bit where you said "no way" that requires some sort of supporting argument.
There was another mile of strata above the current rim of the canyoni when the Flood started receding, so it would have rushed in from all sides as the cracks widened, washing away the uppermost layers until it got down to the current plateau. It would have been a great sheet of waterfall over the sides. There are lots of waterfalls in the canyon even now, many of them pouring from between the strata, but here's one from the top: Wouldn't the erosion from the mile of strata have filled in the canyon? But apart from that, what puzzled me is that, y'know, water is flat, it finds its own level. Nothing's going to pour over the edge in a great cataract while the land is covered in water.
I'm sure there are many rivers with greater volume that haven't carved canyons. You must be equally sure that there are other places besides Arizona that have been subject to a universal flood. (The reason for the Grand Canyon in real geology is the uplift of the Colorado Plateau.)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024