In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood-The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview.

[RWNJ]

I agree that the Colorado river cut the Grand Canyon but I must add there was a much larger flow of water running down the canyon at the time. Which marks the "great flood".

Weather conditions during the ice ages also increased the amount of water in the Colorado River drainage system. The ancestral Colorado River responded by cutting its channel faster and deeper.

The base level and course of the Colorado River (or its ancestral equivalent) changed 5.3 million years ago when the Gulf of California opened and lowered the river's base level (its lowest point). This increased the rate of erosion and cut nearly all of the Grand Canyon's current depth by 1.2 million years ago. The terraced walls of the canyon were created by differential erosion.[18]

Between 100,000 and 3 million years ago, volcanic activity deposited ash and lava over the area which at times completely obstructed the river. These volcanic rocks are the youngest in the canyon.
Grand Canyon - Wikipedia

There is no evidence that it took a long time to carve the Grand Canyon. After mount ST. Helen erupted, we saw a large canyon that was carved in just a few days. The same thing happened during Noah's flood. Sediment was deposited, then later, a large body of water to the North broke loose and carved it out.

 

[RWNJ]

As for the global flood, there is not enough water to cover the planet. Even if you melted the ice on both poles.

Also, there are records of civilizations in China and that region as far back as 4,000 years ago. You'd think they would have noticed a global flood.

There are a couple of things you need to consider. In early earth there were not two or three continents, there was just one and it is called Pangaea.

Pangea was surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa, and it was fully assembled by the Early Permian Epoch (some 299 million to 273 million years ago). The supercontinent began to break apart about 200 million years ago, during the Early Jurassic Epoch (201 million to 174 million years ago), eventually forming the modern continents and the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Pangea’s existence was first proposed in 1912 by German meteorologist Alfred Wegener as a part of his theory of continental drift. Its name is derived from the Greek pangaia, meaning “all the Earth.”
https://www.britannica.com/place/Pangea
Pangaea is a hypothetical supercontinent that included all current land masses, believed to have been in existence before the continents broke apart during the Triassic and Jurassic Periods.
Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Pangaea_continents.svg/290px-Pangaea_continents.svg.png

The second thing to keep in mind is that sea shells have been found on Mt. Everest.

Fossilized sea life lies atop every major mountain range on earth—far above sea level and usually far from the nearest body of water. Attempts to explain “seashells on mountaintops” have generated controversy for centuries.a
View attachment 176501 View attachment 176501
An early explanation was that a global flood covered these mountains, allowing clams and other sea life to “crawl” far and high. However, as Leonardo da Vinci wrote,b under the best conditions, clams move too slowly to reach such heights, even if the flood lasted centuries. Also, the earth does not have enough water to cover these mountains, so others said that some sea bottoms sank, leaving adjacent seafloors (loaded with sea creatures) relatively high—what we today call mountains. How such large subterranean voids formed to allow this sinking was never explained. Still others proposed that sea bottoms rose to become mountains. The mechanisms, forces, and energy required to push up mountains were also never explained. Because elevations on earth change slowly, some wondered if sea bottoms could rise miles into the air, perhaps over millions of years. However, mountaintops, which experience destructive freezing and thawing cycles, erode relatively rapidly—and so should fossils slowly lifted by them. Also, mountaintops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils. Some early authorities, in frustration, said the animals and shells grew inside rocksc—or the rocks simply look like clams, corals, fish, and ammonites. Others denied the evidence even existed. Today, geologists rarely acknowledge all the seashells on mountaintops.d
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 129. Seashells on Mountaintops

As far as the great flood is concerned, there is plenty of visual evidence that proves it ocurred.
View attachment 176503 View attachment 176504

None of the land forms you show in the pictures is from the great flood. The Grand Canyon was cut by the Colorado River as the Colorado Plateau rose from underneath it. Monument Valley is mainly cut by wind. The Cutler Red Siltstone is very friable and the wind can have dramatic impact over a very short period of time as it erodes the Cutler, which then destabilizes the de Chelly sandstone which fractures and falls to the valley floor.

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

It did not take millions of years for the Grand Canyon to form. I have seen, in person, where the layers of the Grand Canyon...layers that you claim took millions of years, were bent 90 degrees. How do you explain this? Rock does not bend. That means that those layers were deposited at the same time, then the Earth buckled, bending the still malleable layers.

Yes, rock does bend.

Here's a old bench that is sagging thanks to gravity. You might want to rethink your position.

I can't remember what the geological process is called, but I remember watching Discovery channel one time when they were talking about geology and the earth's crust. They showed how plates rubbing against each other could actually make ripples in the rock layers.

I repeat. Rock does not bend. It fractures. The layers I saw were bent like taffy. You can't do that with rock.

 

[RWNJ]

There are a couple of things you need to consider. In early earth there were not two or three continents, there was just one and it is called Pangaea.

