GRAND CANYON PROVES THE GENESIS FLOOD

[Athanasius]

When most of humanity has lived next to water bodies, floods are an inevitable event.

That's true, but the universal flood stories have more similarities than just that. They all also feature a god unleashing the flood as a punishment, with a lone survivor who was spared because they were a better person than the others. It is enough to at least give one pause for thought.

I don't think the question is "Did a flood happen?" but when Genesis 7:20 speaks of the mountains being covered, does that mean actually all of the mountains, or just the known mountains of a region? In other words, was the flood local or global? If we're rooting for a global flood, we need to divine intervention away:

1. The animals making it to Noah
2. Survival on a boat at an elevation is nearly 9KM for ~370 days. This includes food, waste disposal, etc.
3. Maintaining the earth's mass, stability, orbit, etc.
4. Generating the sheer volume of water
5. Protecting the surface of the planet as the rain fell, given the sheer volume of rain fall necessary
6. Disappearing all the extra water (to be clear, between 3 - 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water)

At which point we also have to give up 'X is evidence for Y', given we're maintaining that Y is substantially supernatural. Even just considering that 3 - 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water falling as rain over 40 days and 40 nights would be catastrophic to the planet's surface. It would destroy all that nice Grand Canyon 'evidence'.

[teddyv]

When most of humanity has lived next to water bodies, floods are an inevitable event.

That's true, but the universal flood stories have more similarities than just that. They all also feature a god unleashing the flood as a punishment, with a lone survivor who was spared because they were a better person than the others. It is enough to at least give one pause for thought.

I don't think the question is "Did a flood happen?" but when Genesis 7:20 speaks of the mountains being covered, does that mean actually all of the mountains, or just the known mountains of a region? In other words, was the flood local or global? If we're rooting for a global flood, we need to divine intervention away:

1. The animals making it to Noah
2. Survival on a boat at an elevation is nearly 9KM for ~370 days. This includes food, waste disposal, etc.
3. Maintaining the earth's mass, stability, orbit, etc.
4. Generating the sheer volume of water
5. Protecting the surface of the planet as the rain fell, given the sheer volume of rain fall necessary
6. Disappearing all the extra water (to be clear, between 3 - 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water)

At which point we also have to give up 'X is evidence for Y', given we're maintaining that Y is substantially supernatural. Even just considering that 3 - 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water falling as rain over 40 days and 40 nights would be catastrophic to the planet's surface. It would destroy all that nice Grand Canyon 'evidence'.

And hence the birth of hydroplane theory and catastrophic plate tectonics. The latter is championed by most of the major creationist orgs. Unfortunately the amount of heat would turn the earth into a glowing ball of plasma. I believe AiG ran the numbers and natural processes of heat diffusion could account for 0.04%. The rest would have to be some sort of exotic physics.

[teddyv]

Had to get onto a computer to address some of this, as the forum is decidely unfriendly to phones.

GRAND CANYON PROVES THE GENESIS FLOOD

Geologists from around the world descend upon the Grand Canyon to see the layers of rocks. Only a few places on earth reveal such a sequence of rock layers, and here is what has been discovered.

1. All of the horizontal layers contain marine fossils such as corals and clams. Marine fossils are found on every continent in the world.
Incorrect. The Coconino Sandstone is eolian, i.e. wind transported and deposited sands like dunes. There are rare trace fossils of land-based invertebrates. Marine fossils are found on all continents because of tectonic action. The Western inland Seaway covered the interior of North America prior to the Laramide orogeny which uplifted the Rockies, among others. It was a warm shallow sea, hence the presence of marine fossils that are now inland (and may be at high elevations) from the modern oceans.

2. There is a layer formation that has been found across the United States called the Coconino Sandstone or “the bathtub ring” in other states it’s also referred to as Cedar Hills Sandstone, Duncan Sandstone, and the Glorietta Sandstone.
Just mentioned this above. These are subaerially deposited sediments, not water deposited.

