Ken Ham's Ark

[danielwoods]

14 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

No they have not,and neither do we.

We each have our viewpoint. 

 

[danielwoods]

48 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

 

Ken Ham's Ark

A worse than horrible investment....

Check this out...Carl Sagan sends Voyager out of solar system...This imbecile builds an ark, sinking 100Million in it...

 

Your point is what? That Ken Ham is wasting his money? Or that people going are wasting their money? Because I disagree on both accounts. 

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

We each have our viewpoint. 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions; no one is entitled to their own facts.

 

2 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

Your point is what? That Ken Ham is wasting his money? Or that people going are wasting their money? Because I disagree on both accounts. 

Ken Ham needed taxpayer dollars to build his amusement park. So he is wasting my money.

[danielwoods]

29 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions; no one is entitled to their own facts.

 

Ken Ham needed taxpayer dollars to build his amusement park. So he is wasting my money.

There are no facts that exist that disprove or prove evolution or Noah's flood or creation in 6 days for that matter. All facts of history have to be interpreted through the lens of one's world view. Which always rests on faith of some sort. 

I understand that Ken's Org get's tax breaks. I haven't heard that he used tax payers money to build the theme park. So consider this a CFR for your claim. 

[Stargazer]

On 7/15/2016 at 4:39 PM, theplains said:

For those who believe in evolution, why did apes or monkeys cease to evolve into humans?

Jim

According to evolution, we did not evolve from apes or monkeys.  Humans, bonobos, gorillas, and chimps evolved from earlier, now extinct forms, called generally hominidae, or great apes.  According to evolution, humans, bonobos, gorillas and chimps are still evolving.

Here's one chart of descent:

Quote

Evolutionary tree of the Hominoidea (emphasis on family Hominidae): after an initial separation from the main line by the Hylobatidae (gibbons) some 18 million years ago, the line of Pongidae broke away, leading to the orangutan; later, the Hominidae split into the tribes Hominini and Gorillini.

See Wikipedia.

Now I don't expect you to believe it or accept it.  But it might be useful to you if you understood the arguments of your opponents so as to more effectively counter them.  That's where creationists are hamstrung: they're always fighting fire with gasoline, instead of water.  If you don't understand the argument, you can't effectively oppose it, and will always be countering it with non-sequitors.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Stargazer

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, danielwoods said:

There are no facts that exist that disprove or prove evolution or Noah's flood

See video, even if our world is only 6,000 years old you still can't deny these irrefutable facts presented in the video. 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[danielwoods]

6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

See video, even if our world is only 6,000 years old you still can't deny these irrefutable facts presented in the video. 

 

Only if your interpretation of what are Layers is correct. If the layers we observe today correlate to time, then you are correct. However, there's no way to demonstrate this "fact" as you call it. If the layers indicate something else entirely, then a different interpretation is more reasonable. See this video:  

 

[Atheist Mormon]

8 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Your point is what? That Ken Ham is wasting his money? Or that people going are wasting their money? Because I disagree on both accounts. 

So, you'd like to visit Ken's Ark then?

I can suggest a better place, Smithsonian or even here NASA center in Houston...the bonus is all the voyages have been reality....And cheaper admission.

[rodheadlee]

10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions; no one is entitled to their own facts.

 

Ken Ham needed taxpayer dollars to build his amusement park. So he is wasting my money.

You live in Kentucky?

[thesometimesaint]

37 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

You live in Kentucky?

Thankfully no. But Kentucky is a moocher state. So my tax dollars keep them financially afloat.

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

So, you'd like to visit Ken's Ark then?

I can suggest a better place, Smithsonian or even here NASA center in Houston...the bonus is all the voyages have been reality....And cheaper admission.

The L.A. County of Natural History is also a good one.

[Atheist Mormon]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

The L.A. County of Natural History is also a good one.

Not to mention The Tar Pits in the City........

[thesometimesaint]

10 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Not to mention The Tar Pits in the City........

