-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The Grand Canyon (Hopi: Ongtupqa; Yavapai: Wi:kaʼi:la) is a steep-sided canyon carved by the Colorado River in the United States in the state of Arizona. The Colorado River basin (of which the Grand Canyon is a part) has developed in the past 40 million years. A recent study places the origins of the canyon beginning some 17 million years ago. Previous estimates had placed the age of the canyon at 5 to 6 million years. The study, which was published in the journal Science in 2008, used uranium-lead dating to analyze calcite deposits found on the walls of nine caves throughout the canyon.[11] There is a substantial amount of controversy because this research suggests such a substantial departure from prior widely supported scientific consensus.[12]
The result of all this erosion is one of the most complete geologic columns on the planet.
The major geologic exposures in the Grand Canyon range in age from the 2 billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 230 million year old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim. There is a gap of about one billion years between the stratum that is about 500 million years old and the lower level, which is about 1.5 billion years old. This large unconformity indicates a period of erosion between two periods of deposition.
Many of the formations were deposited in warm shallow seas, near-shore environments (such as beaches), and swamps as the seashore repeatedly advanced and retreated over the edge of a proto-North America. Major exceptions include the Permian Coconino Sandstone, which contains abundant geological evidence of aeolian sand dune deposition. Several parts of the Supai Group also were deposited in non–marine environments.
The great depth of the Grand Canyon and especially the height of its strata (most of which formed below sea level) can be attributed to 5,000 to 10,000 feet (1500 to 3000 m) of uplift of the Colorado Plateau, starting about 65 million years ago (during the Laramide Orogeny). This uplift has steepened the stream gradient of the Colorado River and its tributaries, which in turn has increased their speed and thus their ability to cut through rock (see the elevation summary of the Colorado River for present conditions).
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.[13]
Between three million and 100,000 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.
THis taken from wikipedia but is the generally accepted cause of the canyon. Ive never seen any other viewpoints of it.
Also how would one explain continental drift and the notion of pangaea. Fossil evidence for Pangaea includes the presence of similar and identical species on continents that are now great distances apart. For example, fossils of the therapsid Lystrosaurus have been found in South Africa, India and Australia, alongside members of the Glossopteris flora, whose distribution would have ranged from the polar circle to the equator if the continents had been in their present position; similarly, the freshwater reptile Mesosaurus has only been found in localized regions of the coasts of Brazil and West Africa.[9]
Additional evidence for Pangaea is found in the geology of adjacent continents, including matching geological trends between the eastern coast of South America and the western coast of Africa. The polar ice cap of the Carboniferous Period covered the southern end of Pangaea. Glacial deposits, specifically till, of the same age and structure are found on many separate continents which would have been together in the continent of Pangaea.[10]
Paleomagnetic study of apparent polar wandering paths also support the theory of a super-continent. Geologists can determine the movement of continental plates by examining the orientation of magnetic minerals in rocks; when rocks are formed, they take on the magnetic properties of the Earth and indicate in which direction the poles lie relative to the rock. Since the magnetic poles drift about the rotational pole with a period of only a few thousand years, measurements from numerous lavas spanning several thousand years are averaged to give an apparent mean polar position. Samples of sedimentary rock and intrusive igneous rock have magnetic orientations that typically are an average of these "secular variations" in the orientation of Magnetic North because their magnetic fields are not formed in an instant, as is the case in a cooling lava. Magnetic differences between sample groups whose age varies by millions of years is due to a combination of true polar wander and the drifting of continents. The true polar wander component is identical for all samples, and can be removed. This leaves geologists with the portion of this motion that shows continental drift, and can be used to help reconstruct earlier continental positions.[11]
The continuity of mountain chains also provide evidence for Pangaea. One example of this is the Appalachian Mountains chain which extends from the northeastern United States to the Caledonides of Ireland, Britain, Greenland, and Scandinavia.[12]
The result of all this erosion is one of the most complete geologic columns on the planet.
The major geologic exposures in the Grand Canyon range in age from the 2 billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 230 million year old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim. There is a gap of about one billion years between the stratum that is about 500 million years old and the lower level, which is about 1.5 billion years old. This large unconformity indicates a period of erosion between two periods of deposition.
Many of the formations were deposited in warm shallow seas, near-shore environments (such as beaches), and swamps as the seashore repeatedly advanced and retreated over the edge of a proto-North America. Major exceptions include the Permian Coconino Sandstone, which contains abundant geological evidence of aeolian sand dune deposition. Several parts of the Supai Group also were deposited in non–marine environments.
