The TRVE history of the Flood...

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. Tou only have today's rates to extrapolate from. I agree it seems quite reasonable but reasonable isn't proven.

That's true. Everything in the past is a matter of interpretation. 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.

Eighteen miles at its widest, and various buttes it had to carve around. No way. The look of the canyon fits a great cataract of water pouring over all the sides as well as through the canyon itself, the carving helped by a lot of abrasive stuff in the water, chunks of strata that broke up above the canyon mouth level being the best candidate. The river is a puny instrument for such a job.

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.

All of those things suffer from the same problem, that there is no witness of any of it IN THE PAST. it's all a matter of interpretation/guesswork from facts in the present. None of it as good as dinosaur bones.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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?

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.

Nope. It's a trustworthy document attested by 3000 years of use.

Yes, astronomy has the means to verify its theories, as I thought I said. The telescope. Space travel. None of the sciences of earth's history have such means. But I'm mot sure the astronomical timing is verified. Same problem as dating methods for earth.Except the Bible is a way to look into earth's past.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

None of them is a direct witness. they are no better than our interpretations in the present.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

The Bible describes the earth covered in water and it provides some good clues to dating certain events. All the rest is conjecture based on it. The point is by using the Bible we are way ahead of those who rely only on their own fallible methods.I
'm happy to concede any point you want to make about astronomy. I think there are good reasons to trust it as a science. Not the case with the sciences of earth's history.

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. 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: I'm sure there are many rivers with greater volume that haven't carved canyons.

Some things like the Bible are intended to compensate for our fallen minds. Most of the sciences rely on many people able to replicate the work, that fact certainly compensates for our fallen minds. They aren't sciences that are trying to peer into the undocumented /unwitnessed past.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No it isn't. The viewer through the telescope becomes a direct witness. All dating methods rely on assumptions, interpretations, extrapolations. The Bible's timing contradicts all of it, of course, and it IS a direct witness. It should be considered above all the other methods for that reason.