is Genesis History

[other one]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

I’m not disputing any of that.  It is simply that the two canyons are very different things.

Not really for that land that made the grand canyon was as fresh as the land at the Mt. Saint Hellen's area. That was the point.

[one.opinion]

I can't argue geology from a position of experience and knowledge, only what I've read previously. So I'm going to leave some readings from people that do know what they are talking about. If you have some specific biological argument from the video, please leave some time stamps and I'll be happy to chime in again.

https://geochristian.com/2020/05/19/what-does-mt-st-helens-teach-us-about-noahs-flood-almost-nothing/

https://christianscholars.com/the-grand-canyon-monument/

https://imonk.blog/2016/11/17/69525/

The following critique isn't nearly as kind, but does illustrate much of the problem.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2007/08/15/creationism-and-the-grand-cany/

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

I can't argue geology from a position of experience and knowledge, only what I've read previously. So I'm going to leave some readings from people that do know what they are talking about. If you have some specific biological argument from the video, please leave some time stamps and I'll be happy to chime in again.

You can't, so you left us with someone who can't. 

One canyon was caused by a world-wide flood and the judgement of God, and the other was not.  So the layers look different between the two.   That's genius. 

How does this counter how they were developed quickly?  It does not.

 

 

[Jayne]

I could only sit through the first 23 minutes this afternoon, but as a former science teacher and former/current Bible teacher, I find this refreshing and awesome.

I will be back later and watch the rest as I have time.

To those who are hesitant to watch extended videos, this video is broken into sections.  I watched 23 minutes and that was three sections.

 

[teddyv]

5 hours ago, other one said:

Not really for that land that made the grand canyon was as fresh as the land at the Mt. Saint Hellen's area. That was the point.

What do you mean by fresh? Newly deposited and unconsolidated?

If they were there would be a much different geomorphological shape to the canyon than what we see. The steps and cuts in the canyon walls are directly related to their overall hardness and fracturing qualities.

 

I've seen clips and commentary on this program and noted it was on Netflix for a while. I will sit down and watch this sometime. I do know it was well produced even though it is still starting from a conclusion and trying to fit the evidence.

Edited February 13, 2022 by teddyv
added thought

[teddyv]

On 2/12/2022 at 2:58 PM, one.opinion said:

Within the first few minutes, the narrator is comparing apples to oranges. Water running down a steep slope carved out these miniature canyons through some extremely loose debris deposited as a direct result of the Mt. St. Helens eruption. The Grand Canyon is carved through much different layers and much different terrain. While beautiful and interesting, these canyons in the video are not a close approximation to the Grand Canyon.

Yeah, I just started watching it and that is pretty bad comparison. I know this is a common evidence by YEC adherents. Unconsolidated to weakly consolidated ash and tuff layers are not equivalent to anything like a sandstone.

[teddyv]

I'm just shocked that Dr. Austin can say with a straight face that the mountains were all created during the Flood.

The point of draining lakes is not unreasonable and it probably based on the evidence of the Washington Scablands where a late-glacial lake burst and carved the ground.

There is matter of claiming that all the Grand Canyon sediments were laid down during the Flood, lithified in a couple months, then eroded out by a dam burst. I don't take issue with the dam burst idea, but the deposition and diagenesis of the sediments over the Great Unconformity. There are several hundred feet of limestones, formed from oceanic shelled organisms. And then there are mudstones to deal with.

What YEC geologists tend to ignore is that they have to account for all processes. One thing that there is a dearth of, is discussion around mineral deposits within YEC timeframes. For example, with gold deposits, YEC love to point to Ladolam in Papua New Guinea as strong evidence, but that is taking the exception and making it the rule. Gold deposits like Ladolam are pretty rare. But we also have Carlin-style, which are the largest source of gold in US; copper-gold porphyries, huge disseminated copper-gold-silver bearing hydrothermal systems from intruding igneous rocks, then there are shear-hosted systems, paleoplacers, and others I am probably forgetting- and this is just gold (and copper) deposits.

[teddyv]

Dr. Snelling is being very selective in his presentation. I realize that you can't dive into the weeds in a presentation such as this, but he simplifies things to the point of cartoonish. He should know better, but he, to borrow from earlier in the film, is totally invested in his paradigm.

 

Does not Dr. Wise not hear himself?

 

Dr. Ross: ?????????

The Cambrian Explosion is over 90 million years.

Edited February 14, 2022 by teddyv
added thought

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

Dr. Snelling is being very selective in his presentation. I realize that you can't dive into the weeds in a presentation such as this, but he simplifies things to the point of cartoonish. He should know better, but he, to borrow from earlier in the film, is totally invested in his paradigm.

Does not Dr. Wise not hear himself?

Dr. Ross: ?????????

The Cambrian Explosion is over 90 million years.

So, you got nothing from the fact that the small canyon was cut in hours?  Not trillions of years.  Because as you know, we are witnesses to that canyon being cut.  It's history.   You don't think that an even bigger lake could have burst open, and carved the Grand Canyon in the same way?  If not, why not?

[missmuffet]

On 2/9/2022 at 3:57 AM, other one said:

I know this is way way way beyond time limits, but there are soooo many threads that come and go about the subject and it would be so good to be able to send people to it.

 

 

If Genesis is not history then what is it?