The great depth of the Grand Canyon and especially the height of its strata (most of which formed below sea level) can be attributed to 5,000 to 10,000 feet (1500 to 3000 m) of uplift of the Colorado Plateau, starting about 65 million years ago (during the Laramide Orogeny). This uplift has steepened the stream gradient of the Colorado River and its tributaries, which in turn has increased their speed and thus their ability to cut through rock (see the elevation summary of the Colorado River for present conditions).
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.[13]
Between three million and 100,000 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.
THis taken from wikipedia but is the generally accepted cause of the canyon. Ive never seen any other viewpoints of it.
Also how would one explain continental drift and the notion of pangaea. Fossil evidence for Pangaea includes the presence of similar and identical species on continents that are now great distances apart. For example, fossils of the therapsid Lystrosaurus have been found in South Africa, India and Australia, alongside members of the Glossopteris flora, whose distribution would have ranged from the polar circle to the equator if the continents had been in their present position; similarly, the freshwater reptile Mesosaurus has only been found in localized regions of the coasts of Brazil and West Africa.[9]
Additional evidence for Pangaea is found in the geology of adjacent continents, including matching geological trends between the eastern coast of South America and the western coast of Africa. The polar ice cap of the Carboniferous Period covered the southern end of Pangaea. Glacial deposits, specifically till, of the same age and structure are found on many separate continents which would have been together in the continent of Pangaea.[10]
Paleomagnetic study of apparent polar wandering paths also support the theory of a super-continent. Geologists can determine the movement of continental plates by examining the orientation of magnetic minerals in rocks; when rocks are formed, they take on the magnetic properties of the Earth and indicate in which direction the poles lie relative to the rock. Since the magnetic poles drift about the rotational pole with a period of only a few thousand years, measurements from numerous lavas spanning several thousand years are averaged to give an apparent mean polar position. Samples of sedimentary rock and intrusive igneous rock have magnetic orientations that typically are an average of these "secular variations" in the orientation of Magnetic North because their magnetic fields are not formed in an instant, as is the case in a cooling lava. Magnetic differences between sample groups whose age varies by millions of years is due to a combination of true polar wander and the drifting of continents. The true polar wander component is identical for all samples, and can be removed. This leaves geologists with the portion of this motion that shows continental drift, and can be used to help reconstruct earlier continental positions.[11]
The continuity of mountain chains also provide evidence for Pangaea. One example of this is the Appalachian Mountains chain which extends from the northeastern United States to the Caledonides of Ireland, Britain, Greenland, and Scandinavia.[12]
M
YECs don't deny continental drift of pangaea, we just don't accept the idea that it happened over billions of years, but rather, it happened in a short time. The earth has a very catastrophic history, just look around.
Here's how the scientists came up with the millions and billions of years it took for continental drift and the breakup of pangaea. They take the current rate of plate techtonic movement, and assume that rate is constant for millions or billions of years. However, we have current evidence that shows those rates of plate movements are not always constant. Just look at the earthquake that hit Japan in 2011, and how much it changed things in terms of continental drift, and those changes took place in a short time. There's no reason to assume that those rates of change for continental drift are constant rates that have been the same for billions of years.
Here's how the scientists came up with the millions and billions of years it took for continental drift and the breakup of pangaea. They take the current rate of plate techtonic movement, and assume that rate is constant for millions or billions of years. However, we have current evidence that shows those rates of plate movements are not always constant. Just look at the earthquake that hit Japan in 2011, and how much it changed things in terms of continental drift, and those changes took place in a short time. There's no reason to assume that those rates of change for continental drift are constant rates that have been the same for billions of years.
K
Nautilus, thank you for the article. Someone went through a lot of trouble with this, so it deserves a proper answer.
All these estimates are based on the assumption of relative climate and geologic stability. Either those assumptions are wrong, or the Bible is wrong. If the sun stood still for Joshua, and the shadows moved back 10 steps for Hezekiah, then the continents moved. When astronomers discovered that all the sundials before Hezekiah's time are in the wrong place on earth by about 50 miles, and all the astronomy data is off by a half-hour to an hour, they have no explanation. When old maps show continents in different places, historians say they are all made up. When the Chinese data match these events, scientists say they were too stupid to trust. If we would just try believing the eye-witness reports of the people who were alive just after the flood, we would find a whole other theory. This theory explains the evidence also.
