A prominent Christian magazine features the Grand Canyon on its cover, and its editor-in-chief examines directly the historical reliability of the Bible and specifically of Genesis. This provides a good occasion to review the features of the Grand Canyon that provide direct evidence of the Global Flood.
Marvin Olasky, editor and publisher of World magazine, wrote this article about his experiences as part of the Answers in Genesis "Canyon Ministries" event, a one-week white-water rafting trip down the Colorado River and through the Grand Canyon. In his article, Olasky points out a recurring problem in Christian higher education: many Christian colleges still are willing to accept the conventional view that the earth is 4.6 billion years old--or else prefer to avoid the issue entirely. Olasky points out that anyone who seriously thinks that an old earth constitutes settled science (if one grants the premise that science is ever settled about anything) ought to come to the Grand Canyon, as he did, and see for himself the evidence that the Grand Canyon offers for a young earth, not an old one.
The Grand Canyon is one of the most breathtaking and beautiful natural formations in all the earth. This much everyone can agree upon concerning its formation: some process, or processes, laid down multiple rock layers (with fossils embedded within them), and after that, another force laid those layers bare relatively recently and quickly. (Even conventional theory states that the Grand Canyon formed over millions of years instead of billions, so that is still relatively swift.) There the agreement ends.
Conventional theory states that the fossil layers formed over billions of years, and then, perhaps 1.8 million to 5 million to 80 million years ago, the Colorado River formed (or was diverted), swept through the region, and started to cut a channel down three geological eras' worth of layers. Somehow this process, operating over so long of time, left the layers intact, and left a landscape that could serve as the greatest paleontological dig of all time.
Olasky points out a number of problems with conventional theory:
- Lack of erosion between the various layers. The attached slideshow reveals cliffs containing multiple layers standing out in stark relief, when they ought to be blended into one another.
- Rock layers that are bent without fracturing, which can happen only when they are wet and not yet hard.
- The very existence of fossils, which require a catastrophic burial.
Olasky also quoted a conventional geologist who frankly admitted that floods, not regularly flowing rivers, carve canyons.
Andrew Snelling, who accompanied Olasky on his trip, is also a member of the old RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) group. In 2004, he published this article describing even more problems with conventional theory: non-correlating and inconsistent radiometric dates from adjacent layers, or even the same layer. Furthermore, he found evidence of another proposition that RATE had already developed: that radioactive decay had been accelerated worldwide.
Snelling concluded that the deepest layers of the Grand Canyon (specifically the basaltic layers) might have dated all the way back to Creation Week. He actually had no definite warrant to date them back that far, but only to say that the billions-of-years-old date had no scientific warrant. Walt Brown, originator of the Hydroplate Theory, suggested that the Grand Canyon formed several centuries after the Global Flood. This follows the points of general agreement: the layers formed, and then something cut a swath through them--in this case, down as far as the first igneous rocks that flowed as lava after the heating of the earth's core.
Brown's proposal is this: the Rocky Mountains formed from the sudden compression of the North American hydroplate. As these mountains drove their roots into the earth's mantle, the Colorado Plateau formed, and trapped some of the receding waters into two vast lakes, called Grand Lake and Hopi Lake. Centuries later, Grand Lake broke through its southwestern wall, and the waters flowed into Hopi Lake and breached it as well. The outflow actually formed the Colorado River and carved the Canyon in a few weeks. And as Hopi Lake drained, it revealed another interesting formation: the Petrified Forest, which could only have formed from the mass immersion of a pre-Flood forest in a lake of very mineral-rich water--supersaturated water from what was once the earth's subcrustal ocean.
Like this article? Want to be notified of more? Click Subscribe, above.
Comments
So how did the ocean remain super-cooled then, Terry? When Noah's descendants cure cancer? And since you require magic intervention from God, why pretend that anything you write has anything to do with science?
Noah's descendants? That includes us. (The "cure for cancer" is beyond scope, though--too bad. You might want to look up Hallelujah Acres and marcola.com, two of the best sites I've seen, not so much for cancer cures as for cancer prevention.)
Yes, that includes us. And like I keep pointing out (assuming that by some miracle the Ark was super-cooled or protected by a force-field better than Captain Kirk's spaceship), the human race would have died of cancer long before we ever even got here.
Niick, Terry does not understand that his position that iradioactive decay being accelerated would have the side effects of high temperature and high energy alpha, beta and gamma emissions that would have torn our putative yatchsmen's DNA to pieces will cooking them as if they were in the heart of a small star. So they would have been either cooked by the heat or suffered from radiation sickness and subsequent cancers.
Fooey. Who has the energy to keep refuting this nonsense all the time? I think I'll just start advertising consumer products like the first commenter.
(ahem) Which has now been deleted! Pain I am, spammer I not!
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. Awaiting your next installment of, "Shilling for the Bible." Until then adieu.
Olasky points out a number of problems with conventional theory:
* Lack of erosion between the various layers. The attached slideshow reveals cliffs containing multiple layers standing out in stark relief, when they ought to be blended into one another.
