Originally posted by FMFIt could because it shows a smaller canyon than the Grand canyon form in less than a day. The layers in the smaller canyon would normally be estimated to have taken thousands or millions or more years to form by geologists using the evolutionists view. So this proves that the Grand Canyon could have formed much quicker than was previously believed.
Do you think this material supports your earth-only-a-few-thousand-years-old ideology?
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat evidence that points to an old earth most undermines your belief that the earth is very young and which you have most difficulty rebutting?
It could because it shows a smaller canyon than the Grand canyon form in less than a day. The layers in the smaller canyon would normally be estimated to have taken thousands or millions or more years to form by geologists using the evolutionists view. So this proves that the Grand Canyon could have formed much quicker than was previously believed.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsIs this a rhetorical question??
What do you believe I am wrong on and do not understand?
For one, you are wrong about the 6000 years, and do not understand the basic fundamentals of the scientific method - postulation, data gathering, verification, conclusion, testing.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsSo a 25 feet deep canyon was carved through mud and ash in one day.
The Grand Canyon & Mt. St. Helens Eruption
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcm9YgrvJIE
Mount St. Helens provides a rare opportunity to study transient geologic processes which produced, within a few months, changes which geologists might otherwise assume required many thousands of years. The volcano, therefore, challenges our way of thinking about how ...[text shortened]... f.
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/mount-st-helens/mount-st-helens-evidence-for-genesis/
You do understand that the Grand Canyon was carved through nearly a mile of rock, right?
Originally posted by SuzianneNo that is not what happened, you obviously did not read the article carefully. I will quote some of the relavent parts of the article below.
So a 25 feet deep canyon was carved through mud and ash in one day.
You do understand that the Grand Canyon was carved through nearly a mile of rock, right?
You are speacking of an evolutionists belief system when you say the Grand Canyon was carved through nearly a mile of rock. That is not know to be fact. The Little Grand Canyon 1/40 th of the Big Grand Canyon will look like it was carved through solid rock in time too.
Up to 400 feet thickness of strata have formed since 1980 at Mount St. Helens.
A deposit accumulated in less than one day, on June 12, 1980, is 25 feet thick and contains many thin laminae and beds. Conventionally, sedimentary laminae and beds are assumed to represent longer seasonal variations, or annual changes, as the layers accumulated very slowly. Mount St. Helens teaches us that the stratified layers commonly characterizing geological formations can form very rapidly by flow processes.
Mudflows, from Mount St. Helens, were responsible for the most significant erosion. A mudflow on March 19, 1982, eroded a canyon system up to 140 feet deep in the headwaters of the North Fork of the Toutle River Valley, establishing the new dendritic pattern of drainage.
The little "Grand Canyon of the Toutle River" is a one-fortieth scale model of the real Grand Canyon. The small creeks which flow through the headwaters of the Toutle River today might seem, by present appearances, to have carved these canyons very slowly over a long time period, except for the fact that the erosion was observed to have occurred rapidly!
Originally posted by RJHindsTalk about looking for evidence which fits your hypothesis, while ignoring evidence to the contrary.
No that is not what happened, you obviously did not read the article carefully. I will quote some of the relavent parts of the article below.
You are speacking of an evolutionists belief system when you say the Grand Canyon was carved through nearly a mile of rock. That is not know to be fact. The Little Grand Canyon 1/40 th of the Big Grand Canyon wi ...[text shortened]... ime period, except for the fact that the erosion was observed to have occurred rapidly! [/quote]
Mud and ash aren't solid rock. The difference is obvious.
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneGo and see for yourself if it is solid rock or not, just on a smaller scale than the Grand Canyon. 😏
Talk about looking for evidence which fits your hypothesis, while ignoring evidence to the contrary.
Mud and ash aren't solid rock. The difference is obvious.
7 Wonders of Mount St. Helens
Canyons formed in five months. In the five months following the eruption two canyons were formed by mud and pyroclastic flows, establishing drainages for the 1.5 x 2.0 mile crater. The primary drainage, Step Canyon, is up to 200m deep. To its east is Loowit Canyon. Both canyons cut through 30m of solid rock. Creeks flow through each canyon. The typical evolutionary explanation is that a creek slowly forms a canyon over vast ages. In this case we know that the canyons were formed quickly; then a stream began to run through them. Textbooks say the most spectacular canyon in the world, the Grand Canyon, was formed by stream erosion over a hundred million years. Now scientists who specialize in geological erosion believe it was formed rapidly just like these canyons at MSH.
http://www.creationism.org/articles/7wonders_en.htm
Originally posted by RJHindsThere is a counter to this position at:
Go and see for yourself if it is solid rock or not, just on a smaller scale than the Grand Canyon. 😏
7 Wonders of Mount St. Helens
Canyons formed in five months. In the five months following the eruption two canyons were formed by mud and pyroclastic flows, establishing drainages for the 1.5 x 2.0 mile crater. The primary drainage, Step Ca ...[text shortened]... ly just like these canyons at MSH.
http://www.creationism.org/articles/7wonders_en.htm
http://mountsthelenswatch.blogspot.com/2007/07/when-lies-goes-deep.html
For those interested.
Originally posted by JS357Evolutionists have been lying for 200 years to spread their propaganda of spontaneous generation, ape men, and billions and millions of years. Why should we expect them to stop now?
There is a counter to this position at:
http://mountsthelenswatch.blogspot.com/2007/07/when-lies-goes-deep.html
For those interested.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, you have that backwards...
Evolutionists have been lying for 200 years to spread their propaganda of spontaneous generation, ape men, and billions and millions of years. Why should we expect them to stop now?
Creationists have been lying ....
And we don't expect you to ever change.
Originally posted by JS357It is a proven fact that the evolutionists have lied in the past to promote their theory against the creation by God. So calling them liars is just telling the truth. The atheists and evolutionists are countinually calling YECs liars. Do the atheists and evolutionists lose you too?
When it get to the point of calling your opponents liars, you lose me.
Originally posted by RJHindsI just don't like it.
It is a proven fact that the evolutionists have lied in the past to promote their theory against the creation by God. So calling them liars is just telling the truth. The atheists and evolutionists are countinually calling YECs liars. Do the atheists and evolutionists lose you too?