Pangea was surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa, and it was fully assembled by the Early Permian Epoch (some 299 million to 273 million years ago). The supercontinent began to break apart about 200 million years ago, during the Early Jurassic Epoch (201 million to 174 million years ago), eventually forming the modern continents and the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Pangea’s existence was first proposed in 1912 by German meteorologist Alfred Wegener as a part of his theory of continental drift. Its name is derived from the Greek pangaia, meaning “all the Earth.”
https://www.britannica.com/place/Pangea
Pangaea is a hypothetical supercontinent that included all current land masses, believed to have been in existence before the continents broke apart during the Triassic and Jurassic Periods.
Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Pangaea_continents.svg/290px-Pangaea_continents.svg.png

The second thing to keep in mind is that sea shells have been found on Mt. Everest.

Fossilized sea life lies atop every major mountain range on earth—far above sea level and usually far from the nearest body of water. Attempts to explain “seashells on mountaintops” have generated controversy for centuries.a
View attachment 176501 View attachment 176501
An early explanation was that a global flood covered these mountains, allowing clams and other sea life to “crawl” far and high. However, as Leonardo da Vinci wrote,b under the best conditions, clams move too slowly to reach such heights, even if the flood lasted centuries. Also, the earth does not have enough water to cover these mountains, so others said that some sea bottoms sank, leaving adjacent seafloors (loaded with sea creatures) relatively high—what we today call mountains. How such large subterranean voids formed to allow this sinking was never explained. Still others proposed that sea bottoms rose to become mountains. The mechanisms, forces, and energy required to push up mountains were also never explained. Because elevations on earth change slowly, some wondered if sea bottoms could rise miles into the air, perhaps over millions of years. However, mountaintops, which experience destructive freezing and thawing cycles, erode relatively rapidly—and so should fossils slowly lifted by them. Also, mountaintops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils. Some early authorities, in frustration, said the animals and shells grew inside rocksc—or the rocks simply look like clams, corals, fish, and ammonites. Others denied the evidence even existed. Today, geologists rarely acknowledge all the seashells on mountaintops.d
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 129. Seashells on Mountaintops

As far as the great flood is concerned, there is plenty of visual evidence that proves it ocurred.
View attachment 176503 View attachment 176504

None of the land forms you show in the pictures is from the great flood. The Grand Canyon was cut by the Colorado River as the Colorado Plateau rose from underneath it. Monument Valley is mainly cut by wind. The Cutler Red Siltstone is very friable and the wind can have dramatic impact over a very short period of time as it erodes the Cutler, which then destabilizes the de Chelly sandstone which fractures and falls to the valley floor.

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

It did not take millions of years for the Grand Canyon to form. I have seen, in person, where the layers of the Grand Canyon...layers that you claim took millions of years, were bent 90 degrees. How do you explain this? Rock does not bend. That means that those layers were deposited at the same time, then the Earth buckled, bending the still malleable layers.

Yes, rock does bend.

Here's a old bench that is sagging thanks to gravity. You might want to rethink your position.

I can't remember what the geological process is called, but I remember watching Discovery channel one time when they were talking about geology and the earth's crust. They showed how plates rubbing against each other could actually make ripples in the rock layers.

I repeat. Rock does not bend. It fractures. The layers I saw were bent like taffy. You can't do that with rock.

LOL! You call that proof? If you could show me the same bench, and what it is made of, then show me the same bench before it supposedly got bent, I might take you seriously. I can only laugh at this. Surely, you can do better.

 

[idb]

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

I am sorry but just because you think that is what happened; that is what happened. You have your views and I have mine.
There are people who believe we evolved from monkeys while at the same time there are still monkeys climbing trees today. What happened, did they miss the train and were left behind?

Oh no...you didn't bring up the "why are there still monkeys" argument?!!!!

 

[watchingfromafar]

Oh no...you didn't bring up the "why are there still monkeys" argument?!!!!

Nice that you noticed. Do you have something to add?

 

[RWNJ]

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

I am sorry but just because you think that is what happened; that is what happened. You have your views and I have mine.
There are people who believe we evolved from monkeys while at the same time there are still monkeys climbing trees today. What happened, did they miss the train and were left behind?

Oh no...you didn't bring up the "why are there still monkeys" argument?!!!!

OK. Forget about the monkeys. Explain the large number of supposedly extinct sea creatures, from millions of years ago, and why we have discovered that they are still around. Unchanged from the fossil record of millions of years ago. Why haven't they evolved? While you're at it, perhaps you can explain why we have discovered dinosaur fossils that contain soft tissue. If they were really that old, soft tissue would not be present.

 

[RWNJ]

Oh no...you didn't bring up the "why are there still monkeys" argument?!!!!

Nice that you noticed. Do you have something to add?

Maybe when I finish laughing.
Really though, if that's the depth of your argument there's little point trying to convince you of anything.

