Science Disproves Evolution

  • 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.
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
59
0
A New Scientist article proclaims:

‘Lenski’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. “The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. “That’s just what creationists say can’t happen."’1

The many comments posted on the New Scientist website shows just how excited the atheists are about this report. They are positively gloating.

The context

In 1988, Richard Lenski, Michigan State University, East Lansing, founded 12 cultures of E. coli and grew them in a laboratory, generation after generation, for twenty years (he deserves some marks for persistence!). The culture medium had a little glucose but lots more citrate, so once the microbes consumed the glucose, they would continue to grow only if they could evolve some way of using citrate. Lenski expected to see evolution in action. This was an appropriate expectation for one who believes in evolution, because bacteria reproduce quickly and can have huge populations, as in this case. They can also sustain higher mutation rates than organisms with much larger genomes, like vertebrates such as us.2 All of this adds up, according to neo-Darwinism, to the almost certainty of seeing lots of evolution happen in real time (instead of imagining it all happening in the unobservable past). With the short generation times, in 20 years this has amounted to some 44,000 generations, equivalent to some million years of generations of a human population (but the evolutionary opportunities for humans would be far, far less, due to the small population numbers limiting the number of mutational possibilities; and the much larger genome, which cannot sustain a similar mutation rate without error catastrophe; i.e. extinction; and sexual reproduction means that there is 50% chance of failing to pass on a beneficial mutation ).

As noted elsewhere (see ‘Giving up on reality’), Lenski seemed to have given up on ‘evolution in the lab’ and resorted to computer modelling of ‘evolution’ with a program called Avida (see evaluation by Dr Royal Truman, Part 1 and Part 2, which are technical papers). Indeed, Lenski had good reason to abandon hope. He had calculated[SUP]1[/SUP] that all possible simple mutations must have occurred several times over but without any addition of even a simple adaptive trait.

Lenski and co-workers now claim that they have finally observed his hoped for evolution in the lab.

The science: what did they find?

In a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Lenski and co-workers describe how one of 12 culture lines of their bacteria has developed the capacity for metabolizing citrate as an energy source under aerobic conditions.3

This happened by the 31,500[SUP]th[/SUP] generation. Using frozen samples of bacteria from previous generations they showed that something happened at about the 20,000[SUP]th[/SUP] generation that paved the way for only this culture line to be able to change to citrate metabolism. They surmised, quite reasonably, that this could have been a mutation that paved the way for a further mutation that enabled citrate utilization.

This is close to what Michael Behe calls ‘The Edge of Evolution’—the limit of what ‘evolution’ (non-intelligent natural processes) can do. For example, an adaptive change needing one mutation might occur every so often just by chance. This is why the malaria parasite can adapt to most antimalarial drugs; but chloroquine resistance took much longer to develop because two specific mutations needed to occur together in the one gene. Even this tiny change is beyond the reach of organisms like humans with much longer generation times.4 With bacteria, there might be a chance for even three coordinated mutations, but it’s doubtful that Lenski’s E. coli have achieved any more than two mutations, so have not even reached Behe’s edge, let alone progressed on the path to elephants or crocodiles.

Now the popularist treatments of this research (e.g. in New Scientist) give the impression that the E. coli developed the ability to metabolize citrate, whereas it supposedly could not do so before. However, this is clearly not the case, because the citric acid, tricarboxcylic acid (TCA), or Krebs, cycle (all names for the same thing) generates and utilizes citrate in its normal oxidative metabolism of glucose and other carbohydrates.5

Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell.6 This suite of genes (operon) is normally only activated under anaerobic conditions.

So what happened? It is not yet clear from the published information, but a likely scenario is that mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produce citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium’s environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). This can be likened to having a light that switches on when the sun goes down—a sensor detects the lack of light and turns the light on. A fault in the sensor could result in the light being on all the time. That is the sort of change we are talking about.

Another possibility is that an existing transporter gene, such as the one that normally takes up tartrate,[SUP]3[/SUP] which does not normally transport citrate, mutated such that it lost specificity and could then transport citrate into the cell. Such a loss of specificity is also an expected outcome of random mutations. A loss of specificity equals a loss of information, but evolution is supposed to account for the creation of new information; information that specifies the enzymes and cofactors in new biochemical pathways, how to make feathers and bone, nerves, or the components and assembly of complex motors such as ATP synthase, for example.