3. The Tapeats Sandstone, one of the lowest layers of the Grand Canyon, appears to form a single sandstone body that blankets across North America, extending from California on the west northward to Montana, covering much of North Dakota, and across the Midwest to New England. The same formation in southern Israel is called the Nabatean Sandstone of Petra.
This is not really a particular argument against current geology understanding.

4. The Redwall limestone in the Grand Canyon is grey limestone stained red from the iron oxide in the above layer. This same limestone can be found in much of North America, England, and in the Himalaya Mountains.
Limestones will not form in high energy environments.

During the Genesis Flood, there was catastrophic flooding across the earth. These tidal waves and tsunamis killed marine creatures and poured onto the land. Subsequently, tsunamis laid down more layers of fossils containing sediments.
There is no consistent, correlative evidence of such an event. There is even a rock type called tsunamite which is evidence of tsunamis, but it's not in the Grand Canyon that I am aware of.

The Flood continued for months. The Grand Canyon reveals the violent worldwide flood that once was; it is a monument to the Genesis Flood.
The nice layered nature of the stratigraphic horizons is not revealing of a violent flood. A violent flood would have mixed sediments. Also, many creationists argue the Grand Canyon sediments were deposited during the Flood and anything from the Cenozoic and younger are post-Flood. So, in one year, you had to erode massive amounts of sediment, drop them out of suspension into a series of different types of sedimentary rocks (sandstone, siltstone/shale/mudstone, limestone, conglomerate), then dewater and consolidate the sediments into rocks (diagenesis), then have a modern river cut through these sediments to a depth of close to a mile. And the river is definitely not the result of floodwaters pouring off the continent. Meandering rivers are not that. A great example of what a powerful flood can do is the Scablands of Washington State.

[teddyv]

Is Genesis History? is well produced but it's still wrong.

Does that include the story of Abraham and his covenant with God? That's part of Genesis. With regard to the Flood, Jesus referenced it as a historical fact--even comparing the circumstances of the event to those of His future coming.

If you are speaking to the "Is Genesis History" production, then no, it does not touch on things past Genesis 11. All major creationist organizations appear to limit their apologetics to the first 11 chapters.

Jesus referencing the Flood as historical fact is always a curious one to me. If we accept Jesus as fully human, and humbling himself as such, then I don't think that Jesus had the full knowledge of everything that he would as God. He grew up as a Jewish person and new the Torah and stories of Israel. It's not necessarily all hard fact, but it is truth of the interaction of God with his people.

We can find truths in fictional stories like Moby Dick or Lord of the Rings, but that does not mean they are factual accounts. But we  have grown up with them and can point to these shared stories as containing vital elements of human nature.

[Fenris]

I don't think the question is "Did a flood happen?" but when Genesis 7:20 speaks of the mountains being covered, does that mean actually all of the mountains, or just the known mountains of a region? In other words, was the flood local or global?

I'm not really worried about the details. It's enough that the bible says it happened and it seems to be a universal tale. It's the lesson that I'm concerned with, not the scientific proof.

[Slug1]

Jesus referencing the Flood as historical fact is always a curious one to me. If we accept Jesus as fully human, and humbling himself as such, then I don't think that Jesus had the full knowledge of everything that he would as God.

I've only heard atheists utilize the argument that since Jesus is both human and divine,  try to convince believers that what Jesus teaches, can't be trusted as truth.

[Fenris]

I don't think that Jesus had the full knowledge of everything that he would as God.

That is...quite the argument. I thought this debate was settled at Nicea in the year 325.

[RabbiKnife]

Only for some.

There is something in Proverbs about dogs returning to vomit…


Open theists are the new Arians.

[Athanasius]

I don't think the question is "Did a flood happen?" but when Genesis 7:20 speaks of the mountains being covered, does that mean actually all of the mountains, or just the known mountains of a region? In other words, was the flood local or global?

I'm not really worried about the details. It's enough that the bible says it happened and it seems to be a universal tale. It's the lesson that I'm concerned with, not the scientific proof.