If evolution is true, why have there been several instances where scientists have fabricated evidence for it? Lucy comes to mind. Also Piltdown man. Proven frauds.

 

[idb]

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

I am sorry but just because you think that is what happened; that is what happened. You have your views and I have mine.
There are people who believe we evolved from monkeys while at the same time there are still monkeys climbing trees today. What happened, did they miss the train and were left behind?

Oh no...you didn't bring up the "why are there still monkeys" argument?!!!!

OK. Forget about the monkeys. Explain the large number of supposedly extinct sea creatures, from millions of years ago, and why we have discovered that they are still around. Unchanged from the fossil record of millions of years ago. Why haven't they evolved? While you're at it, perhaps you can explain why we have discovered dinosaur fossils that contain soft tissue. If they were really that old, soft tissue would not be present.

Why wouldn't they still be around if they were already suited to their environment?
If there's no pressure to 'evolve' then why would they?

As I understand it it's still disputed that soft tissue was found.
In an article published in the journal PLoS One on July 20, 2008, researchers Thomas G. Kaye, Gary Gaugler and Zbigniew Sawlowicz argue just that. This team conducted more than 200 hours of scanning electron microscope analysis on a variety of dinosaur fossils. It came to the conclusion that Schweitzer's samples contained framboids, and the apparent soft tissue was essentially pond scum. Through carbon dating, the team also determined that the material was modern, not prehistoric [source: Kaye et al.]. In statements made to National Geographic, Schweitzer stood by her findings, noting, among other things, that Kaye's team did not address more recent protein studies of her T. rex samples [source: Roach].
How did scientists find soft tissue in dinosaur fossils?

But, in any case...
The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex finally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay.
Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

 

[idb]

Oh no...you didn't bring up the "why are there still monkeys" argument?!!!!

Nice that you noticed. Do you have something to add?

Maybe when I finish laughing.
Really though, if that's the depth of your argument there's little point trying to convince you of anything.

If evolution is true, why have there been several instances where scientists have fabricated evidence for it? Lucy comes to mind. Also Piltdown man. Proven frauds.

Because people are people...and some of them aren't very honourable.
How does that shoot down evolution?

Have there ever been examples of Christians faking miracles?

 

[ABikerSailor]

There are a couple of things you need to consider. In early earth there were not two or three continents, there was just one and it is called Pangaea.

Pangea was surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa, and it was fully assembled by the Early Permian Epoch (some 299 million to 273 million years ago). The supercontinent began to break apart about 200 million years ago, during the Early Jurassic Epoch (201 million to 174 million years ago), eventually forming the modern continents and the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Pangea’s existence was first proposed in 1912 by German meteorologist Alfred Wegener as a part of his theory of continental drift. Its name is derived from the Greek pangaia, meaning “all the Earth.”
https://www.britannica.com/place/Pangea
Pangaea is a hypothetical supercontinent that included all current land masses, believed to have been in existence before the continents broke apart during the Triassic and Jurassic Periods.
Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Pangaea_continents.svg/290px-Pangaea_continents.svg.png

The second thing to keep in mind is that sea shells have been found on Mt. Everest.

Fossilized sea life lies atop every major mountain range on earth—far above sea level and usually far from the nearest body of water. Attempts to explain “seashells on mountaintops” have generated controversy for centuries.a
View attachment 176501 View attachment 176501
An early explanation was that a global flood covered these mountains, allowing clams and other sea life to “crawl” far and high. However, as Leonardo da Vinci wrote,b under the best conditions, clams move too slowly to reach such heights, even if the flood lasted centuries. Also, the earth does not have enough water to cover these mountains, so others said that some sea bottoms sank, leaving adjacent seafloors (loaded with sea creatures) relatively high—what we today call mountains. How such large subterranean voids formed to allow this sinking was never explained. Still others proposed that sea bottoms rose to become mountains. The mechanisms, forces, and energy required to push up mountains were also never explained. Because elevations on earth change slowly, some wondered if sea bottoms could rise miles into the air, perhaps over millions of years. However, mountaintops, which experience destructive freezing and thawing cycles, erode relatively rapidly—and so should fossils slowly lifted by them. Also, mountaintops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils. Some early authorities, in frustration, said the animals and shells grew inside rocksc—or the rocks simply look like clams, corals, fish, and ammonites. Others denied the evidence even existed. Today, geologists rarely acknowledge all the seashells on mountaintops.d
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 129. Seashells on Mountaintops

As far as the great flood is concerned, there is plenty of visual evidence that proves it ocurred.
View attachment 176503 View attachment 176504

None of the land forms you show in the pictures is from the great flood. The Grand Canyon was cut by the Colorado River as the Colorado Plateau rose from underneath it. Monument Valley is mainly cut by wind. The Cutler Red Siltstone is very friable and the wind can have dramatic impact over a very short period of time as it erodes the Cutler, which then destabilizes the de Chelly sandstone which fractures and falls to the valley floor.