However, mutations are good at destroying things, not creating them. Sometimes destroying things can be helpful (adaptive),7 but that does not account for the creation of the staggering amount of information in the DNA of all living things. Behe (in The Edge of Evolution) likened the role of mutations in antibiotic resistance and pathogen resistance, for example, to trench warfare, whereby mutations destroy some of the functionality of the target or host to overcome susceptibility. It’s like putting chewing gum in a mechanical watch; it’s not the way the watch could have been created.

Much ado about nothing (again)

Behe is quite right; there is nothing here that is beyond ‘the edge of evolution’, which means it has no relevance to the origin of enzymes and catalytic pathways that evolution is supposed to explain.8

Bacteria 'evolving in the lab'? (Lenski, citrate-digesting E. coli)
These are switches, or information already in the gene that have been overridden.
Nothing created.

Let me simplify.
A wolf has all the genetic code of all of the breads of dogs.
The breeds have some of the genetic code of the wolf.
This was accomplished by 'BREEDING' to specific traits.
Thus, the forming of dog breeds is an example of 'artificial selection'.
Natural selection is nothing more than the environment choosing which traits will survive.
It produces no new code.
 
Last edited:

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
These are switches, or information already in the gene that have been overridden.
Nothing created.

Let me simplify.
A wolf has all the genetic code of all of the breads of dogs.
The breeds have some of the genetic code of the wolf.
This was accomplished by 'BREEDING' to specific traits.
Thus, the forming of dog breeds is an example of 'artificial selection'.
Natural selection is nothing more than the environment choosing which traits will survive.
It produces no new code.
Here is an example of what you are saying:


Figure 3: Dog Variability. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - LifeSciences.html
 
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
59
0
All from this:





How could those drastic changes not have taken millions of years.
How?
By selection of certain traits within the preordained code!
 
Last edited:

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0

Fossil Gaps 10


Fossil links are also missing between large groupings of plants (c), between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without backbones), among insects (d), between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with backbones) (e), between fish and amphibians (f), between amphibians and reptiles (g), between reptiles and mammals (h), between reptiles and birds (i), between primates and other mammals (j), and between apes and other primates (k).

c. If evolution happened, nonvascular plants should have preceded vascular plants. However, fossils of nonvascular plants are not found in strata evolutionists believe were deposited before the earliest vascular plants appeared.

“The bryophytes [nonvascular plants] are presumed to have evolved before the appearance and stabilization of vascular tissue—that is, before the appearance of these tracheophytes [vascular plants]—although there is no early bryophyte [nonvascular plant] fossil record.” Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, p. 250.

“The actual steps that led to the origin of seeds and fruits are not known...” Ibid.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
 

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
114
63

Acquired Characteristics

Acquired characteristics—characteristics gained after birth—cannot be inherited (a). For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this false belief. On occasion, Darwin did (b).

However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that optimal (c) genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or “a need” can produce the machinery (d).

Also, rates of variation within a species (microevolution, not macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress, such as starvation (e). Stressful situations would have been widespread in the centuries after a global flood.

a. The false belief that acquired characteristics can be inherited, called Lamarckism, would mean that the environment can directly and beneficially change egg and sperm cells. Only a few biologists try to justify Lamarckism. The minor acquired characteristics they cite have no real significance for any present theory of organic evolution. For example, see “Lamarck, Dr. Steel and Plagiarism,” Nature, Vol. 337, 12 January 1989, pp. 101–102.

b. “This hypothesis [which Darwin called pangenesis] maintained the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics.” A. M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977), p. 24.

c. In writing about this amazing capability, Queitsch admits:

“... it is a perplexing evolutionary question how a population might move to a different local optimum without an intervening period of reduced fitness (adaptive valley).” Christine Queitsch et al., “Hsp90 as a Capacitor of Phenotypic Variation,” Nature, Vol. 417, 6 June 2002, p. 623.

d. “... genes that were switched on in the parent to generate the defensive response are also switched on in the offspring.” Erkki Haukioja, “Bite the Mother, Fight the Daughter,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 23.

“... non-lethal exposure of an animal to carnivores, and a plant to a herbivore, not only induces a defence, but causes the attacked organisms to produce offspring that are better defended than offspring from unthreatened parents.” Anurag A. Agrawal et al., “Transgenerational Induction of Defences in Animals and Plants,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 60.

