Christian Forums

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Mon May 03, 2021 - 08:09:16

And a very big +1 for you...

This is priceless.

He was probably unaware of the sarcasm therein:


It's not just about a fool who refuses to accept the findings of science.    It's about his idea that one "believes in" science.    No one with any sense "believes in" science.    One accepts it on the evidence, or not at all.   

One believes in God, on faith.    Everything else requires evidence.    What's most amusing is that so many people completely miss that.   

Enjoyed that.   Thanks. 

More for you Rella.   

Quote from: The Barbarian on Tue May 04, 2021 - 08:07:17
It's not just about a fool who refuses to accept the findings of science.    It's about his idea that one "believes in" science.    No one with any sense "believes in" science.    One accepts it on the evidence, or not at all.   

One believes in God, on faith.    Everything else requires evidence.    What's most amusing is that so many people completely miss that.   

Enjoyed that.   Thanks.

One believes in God, on evidence also. John said of his gospel, "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (John 20:31). He could well have said that of the entire Bible.  The Bible is the evidence required to believe in God, in Jesus as the Son of God and the gospel which is the power of God for salvation.  Paul said much the same, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17). 

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Mon May 03, 2021 - 08:09:16

To me, this meme says that the poster of such is half illiterate, which I know isn't the case with TC.

Quote from: Alan on Tue May 04, 2021 - 10:37:14

To me, this meme says that the poster of such is half illiterate, which I know isn't the case with TC.

The meme is from the movie Nacho Libre.  As far as people "believing in science," you see it all the time with the covids, for example.  Politicians say "Listen to the science" or "believe the science."  I see or hear people saying such phrases and they don't even have a clue as to actually understanding the material.  People can believe in science like a religion, where the "experts" are their priests.  Science is meant to be embraced with skepticism and continual learning, as more information is gathered, then positions may need to change. 

Quote from: 4WD on Tue May 04, 2021 - 09:07:03
One believes in God, on evidence also. John said of his gospel, "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (John 20:31). He could well have said that of the entire Bible.  The Bible is the evidence required to believe in God, in Jesus as the Son of God and the gospel which is the power of God for salvation.  Paul said much the same, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17).

Yes.   Although I accept on faith that the Bible is the word of God, there is evidence for Him, in the world.   As Paul writes:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Still:
John 20:29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Wed May 05, 2021 - 09:53:20
Yes.   Although I accept on faith that the Bible is the word of God, there is evidence for Him, in the world.   As Paul writes:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Still:
John 20:29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.

Barbarian, the gospel is not to be found in passages such as Romans 1:20.  The creation does indeed provide the evidence of God the creator, but not God the ruler nor God the redeemer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1QdAhMhvqU

Another good video about the observation of fossils which aligns with the biblical account of the global flood.

Quote from: Amo on Sat May 08, 2021 - 09:26:07
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1QdAhMhvqU

Another good video about the observation of fossils which aligns with the biblical account of the global flood.

If the Grand Canyon was the result of the flood waters, why didn't those animals get washed out along with the rest of the canyon?  Or if the fossils were there before the flood, how did they get a mile deep beneath the surface.  Get serious, the 35+ geological layers from the bottom of the canyon to the top, some of which are desert layers and some of which are shallow sea layers, doesn't even align with any description of a global flood, never mind how the canyon was carved out through all of those layers.

Quote from: 4WD on Sat May 08, 2021 - 10:05:45
If the Grand Canyon was the result of the flood waters, why didn't those animals get washed out along with the rest of the canyon?  Or if the fossils were there before the flood, how did they get a mile deep beneath the surface.  Get serious, the 35+ geological layers from the bottom of the canyon to the top, some of which are desert layers and some of which are shallow sea layers, doesn't even align with any description of a global flood, never mind how the canyon was carved out through all of those layers.

You simply do not understand the dynamics of Creation science or its claims. There was one global flood, the resulting transformation of the earth due to the same. Followed by many catastrophes over time related to or caused by the same. The waters which carved the Grand canyon did so after the sediments clearly revealed to have been rapidly deposited by the flood as Creationists understand, were already formed. The following link and quote from the same might help.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon-facts/when-and-how-did-the-grand-canyon-form/

QuoteEvidences that Canyon Erosion Was Recent and Rapid

There are several pieces of evidence which suggest the Grand Canyon is a recent or "young" canyon. When considered individually, they are significant challenges to the uniformitarian (long-age) model; when taken as a whole, they become catastrophic. Following is a brief outline of some of those challenges.

Debris Not in the Present River Delta

Almost 1,000 cubic miles (4,000 cubic km) of material has been eroded to form the Grand Canyon. Where did it go? If the canyon was eroded by the Colorado River, an enormous delta should be found at the mouth of the river where it empties into the Gulf of California. But the delta contains only a small fraction of this eroded material.15 This same problem is found with most river deltas; they only contain enough material to represent thousands, not millions, of years of erosion.