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

It did not take millions of years for the Grand Canyon to form. I have seen, in person, where the layers of the Grand Canyon...layers that you claim took millions of years, were bent 90 degrees. How do you explain this? Rock does not bend. That means that those layers were deposited at the same time, then the Earth buckled, bending the still malleable layers.

Yes, rock does bend.

Here's a old bench that is sagging thanks to gravity. You might want to rethink your position.

I can't remember what the geological process is called, but I remember watching Discovery channel one time when they were talking about geology and the earth's crust. They showed how plates rubbing against each other could actually make ripples in the rock layers.

I repeat. Rock does not bend. It fractures. The layers I saw were bent like taffy. You can't do that with rock.

Funny that you should mention the bent layers in the Grand Canyon. Here's the reason why they are bent....................

#2 Bent Rock Layers

The region around Grand Canyon is a great example showing how most of the earth’s fossil-bearing layers were laid down quickly and many were folded while still wet. Exposed in the canyon’s walls are about 4,500 feet (1,370 meters) of fossil-bearing layers, conventionally labelled Cambrian to Permian.2 They were supposedly deposited over a period lasting from 520 to 250 million years ago. Then, amazingly, this whole sequence of layers rose over a mile, around 60 million years ago. The plateau through which Grand Canyon runs is now 7,000–8,000 feet (2,150–3,450 meters) above sea level.

 

[westwall]

As for the global flood, there is not enough water to cover the planet. Even if you melted the ice on both poles.

Also, there are records of civilizations in China and that region as far back as 4,000 years ago. You'd think they would have noticed a global flood.

There are a couple of things you need to consider. In early earth there were not two or three continents, there was just one and it is called Pangaea.

Pangea was surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa, and it was fully assembled by the Early Permian Epoch (some 299 million to 273 million years ago). The supercontinent began to break apart about 200 million years ago, during the Early Jurassic Epoch (201 million to 174 million years ago), eventually forming the modern continents and the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Pangea’s existence was first proposed in 1912 by German meteorologist Alfred Wegener as a part of his theory of continental drift. Its name is derived from the Greek pangaia, meaning “all the Earth.”
https://www.britannica.com/place/Pangea
Pangaea is a hypothetical supercontinent that included all current land masses, believed to have been in existence before the continents broke apart during the Triassic and Jurassic Periods.
Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Pangaea_continents.svg/290px-Pangaea_continents.svg.png

The second thing to keep in mind is that sea shells have been found on Mt. Everest.

Fossilized sea life lies atop every major mountain range on earth—far above sea level and usually far from the nearest body of water. Attempts to explain “seashells on mountaintops” have generated controversy for centuries.a
View attachment 176501 View attachment 176501
An early explanation was that a global flood covered these mountains, allowing clams and other sea life to “crawl” far and high. However, as Leonardo da Vinci wrote,b under the best conditions, clams move too slowly to reach such heights, even if the flood lasted centuries. Also, the earth does not have enough water to cover these mountains, so others said that some sea bottoms sank, leaving adjacent seafloors (loaded with sea creatures) relatively high—what we today call mountains. How such large subterranean voids formed to allow this sinking was never explained. Still others proposed that sea bottoms rose to become mountains. The mechanisms, forces, and energy required to push up mountains were also never explained. Because elevations on earth change slowly, some wondered if sea bottoms could rise miles into the air, perhaps over millions of years. However, mountaintops, which experience destructive freezing and thawing cycles, erode relatively rapidly—and so should fossils slowly lifted by them. Also, mountaintops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils. Some early authorities, in frustration, said the animals and shells grew inside rocksc—or the rocks simply look like clams, corals, fish, and ammonites. Others denied the evidence even existed. Today, geologists rarely acknowledge all the seashells on mountaintops.d
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 129. Seashells on Mountaintops

As far as the great flood is concerned, there is plenty of visual evidence that proves it ocurred.
View attachment 176503 View attachment 176504

None of the land forms you show in the pictures is from the great flood. The Grand Canyon was cut by the Colorado River as the Colorado Plateau rose from underneath it. Monument Valley is mainly cut by wind. The Cutler Red Siltstone is very friable and the wind can have dramatic impact over a very short period of time as it erodes the Cutler, which then destabilizes the de Chelly sandstone which fractures and falls to the valley floor.

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

It did not take millions of years for the Grand Canyon to form. I have seen, in person, where the layers of the Grand Canyon...layers that you claim took millions of years, were bent 90 degrees. How do you explain this? Rock does not bend. That means that those layers were deposited at the same time, then the Earth buckled, bending the still malleable layers.

