http://www.geologytimes.com/research/Geologist_investigates_canyon_carved_in_just_3_days_in_Texas_flood.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/canyon.asp
Check out the two links above. The first one is about a canyon formed in just 3 days, in 2002, in Texas. The second link is about another canyon formed in just 6 days, in 1926, in Washington. What amazing stuff!!!
I don’t understand how a scientist, who is expected to stay true to real science, could say that it would take millions of years to form the Grand Canyon, when it just took 3 days to form this canyon in Texas in 2002, or just 6 days for this other canyon in Washington in 1926. Let me explain. Real science is observational.
By observing these two canyons, and the speed with which they formed, and how the waters actually carved out BEDROCK, this ought to make the evolutionist re-consider his own views concerning the Grand Canyon. How they can explain this away is beyond me, since they are supposed to be so educated, and for that matter, trusted. You see, the Bible is still accurate in its history. It tells us of a worldwide flood that took place. Yes, it covered the whole Earth. It was not just a local flood (Gen. 6:17, 7:17-24).
The Bible tells us that the waters receded continually (Gen. 8:3). So there was obviously a lot of erosion going on, on the earth, in very large amounts, due to the receding waters. Think about it…at the rate with which the worldwide flood waters receded, combined with the long duration of the receding waters, and the force behind the receding waters, this would make for a lethal combination that would be far greater than that of these 2 canyons which formed in just a few days.
So with this in mind, it should NOT be a problem understanding that the Grand Canyon was formed in just a matter of months, or weeks, or yes, even possibly days, from the receding waters of the worldwide flood of Noah’s day!!! The two canyons I referenced above, were observed by humans, and therefore verified by humans.
The opinion expressed by the evolutionary community that the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years, was NOT observed. It is only an interpreted opinion, successfully insisted upon, and believed by, the world, in the name of education, and certified through the expected credibility of their own attained stature of education.
I personally, would rather believe a theory that has been established through observation, than to believe an educated opinion that has never been observed. However, it is insisted that we believe the opinion to be true, simply because a bunch of people who has a bunch of initials after their name, swears it to be true.
But we actually do have written records from someone who observed the world wide flood! It was God. He was there! And He told Moses what happened, and Moses wrote it down, just like God told him (Ex. 33:11, 2 Tim. 3:16, John 5:46-47). So our Bible records this huge event, and since God can never lie (Titus 1:2), we can count on it being true! What? God doesn’t count for a credible witness? If you think this, then you just don’t know God personally, like I do. I know I can trust Him, and I know that His Word is true, and I know that He is a VERY credible witness.
Side note: Isn’t it interesting that in a world that is over 70% covered in water, we are laughed at for believing in a worldwide flood as told by the Bible, but yet, the evolutionists teach that there was a worldwide flood on planet Mars, and to this day, there has not been even a single drop of water found on the entire planet? Where’s the consistency and acknowledgement of reality here?
Maybe, if the secular scientific community would seriously consider the flood of Noah’s day as a real event, and build their scientific models based upon this event, they would find more reliable and believable explanations for the way the world is, including the Grand Canyon. I would recommend they pattern their models after the young earth creationist models, designed by other scientists who are as equally qualified to do so, as the scientists in the evolutionary community. Answers In Genesis Ministries is a great place to start!
So in conclusion, with the Earth only being about 6,000 years old, according to the Bible, it therefore could not have taken millions of years to form a canyon! If we believe the Bible, then we can make more sense of the world. The Bible is still true!!! With amazing accuracy!!!
I did not realize you had posted anything until just about 3 or 4 days ago. So I apologize for the long delay. I have a very busy schedule, so it has been difficult to find the time to respond, however, I did manage to write a response. Below, I have broken down your entire post into sections, and I have posted my answers to your questions and comments after each section from your post. I have made a sincere attempt in giving you answers, and I hope you will take time to read my responses, and put some serious thought into what I say. Thank you.
“Why should we take the Bible as an authority on empirical observation when it is proven wrong by observation on so many other counts, or simply inconsistent/contradictory on what are indeed scientific claims?”
I first of all reject this claim, that it has been proven wrong by observation, in any account. I thus reject that it is inconsistent or contradictory in any manner.
“For example: Genesis 1 conflicts with itself on the order of events of the creation on page one. Version one says order of creation was: Day 1: Sky, Earth, light. Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!). Day 3: Plants. Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids). Day 5: Sea monsters (whales? or are we to here believe in sea monsters, too?), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.). Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time. Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did. Version 2 has this order: Earth and heavens (misty, Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth), Plants, Animals, Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib). Then, God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19).”