Stable Cliffs

One of the most striking features of the Grand Canyon is the massive sheer cliffs of sedimentary rocks. It is the difference in the rocks' makeup that gives the canyon its color and progressive stair-stepped profile of cliffs above broad slopes. The cliffs are made mostly of limestone and sandstone, with some formations reaching 500 feet (150 m) in thickness. The dark, almost black, color of large sections of the sheer cliffs is due to a coating of desert varnish, which develops slowly over many years16 and is indicative of their stability. Where recent rockfalls occur, the desert varnish is missing. The fact that the cliffs maintain their desert varnish color indicates they are rarely experiencing even minor rockfalls; thus they are very stable. This is only consistent with their formation by recent catastrophic erosion, not millions of years of slow erosion.

No Talus

The lack of debris, or talus, at the base of the cliffs is also a challenge to the evolutionary model. Over millions of years of erosion, one would expect to find large amounts of talus at the base of the cliffs within the Grand Canyon.17 The most obvious areas of this lack of talus is within the side canyons ending in broad U-shaped amphitheaters. Some of these amphitheaters are hundreds of feet deep and extend back as much as a mile (1.6 km) from the river. The majority have no water source to remove material, yet the bases of most of these cliffs are relatively "clean," with very little talus. Within the evolutionary model, there is no mechanism for the removal of this material.

Relict Landforms

The stability of the Grand Canyon cliffs and the lack of talus at their bases are indicative of the canyon being a relict landform. In other words, the Grand Canyon has changed very little since it was carved. It is a relatively unchanged remnant or relict of the event that eroded it, which therefore could not have been today's slow river processes extrapolated back into the past.

There are several remnants, or relict landforms, of the material that now makes up the Grand Staircase to the north of the Grand Canyon. The two most noticeable ones are Red Butte, 16 miles (25 km) south of the South Rim (see figure 4), and Cedar Mountain just east of Desert View Overlook on the South Rim. These remnants, and others like them, are mostly capped with volcanic basalt, which has protected the sedimentary layers from being eroded away. These same sedimentary layers also form the base of the San Francisco Peaks just north of Flagstaff, Arizona.

These relicts testify to a massive erosional event, which in the biblical model is explained by the receding waters of the catastrophic global Genesis Flood.

Examples of Catastrophic Erosion

Catastrophic geologic events are not generally part of the uniformitarian geologist's thinking, but rather include events that are local or regional in size. One example of a regional event would be the 15,000 square miles (39,000 square km) of the Channeled Scablands in eastern Washington. Initially thought to be the product of slow gradual processes, this first came into question in 1923 when J. Harlen Bretz presented a paper to the Geological Society of America suggesting the Scablands were eroded catastrophically.18 For the next 30 years Bretz was ridiculed for his theory, but in 1956 additional information was presented supporting the idea. Over the next 20 years, the evidence was pieced together to show the Scablands were, in fact, catastrophically eroded by the "Spokane Flood."19 This Spokane flood was the result of the breaching of an ice dam that had created glacial Lake Missoula. Today, the United States Geological Survey estimates the flood released 500 cubic miles (2,000 cubic km) of water, which drained in as little as 48 hours, gouging out millions of tons of solid rock.

A more recent example of the power of catastrophic processes was observed at Mount St. Helens in 1980. Two hundred million cubic yards (153 million cubic meters) of material was catastrophically deposited by volcanic flows at the base of the mountain in just a matter of hours. Less than two years later, a minor eruption caused a mudflow, which carved channels through the recently deposited material.20 These channels, which are 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon, exposed flat contacts between the catastrophically deposited layers, contacts similar to those seen between the layers exposed in the walls of the Grand Canyon.

Both these events were relatively minor compared to a global flood. For example, the eruption of Mount St. Helens contained only 0.27 cubic miles (1.1 cubic km) of material compared to other eruptions, which have been as much as 950 cubic miles (3,960 cubic km). That is over 2,000 times the size of Mount St. Helens!

If Noah's Flood laid down the layers rapidly, one on top of another as was observed at Mount St. Helens, the boundaries between the layers would be flat and smooth, just as they are so magnificently displayed in the Grand Canyon. And the Channeled Scablands present a clear example of how the layers of the Grand Canyon could have easily been eroded catastrophically, possibly in a matter of just a few days.

An example of how quickly water can erode through the formations of the Grand Canyon region took place on June 28, 1983, when the pending overflow of Lake Powell required the use of the Glen Canyon Dam's 40-foot (12-m) diameter spillway tunnels for the first time. As the volume of water increased, the entire dam started to vibrate and large boulders spewed from one of the spillways. The spillway was immediately shut down and an inspection revealed catastrophic erosion had cut through the three-foot-thick reinforced concrete walls and eroded a hole 40 feet (12 m) wide, 32 feet (10 m) deep, and 150 feet (46 m) long in the sandstone beneath the dam.21

Catastrophic erosion such as this often starts when vacuum bubbles form and implode with jackhammer-like power, eating away anything in their way. This is called cavitation.22 As volumes increase, whirlpool-like vortexes form, sucking material from the bottom in a process called kolking. That material then enters the flow and acts as projectiles, removing even more material. The erosive power of these forces continues almost exponentially as the volume of water increases. These same forces would have had a major role in the formation of the Grand Canyon.

