This was spawn from another thread but it was off topic. The Grand Canyon couldn't have been formed from the river. The river is a mile lower than the top of the canyon. The layers are stacked like pancakes with NO erosion in between. Don't you think it'll rain once in a while while the layer is waiting for the next one to cover it? There are barbed rivers and think canyons on the north side indicating a lake draining out of a breached dam. That's just for starters.
So how is this more likely than what I just said? Also I must've missed the part where they explained a river going uphill for a mile. Plus there's no delta.
The overwhelming mountain of supporting evidence showing what you said is nonsense? read the paper. If you still have issues with it, you can get to work on publishing a paper refuting all of the references used in the paper I gave you.............. I wish you luck
Like? read the paper. If you still have issues with it, you can get to work on publishing a paper refuting all of the references used in the paper I gave you..............[/quote] I read it.
everything in the paper I gave you. great. Now all you need to do is publish a paper refuting all of the sources I referenced, and have it peer reviewed.
All it did was state its own theory. It didnt gave rebuttal to mine or gave evidence to their own. That's what I'm asking for. Not if they haven't addressed my initial objections.
which shows you didn't read the paper. it's all in the paper. If you wish to refute it, you will need to publish a paper refuting all the references I gave you. I look forward to reading your work.
What abut ice age glaciation and flooding from breaks from ancient lakes in the melting ice as sections of the outter walls broke, all of which would add to erosion and opening up the canyon. It happened elsewhere the Wisconsin Dells, the Middle East has a large deluge demonstrated by science at the end of the last ice age and other locations around the world.
I went back to the link and it led me to a different site. BTW it said that we date the fossils by the rocks and the rocks by the fossils.
Here's a couple of articles on Grand Canyon. http://www.icr.org/article/grand-staircase http://www.icr.org/article/how-long-does-it-take-for-canyon-form
This isn't an argument. You made an assertion in your OP. You did not provide a single shred of supporting evidence to back up your assertion. I provided a peer reviewed paper which referenced several dozen other papers and studies showing your claims to be nonsense. This is why trying to debate a YEC is pointless. You demand evidence, ignore it when given, and refuse to provide any in support of your own claims. - - - Updated - - - opinion piece with no supporting evidence disputing known science. same as above.
Here's an article about how mars' canyon might of formed. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32555303/.../t/did-mars-canyon-form-when-plug-was-pulled/ Question: why you can say that a flood might of formed the canyon on mars even though hardly any water is found there but at the same time say that a flood DIDNT made the canyon down here even though 71% of earth's surface is water?
Are you trying to claim that God made the Grand Canyon without resorting to natural processes??? Really? Please cite support for this.
A giant lake was at the back of Grand Canyon and spilled over. It's that simple and has evidence. You can still see the beach lines from that lake.
With the first article it's not supossed to refute known science. It's using known science to make a point. But maybe this article would clarify my point. http://www.icr.org/content/taf9
that is a video, not a published scientific paper refuting the published scientific paper I gave you. You don't really seem to understand how this works. - - - Updated - - - I already refuted this
We can examine the canyons on earth and figure out how they were created. On Mars, we have far less information, so you can find various hypotheses.
Just watch the video. - - - Updated - - - No you haven't. - - - Updated - - - So what works on mars doesn't work down here.
no. video's don't refute science. . of course I have............http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/grca/age/index.cfm
The content in it does. What a silly comment. Unless you've watched the video and saying you saw nothing in it you're pronounced it guilty until proven innocent. . of course I have............http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/grca/age/index.cfm[/QUOTE] I've read it and all I saw was one theory being presented. We can both agree Grand Canyon exists, it's the theory that I'm questioning.
no it doesn't. it's creationist nonsense, with no evidence to support it. The only way you can refute the mountain of evidence I provided in the peer reviewed published paper, is to publish one of your own with supporting evidence. of course. it's a creationist video with no supporting evidence. . backed by mountains of evidence, and other scientific research papers which I referenced. question all you want. I showed you the scientific evidence of it's formation. If you want to say it's wrong, you have quite a bit of work to do.
Once you take out radioisotope dating the current dating methods are flimsy. http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric Dating, and The Age of the Earth.htm Also moving water can create multiple layers at or near the same time.
You haven't even looked. So if I said that whenever you post an evolutionist link... Like? You show'd a common theory as to how it formed, not scientific fact that is unquestionable.
??? No one method of canyon creation works for every canyon on EARTH!! For you to suggest that if it works on Mars it must work in this one place on earth is just a startling avoidance of common sense, let alone science.