This is the theory. And remember it is a theory, an attempted explanation of evidence. The only difference is, that mine starts with the assumption the Bible is true, and then looks for other early writings to explain the other evidence we see:
Pangea was the shape of the earth before Noah's flood (Gen. 1:9 & 10:25. Peleg means "cracked up" not "split up among", like some commentators claim.). Let me comment first that four sources give a partial or complete date of the flood. The Chinese gives the date June 6-16, 3122 BC (water taking 10 days to get everywhere). The Bible, Sumerian and Egyptian each give a partial date, but all agree with this date. Further, the major calendars of ancient times all start on a day zero of Dec. 21, 2121BC, consistent with the time it would take for Noah and sons to redevelop the star locations after coming out of the ark. This alone proves the flood was a real event; if myth, why do those dates agree?
We need some Hebrew to untangle the mess you learned in Bible School. The flood is a "mobal", linguistic relative to "Jubal" and "Tubal"-Cain (drop the T- prefix which is grammar and you get the blacksmith Vulcan). No one knows the meaning of the root "obal", but it means vibrations of some kind. The flood thus is not primarily rain, it is "something causing vibration". Rain was what God sent to cool the earth off (you have to read it in Hebrew to see all this). The Bible does not say it rained, and rain covered the highest mountain (can't happen, which is why scientists think the Bible is a lie). It says "mobal" covered the highest mountain, and water covered the highest mountain while it rained. Fasold's ark (in Turkey) had gopher wood - it was cement impregnated with metal (hence my mention of Tubal-Cain). Sumeria has a famous legend indicating that jipar wood was being stripped from something to create magnetic effects in their temple by the residents of Arratu (this is the Egyptian linguistic equivalent of Arrarat). Put this together and you have a magnetically shielded ark. The Mayan Popul Vuh agrees with: The flood was a magnetic and volcanic storm vomiting up portions of the earth's molten metal and lava core, together with all kinds of liquid stone. The core was bouncing in the earth, struck Pangea from below between South America and Africa. The continents split and began spinning and rocking in the ocean like a raft in a hurricane. An ancient Christian poem "Battle of the Stars" in "Christian Sybillines 5". gives the exact distribution of continental drift that would have been induced by coriolis force, once Ivan Sanderson's zodiac interpretation (in "Investigating the Unexplained") is applied to geography beyond Babylon. A critical feature of the poem is the prediction that the southern tip of South America struck the eastern tip of Siberia (this explains the famous woolly mammoths with tropical grass in their stomachs).
The rebounding magnetic iron would have drained radioactive isotopes from any materials involved, reducing all radioactive dates to near forever ago. The spinning continents would have confused any weather observation data, and the fallout from such a storm would have mixed layers of water and volcanic stone. The waterspouts/molten rock spouts could have picked up any creatures washed underwater almost anywhere and moved them to the Grand Canyon just at random (and remember, more intelligent creatures would run away for a few minutes, and be the later ones sucked up, explaining the fossil record). The only thing that could have destroyed the ark was a direct downward hit of falling volcanic lava, which God prevented. The ark was the wrong shape for a ship, but the right shape to just sit on top of the water and wait things out.
I think I got all the observations listed.
All these estimates are based on the assumption of relative climate and geologic stability. Either those assumptions are wrong, or the Bible is wrong. If the sun stood still for Joshua, and the shadows moved back 10 steps for Hezekiah, then the continents moved. When astronomers discovered that all the sundials before Hezekiah's time are in the wrong place on earth by about 50 miles, and all the astronomy data is off by a half-hour to an hour, they have no explanation. When old maps show continents in different places, historians say they are all made up. When the Chinese data match these events, scientists say they were too stupid to trust. If we would just try believing the eye-witness reports of the people who were alive just after the flood, we would find a whole other theory. This theory explains the evidence also.
This is the theory. And remember it is a theory, an attempted explanation of evidence. The only difference is, that mine starts with the assumption the Bible is true, and then looks for other early writings to explain the other evidence we see:
Pangea was the shape of the earth before Noah's flood (Gen. 1:9 & 10:25. Peleg means "cracked up" not "split up among", like some commentators claim.). Let me comment first that four sources give a partial or complete date of the flood. The Chinese gives the date June 6-16, 3122 BC (water taking 10 days to get everywhere). The Bible, Sumerian and Egyptian each give a partial date, but all agree with this date. Further, the major calendars of ancient times all start on a day zero of Dec. 21, 2121BC, consistent with the time it would take for Noah and sons to redevelop the star locations after coming out of the ark. This alone proves the flood was a real event; if myth, why do those dates agree?