Erosion of Grand Canyon Within the Biblical Account of Earth History

Not long after all the fossil-bearing sedimentary layers of the Colorado Plateau had been deposited by the rising Flood waters, those same waters began to recede. We are told in Psalm 104:8 that at the end of the Flood, the mountains rose and the valleys sank down, causing the waters to drain off the continents back into new ocean basins. Massive sheet erosion occurred across the plateau while it was being uplifted, carving the Grand Staircase and leaving behind the colored cliffs, canyons like Zion Canyon, and isolated remnants like Red Butte. As the Flood receded, water would have become trapped behind natural dams north and east of what is now the Grand Canyon area. Some estimate these lakes could have contained as much as 3,000 cubic miles (12,500 cubic km) of water (about three times the volume of today's Lake Michigan).23 Figure 8 shows where one of these lakes may have been, with additional lake(s) potentially north of the Paria-Kaibito Plateau.

The warming of the oceans caused by the opening of the fountains of the great deep during the Flood would also have resulted in increased rainfall in this region immediately after the Flood. Storms potentially dumped as much as 100 inches (2.5 m) of rain at a time in the area just north of the canyon.24 This rainfall would have increased the water level in the impounded lakes and would have been a powerful erosional force of its own.

As the Flood waters continued to recede, the sheet erosion across the rising Colorado Plateau would have diminished and the water would have started to channelize. This channelization would have then cut the initial path of the canyon.

The Kaibab Plateau now stands some 3,000 feet (900 m) above the adjacent Marble Platform, both part of the Colorado Plateau (figure 5). But the lack of erosional cliffs on the north and eastern sides of the Kaibab Plateau suggests that the southern end of the plateau continued to be uplifted after the rest of the region had stabilized. If this uplifting occurred just prior to, or even during, the channelization phase of the receding Flood waters, it would account for the lack of cliffs. It would also account for the direction of the side canyons eroded into the Kaibab Plateau. For example, some of the side canyons carved into the Marble Platform that join to form Marble Canyon, drain to the northeast, which seems to be the wrong direction. But that would have been the direction in which the receding waters flowed as the Kaibab Plateau was uplifted. Since the Kaibab Plateau is higher at its southern rim, this would also account for the longer and deeper side canyons carved into the North Rim of the Grand Canyon, which also follows along that southern edge of the plateau. Thus the South Rim of the canyon follows the northern edge of the Coconino Plateau (figure 5).

Within the uplifted Colorado Plateau are several limestone layers susceptible to being dissolved by surface and ground waters, as evidenced today by all the caves in the Redwall Limestone, from many of which streams flow. Because of all the volcanic activity during the Flood, the waters could have been slightly acidic, increasing their ability to dissolve limestone. So no sooner had these leftover Flood waters been dammed than they would have begun to find and exploit weaknesses in the limestone and other layers making up the plateau.

Whether it happened as the Flood year ended, or soon thereafter, the lakes would have soon breached their dams, washing over the plateau and exploiting any channels already there, rapidly carving through the plateau resulting in a deep canyon very similar to what we see today (figure 9).

A Few Perplexing Questions

As creationists, we do not have all the answers. In fact, there are many unanswered questions when it comes to the formation of the Grand Canyon. For example, exactly when the Kaibab Plateau was uplifted during the formation of the Grand Canyon is uncertain. Another question relates to the erosional evidence associated with the breaching of the natural dams. It is unclear as to why the waters would have eroded the course they appear to have taken, and why the remaining landscape has some of the features shown today. Also, unknown is what effect the increased rainfall in the region had on carving the canyon.

Some creationists attribute the formation of the canyon almost solely to the breaching of the dams, while others see the receding of the Flood waters to be the main carving mechanism. It is suggested here that combining the strengths of both models best explains the evidence and what we see in the Grand Canyon today.

These issues, however, do not weaken the evidence for the catastrophic carving of the Grand Canyon and its relationship to the Flood. It only shows there is still research to be done in order to better understand the canyon's formation.

Conclusion

Although we cannot be certain of the sequence and timing of these events, the evidence shows the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly, as were the layers into which it is carved. Thus, rather than slow and gradual erosion by the Colorado River over eons of time, the Grand Canyon was carved rapidly by a lot of water in a little bit of time! The reason the Colorado River exists today is because the Grand Canyon was eroded first, soon after the end of the Genesis Flood.

Quote from: Amo on Sat May 08, 2021 - 10:37:19
You simply do not understand the dynamics of Creation science or its claims. There was one global flood, the resulting transformation of the earth due to the same. Followed by many catastrophes over time related to or caused by the same. The waters which carved the Grand canyon did so after the sediments clearly revealed to have been rapidly deposited by the flood as Creationists understand, were already formed. The following link and quote from the same might help.

What I understand is that the very concept of creation science is an obvious oxymoron; it is bogus. How does a flood create a geologic desert layer?  Or even a geologic shallow seas layers?  Moreover there is five thousand feet of the The San Francisco Peaks of mountains sitting on top of those 35+ geologic layers. Mountains deposited by the flood? Deposited from where?

Quote from: From your answersingenesis postAlmost 1,000 cubic miles (4,000 cubic km) of material has been eroded to form the Grand Canyon. Where did it go? If the canyon was eroded by the Colorado River, an enormous delta should be found at the mouth of the river where it empties into the Gulf of California. But the delta contains only a small fraction of this eroded material.15 This same problem is found with most river deltas; they only contain enough material to represent thousands, not millions, of years of erosion.