True.

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Only if your interpretation of what are Layers is correct. If the layers we observe today correlate to time, then you are correct. However, there's no way to demonstrate this "fact" as you call it. If the layers indicate something else entirely, then a different interpretation is more reasonable. See this video:  

 

SEE

SEE

 

[danielwoods]

3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

So, you'd like to visit Ken's Ark then?

I can suggest a better place, Smithsonian or even here NASA center in Houston...the bonus is all the voyages have been reality....And cheaper admission.

Better is a a matter of opinion. I love both and love learning about both. 

[danielwoods]

34 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE

SEE

 

 

Unless one is willing to acknowlege the untestable extrapolations contained in ones view, discussion is pointless. 

[bcuzbcuz]

13 hours ago, danielwoods said:

There are no facts that exist that disprove or prove evolution or Noah's flood or creation in 6 days for that matter. All facts of history have to be interpreted through the lens of one's world view. Which always rests on faith of some sort. 

I understand that Ken's Org get's tax breaks. I haven't heard that he used tax payers money to build the theme park. So consider this a CFR for your claim. 

You are blinded by over-simplifications of animal, or for that matter, plant developments. Roses are a plant that has existed for millions and millions of years. We know this from rose pollen in layers of rock from deep within the ground. But the first simple roses are only found in the northern hemisphere, in Europe, northern Asia and North America. (That tells us something about continental drift) The early roses had hundreds of stamens that attracted insects, beetles and bees. These insects were attracted by the food in the pollen and also offered the opportunity for the plant to cross pollinate. But the rose itself only had five petals. Fewer petals means less surface area to produce scent, that perfume humans (and some insects) are attracted to. The rose offered virtually no sugery nectar reward.

At some point, (we know the Romans did it) humans found roses that had a gene error, that caused the central stamens to reform as petals. We know that Pliny the elder wrote about rose gardens. He wrote about multy petal roses and their devine smells (bigger surface area, therefore greater scent). These roses were the precursors to the modern roses, with wide variieties in colour, petals and scents....all cultured by humans, that we love to give and receive for birthdays and Valentines.

How are these moden roses cultured? By cuttings. When a rose is cut, the auxin that traverses the plant, informs the cells around the cut (by the chemical, auxin) that these cells need to be reformed into roots. The roots then provide the chance for the plant to renew, with the characteristics of the parent plant, such as colour, scent or petals. We know much of this by modern genetic studies but long before we knew the reasons why, we knew the how.

Plant pollen can be found in layer after layer of rocks. These rock formations require millions and millions of years to form. Head down to Bryce National Park and count rock layers. I won't fault you if you get tired of counting after you get into thousands of layers. Step up close to the rocks. Marvel at their colours. Examine the small crystaline forms that have formed from the compressed sand layers. Such rocks need millions of years to cement themselves into these fine grained layers.

Oh, and by the way, you won't find any evidence in Bryce of  Noah's flood. Such a flood would have left a rolly-polly tumultuous combination of decayed bones and plant masses (from all the peoples, animals and plants, which according to the Bible, were destroyed in the flood). 

If you don't like my reference to plants, study a little of the unbroken recorded history of pyramids in Egypt. Apparently the Egyputians could build pyramids before Noah. Then, a few years after Noah's flood....and supposedly the death of every single person on the earth, except for Noah and his sons (and wives), the Egyptians could gather tens of thousands of workers (and support staff in even larger numbers to produce food and clothing, etc) to go right back to building the next series of pyramids. Remarkablely, after every single Egyptian was wiped out with the flood, the land of Egypt could set aside both people and foods devoted only to building these ancient, massive structures in stone. (If tens of thousands were needed to build the pyramids, who would be left to produce all the food necessary for such a work force?)