“... hidden genetic diversity exists within species and can erupt when [environmental] conditions change.” John Travis, “Evolutionary Shocker?: Stressful Conditions May Trigger Plants and Animals to Unleash New Forms Quickly,” Science News, Vol. 161, 22 June 2002, p. 394.

“Environmental stress can reveal genetic variants, presumably because it compromises buffering systems. If selected for, these uncovered phenotypes can lead to heritable changes in plants and animals (assimilation).” Queitsch et al., p. 618.

e. Marina Chicurel, “Can Organisms Speed Their Own Evolution?” Science, Vol. 292, 8 June 2001, pp. 1824–1827.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]



Amen! Great Post. :)
 

PlainWord

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2013
7,080
151
63
Evolution is such a joke. The DNA code and complexity of humans and animals is billions of times more complex than the finest automobile ever designed. Yet, not one car has ever been found having evolved. Why? I would think a non living, far less complex design like a car should have evolved given millions or billions of years. What if we took all the components for the car and put them in a locked clean room laid out on the floor in order with instructions on how to assemble and all tools necessary and came back 10 billion years later. Would the car be assembled?

If I were to take an evolutionist to Mt. Rushmore and had him look up at the 4 presidents and if I were to tell him that these carvings were the work of 50 million years of wind and water erosion would he believe me? Probably not, but he has no problem believing a design as complex as a human just spontaneously evolved from lower life forms on its own over the same time period. Why? Because of biases.

The evolutionist bias is they don't believe in God, therefore Creation can't be the answer. Since creation isn't the answer in the evolutionist mind they invent their own answer even though there isn't one shred of evidence to back up their theory. All they have are cute little man made charts showing trees with lower order life forms linked to higher order life forms with drawn lines. Is that scientific proof? The evolutionists of today are as dumb as the scientists of old who thought the world was flat and the center of the solar system.

Yet, the evolutionists get their theory taught in schools while creation has been thrown out. Then they lament every school shooting and wonder why it happens.
 
Last edited:
D

ddallen

Guest
Evolution is such a joke. The DNA code and complexity of humans and animals is billions of times more complex than the finest automobile ever designed. Yet, not one car has ever been found having evolved. Why? I would think a non living, far less complex design like a car should have evolved given millions or billions of years. What if we took all the components for the car and put them in a locked clean room laid out on the floor in order with instructions on how to assemble and all tools necessary and came back 10 billion years later. Would the car be assembled? Nonsense argument - a car is an inert lump of metal and plastics - it cannot change therefore it cannot evolve

If I were to take an evolutionist to Mt. Rushmore and had him look up at the 4 presidents and if I were to tell him that these carvings were the work of 50 million years of wind and water erosion would he believe me? Probably not, but he has no problem believing a design as complex as a human just spontaneously evolved from lower life forms on its own over the same time period. Why? Because of biases. Why would you ask an evolutionary biologist that - that is an argument for a geologist

The evolutionist bias is they don't believe in God, therefore Creation can't be the answer. Since creation isn't the answer in the evolutionist mind they invent their own answer even though there isn't one shred of evidence to back up their theory. All they have are cute little man made charts showing trees with lower order life forms linked to higher order life forms with drawn lines. Is that scientific proof? The evolutionists of today are as dumb as the scientists of old who thought the world was flat and the center of the solar system. The vast majority of Christians accept evolution as true - it is supported by the RC church - mainstream protestant churches and the orthodox churches - nonsense generalisation

Yet, the evolutionists get their theory taught in schools while creation has been thrown out. Then they lament every school shooting and wonder why it happens.
Nonsense argument - your bases is that if evolution is wrong the only other option is the christian creation myth - if you want this taught then every other creation myth should also be taught - more people believe in the Hindu creation myth than the christian one - Also what does a scientific theory have to do with psychotic people shooting up schools?
 
D

ddallen

Guest

Fossil Gaps 10


Fossil links are also missing between large groupings of plants (c), between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without backbones), among insects (d), between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with backbones) (e), between fish and amphibians (f), between amphibians and reptiles (g), between reptiles and mammals (h), between reptiles and birds (i), between primates and other mammals (j), and between apes and other primates (k).

c. If evolution happened, nonvascular plants should have preceded vascular plants. However, fossils of nonvascular plants are not found in strata evolutionists believe were deposited before the earliest vascular plants appeared.