The quantity of eroded material is immaterial to whether the erosion occurred over one year or a million years.  You wonder where the material went.  My question is where did the supposed water that eroded the canyon go.

If you have spent any time in the Canyon Lands National Park in Utah north of the Grand Canyon you would know that your silly notions about the carving of the Canyons by receding flood waters may be consistent with "creation science"  but it most certainly runs counter to any real geological science.

Amo, I really don't care if you and anyone else want to believe the whole global flood narrative, but I do care when you present such really badly bastardized and false science thinking you are supporting your beliefs and try to foist it on an unknowing public, mostly school age children.

QuoteAlmost 1,000 cubic miles (4,000 cubic km) of material has been eroded to form the Grand Canyon. Where did it go? If the canyon was eroded by the Colorado River, an enormous delta should be found at the mouth of the river where it empties into the Gulf of California. But the delta contains only a small fraction of this eroded material.

Um,   that would be a cube 10 miles on each side.   And here, we see the huge delta at the mouth of the Colorado river:


Prior to the construction of major dams along its route, the Colorado River fed one of the largest desert estuaries in the world. Spread across the northernmost end of the Gulf of California, the Colorado River delta's vast riparian, freshwater, brackish, and tidal wetlands once covered 7,810 km2 (1,930,000 acres)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Delta

Which means that even if all of the rock your guy supposes was washed down the Colorado river, stayed in the delta and none of it was washed into the continental shelf, the delta would only average about 680 feet deep.     River deltas typically have miles-deep deposits.      So your guy just didn't bother to check his facts first, a fact that does no small damage to his credibility.

 

QuoteAlthough we cannot be certain of the sequence and timing of these events, the evidence shows the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly, as were the layers into which it is carved. Thus, rather than slow and gradual erosion by the Colorado River over eons of time, the Grand Canyon was carved rapidly by a lot of water in a little bit of time!

So tell us how you think this-


-occurred quickly in a sudden rush of water.

As you probably realize, such loops cannot happen suddenly.    And scientists know precisely how they form.   Young rivers tend to be quite straight and have deep valleys.    Old rivers meander a lot and have broad shallow valleys.   Due to the differential erosion in even slight river bends, the channel tends to move over time, forming loops, oxbends, and other artifacts of gradual shifting.    So how did the Colorado River end up as it has?   

It's caused by uplift of the area.   The area was raised over time, and that causes rivers to be "rejuvenated" moving faster, and cutting quickly into the river bed.   That means that the river will no longer meander, and will cut deeper and deeper into the existing channel.   These entrenched meanders are evidence of gradual uplift and increase erosion.

No geologist is puzzled about this.   Perhaps your guy is not a real geologist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQKQRDTlhks

Good video concerning the historical account given in Genesis.

Quote from: 4WD on Sat May 08, 2021 - 11:53:16
What I understand is that the very concept of creation science is an obvious oxymoron; it is bogus. How does a flood create a geologic desert layer?  Or even a geologic shallow seas layers?  Moreover there is five thousand feet of the The San Francisco Peaks of mountains sitting on top of those 35+ geologic layers. Mountains deposited by the flood? Deposited from where?
The quantity of eroded material is immaterial to whether the erosion occurred over one year or a million years.  You wonder where the material went.  My question is where did the supposed water that eroded the canyon go.

If you have spent any time in the Canyon Lands National Park in Utah north of the Grand Canyon you would know that your silly notions about the carving of the Canyons by receding flood waters may be consistent with "creation science"  but it most certainly runs counter to any real geological science.

Amo, I really don't care if you and anyone else want to believe the whole global flood narrative, but I do care when you present such really badly bastardized and false science thinking you are supporting your beliefs and try to foist it on an unknowing public, mostly school age children.

Same old same old malarky. Only deep timer evolutionists understand and preach real science, the rest of us are just to ignorant or stupid to figure anything out along "scientific" lines. Rapid erosion and displacement of large amounts of earth and rock through cavitation is not bastardized false science. It is testable, observable, factually established science. A global flood would most certainly facilitate such on a scale easily capable of forming the Grand Canyon and a whole lot of other features we see in our present world. Your rejection of the possibility of such is in fact bastardized false science built upon a chosen faith, rather than unbiased scientific observation and conclusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvUxGWpjvlY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v98omCq1kRA

Cavitation is real science, that even children can comprehend and explain as one of the above videos demonstrates. It is your false bastardized theory of deep time evolution wrongly labeled as factual "science" that is taught to children the world over, not creation. The faulty presumption of deep time and gradual change foisted upon your victims in judging the past by observing the present, is addressed and trashed in the following video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjdZ3Gs-PTk

Real live observable, testable, science concerning that which has transpired right in front of our faces to be examined, fully supports the rapid change of catastrophism as the mechanism of what we observe geologically today on a global scale. Not theoretical surmising concerning deep time slow change by those who choose such as their faith, against very plausible evidence to the contrary. Nothing but blind chosen faith would determine such plausible observations to be nothing but bastardized false science. So be it.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat May 08, 2021 - 14:24:44
So tell us how you think this-


-occurred quickly in a sudden rush of water.