[danielwoods]

7 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

You are blinded by over-simplifications of animal, or for that matter, plant developments. Roses are a plant that has existed for millions and millions of years. We know this from rose pollen in layers of rock from deep within the ground. But the first simple roses are only found in the northern hemisphere, in Europe, northern Asia and North America. (That tells us something about continental drift) The early roses had hundreds of stamens that attracted insects, beetles and bees. These insects were attracted by the food in the pollen and also offered the opportunity for the plant to cross pollinate. But the rose itself only had five petals. Fewer petals means less surface area to produce scent, that perfume humans (and some insects) are attracted to. The rose offered virtually no sugery nectar reward.

At some point, (we know the Romans did it) humans found roses that had a gene error, that caused the central stamens to reform as petals. We know that Pliny the elder wrote about rose gardens. He wrote about multy petal roses and their devine smells (bigger surface area, therefore greater scent). These roses were the precursors to the modern roses, with wide variieties in colour, petals and scents....all cultured by humans, that we love to give and receive for birthdays and Valentines.

How are these moden roses cultured? By cuttings. When a rose is cut, the auxin that traverses the plant, informs the cells around the cut (by the chemical, auxin) that these cells need to be reformed into roots. The roots then provide the chance for the plant to renew, with the characteristics of the parent plant, such as colour, scent or petals. We know much of this by modern genetic studies but long before we knew the reasons why, we knew the how.

Plant pollen can be found in layer after layer of rocks. These rock formations require millions and millions of years to form. Head down to Bryce National Park and count rock layers. I won't fault you if you get tired of counting after you get into thousands of layers. Step up close to the rocks. Marvel at their colours. Examine the small crystaline forms that have formed from the compressed sand layers. Such rocks need millions of years to cement themselves into these fine grained layers.

Oh, and by the way, you won't find any evidence in Bryce of  Noah's flood. Such a flood would have left a rolly-polly tumultuous combination of decayed bones and plant masses (from all the peoples, animals and plants, which according to the Bible, were destroyed in the flood). 

If you don't like my reference to plants, study a little of the unbroken recorded history of pyramids in Egypt. Apparently the Egyputians could build pyramids before Noah. Then, a few years after Noah's flood....and supposedly the death of every single person on the earth, except for Noah and his sons (and wives), the Egyptians could gather tens of thousands of workers (and support staff in even larger numbers to produce food and clothing, etc) to go right back to building the next series of pyramids. Remarkablely, after every single Egyptian was wiped out with the flood, the land of Egypt could set aside both people and foods devoted only to building these ancient, massive structures in stone. (If tens of thousands were needed to build the pyramids, who would be left to produce all the food necessary for such a work force?)

 

You say I'm blinded, then state as though it was a fact, "These rock formations require millions and millions of years to form." This is the very crux of the issue, how can we be sure it was millions and millions of years? Why not billions or trillions? What exactly is the test for time? The fact is we all bring faith based assumptions or extrapolations that can't be tested to the table. Until this is acknowledged all talk of Pollen is interesting but simply a side discussion. 

If each layer is formed laterally, one on top of another, then I'd agree with your interpretation of the geologic column. But, as of this point, I'm not convinced that is how the layers were deposited. So from my perspective all the geologic formations, including Bryce Canyon display Noah's flood everyday. 

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, danielwoods said:

 

You say I'm blinded, then state as though it was a fact, "These rock formations require millions and millions of years to form." This is the very crux of the issue, how can we be sure it was millions and millions of years? Why not billions or trillions? What exactly is the test for time? The fact is we all bring faith based assumptions or extrapolations that can't be tested to the table. Until this is acknowledged all talk of Pollen is interesting but simply a side discussion. 

If each layer is formed laterally, one on top of another, then I'd agree with your interpretation of the geologic column. But, as of this point, I'm not convinced that is how the layers were deposited. So from my perspective all the geologic formations, including Bryce Canyon display Noah's flood everyday. 

You can have your own beliefs.  That is your right.  What you don't get is your own facts.  What bcuzbcuz's post points out are facts that are backed by mountains of evidence (pun intended).  Egyptians and other civilizations have unbroken records that bracket the supposed flood time with no disruption.   Young earth and global flood are not theories.  They are superstitious childish stories.