We need some Hebrew to untangle the mess you learned in Bible School. The flood is a "mobal", linguistic relative to "Jubal" and "Tubal"-Cain (drop the T- prefix which is grammar and you get the blacksmith Vulcan). No one knows the meaning of the root "obal", but it means vibrations of some kind. The flood thus is not primarily rain, it is "something causing vibration". Rain was what God sent to cool the earth off (you have to read it in Hebrew to see all this). The Bible does not say it rained, and rain covered the highest mountain (can't happen, which is why scientists think the Bible is a lie). It says "mobal" covered the highest mountain, and water covered the highest mountain while it rained. Fasold's ark (in Turkey) had gopher wood - it was cement impregnated with metal (hence my mention of Tubal-Cain). Sumeria has a famous legend indicating that jipar wood was being stripped from something to create magnetic effects in their temple by the residents of Arratu (this is the Egyptian linguistic equivalent of Arrarat). Put this together and you have a magnetically shielded ark. The Mayan Popul Vuh agrees with: The flood was a magnetic and volcanic storm vomiting up portions of the earth's molten metal and lava core, together with all kinds of liquid stone. The core was bouncing in the earth, struck Pangea from below between South America and Africa. The continents split and began spinning and rocking in the ocean like a raft in a hurricane. An ancient Christian poem "Battle of the Stars" in "Christian Sybillines 5". gives the exact distribution of continental drift that would have been induced by coriolis force, once Ivan Sanderson's zodiac interpretation (in "Investigating the Unexplained") is applied to geography beyond Babylon. A critical feature of the poem is the prediction that the southern tip of South America struck the eastern tip of Siberia (this explains the famous woolly mammoths with tropical grass in their stomachs).
The rebounding magnetic iron would have drained radioactive isotopes from any materials involved, reducing all radioactive dates to near forever ago. The spinning continents would have confused any weather observation data, and the fallout from such a storm would have mixed layers of water and volcanic stone. The waterspouts/molten rock spouts could have picked up any creatures washed underwater almost anywhere and moved them to the Grand Canyon just at random (and remember, more intelligent creatures would run away for a few minutes, and be the later ones sucked up, explaining the fossil record). The only thing that could have destroyed the ark was a direct downward hit of falling volcanic lava, which God prevented. The ark was the wrong shape for a ship, but the right shape to just sit on top of the water and wait things out.
I think I got all the observations listed.
K
The fear is mostly based on how some people associate the formation of demons with that vibrational power and the evils of the nephalim.
I think we're way safer now. Read my last post about the ancient theory I found for the flood. The power required for this was hundreds of times our most powerful nuclear reactors. I doubt we could match it scientifically any more than we can move some of the larger pyramid stones.
I think we're way safer now. Read my last post about the ancient theory I found for the flood. The power required for this was hundreds of times our most powerful nuclear reactors. I doubt we could match it scientifically any more than we can move some of the larger pyramid stones.
I think the bible explains the catastrophe more simply about the water coming up from the deep and the firmament being opened up...water did come up from inside the earth and the protective canopy that covered the earth was opened up so water did cover even the tallest mountains...if you go with volcanic activity then the billions of fossils that were rapidly formed by sedimentary material being dumped on the creatures all over the world would have been very badly damaged
K
Not the ones in the waterspouts between the stones. They were not fossils but living or just decesaed creatures when they were picked up. Fafrotskys (that's the technical term "fall from the sky" fish falls, frog falls, etc.) are still common today, proving that being ripped to pieces does not always happen. There are several recorded falls of living creatures, even after hitting pavement. The water lands them in one piece, and liquid stone settles around them, and then they decay inside the stone.
I think I get what you are saying...and the watery surrounds would have protected the creatures so that they were not pulverized by the activity of fast moving rocks and debris...the same cannot be said of volcanic flow...I know that creatures have been encased in lava and their imprints have been preserved that way but the fossils from the flood are not found in volcanic rocks but in sedimentary rocks so that indicates a watery environment that formed and distributed them
How do you know that sin didn't exist before the fall? Christ work is pro-active, meaning His work on the cross saves both before and after the event. I'm not debating that Adam wasn't the cause of man's fall and brought sin into the world, I'm just suggesting this, is it possible that sin also preceded the event of Adam's disobedience, yet still being the causal agent, the same way that God's saving redemption preceded the event of the cross.