As you probably realize, such loops cannot happen suddenly.    And scientists know precisely how they form.   Young rivers tend to be quite straight and have deep valleys.    Old rivers meander a lot and have broad shallow valleys.   Due to the differential erosion in even slight river bends, the channel tends to move over time, forming loops, oxbends, and other artifacts of gradual shifting.    So how did the Colorado River end up as it has?   

It's caused by uplift of the area.   The area was raised over time, and that causes rivers to be "rejuvenated" moving faster, and cutting quickly into the river bed.   That means that the river will no longer meander, and will cut deeper and deeper into the existing channel.   These entrenched meanders are evidence of gradual uplift and increase erosion.

No geologist is puzzled about this.   Perhaps your guy is not a real geologist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcm9YgrvJIE

The above video regarding Mt. St. Helens addresses the rapid formation of snake like canyons and the waters which flow through them. This is observable science, concerning that which has transpired right in front of our faces. Which clearly demonstrates that under the right conditions such as a global flood, that which you are declaring could not form according to such conditions, has in fact formed right in front of our eyes on a smaller scale at Mt. St. Helens. This demonstrating once again, that nothing of the reality which we all see around us, is limited in any way shape or form, to the confines which your own puny mind or anyone else's has determined according to their own faith. To the contrary, God's word and testimony in the book of Genesis is most certainly not limited to the confines of puny fallen humanities extremely limited abilities either. Your first Pope Barb., predicted the foolishness you now embrace long ago.

2Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13  Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Why do you deny the words of your own self proclaimed first Pope? Why do you continually deny new scientific observations which support the biblical account of this worlds creation and the global flood? Why do you submit to and support political agendas built upon a faulty premise of fallen humanity saving this world from real or crated crises, when the scriptures predict its end by destruction which humanity cannot prevent? Is it not because your faith is not really in the word of God, but rather in the words of humanity and yourself?

https://www.livescience.com/1711-megaflood-created-great-divide-britain-france.html

Quoted article below is from link above. Emphasis is mine.

QuoteMegaflood Created Great Divide Between Britain and France

The cultural rift between Britain and France endures as an amusing mystery for many, but the physical divide between them can now be blamed on two ancient floods.

About 450,000 years ago, a "megaflood" breached a giant natural dam near the Dover strait and began the formation of the English Channel , according to a study detailed in the July 19 issue of the journal Nature. Following this first disastrous flood, a second deluge finished the job.

"The first was probably 100 times greater than the average discharge of the Mississippi River," said Sanjeev Gupta, a geologist at Imperial College London and co-author of the study. "But that's a conservative estimate—it could have been much larger."

Gupta said his team's findings quash previous, evidence-thin theories about how the island became severed from mainland Europe.

"Britain has been an island for only a very short time period, and we've put together the first clear evidence that the valley system in the English Channel was carved by a megaflood," Gupta said.

Chalky dam

Prior to the first megaflood, which originated from an enormous lake of freshwater in what is now the North Sea, a quaint river valley was the only waterway obstructing France and Britain. Inattentive to building materials, nature contained the monstrous, ice-locked lake with chalky stone.

"Some freak event, whatever it was, caused the dam to fail at some point," Gupta said, although he noted that the breach may have resulted from simply too much water built up behind the dam.

When the 19-mile-wide barrier failed, the deluge that followed carved an impressive basin 33 feet deep and almost 31 miles wide in a matter of weeks.

"The dimensions are enormous," Gupta said. "This was when sea levels were about 100 meters (328 feet) lower than today, when a lot of ocean water was locked up in ice sheets."

Double deluge

An even larger and more cataclysmic event, however, outdid the first megaflood, sometime prior to 180,000 years ago. This second deluge created the characteristic English Channel bottom seen today, according to the study.

The second torrent added insult to injury, whittling polished mesa-like islands out of the basin floor. Gupta said such structures are tell-tale signs of megafloods.

"The Channeled Scablands, in eastern Washington state, is an area where a huge ice-dammed lake created some of these extraordinary features," Gupta said. "They're analogous to what we see underwater in the English Channel."

Gupta is uncertain what initiated the second megaflood, but he thinks a large embankment of glacial deposits could have released freshwater that etched out canyon-like valleys.

Old evidence, new discovery

Making the discovery, Gupta explained, arose out of sheer boredom.

"I went to the library and came across an older book laying out this theory," Gupta said, noting that the author had little evidence to support it. Yet Gupta realized advances in sonar technology allowed mapping the English Channel's floor in high-resolution, which was done for purposes of ship safety. It was simply a matter of bringing the two pieces together, he pointed out.

"We were astonished by what we found. Quite frankly, we have better maps of Mars than we do of shallow seas around Britain," he said.

Gupta explained three dominant English-Channel-forming theories are shored up by the findings. Glaciers couldn't have carved out the Channel because the polar ice sheets never crept that far south. He explained that erosion by river or ocean also can't account for the underwater valley because it is too wide and has structures characteristic of a major flood.

"The valley cuts across a large number of rock types, simply ignores the different layers," he said, explaining that only a rapid, enormous and powerful flood can account for the bedrock-scouring features.

In the future, Gupta and his team plan to look for remnants of the enormous natural dam.