Good for you. I have spent weeks in the Grand Canyon studying the rock formations. Yes, it took at least a million years to cut it. Now, there is a place where a catastrophe did cut things out very quickly indeed. Look up the Channeled Scablands of Washington State. Those ravines were cut in a week by a flood caused by the breakup of an ice dam that created a lake the size of the State of Montana.

 

[westwall]

As for the global flood, there is not enough water to cover the planet. Even if you melted the ice on both poles.

Also, there are records of civilizations in China and that region as far back as 4,000 years ago. You'd think they would have noticed a global flood.

There are a couple of things you need to consider. In early earth there were not two or three continents, there was just one and it is called Pangaea.

Pangea was surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa, and it was fully assembled by the Early Permian Epoch (some 299 million to 273 million years ago). The supercontinent began to break apart about 200 million years ago, during the Early Jurassic Epoch (201 million to 174 million years ago), eventually forming the modern continents and the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Pangea’s existence was first proposed in 1912 by German meteorologist Alfred Wegener as a part of his theory of continental drift. Its name is derived from the Greek pangaia, meaning “all the Earth.”
https://www.britannica.com/place/Pangea
Pangaea is a hypothetical supercontinent that included all current land masses, believed to have been in existence before the continents broke apart during the Triassic and Jurassic Periods.
Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Pangaea_continents.svg/290px-Pangaea_continents.svg.png

The second thing to keep in mind is that sea shells have been found on Mt. Everest.

Fossilized sea life lies atop every major mountain range on earth—far above sea level and usually far from the nearest body of water. Attempts to explain “seashells on mountaintops” have generated controversy for centuries.a
View attachment 176501 View attachment 176501
An early explanation was that a global flood covered these mountains, allowing clams and other sea life to “crawl” far and high. However, as Leonardo da Vinci wrote,b under the best conditions, clams move too slowly to reach such heights, even if the flood lasted centuries. Also, the earth does not have enough water to cover these mountains, so others said that some sea bottoms sank, leaving adjacent seafloors (loaded with sea creatures) relatively high—what we today call mountains. How such large subterranean voids formed to allow this sinking was never explained. Still others proposed that sea bottoms rose to become mountains. The mechanisms, forces, and energy required to push up mountains were also never explained. Because elevations on earth change slowly, some wondered if sea bottoms could rise miles into the air, perhaps over millions of years. However, mountaintops, which experience destructive freezing and thawing cycles, erode relatively rapidly—and so should fossils slowly lifted by them. Also, mountaintops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils. Some early authorities, in frustration, said the animals and shells grew inside rocksc—or the rocks simply look like clams, corals, fish, and ammonites. Others denied the evidence even existed. Today, geologists rarely acknowledge all the seashells on mountaintops.d
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 129. Seashells on Mountaintops

As far as the great flood is concerned, there is plenty of visual evidence that proves it ocurred.
View attachment 176503 View attachment 176504

None of the land forms you show in the pictures is from the great flood. The Grand Canyon was cut by the Colorado River as the Colorado Plateau rose from underneath it. Monument Valley is mainly cut by wind. The Cutler Red Siltstone is very friable and the wind can have dramatic impact over a very short period of time as it erodes the Cutler, which then destabilizes the de Chelly sandstone which fractures and falls to the valley floor.

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

It did not take millions of years for the Grand Canyon to form. I have seen, in person, where the layers of the Grand Canyon...layers that you claim took millions of years, were bent 90 degrees. How do you explain this? Rock does not bend. That means that those layers were deposited at the same time, then the Earth buckled, bending the still malleable layers.

Yes, rock does bend.

Here's a old bench that is sagging thanks to gravity. You might want to rethink your position.

I can't remember what the geological process is called, but I remember watching Discovery channel one time when they were talking about geology and the earth's crust. They showed how plates rubbing against each other could actually make ripples in the rock layers.

They are called pressure ridges. This is an example of them that we can see quite easily in California.

 

[westwall]

I agree that the Colorado river cut the Grand Canyon but I must add there was a much larger flow of water running down the canyon at the time. Which marks the "great flood".

Weather conditions during the ice ages also increased the amount of water in the Colorado River drainage system. The ancestral Colorado River responded by cutting its channel faster and deeper.

The base level and course of the Colorado River (or its ancestral equivalent) changed 5.3 million years ago when the Gulf of California opened and lowered the river's base level (its lowest point). This increased the rate of erosion and cut nearly all of the Grand Canyon's current depth by 1.2 million years ago. The terraced walls of the canyon were created by differential erosion.[18]

Between 100,000 and 3 million years ago, volcanic activity deposited ash and lava over the area which at times completely obstructed the river. These volcanic rocks are the youngest in the canyon.
Grand Canyon - Wikipedia

There is no evidence that it took a long time to carve the Grand Canyon. After mount ST. Helen erupted, we saw a large canyon that was carved in just a few days. The same thing happened during Noah's flood. Sediment was deposited, then later, a large body of water to the North broke loose and carved it out.