Edited July 19, 2016 by sunstoned

[thesometimesaint]

14 hours ago, danielwoods said:

 

Unless one is willing to acknowlege the untestable extrapolations contained in ones view, discussion is pointless. 

CFR. for untestable extrapolations.

Radiometric dating is a well established science. The universe is about 13.77 billion years old. not thousands and not trillions.

Edited July 19, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[bcuzbcuz]

6 hours ago, danielwoods said:

 

You say I'm blinded, then state as though it was a fact, "These rock formations require millions and millions of years to form." This is the very crux of the issue, how can we be sure it was millions and millions of years? Why not billions or trillions? What exactly is the test for time? The fact is we all bring faith based assumptions or extrapolations that can't be tested to the table. Until this is acknowledged all talk of Pollen is interesting but simply a side discussion. 

If each layer is formed laterally, one on top of another, then I'd agree with your interpretation of the geologic column. But, as of this point, I'm not convinced that is how the layers were deposited. So from my perspective all the geologic formations, including Bryce Canyon display Noah's flood everyday. 

So you've been to Bryce? Why are the rock layers at Bryce not found at the Grand Canyon? Nor does Zion Canyon have layers that are found in the Grand Canyon. (Zion and Bryce do have links, however) But all three canyons are layered in the same way, although Bryce and Zion are younger and therefore completely removed from the top of Grand Canyon. All three canyons display a geologic column that witnesses to the same method of deposit, layer upon layer of various sandstones, with intrusions of volcanic material a little here and there. And it doesn't require any magical interpretation to assume that the layers on top are younger than the layer(s) below and that they haven't been flipped upside down so that older layers are on top of younger layers.

Note the arrangement of the pillars in Bryce. They are not in straight lines, but rather haphazardly weathered (by wind and water) and beautifully disordered in random arrangemets of pillars.

Now go to Grand Canyon. Look on-line at the aerial photos. Note how the Grand Canyon curves in marvelous S and U curves. Those curves are cut through (from the top down) the Kaibab Limestone, then the Toroweap Formation, then Coconimo Sandstone, followed by the Hermit Shale, the Supai Group, Redwall Limestone, Mauv Limestone, Bright Angel Shale, the Tapeats Sandstone and last the Vishnu Schist.

From the internet you can read;  Well, the fact is that most of the rock in the Grand Canyon is composed of sedimentary rock which can only be formed at the bottom of the ocean or in shallow coastal plains. The Kaibab Limestone which is the current top of the Grand Canyon is composed mostly of a sandy limestone, with some sandstone and shale thrown in for good measure. This means that it was probably formed in a shallow sea near the coast. The fact that it contains fossils of creatures that used to live in the ocean, like brachiopods, coral, mollusks, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth, only tends to reinforce this belief. The intrusion of sandstone and shales into this later means that at times the layer was also above the surface of the water but still very close to the edge. Sandstones are solidified sand which are typically fields of sand dunes or beaches, and shales are solidified mud which are common to river deltas. By dating the fossils found in the rock of the Kaibab Limestone, geologists have determined that it is approximately 250 million years old, and this is the youngest layer.

http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm

Limestone, by definition, has more than 50% calcium carbonate. This forms from the accumulation of shell, coral, algal, and fecal debris. We're talking about a layer that is between 300 to 500! feet thick. This layer of Limestone is found not only around the rim of the Grand Canyon but also in Northern Arizona, southern Utah, mid-central Nevada and south-east California. Remember, by defintion, it is dissolved shells and corals that are more than 50% of the limestone. That's an awful, awful, awe full lot of shells!!!! Billions and billions and billions of shells....that were all, at some time, living: clams, mussels, oysters, corals, etc., etc.