"We want to map the ancient lake out, see if there are any other features we've missed," Gupta said. "We may be able to find large boulders left behind from the dam. Be prepared for big discoveries in the future—this is a whole new avenue of research."

How many other prior explanations or theories about the formation of presently observed geological formations could be better explained by mega floods the world over? Of course this new evidence and theory are nothing new to Creationists, who have always believed the geological make up of this present world is the direct result of a global flood, and many other mega and localized floods resulting from the same. Many natural dams formed by the flood and receding waters of the same, gave way over time throughout history. History of course is much shorter than deep timers are reliant upon, or willing to give up. Even though evidence continues to build up revealing the plausibility of very rapid geological change brought about by cataclysmic forces, rapid change within species brought on by the need to adapt to changing environments among other issues, the ever increasing evidence of complexity from the beginning, and the always present issues of mass extinction and fossilization of creatures most obviously buried and fossilized due to mud flows and flood conditions. So be it.

https://www.livescience.com/8312-canyons-form-quickly-gusher-suggests.html

Quoted article below from link above.

QuoteCanyons Form Quickly, Recent Gusher Suggests

Some of the most spectacular canyons on Earth and Mars were probably formed in the geologic blink of an eye, suggests a new study that found clues to their formation deep in the heart of Texas.

Lake Canyon Gorge, a 23-feet- (7-meter-) deep canyon in Comal County, Texas, was carved in just three days by a flood in 2002. The flood scoured a swath of greenery, leaving sand-colored bedrock rubble in its wake.

"It was just a little v-shaped ditched before, but all that material was busted out during that event," said engineer Tom Hornseth of Comal County, Texas.

Data gathered at this gorge will help researchers reconstruct the formation of ancient canyons.

A single catastrophic flood capable of cutting into bedrock is extremely rare, but the Comal flood gave scientists a front-row ticket to an event similar to those from the planet's distant past.

Researchers climbed into the canyon, measured the rate and volume of the flood and took aerial photographs to document the rapid erosion. Their study is detailed in the June 20 early online edition of the journal Nature Geoscience.

Gorges are typically formed along pre-existing river channels. The Grand Canyon was formed as the Colorado River slowly wore down the bedrock. That probably took millions of years though, said geologist and study co-author Michael Lamb of Caltech in Pasadena, Calif.

Rapid gorge carving is a baffling example of how incising bedrock doesn't take millions of years. At Lake Canyon Gorge, a single burst of water carried away heavy rocks, a process known to geologists as plucking. These sedimentary rocks were already broken down into pieces weighing a couple of tons, but exactly how this happens is not well understood, Lamb told OurAmazingPlanet.

Rapid megafloods may have formed canyons in the distant past as glacial ice dams released trapped water. Large floods may be responsible for the formation of some Martian canyons as well, the study suggests.

There you have it. Real live observable, examinable, testable, science. Floods form canyons, big floods form big canyons. All of which tend to follow already existing river channels, which is probably simply due to gravity and the path of least resistance. Combine this with all the other evidence of flooding all over the earth, and all the extinction level mass fossil graveyards all over it as well, and a global flood becomes far more than just a story shared by peoples all over the world. It becomes a scientifically backed up theory regarding what we presently observe in and of the world around us. No matter how many of the deep timers faith want to ignore, deny, or refute it. It is a matter of faith, not real science, that motivates them to do so. No real scientist would ignore so much ever increasing evidence without being agenda driven. So be it.

a 23-feet- (7-meter-) deep canyon  ---- a perfect model for the carving of the Grand Canyon.

https://crev.info/2010/06/secular_geology_admits_to_rapid_canyon_formation_by_megafloods/

Secular Geology Admits to Rapid Canyon Formation by Megafloods

It's hard to deny catastrophic canyon formation when you have the evidence right in front of you.  Look what happened in Texas a few years ago, as reported by PhysOrg:


The actual canyon was formed in just three days, said Science Daily.  Live Science also reported the story, saying, "Some of the most spectacular canyons on Earth and Mars were probably formed in the geologic blink of an eye, suggests a new study that found clues to their formation deep in the heart of Texas."
    Such catastrophic floods and canyons that resulted are not unknown in historic times, but what's new is that geologists are taking note and applying the lesson of Canyon Lake to large, prehistoric megafloods on earth and even Mars.  PhysOrg continued, "Our traditional view of deep river canyons, such as the Grand Canyon, is that they are carved slowly, as the regular flow and occasionally moderate rushing of rivers erodes rock over periods of millions of years."  Quoting Michael Lamb of Caltech, co-author of a paper in Nature Geoscience,1 the article said that such is not always the case: "We know that some big canyons have been cut by large catastrophic flood events during Earth's history."
    Lamb went on to explain that there is not often an easy way to tell a catastrophically-formed canyon from a gradually-formed one:


Lamb found that process like "plucking" – in which boulders popped up from fractured bedrock became sledgehammers in the current, and headward-eroding waterfalls, led to quick downward erosion of the canyon.  He hopes the features witnessed in the Canyon Lake flood will aid in interpreting megaflood evidence on earth and Mars.  Here is the abstract from the paper by Lamb and Fonstad:


Their references included the paper by J H Bretz on the channeled scablands of Washington, and other research on the Lake Bonneville floods, but no work by creation geologists who have postulated rapid formation of the Grand Canyon by a dam breach megaflood.  They did not discuss the Grand Canyon in their paper other than to state in the introduction that "Most bedrock river canyons are thought to be cut slowly over millions of years (for example, Grand Canyon, USA, ref. 1) by moderate flows that reoccur every few years."  They did not say whether they agree with that assessment now in light of their work.
    Lamb and Fonstad described in the paper how it is hard to tell slow processes from rapid ones:


They did the best they could to come up with a "semi-empirical theory" of sediment transport capacity to account for the rapid erosion of Canyon Lake Gorge.  Apparently it was not the strength of the bedrock that limited erosion, but the ability of the water to pick up and move large blocks: "Thus, it seems plausible that erosion of well-jointed rock by large floods might be extremely rapid, such that canyon formation is limited by the capacity of the flood to transport plucked blocks rather than by the plucking processes itself."  Whether that is the only surprising paradigm shift from this observational example of rapid canyon formation remains to be seen.  It may be time to change a lot of western national park interpretive signs.

1.  Lamb and Fonstad, "Rapid formation of a modern bedrock canyon by a single flood event," Nature Geoscience, Published online: 20 June 2010 | doi:10.1038/ngeo894.

What does he mean this is not well understood?  If the secular geologists had been reading the creationist journals for decades, which are way ahead of the curve on this topic, they would not be so clueless.  The Creation Research Society Quarterly, Journal of Creation and other peer-reviewed journals written by creation scientists, with field research and PhDs, have for years been talking about the power of catastrophic processes to produce the Grand Canyon and other large earth features in just days and weeks by breached dams and other megaflooding processes.  This is nothing new, but the secular journals and news media act like it is.  It's nice for the secular crowd, still awaking from their Lyellian slumbers, to catch the groove finally (better late than never), but how about some attribution?  Creationist authors of papers on this subject should get together and walk into Lamb's office with a stack of their papers on catastrophic canyon formation by megafloods, pile them on his desk, and ask, "Where have you been all this time?"
    Who speaks for science?  Notice what a bizarre situation this is.  The secularists have been admittedly clueless for a long time about the power of catastrophic flood geology, while the creationists have taken the lead on the subject.  But the creationists have been routinely and summarily ignored, because their opinions are deemed "religious" from the outset and therefore "pseudo-scientific."  One would think that what matters in science is being right.  If a creation scientist has a PhD in geology or a related subject, has demonstrated competence in field work and research, and has published his ideas, it should not be an issue what his theology or motivations are – it should matter whether his ideas are reasonable, testable, and fit the evidence.  In fact, one's degree or field work should not even matter.  Some scientific ideas that have stood the test of time were not published by people with degrees, or in peer-reviewed journals, or by the other standard trappings of today's scientific milieu.
    Philosophers of science recognize that the process of scientific discovery is irrelevant to the designation "scientific."  If a geologist comes up with a theory in a dream that turns out to work, so be it.  Similarly, the process of scientific explanation should not be evaluated based on beliefs, memberships, degrees or associations.  Darwin and Wallace, you recall, were known mostly for field studies.  There may be political, social, and sociological reasons why Lamb and Fonstad did not reference creation literature in their paper, but there is no logical or scientific reason not to do so.  "But we have to have institutional standards to keep the crackpots out!" some skeptical gatekeeper will say.  Guess what; a lot of them are running rampant inside the ivied walls right now (e.g., 06/14/2010, 06/13/2010, 06/10/2010; follow the links on "Dumb Ideas" for a parade of the shameful).  Didn't a famous Teacher once say to clean the inside of the cup first?
    Unless modern secularists want to cut out Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Faraday and a host of other great achievers in science because they were Christians and creationists, it's wrong to exclude today's creation scientists simply on the basis of their beliefs and motivations.  Face it; everybody has beliefs and motivations.  Inside the academy, they might include naturalism and defending uniformitarianism.  The only way to guard against dogmatism and self-deception is to square off with those having other beliefs and motivations in light of the evidence.  And you know, maybe some of the best qualifications for good science come from the Judeo-Christian tradition: honesty, impartiality, humility, and a deep, abiding respect for the truth.

Quote from: 4WD on Sat May 15, 2021 - 09:15:47
a 23-feet- (7-meter-) deep canyon  ---- a perfect model for the carving of the Grand Canyon.

I understand your need to resort to ridicule. What else can one do when presented with real live observable science which contradicts their pet faith. As a deep timer evolutionist you should understand extrapolation very well, and I am sure you do. You simply choose not to apply such to that which would contradict your chosen faith. A global flood the proportions of which the scriptures testify of, would produce conditions and results far beyond those you referred to above. You have simply chosen not to believe in that flood. Therefore have you resorted to ridicule.

Quote from: Amo on Sat May 15, 2021 - 10:02:12
A global flood the proportions of which the scriptures testify of, would produce conditions and results far beyond those you referred to above.