Sure, at that point I'd say we're picking, so there's no "I believe this on faith" and also "the Grand Canyon is evidence for..." If one wants to play, "The Grand Canyon is evidence", then that stops being "I believe this on faith" and it opens the door to all of the evidence. In that case, it's not good enough to argue 'X is evidence for Y'. One must also argue why 'A, B, C, D, E, F, G aren't evidence against Y'. That's assuming 'X is evidence for Y' isn't mistaken in the first place.

I'm also more concerned with the lesson.

[Athanasius]

And hence the birth of hydroplane theory and catastrophic plate tectonics. The latter is championed by most of the major creationist orgs. Unfortunately the amount of heat would turn the earth into a glowing ball of plasma. I believe AiG ran the numbers and natural processes of heat diffusion could account for 0.04%. The rest would have to be some sort of exotic physics.

Makes me think of the flat earthers who run experiments that always show the earth isn't flat, then decide they did it wrong to try again to decide they did it wrong to try again to decide...

[Sojourner]

If you are speaking to the "Is Genesis History" production, then no, it does not touch on things past Genesis 11. All major creationist organizations appear to limit their apologetics to the first 11 chapters.

Just checking, since you initially spoke of "Genesis" as wrong, without specifying any particular portion.

Jesus referencing the Flood as historical fact is always a curious one to me. If we accept Jesus as fully human, and humbling himself as such, then I don't think that Jesus had the full knowledge of everything that he would as God. He grew up as a Jewish person and new the Torah and stories of Israel. It's not necessarily all hard fact, but it is truth of the interaction of God with his people.

Jesus acknowledged the limitations of His humanity, stating that He only did what the Father empowered Him to do, that He did not know the precise time of His future return, and that He lacked the authority to determine who would sit on His right and left in the kingdom. However, Jesus was acutely aware of the details of His coming, as recorded in the Olivet Discourse, and expressly drew a parallel between the nature and circumstances of the Flood and those regarding His return.  I don't believe He would have imparted this information to His Apostles if He didn't know what He was talking about.

We can find truths in fictional stories like Moby Dick or Lord of the Rings, but that does not mean they are factual accounts. But we  have grown up with them and can point to these shared stories as containing vital elements of human nature.

There is a vast difference between incidental elements of truth found in works of fiction and the truth in the Bible.

[Fenris]

I'm also more concerned with the lesson.

Then you've read the bible correctly.

[teddyv]

Just checking, since you initially spoke of "Genesis" as wrong, without specifying any particular portion.

Yeah, I quoted the name of the documentary but forgot to enclose it in quotes.

Jesus acknowledged the limitations of His humanity, stating that He only did what the Father empowered Him to do, that He did not know the precise time of His future return, and that He lacked the authority to determine who would sit on His right and left in the kingdom. However, Jesus was acutely aware of the details of His coming, as recorded in the Olivet Discourse, and expressly drew a parallel between the nature and circumstances of the Flood and those regarding His return.  I don't believe He would have imparted this information to His Apostles if He didn't know what He was talking about.

There is no physical evidence of a worldwide Flood as told in Genesis, despite the observations and work of literally thousands or geologists from many countries. There is some evidence toward a regional flood, but that is essentially a no-go when it comes to the major creationist organizations (again, my critiques are generally framed to the stories these groups put out). This either means God supernaturally covered it all up, therefore is completely untestable and zero reason for creationist organizations to consider themselves scientific, or it is an ancient story that is tellng us something about God and his relationship with humanity.

[RabbiKnife]

Or the geologists are not understanding what they are seeing


Science in general has a great deal of confirmation bias

[Fenris]

This either means God supernaturally covered it all up

I would put it in a different way.

Our free will is our greatest and most precious gift, because it gives our lives meaning. And God wants us to use our free will, and would never to anything to impede that in any way. As a result, He gives us the option of believing in anything, including nothing at all. Want to believe in a worldwide flood because the bible says so? Great. Want to be intrigued by worldwide myths of a great flood, that all have a sole survivor chosen because they deserved it? Got it. But if you want to believe that it never happened, scientists are there to back you up also. Only in this way can we make the freest choice possible.