Then come sandstones. Sandstones are, as it sounds, made of sands. It is a pale beige sandy colour found in Utah, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada. At the Grand Canyon, this Coconimo sandstones are between 35 feet to 600 !!! Feet thick, depending where in the valley one stands.This layer contains features such as ripple marks, sand dune deposits, rain patches, slump marks, and fossil tracks which are not only well preserved within the formation, but also contribute evidence of its eolian origin. That's ripple marks in the sand, like at a beach, from waves of water, and sand dune deposits like the curvy hills found in desert areas.

Shale is a soft rock that crumbles easily. It can be in red, green, brown and black colours. At the Hermit shale level, red is the predominant colour.   Shale starts with bits of rock that erode off of larger rocks from contact with moving water and the weather. Very fine particles of feldspar, quartz, mica, pyrite and other minerals settle to the bottom of still bodies of water, such as swamplands, deep parts of the ocean and deep, still lakes. The fine rock particles mix with decaying organic matter into a mud. Because weathering is a continual process, new layers are always building up. The top layers press on the bottom layers with more and more pressure. When enough pressure builds up, the bottom layers become rock through a process called lithification. Lithification causes the thin layers that are characteristic of shale. https://www.reference.com/science/shale-formed-88583766861b4b91

The Hermit shale is from 100 feet to 900 feet in thickness.

The Supai group formation is a red bed, 1000 feet thick at the Grand Canyon.

The Redwall Limestone....again limestone must be, by definitionmore than 50% shells and corals...is a red cliff area that is 800 feet thick. This layer at its upper edge displays signs of erosion, meaning that back in the distant past, this layer lay open on the ground and was broken, decayed and eroded by wind and water, before the next layer was laid on top of it. This erosion is not a process that happens over a summer, or over a few n months. Wind and water erosion requires time, lots of time. Take a look again back at Bryce and see how little the valley changes due to water and wind erosion from year to year.

The Mauv Limestone layer is between 350 to 600 feet thick and shifts in colours from light grays to browns and light reds. There are obvious signs of erosion between the redwall limestone layers above and the mauv limestone layers.

Then come the Bright Angel Shales, about 500 feet thick at its maximum. It ranges from green to purple-red in colours.

The Tapeat Sandstones are about 230 feet thick and are a highly ersoion resistant layer. These compressed sandstones require enorm forces and great amounts of time to be eroded, even by the powerful waters of the grand Canyon, Colorado River.

The bottom of the Grand Canyon, called the basement is a different kind of rock. It is metamorphic and igneous rock.  The Vishnu schist contains quartz-mica and pelitic schists, among others. The metamorphic rocks are formed from submarine sedimentary sandstones that have been metamorphosed....by heat and pressure, enormous heat and pressure. This is a process that does not happen over a day, or a year or even thousands of years. We know this because we can recreate the process of metamorphosing in the lab and we know the heat and pressure required.

Now back to the S and U shapes of the Grand Canyon. Any simple book on geology will explain how the form of a river is dependent upon the force of the river. A fast river creates a straight path. Slow waters create S and U formations. The Colorado River is, as we see at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, a powerful, sometimes treacherous, river. But that power is now confined to the narrow bottom of the Grand Canyon, trying to wind its way through metamorphic rocks.

There is nowhere, not any place, any evidence anywhere, that cannot be explained by normal water erosion. But that erosion takes time, enormous amounts of time, not years, not thousand of years, but millions of years. 

I've read sites on the internet that claim the Grand Canyon was formed from the run-off of Noah's global flood. The Bible says that the earth drained from the end of the rains, to the end of the first year, before Noah and his family disembarked. Even if the Grand Canyon was formed by the massive run-off of the global flood and that it took many years to fully drain, that water would not have, could not have, cut their way through solid rock...while at the same time, moved slowly enough to form S and U bends in the river.

The global flood is a myth without any evidence...other than a few verses in two chapters in the beginning of the Bible. There is no physical evidence of a flood, no evidence at all.