You have not a single bit of data that would even suggest anything that you propose.  You haven't any information that would allow you to extrapolate from a 23-foot deep ditch to a mile-deep and 300-mile long canyon.  But you are right.  I shouldn't really have resorted to ridicule. Seriously, Amo, to make such an extrapolation and expect anyone to believe it is, well, nothing short of stupid and I shouldn't ridicule stupidity.

Quote from: 4WD on Sat May 15, 2021 - 12:04:42
You have not a single bit of data that would even suggest anything that you propose.  You haven't any information that would allow you to extrapolate from a 23-foot deep ditch to a mile-deep and 300-mile long canyon.  But you are right.  I shouldn't really have resorted to ridicule. Seriously, Amo, to make such an extrapolation and expect anyone to believe it is, well, nothing short of stupid and I shouldn't ridicule stupidity.

Ah yes, so now even secular scientists who admit of rapid canyon formation by mega floods, are stupid because 4WD says so. Moses was stupid. Peter was stupid. Even our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was and is stupid according to 4WD.

Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Luk 17:24  For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. 25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation. 26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27  They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. 31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. 32 Remember Lot's wife.

Our Lord testifies to the truthfulness of the flood account given by Moses, who received that very testimony from Him as well. Our Lord directly connects the flood account with other scriptural accounts of events concerning judgment and His second coming as well. Tell us 4WD, are those accounts untrue as well, or did our Lord just throw a symbolic story in with other recorded actual events? If the flood account does not mean what it very conclusively states, how do we know any of these others do? If the flood occurred, which scripture, our Lord, and many rightly called Creation scientists of the day profess, then the present geological formations of this world are directly related to the same. You are forced by this issue to declare real live, observable, witnessed, testable, and established science, stupidity. This because you are a die hard defender of your deep time evolutionary faith. So be it. Continue your travels down Lala lane, filled with travelers going through the wide gate on the wide highway unto destruction.

Mat 7:13  Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hk9jct2ozY

Good video depicting God's awesome creations and extreme complexity even at the molecular level. Complexity which trashes the theory of evolution as far as I am concerned. Such complexity even at cellular levels, destroys any simple to complex scenarios.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG7uCskUOrA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_tYrnv_o6A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyUtbn0O5Y

A few more of the same.

Quote from: Amo on Sat May 15, 2021 - 13:31:43
Our Lord testifies to the truthfulness of the flood account given by Moses, who received that very testimony from Him as well. Our Lord directly connects the flood account with other scriptural accounts of events concerning judgment and His second coming as well. Tell us 4WD, are those accounts untrue as well, or did our Lord just throw a symbolic story in with other recorded actual events? If the flood account does not mean what it very conclusively states, how do we know any of these others do?

I have never denied the flood account.  I only deny your version of the flood account.  I certainly believe the flood account as given.  It says nothing about the flood being a global flood.  That is your interpretation and it is that interpretation that I reject.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun May 16, 2021 - 06:49:29
I have never denied the flood account.  I only deny your version of the flood account.  I certainly believe the flood account as given.  It says nothing about the flood being a global flood.  That is your interpretation and it is that interpretation that I reject.

You do deny the flood account as given.

Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12  And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. 13  And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth......................
17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die................

Gen 7:4  For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.........................
19  And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

You deny the conclusive and repeated statements of scripture above. It is the very words of scripture which you deny, not my interpretation of them. I make no interpretation of them, but simply believe what they simply, conclusively, and repeatedly state. You are the one who interprets them to say something other than what they simply, conclusively, and repeatedly state. The scriptures could not do anything more than they have done to express the fact that the flood destroyed this entire world and every living thing upon it which lived upon land. You simply reject this in favor of your chosen deep time evolutionary faith. The two cannot be reconciled, so you have made your choice between them. So be it.

The only thing I deny is your translation/interpretation of the Hebrew word "erats" to mean the global earth.  In the Hebrew, it probably never means "global earth" simply because that was not even a concept at that time.  But you insist that in the flood account it must mean the global earth; and yet you reject, I think, that same translation/interpretation in Gen_41:57  Moreover, all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth.

So, no Amo, I don't reject anything the Bible says; I only reject what you think it says.  But you can't possibly tolerate any such disagreement, no matter how ludicrous your interpretation might be.  One might think that your entire faith would crash if any such interpretation you disagree with were actually the correct one.

For all you looking at the pics of the Grand Canyon, here is another one, at a slightly higher elevation:



Elevation 2311 ft.  It is a 200+ft cut into Sideling Hill for I-68 in western Maryland. 

? ? ? ? ?

Quote from: 4WD on Mon May 17, 2021 - 06:34:53? ? ? ? ?

Indeed. That was my reaction the first time I drove past it. 

Quote from: DaveW on Mon May 17, 2021 - 06:24:38
For all you looking at the pics of the Grand Canyon, here is another one, at a slightly higher elevation:



Elevation 2311 ft.  It is a 200+ft cut into Sideling Hill for I-68 in western Maryland.

Have a lot of those in PA

But here is the PA Grand Canyon .. Formally known as Pine Creek Gorge. And not man made 

Quote from: Rella on Mon May 17, 2021 - 06:58:47
But here is the PA Grand Canyon ..

Snicker, snicker  --  giggle, giggle.

I suppose we've all got gorges and canyons of some shape or flavor.




This one is only 12,500 years old.