There is quite a bit of evidence actually. More importantly we can see the process still occurring.

 

[westwall]

There are a couple of things you need to consider. In early earth there were not two or three continents, there was just one and it is called Pangaea.

Pangea was surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa, and it was fully assembled by the Early Permian Epoch (some 299 million to 273 million years ago). The supercontinent began to break apart about 200 million years ago, during the Early Jurassic Epoch (201 million to 174 million years ago), eventually forming the modern continents and the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Pangea’s existence was first proposed in 1912 by German meteorologist Alfred Wegener as a part of his theory of continental drift. Its name is derived from the Greek pangaia, meaning “all the Earth.”
https://www.britannica.com/place/Pangea
Pangaea is a hypothetical supercontinent that included all current land masses, believed to have been in existence before the continents broke apart during the Triassic and Jurassic Periods.
Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Pangaea_continents.svg/290px-Pangaea_continents.svg.png

The second thing to keep in mind is that sea shells have been found on Mt. Everest.

Fossilized sea life lies atop every major mountain range on earth—far above sea level and usually far from the nearest body of water. Attempts to explain “seashells on mountaintops” have generated controversy for centuries.a
View attachment 176501 View attachment 176501
An early explanation was that a global flood covered these mountains, allowing clams and other sea life to “crawl” far and high. However, as Leonardo da Vinci wrote,b under the best conditions, clams move too slowly to reach such heights, even if the flood lasted centuries. Also, the earth does not have enough water to cover these mountains, so others said that some sea bottoms sank, leaving adjacent seafloors (loaded with sea creatures) relatively high—what we today call mountains. How such large subterranean voids formed to allow this sinking was never explained. Still others proposed that sea bottoms rose to become mountains. The mechanisms, forces, and energy required to push up mountains were also never explained. Because elevations on earth change slowly, some wondered if sea bottoms could rise miles into the air, perhaps over millions of years. However, mountaintops, which experience destructive freezing and thawing cycles, erode relatively rapidly—and so should fossils slowly lifted by them. Also, mountaintops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils. Some early authorities, in frustration, said the animals and shells grew inside rocksc—or the rocks simply look like clams, corals, fish, and ammonites. Others denied the evidence even existed. Today, geologists rarely acknowledge all the seashells on mountaintops.d
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 129. Seashells on Mountaintops

As far as the great flood is concerned, there is plenty of visual evidence that proves it ocurred.
View attachment 176503 View attachment 176504

None of the land forms you show in the pictures is from the great flood. The Grand Canyon was cut by the Colorado River as the Colorado Plateau rose from underneath it. Monument Valley is mainly cut by wind. The Cutler Red Siltstone is very friable and the wind can have dramatic impact over a very short period of time as it erodes the Cutler, which then destabilizes the de Chelly sandstone which fractures and falls to the valley floor.

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

It did not take millions of years for the Grand Canyon to form. I have seen, in person, where the layers of the Grand Canyon...layers that you claim took millions of years, were bent 90 degrees. How do you explain this? Rock does not bend. That means that those layers were deposited at the same time, then the Earth buckled, bending the still malleable layers.

Yes, rock does bend.

Here's a old bench that is sagging thanks to gravity. You might want to rethink your position.

I can't remember what the geological process is called, but I remember watching Discovery channel one time when they were talking about geology and the earth's crust. They showed how plates rubbing against each other could actually make ripples in the rock layers.

I repeat. Rock does not bend. It fractures. The layers I saw were bent like taffy. You can't do that with rock.

Photographic proof says otherwise. The actual reality is rock does both. A sudden force will fracture rock. However, force applied over a great deal of time will bend it.

 

[westwall]

None of the land forms you show in the pictures is from the great flood. The Grand Canyon was cut by the Colorado River as the Colorado Plateau rose from underneath it. Monument Valley is mainly cut by wind. The Cutler Red Siltstone is very friable and the wind can have dramatic impact over a very short period of time as it erodes the Cutler, which then destabilizes the de Chelly sandstone which fractures and falls to the valley floor.

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

It did not take millions of years for the Grand Canyon to form. I have seen, in person, where the layers of the Grand Canyon...layers that you claim took millions of years, were bent 90 degrees. How do you explain this? Rock does not bend. That means that those layers were deposited at the same time, then the Earth buckled, bending the still malleable layers.

Yes, rock does bend.

Here's a old bench that is sagging thanks to gravity. You might want to rethink your position.

I can't remember what the geological process is called, but I remember watching Discovery channel one time when they were talking about geology and the earth's crust. They showed how plates rubbing against each other could actually make ripples in the rock layers.

I repeat. Rock does not bend. It fractures. The layers I saw were bent like taffy. You can't do that with rock.

LOL! You call that proof? If you could show me the same bench, and what it is made of, then show me the same bench before it supposedly got bent, I might take you seriously. I can only laugh at this. Surely, you can do better.