Just like in any language, or conversation, everything should be taken within context. It is easy to dismiss these as two separate accounts, when one takes them both out of context. However, these are not two separate accounts, as you claim. Genesis 1 gives us the big picture of what happened in the beginning, while Genesis 2 gives us a more in depth description of the events that occurred on those specific days.
“How could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?”
There is an easy answer for this. There was existing light, indicating that there was some source of light, because God said “let there be light,” and the light appeared. So whatever this source was, we do not know, but that is all that is needed, to provide a way to “mark” the evening and morning. It is just like today, when you walk into a building, more than likely, the source of light that is filling the room, is not coming from the sun, but we still call it “light.” And with a God like our Creator is, He did not need a sun, in order to mark the days. Think about it. It was the beginning. The beginning of all things was a supernatural event. So He did not need to stay within the naturalistic means, in order to mark a day or night.
“When the animals left the ark, what would they have eaten? There would have been no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year.”
First, you assume there would have been no plants. The Bible indicates that when Noah sent out the dove, that it came back with an olive leaf in its mouth (Gen. 8:11). This occurred over 2 months before He and all those on the ark got off the ark (Gen. 8:12-16). If there was an olive leaf already grown, at two months earlier, then this would have given many plants enough time to reach maturity, in order for there to be enough plants to feed the animals on the ark.
“What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have been on the ark, and in limited supply.”
In the beginning, all animals survived as vegetarians (Gen. 1:30). So it is very likely that this was the case at this time. It is unlikely that Noah fed them meats while on the ark for that year, and since most, if not all, of the animals on board were likely young (for reproduction purposes after the flood), then by the time they reached the end of that year, these animals were in a routine of eating vegetation once again. So it would have likely taken them some time to re-discover their meat eating desires again. It is not a problem to understand how this could have worked, when reading the rest of the relevant Scriptures.
“How did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find their way back after the flood subsided? (Gen 8:19).”
There are different possibilities in which this could have occurred. Land bridges, due to lowering ocean levels, ice bridges (from the ice age period, after the flood), floating debris from the flood, which could have been floating in large quantities, providing a place to ride on, with possible vegetation still growing on these mats, for the duration of the ride. All are conceivable explanations.
“These are very weak scientific claims, indeed. The Bible says bat is a bird. (Lev 11:13-19) Do you thus say it is not a mammal?”
Actually, the word used here is “fowl,” as used in the King James Version. Since this is an old English word (1611) being used here, then we can reference an old English dictionary. The Webster’s 1828 dictionary states that the word “fowl” is “the generic name of certain animals that move through the air by the aid of wings.”
“The Bible says rabbits (hares and coneys) "chew the cud" but do not part the hoof. But rabbits are not ruminants (cattle, goats) and they do not "chew the cud." Would you say that they were? Lev. 11:5-6.
For this one, I will have to refer you to an article by Dr. Tommy Mitchell, who has a BA with highest honors from the University of TN, Knoxville, with a major in cell biology and a minor in biochemistry, and received his medical degree in 1984. He wrote the following… http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/02/14/contradictions-do-rabbits-chew-the-cud
“It took the Israelites 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan, yet such a journey, even at that time, would have taken no more than a few weeks. (Exodus 16:35).”
Again, if you understand the context, this scripture does not say that it took 40 years to go from Egypt to Canaan. It says they “eat manna forty years…until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan.” However, they did spend 40 years in the wilderness, but that was because God did not allow them to go to Canaan, as a punishment for their lack of faith, when they could have taken Canaan just a few days after they exited Egypt. In other words, God made them live in the wilderness for that long, as a punishment, until He was ready for them to move to Canaan, which was 40 years later. This is the context. It does not say that they walked straight to Canaan, and it took 40 years to do this.
“The Bible mentions "other flying creeping things which have four feet." Insects have six legs. What observed flying, creeping animals -- living or in the fossil record -- have four feet? (Lev. 11:23).”
Once more, let us look at the context. In verse 21 of the same chapter you are quoting from here, it acknowledges a difference between the four walking feet and the hind jumping legs. Today, people look at them as a total of 6 legs, but if you read the text carefully, you can see that the Bible distinguishes the difference between the feet and the legs, and they are referred to separately. So it has four walking feet and two jumping legs, which makes a total of six legs. There is no contradiction here.