[danielwoods]

7 hours ago, sunstoned said:

You can have your own beliefs.  That is your right.  What you don't get is your own facts.  What bcuzbcuz's post points out are facts that are backed by mountains of evidence (pun intended).  Egyptians and other civilizations have unbroken records that bracket the supposed flood time with no disruption.   Young earth and global flood are not theories.  They are superstitious childish stories.

So, when I trust the Hebrew record, I'm exercising faith. But, when you trust the Egyptian record you are trusting in facts? Did I get that right? I'm trusting in superstition and you have facts. Got it. 

[danielwoods]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

CFR. for untestable extrapolations.

Radiometric dating is a well established science. The universe is about 13.77 billion years old. not thousands and not trillions.

Like I said if we can't acknowledge or even understand that we have untestable extrapolations (faith) on both sides, the discussion is pointless. Your CFR or question is a glaring example. In other words Dating methods that are in the "millions of years" can't be calibrated, because there is no one that lives that long to test it against. It's simply a guess or extrapolation. It simply can't be proven one way or another. 

By the way it would be nice if you addressed my CFR above. 

[danielwoods]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

So you've been to Bryce? Why are the rock layers at Bryce not found at the Grand Canyon? Nor does Zion Canyon have layers that are found in the Grand Canyon. (Zion and Bryce do have links, however) But all three canyons are layered in the same way, although Bryce and Zion are younger and therefore completely removed from the top of Grand Canyon. All three canyons display a geologic column that witnesses to the same method of deposit, layer upon layer of various sandstones, with intrusions of volcanic material a little here and there. And it doesn't require any magical interpretation to assume that the layers on top are younger than the layer(s) below and that they haven't been flipped upside down so that older layers are on top of younger layers.

Note the arrangement of the pillars in Bryce. They are not in straight lines, but rather haphazardly weathered (by wind and water) and beautifully disordered in random arrangemets of pillars.

Now go to Grand Canyon. Look on-line at the aerial photos. Note how the Grand Canyon curves in marvelous S and U curves. Those curves are cut through (from the top down) the Kaibab Limestone, then the Toroweap Formation, then Coconimo Sandstone, followed by the Hermit Shale, the Supai Group, Redwall Limestone, Mauv Limestone, Bright Angel Shale, the Tapeats Sandstone and last the Vishnu Schist.

From the internet you can read;  Well, the fact is that most of the rock in the Grand Canyon is composed of sedimentary rock which can only be formed at the bottom of the ocean or in shallow coastal plains. The Kaibab Limestone which is the current top of the Grand Canyon is composed mostly of a sandy limestone, with some sandstone and shale thrown in for good measure. This means that it was probably formed in a shallow sea near the coast. The fact that it contains fossils of creatures that used to live in the ocean, like brachiopods, coral, mollusks, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth, only tends to reinforce this belief. The intrusion of sandstone and shales into this later means that at times the layer was also above the surface of the water but still very close to the edge. Sandstones are solidified sand which are typically fields of sand dunes or beaches, and shales are solidified mud which are common to river deltas. By dating the fossils found in the rock of the Kaibab Limestone, geologists have determined that it is approximately 250 million years old, and this is the youngest layer.

http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm

Limestone, by definition, has more than 50% calcium carbonate. This forms from the accumulation of shell, coral, algal, and fecal debris. We're talking about a layer that is between 300 to 500! feet thick. This layer of Limestone is found not only around the rim of the Grand Canyon but also in Northern Arizona, southern Utah, mid-central Nevada and south-east California. Remember, by defintion, it is dissolved shells and corals that are more than 50% of the limestone. That's an awful, awful, awe full lot of shells!!!! Billions and billions and billions of shells....that were all, at some time, living: clams, mussels, oysters, corals, etc., etc.