There are benches all over the world that have been sitting for hundreds of years and they have ever so slowly bent due to gravity. It is not a question. It is a fact.

 

[RWNJ]

None of the land forms you show in the pictures is from the great flood. The Grand Canyon was cut by the Colorado River as the Colorado Plateau rose from underneath it. Monument Valley is mainly cut by wind. The Cutler Red Siltstone is very friable and the wind can have dramatic impact over a very short period of time as it erodes the Cutler, which then destabilizes the de Chelly sandstone which fractures and falls to the valley floor.

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

It did not take millions of years for the Grand Canyon to form. I have seen, in person, where the layers of the Grand Canyon...layers that you claim took millions of years, were bent 90 degrees. How do you explain this? Rock does not bend. That means that those layers were deposited at the same time, then the Earth buckled, bending the still malleable layers.

Yes, rock does bend.

Here's a old bench that is sagging thanks to gravity. You might want to rethink your position.

I can't remember what the geological process is called, but I remember watching Discovery channel one time when they were talking about geology and the earth's crust. They showed how plates rubbing against each other could actually make ripples in the rock layers.

I repeat. Rock does not bend. It fractures. The layers I saw were bent like taffy. You can't do that with rock.

Photographic proof says otherwise. The actual reality is rock does both. A sudden force will fracture rock. However, force applied over a great deal of time will bend it.

You're missing my point. It was several layers of rock, supposedly laid down over millions of years, that were bent. I'm talking a ninety degree bend. Rock cannot do that without breaking.

 

[RWNJ]

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

I am sorry but just because you think that is what happened; that is what happened. You have your views and I have mine.
There are people who believe we evolved from monkeys while at the same time there are still monkeys climbing trees today. What happened, did they miss the train and were left behind?

Oh no...you didn't bring up the "why are there still monkeys" argument?!!!!

OK. Forget about the monkeys. Explain the large number of supposedly extinct sea creatures, from millions of years ago, and why we have discovered that they are still around. Unchanged from the fossil record of millions of years ago. Why haven't they evolved? While you're at it, perhaps you can explain why we have discovered dinosaur fossils that contain soft tissue. If they were really that old, soft tissue would not be present.

Why wouldn't they still be around if they were already suited to their environment?
If there's no pressure to 'evolve' then why would they?

As I understand it it's still disputed that soft tissue was found.
In an article published in the journal PLoS One on July 20, 2008, researchers Thomas G. Kaye, Gary Gaugler and Zbigniew Sawlowicz argue just that. This team conducted more than 200 hours of scanning electron microscope analysis on a variety of dinosaur fossils. It came to the conclusion that Schweitzer's samples contained framboids, and the apparent soft tissue was essentially pond scum. Through carbon dating, the team also determined that the material was modern, not prehistoric [source: Kaye et al.]. In statements made to National Geographic, Schweitzer stood by her findings, noting, among other things, that Kaye's team did not address more recent protein studies of her T. rex samples [source: Roach].
How did scientists find soft tissue in dinosaur fossils?

But, in any case...
The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex finally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay.
Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

About those fossils. You really need to update your info. It is confirmed that there was soft tissue. Not just in one sample, but several. It wasn't pond scum. In fact, they have actually retrieved intact DNA. That's why they came up with that lame idea of iron preserving it. Iron may be a preservative, but there is no way that it could preserve DNA for tens of millions of years. The idea is simply ridiculous.

 

[WinterBorn]

There are a couple of things you need to consider. In early earth there were not two or three continents, there was just one and it is called Pangaea.

Pangea was surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa, and it was fully assembled by the Early Permian Epoch (some 299 million to 273 million years ago). The supercontinent began to break apart about 200 million years ago, during the Early Jurassic Epoch (201 million to 174 million years ago), eventually forming the modern continents and the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Pangea’s existence was first proposed in 1912 by German meteorologist Alfred Wegener as a part of his theory of continental drift. Its name is derived from the Greek pangaia, meaning “all the Earth.”
https://www.britannica.com/place/Pangea
Pangaea is a hypothetical supercontinent that included all current land masses, believed to have been in existence before the continents broke apart during the Triassic and Jurassic Periods.
Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Pangaea_continents.svg/290px-Pangaea_continents.svg.png

The second thing to keep in mind is that sea shells have been found on Mt. Everest.