“The Bible gives 3 as the value of Pi, when it's true value is the irrational number 3.14159....(Kings 7:23-26).”
I must refer you to Dr. Jason Lisle, who has a Ph. D. in astrophysics. Dr. Lisle wrote an article dealing specifically with this question. Please refer to the following article… http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/08/contradictions-as-easy-as-pi
“God sends quails to feed his people until they were "two cubits [about a meter] high upon the face of the earth." Taking the "face of the earth" to be a circle with a radius of say 30 kilometers (an approximate day's journey), this would amount to 3 trillion (3x1012) liters of quails. At 2 quails per liter, this would provide a couple million quails for each of several million people. (Num. 11:31).”
I don’t see a problem here. We have a supernatural God, who led Israel in a supernatural way. This miracle was no different.
“It's pretty clear the Bible was written by men whose understanding of mathematics and natural science was the understanding of semi-primitive Bedouin goat-herders from 2,000 years ago or more.”
I think you are making an unjustified claim with this statement. None of the men, who wrote their portion of what later became the Bible, were ignorant men. For example, since we are dealing with the creation issues, and the book of Genesis seems to be the primary book which you are most likely referring to, then let’s talk about its author. His name was Moses. Acts 7:22 tells us that Moses (who wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, including Genesis) was “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.” Josephus even records a tradition that Moses lead in a war between Egypt and Ethiopia, in which he gained renown as a skillful general, and became “mighty in deeds.” Moses was raised as an Egyptian, and was a highly educated man. Then, as we read the historical account in the Bible, we find that he led an entire country, of over 2 million people, which is not a task for a semi-primitive goat herder. I think it is pretty clear that Egyptians were very good at mathematics. Think of the pyramids. So do discredit him as a “semi-primitive…goat herder,” is simply an ignorant statement. Even Jesus esteemed the words of Moses as highly as His own Words, in John 5:46-47. So, the Bible was not written by a bunch of ignorant goat herders.
“It's silly for a grown man in the 21st century to espouse belief in any of it as a source of scientific fact, and absurd to run such things on the editorial page of a journal of public record.”
I don’t think it is “silly” to believe the Bible is accurate about our origins, because the answers are there. It is a reasonable faith. God said it. He doesn’t lie. And I believe it. It makes the most sense of the world, and the way it is today, when you believe what God said, in His Word. And I don’t find it “absurd,” but rather, I find it necessary, I find it my responsibility, to proclaim the Truth, and to expose the evil, when possible.
Chris Caudill
What scientific evidence is there for a worldwide flood? What are the rock layers that have been identified as being deposited all at the same time, all over the world, underwater? And exactly how old are these rock layers? What method is used to determine their age?
We do know that there are several ash beds older than 4 million years old that are found within older Colorado river sediments, therefore the river must be at least 4 million years old, regardless of how much time it took to carve the Grand Canyon.
Scientists generally recognize that rivers tend to have enhanced erosion during wetter years or individual storm events, and may even switch to depositing material during drier year. Mike Lamb's work (in the first link), is important because he can quantify the rates of erosion during the higher-than-background events, and relate those rates to specific processes eroding the stream bed "The flood was able to pluck these boulders because the bedrock below the soil surface of the valley was already fractured and broken."
Your car computer may show you drove home today at an average speed of 30 mph, but for 10 minutes on the highway maybe you were going 60 mph, and for a minute or two maybe you drove 75 mph while passing a slower car, but then drove 15 mph in the residential neighborhood near your home. The Grand Canyon and other rivers probably carve their paths at long term average erosion rates, which are a combination of little to no erosion during dry years or droughts, and very high erosion rates during exceptional storms or wetter years.
But we know from observation and scientific analysis that the Colorado river, as it exists now, is at least 4 million years old. Therefore, the Earth is at least 4 million years old. We know that the lowest and oldest sedimentary rocks near the bottom of the Grand Canyon are older than 1 billion years old, so, we know the Earth is at least 1 billion years old.
It's interesting that Chris Caudill seems to put stock in the scientific work of Mike Lamb, Ph.D. M.S., because Chris thinks he can use a narrow interpretation of Mike's work to support Chris's beliefs, but discards the bulk of the scientific work about the Grand Canyon, and the rest of the geologic sciences because they produce results incompatible with a 6000 year old Earth.