* Rock layers that are bent without fracturing, which can happen only when they are wet and not yet hard.
* The very existence of fossils, which require a catastrophic burial.
Teh stupid is hurting my head with this set of quotes.
* Lack of erosion between the various layers. The attached slideshow reveals cliffs containing multiple layers standing out in stark relief, when they ought to be blended into one another.
Uh, no. The sediments are a result of onlap/offlap cycles of shallow marine depositional environments. High energy near shore sandstones are followed by low energy offshore siltstones and then carbonates as shallow epi-continental seas advanced. The cycle reverses as the shallow seas regressed.
* Rock layers that are bent without fracturing, which can happen only when they are wet and not yet hard.
Tragically wrong. Even comparatively brittle sandstones can bend quite well under lithostatic pressures found at depth. They may fracture when exhumed, however.
* The very existence of fossils, which require a catastrophic burial.
Huh? I'm not even going to bother with that one.
The Earth is billions of years old, Genisis is a fairy tale.
Get over it you freaking tard.
Why burn one religious book and cause a problem when we can burn every religious book and solve one!
It is a fact that creationists have a lower intelligence compared to atheists, and you proved this statement!
While I really hesitate to add to Terry's deconstruction,I just remebered who Olansky is. Others might want to note that Martin Olasky has a degree in American Culture, who blames poverty on the inferiority of the poor themselves. Another despicable @#%**le for jebus. I think he came up with the phrase "compassionate conservatism." He's a pseudo writes a lot about "journalists" for Jesus. Now I know where Terry gets his journalist credentials.
Just another extremely qualified creationist (formerly Marxist) geologist (when you're a creationist you're eminently qualified in all the sciences, right Terry).
gist s wrote some has just happened to remember reading an excerpt from some paper he wrote about
Interesting. It's also worth noting that Walt Brown was a NASA engineer and not trained as a scientist. He apparently taught physics for a year (scary, innit) though I can't verify he was qualified. Tremendously unlikely considering the outrageous ideas he comes up with in his apologetics. He became convinced of the literal truth of the Bible after - wait for it - reading the Bible.
Once upon a time there was an Examiner who believed in magic. He lived in the land of make-believe, a fairytale land where everything real is unreal and only fairytales are true. He believed that what was real was unreal, and what was unreal was real. On the beach he built his house on the sand. A tsunami—called truth washed ashore destroying the house, but he rebuilt. The rains of reality came, and the walls of the house collapsed into the sea. The winds of change blew and the sand crumbled, but he rebuilt: fighting odds, fighting science, fighting reality… never giving up. The sand was no longer strong enough to support even the base of a new house, but the builder never gave up. Then one day, truth arrived, offering to lead this builder into freedom, but the builder refused. He would build his house here, no matter how unrealistic it was.
Once upon a time, in the lonely land of make-believe: The fairytale land of Goddidit, the builder tried. But God continued to tease, making the Universe look old while saying it was young. God taunted, never offering proof, only stacking the evidence against our builder again and again. Still, as long as there was sand, our builder built—never giving up.
Is that the Andrew Snelling who sold Real Geology to the Business (because it worked) and then turn around and sold Flud Geology to the church?
Why yes, yes it is!
I think it is sad that someone doesn't have the fortitude to sign his name to his disagreeable comments. I also ask, why do you others even subscribe to Terry's column if you don't agree with him and constantly put him and his beliefs down?
Can't you just agree to disagree?
No Judy, because lies and ignorance have a habit of spreading unless they are actively addressed. Agreeing to disagree is the correct action when the subject is a matter or opinion. When something is a matter of fact, and people are misrepresenting these facts then some of us, especially those of us with genuine scientific credentials, will not allow these lies to go unchallenged.
Are regarding fortitude, I wonder about those who post moronic 'nice article' comments without explaining why. Do you wonder why these people are called creobots?
so did the speed of light change too?
Thanks Martin for responding, but rather than make fun of Terry, why don't you just explain your scientific view on the matter, or become an examiner yourself..: )
Lexington Christian Living Examiner
Judy, I would hope that my answer do contain references to evidence in complete contrast to Terry's random assertions. An example would be his views on the acceleration on the rate of radioactive decay to explain radiometric dating giving the 4.6 billion year age of the earth. His version would either require the entire earth to become plasma (and this only explains beta decay) or for everyone to die from radiation poisoning. My view is the same as the scientific consensus, the evidence shows that creationism is bunk.
Of course people usually do what you ask Judy, it's just that you don't pay attention, instead claiming we're bashing his religious beleifs when in fact it is he bashing the science you people rely on for your everyday modern lives.
I wish people would not try to prove their religion is "right" , by corrupting the perfectly good science and geology of the Grand Canyon with their ridiculous statements. I live and work in the bottom of Grand Canyon and these people who have to prove their faith by using the Grand Canyon as an example are totally out to lunch. It seems to me if someone has faith in something, they should not have to disprove other peoples beliefs and even hard science to make their "beliefs" more believable to themselves. They are wrong in SO MANY WAYS with their supposed proofs.
sorry I am behind in my commenting
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!