Then come sandstones. Sandstones are, as it sounds, made of sands. It is a pale beige sandy colour found in Utah, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada. At the Grand Canyon, this Coconimo sandstones are between 35 feet to 600 !!! Feet thick, depending where in the valley one stands.This layer contains features such as ripple marks, sand dune deposits, rain patches, slump marks, and fossil tracks which are not only well preserved within the formation, but also contribute evidence of its eolian origin. That's ripple marks in the sand, like at a beach, from waves of water, and sand dune deposits like the curvy hills found in desert areas.

Shale is a soft rock that crumbles easily. It can be in red, green, brown and black colours. At the Hermit shale level, red is the predominant colour.   Shale starts with bits of rock that erode off of larger rocks from contact with moving water and the weather. Very fine particles of feldspar, quartz, mica, pyrite and other minerals settle to the bottom of still bodies of water, such as swamplands, deep parts of the ocean and deep, still lakes. The fine rock particles mix with decaying organic matter into a mud. Because weathering is a continual process, new layers are always building up. The top layers press on the bottom layers with more and more pressure. When enough pressure builds up, the bottom layers become rock through a process called lithification. Lithification causes the thin layers that are characteristic of shale. https://www.reference.com/science/shale-formed-88583766861b4b91

The Hermit shale is from 100 feet to 900 feet in thickness.

The Supai group formation is a red bed, 1000 feet thick at the Grand Canyon.

The Redwall Limestone....again limestone must be, by definitionmore than 50% shells and corals...is a red cliff area that is 800 feet thick. This layer at its upper edge displays signs of erosion, meaning that back in the distant past, this layer lay open on the ground and was broken, decayed and eroded by wind and water, before the next layer was laid on top of it. This erosion is not a process that happens over a summer, or over a few n months. Wind and water erosion requires time, lots of time. Take a look again back at Bryce and see how little the valley changes due to water and wind erosion from year to year.

The Mauv Limestone layer is between 350 to 600 feet thick and shifts in colours from light grays to browns and light reds. There are obvious signs of erosion between the redwall limestone layers above and the mauv limestone layers.

Then come the Bright Angel Shales, about 500 feet thick at its maximum. It ranges from green to purple-red in colours.

The Tapeat Sandstones are about 230 feet thick and are a highly ersoion resistant layer. These compressed sandstones require enorm forces and great amounts of time to be eroded, even by the powerful waters of the grand Canyon, Colorado River.

The bottom of the Grand Canyon, called the basement is a different kind of rock. It is metamorphic and igneous rock.  The Vishnu schist contains quartz-mica and pelitic schists, among others. The metamorphic rocks are formed from submarine sedimentary sandstones that have been metamorphosed....by heat and pressure, enormous heat and pressure. This is a process that does not happen over a day, or a year or even thousands of years. We know this because we can recreate the process of metamorphosing in the lab and we know the heat and pressure required.

Now back to the S and U shapes of the Grand Canyon. Any simple book on geology will explain how the form of a river is dependent upon the force of the river. A fast river creates a straight path. Slow waters create S and U formations. The Colorado River is, as we see at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, a powerful, sometimes treacherous, river. But that power is now confined to the narrow bottom of the Grand Canyon, trying to wind its way through metamorphic rocks.

There is nowhere, not any place, any evidence anywhere, that cannot be explained by normal water erosion. But that erosion takes time, enormous amounts of time, not years, not thousand of years, but millions of years. 

I've read sites on the internet that claim the Grand Canyon was formed from the run-off of Noah's global flood. The Bible says that the earth drained from the end of the rains, to the end of the first year, before Noah and his family disembarked. Even if the Grand Canyon was formed by the massive run-off of the global flood and that it took many years to fully drain, that water would not have, could not have, cut their way through solid rock...while at the same time, moved slowly enough to form S and U bends in the river.

The global flood is a myth without any evidence...other than a few verses in two chapters in the beginning of the Bible. There is no physical evidence of a flood, no evidence at all.