Since the first Adam is an anti-type of the 2nd Adam, why couldn't the effects that each brought into the world work in a similar manner?
Since the first Adam is an anti-type of the 2nd Adam, why couldn't the effects that each brought into the world work in a similar manner?
Last edited:
A
Sin absolutely existed before the fall. Adam brought sin into mankind, not necessarily the "world", I know the bible says world but the word is kosmos. The serpent in the garden was sinful before the fall right? I mean the serpent basically called God a liar when he said to Adam and Eve that they shall not surely die.
K
Yes, that is what I am saying. The Mayan Popul Vuh (that's their equivalent of Genesis, but it is pagan, remember) says that there was a "rain of black resin from the sky", and does specifically mention "heads being snapped off". But my guess is that anything that got that hit by volcanic rock would have evaporated or pulverized before it could fossilize. I suppose there are some of each case out there, and we have not seen them all.
K
No, I've never seen that calendar, and is manifestly incompatible with Scripture, and archeology. Please tell me the source.
There are several ancient commentators who have attempted chronologies based on the Old Testament, and/or the Septuagint, some treasured by the early Christians. They disagree by as much as several hundred years. Abraham was in Egypt during those years according to every calendar I have seen. Only the Greek Deucalion story places the flood later than 2800, and that is a local flood. A simple countback from Jesus puts the flood earlier than 3000, and a countforward from Enosh puts it no earlier than 3500. There is some give and take trying to harmonize Abraham, Joseph, and Solomon with Egyptian records, but that is at most a century or two.
The real hard one to account for is the story in Critias, which places it at 9500 BC. The explanation is that Solon worked from the Egyptian manuscripts, and the hieroglyph for year is the same as that for season, at three to a year.
There are several ancient commentators who have attempted chronologies based on the Old Testament, and/or the Septuagint, some treasured by the early Christians. They disagree by as much as several hundred years. Abraham was in Egypt during those years according to every calendar I have seen. Only the Greek Deucalion story places the flood later than 2800, and that is a local flood. A simple countback from Jesus puts the flood earlier than 3000, and a countforward from Enosh puts it no earlier than 3500. There is some give and take trying to harmonize Abraham, Joseph, and Solomon with Egyptian records, but that is at most a century or two.
The real hard one to account for is the story in Critias, which places it at 9500 BC. The explanation is that Solon worked from the Egyptian manuscripts, and the hieroglyph for year is the same as that for season, at three to a year.
K
We have to remember God's purpose in the Bible is to tell His children the important parts of history for them. That's why He kept it simple.
Most of our discussion is made necessary by science having rejected God officially for several centuries now. They have developed theories based on incomplete evidence (since they refused God's input). Christians who feel a call to answer these theories need to use the Bible as a guide to find more truth in the world used by science, so we can correct the false theories. That becomes much more complicated because of the length of time the false ideas have been allowed to develop and fill with detail that is wrong.
I would not be surprised if 90% of the people who started with this thread have stopped watching it, because we are getting so exacting about things that are not relevant to the average person. Which is why I apologized for my first very long post about the Grand Canyon, and feel like maybe I should apologize again for all the short ones.
Most of our discussion is made necessary by science having rejected God officially for several centuries now. They have developed theories based on incomplete evidence (since they refused God's input). Christians who feel a call to answer these theories need to use the Bible as a guide to find more truth in the world used by science, so we can correct the false theories. That becomes much more complicated because of the length of time the false ideas have been allowed to develop and fill with detail that is wrong.
I would not be surprised if 90% of the people who started with this thread have stopped watching it, because we are getting so exacting about things that are not relevant to the average person. Which is why I apologized for my first very long post about the Grand Canyon, and feel like maybe I should apologize again for all the short ones.
So if youre admitting 9500 BC exists then YEC must be mistaken.
For the dates- Flood, The - Jewish Knowledge Base
the original time was on wikipedia under 22nd century BC and then this page shows the time of the flood ending to be 2105BC
For the dates- Flood, The - Jewish Knowledge Base
the original time was on wikipedia under 22nd century BC and then this page shows the time of the flood ending to be 2105BC