Fossilized sea life lies atop every major mountain range on earth—far above sea level and usually far from the nearest body of water. Attempts to explain “seashells on mountaintops” have generated controversy for centuries.a
View attachment 176501 View attachment 176501
An early explanation was that a global flood covered these mountains, allowing clams and other sea life to “crawl” far and high. However, as Leonardo da Vinci wrote,b under the best conditions, clams move too slowly to reach such heights, even if the flood lasted centuries. Also, the earth does not have enough water to cover these mountains, so others said that some sea bottoms sank, leaving adjacent seafloors (loaded with sea creatures) relatively high—what we today call mountains. How such large subterranean voids formed to allow this sinking was never explained. Still others proposed that sea bottoms rose to become mountains. The mechanisms, forces, and energy required to push up mountains were also never explained. Because elevations on earth change slowly, some wondered if sea bottoms could rise miles into the air, perhaps over millions of years. However, mountaintops, which experience destructive freezing and thawing cycles, erode relatively rapidly—and so should fossils slowly lifted by them. Also, mountaintops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils. Some early authorities, in frustration, said the animals and shells grew inside rocksc—or the rocks simply look like clams, corals, fish, and ammonites. Others denied the evidence even existed. Today, geologists rarely acknowledge all the seashells on mountaintops.d
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 129. Seashells on Mountaintops

As far as the great flood is concerned, there is plenty of visual evidence that proves it ocurred.
View attachment 176503 View attachment 176504

None of the land forms you show in the pictures is from the great flood. The Grand Canyon was cut by the Colorado River as the Colorado Plateau rose from underneath it. Monument Valley is mainly cut by wind. The Cutler Red Siltstone is very friable and the wind can have dramatic impact over a very short period of time as it erodes the Cutler, which then destabilizes the de Chelly sandstone which fractures and falls to the valley floor.

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

It did not take millions of years for the Grand Canyon to form. I have seen, in person, where the layers of the Grand Canyon...layers that you claim took millions of years, were bent 90 degrees. How do you explain this? Rock does not bend. That means that those layers were deposited at the same time, then the Earth buckled, bending the still malleable layers.

Yes, rock does bend.

Here's a old bench that is sagging thanks to gravity. You might want to rethink your position.

I can't remember what the geological process is called, but I remember watching Discovery channel one time when they were talking about geology and the earth's crust. They showed how plates rubbing against each other could actually make ripples in the rock layers.

I repeat. Rock does not bend. It fractures. The layers I saw were bent like taffy. You can't do that with rock.

YOu have obviously never studied geology.

Here is a link showing your claim is wrong. Deformation of Rock

 

[WinterBorn]

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

I am sorry but just because you think that is what happened; that is what happened. You have your views and I have mine.
There are people who believe we evolved from monkeys while at the same time there are still monkeys climbing trees today. What happened, did they miss the train and were left behind?

Oh no...you didn't bring up the "why are there still monkeys" argument?!!!!

OK. Forget about the monkeys. Explain the large number of supposedly extinct sea creatures, from millions of years ago, and why we have discovered that they are still around. Unchanged from the fossil record of millions of years ago. Why haven't they evolved? While you're at it, perhaps you can explain why we have discovered dinosaur fossils that contain soft tissue. If they were really that old, soft tissue would not be present.

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

I am sorry but just because you think that is what happened; that is what happened. You have your views and I have mine.
There are people who believe we evolved from monkeys while at the same time there are still monkeys climbing trees today. What happened, did they miss the train and were left behind?

Oh no...you didn't bring up the "why are there still monkeys" argument?!!!!

OK. Forget about the monkeys. Explain the large number of supposedly extinct sea creatures, from millions of years ago, and why we have discovered that they are still around. Unchanged from the fossil record of millions of years ago. Why haven't they evolved? While you're at it, perhaps you can explain why we have discovered dinosaur fossils that contain soft tissue. If they were really that old, soft tissue would not be present.

Soft tissue in dinosaur fossils? RWNJ has me on ignore. Would someone challenge him to give a link for this?

 

[westwall]

It did not take millions of years for the Grand Canyon to form. I have seen, in person, where the layers of the Grand Canyon...layers that you claim took millions of years, were bent 90 degrees. How do you explain this? Rock does not bend. That means that those layers were deposited at the same time, then the Earth buckled, bending the still malleable layers.

Yes, rock does bend.

Here's a old bench that is sagging thanks to gravity. You might want to rethink your position.

I can't remember what the geological process is called, but I remember watching Discovery channel one time when they were talking about geology and the earth's crust. They showed how plates rubbing against each other could actually make ripples in the rock layers.

I repeat. Rock does not bend. It fractures. The layers I saw were bent like taffy. You can't do that with rock.

Photographic proof says otherwise. The actual reality is rock does both. A sudden force will fracture rock. However, force applied over a great deal of time will bend it.

You're missing my point. It was several layers of rock, supposedly laid down over millions of years, that were bent. I'm talking a ninety degree bend. Rock cannot do that without breaking.

Yes, it can. Listen to what you're saying. You are claiming that you can suddenly bend rock under immense pressure, when we see what happens when that happens every time there is a Earthquake, but long term bending, which we actually see has happened in park benches over decades and century's you claim doesn't occur. Truly, you need to look at something more than the echo chamber you are trapped in.