You state that "the layers on top are younger than the layer(s) below" yet this is exactly the point. The layers on top aren't younger or older if they all were laid in the same year. Further, in rushing water, they deposit themselves according to mass and size, sideways. These are testable and observable phenomena. Seeing the layers and a lateral time table is an error in my view. 

And if they were laid by water, then they weren't hardened into rock right away. Rather, just like we observed at Mt. St. Helens after the deposits were made, the water cut them while it was soft. 

The Bible isn't the only place where a flood story is mentioned in the past. 

 

[bcuzbcuz]

11 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

You state that "the layers on top are younger than the layer(s) below" yet this is exactly the point. The layers on top aren't younger or older if they all were laid in the same year. Further, in rushing water, they deposit themselves according to mass and size, sideways. These are testable and observable phenomena. Seeing the layers and a lateral time table is an error in my view. 

And if they were laid by water, then they weren't hardened into rock right away. Rather, just like we observed at Mt. St. Helens after the deposits were made, the water cut them while it was soft. 

The Bible isn't the only place where a flood story is mentioned in the past. 

 

Mt.St. Helens? You're kidding, right? You obviously have never read a single biology textbook of even the most elementary level. Or, at least, never read with comprehension. 

I'm going to assume you get your information from the Institute for Creation Research site or Answers in Genesis site, because you won't find a single qualified, credited geology text that states such crap.

So, according to you...or your sites...the volcanic dust or sandstones and sand layers of the Grand Canyon were cut when all that dust and sand were soft. And then the layers of sandstone and shale have solidified since the global flood. 

I ask you again to read about limestone. It has to be at least 50% shell and corals to be even called limestone. Take any beach in the world, any beach at all. Do simple measurements of the layers of shells. The top layer of Limestone, the Kaibab limestone is between 300 to 500 feet thick. Using any modern beach, anywhere in the world, bring back a measurement of more than 50 feet of sheels formed over the last 4000 years since the great flood.

Check out the Cliffs of Dover. The cliffs are composed mainly of soft, white chalk with a very fine-grained texture, composed primarily of coccoliths, plates of calcium carbonate formed by coccolithophores, single-celled planktonic algae whose skeletal remains sank to the bottom of the ocean during the Cretaceous. We know the cliffs are made from crushed coccolith shells because anyone with a microscope can see the shells. Did these cliffs form after , during or before the flood? The cliffs are 350 feet thick. That's 350 feet deep of tiny, tiny shells. The oceans prior to the flood would have been a thick mushy soup of living algae. Too thick for anything else to be moving around, like fish.

Mt. Everest's peak, at 27,000 feet is made of metamorphosed limestone, full of seashell fossils. Explain, in 100 words or less, how seashells got to the top of such a mountain.

Getting back to your Mt. St.Helens. Take a look at aerial photos of the creeks that run through the volcanic ash left from the eruption. See if you can find the wide, curving (at least 1000 feet long..if you want to compare to the Grand Canyon) slow S and U curves that are cut by water through the volcanic ash. You won't find any. The river cut relatively straight paths through the ash, where the sides of the gulley collapsed into the water flow. You will find no details that compare to the Grand Canyon, in any way.

If you want to travel to Mt. St. Helens you can see for yourself that the water that flooded down from the lakes around the cone of Mt. St. Helens have not cut an inch into the rock beneath the volcanic ash. Climb down the gulf that is the Grand Canyon. It is a long, long way down from the rim of the canyon to where the Colorado River flows. Take a hammer with you and knock off chips of the metamorphosed rock at the bottom of the canyon. The rock at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is hard. Not light volcanic ash like at Mt. St. Helens.

You need to do your homework. Read some actual books about Geology.

Take a hose out into the garden and aim a full blast of water at any piece of granite stone or other metamorphosed stone. Measure it carefully, down to the slightest millimeter (one millimeter equals 0.0393700787 inches. That's 4/100ths of an inch)

Leave the blast of water, at full force, for ten years and then measure how much the water has eroded your stone. Get back to us here at this site if the rock is one single millimeter eroded.