“The bryophytes [nonvascular plants] are presumed to have evolved before the appearance and stabilization of vascular tissue—that is, before the appearance of these tracheophytes [vascular plants]—although there is no early bryophyte [nonvascular plant] fossil record.” Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, p. 250.

“The actual steps that led to the origin of seeds and fruits are not known...” Ibid.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Pahu, you continually quote from a single source namely Walt Brown - not very scientific. Brown theories have been debunked in creationist circles by both Answers in Genesis and the Christian American Scientific Affiliation. I have shown before where he has misquoted or taken quotes out of context.
Using this single source does not advance the creationist cause.
 

PlainWord

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2013
7,080
151
63
Nonsense argument - your bases is that if evolution is wrong the only other option is the christian creation myth - if you want this taught then every other creation myth should also be taught - more people believe in the Hindu creation myth than the christian one - Also what does a scientific theory have to do with psychotic people shooting up schools?
No, I am saying Creation has been the most widely accepted belief for all the world for thousands of years. The recorded history in the Bible of the Great Flood accounts for why there are sea shells and ocean fossils on Mt. Everest. It explains how the Grand Canyon could have formed in weeks instead of millions of years. It explains how a tree could be found extending through several layers of the "geological record."

Secular evidence strongly supports the existence of Jesus including writings by several Roman authors and of course Josephus. These writings include the miracles Jesus performed even His resurrection. The Bible is the most widely circulated book in history.

Even if you don't believe Jesus was the son of God (which would be a HUGE mistake unless you want to spend eternity in fire and torment), the existence of Jesus is not in doubt. Also not in doubt is that Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophesies contained in the Old Testament, most of which were written many hundreds of years before he arrived. And while it could be argued that a smart man claiming to be Messiah could knowing fulfill some of these prophesies, he certainly could not choose having the Roman's crucify him or pick the town (Nazareth) where he was born just to cite a few examples.

All living creation has been carefully designed. There is no doubt of the complexity of the design of the human body (and other mammals). Such a design could not have evolved from inorganic material under any conditions, let alone the hostile conditions which evolutionist claim existed 50 million years ago. To have a design, one must have a designer. That is an inescapable fact!! Also a fact is there is no evidence of any life form changing from one kind to another today which we should see if evolution was real.

Evolution is a lie of Satan which started with Darwin around 1860. Evolution is a myth and theory. It is not science as none of it can ever be verified in a lab with a repeatable process. As far as theories go, creation makes way more sense than evolution. Creation is way more consistent in terms of what we see and can observe.

As far as the school shootings go. If kids are taught that there is no God then there is no consequences as morality is only defined by fallible man. If you don't fear in where you spend eternity, then you are less likely to care about minor earthly consequences.
 
Last edited:

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
Nonsense argument - your bases is that if evolution is wrong the only other option is the christian creation myth - if you want this taught then every other creation myth should also be taught - more people believe in the Hindu creation myth than the christian one - Also what does a scientific theory have to do with psychotic people shooting up schools?
Your assertion that Christianity is a myth is based on what, your false preconceptions? What other religions can boast of hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies? such as:

100 fulfilled Bible prophecies

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

10 Bible prophecies fulfilled recently

60 Genuine divine Bible prophecies fulfilled

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch06/default.htm

As to the connection between evolution and murder, consider this:

Opinions about origins have profound social consequences and even affect the way we think. Consider the following perspectives and some responses. Notice that all these perspectives presume evolution occurred, despite the scientific evidence. We recognize that some people believe that God used evolution to create and that evolution is compatible with the Bible; however, a careful reading shows, in dozens of ways, that it is not.

1. Animal-like Behavior. If humans descended from animals, why shouldn’t humans behave like animals?

2. Meaninglessness. If evolution happened, why believe that life has any purpose other than to reproduce and pass on your genes?
Response: Evolution did not happen. Your life has purpose and hope. God does not make mistakes. You are not an accident.

3. Good vs. Evil. If nature is all there is, why believe there is good and evil?
Response: Distinguishing good and evil requires broad, even absolute, standards—and Someone competent to set those standards. Humans instinctively know there is good and evil, right and wrong. Someone implanted that understanding in us; the laws of physics can’t.

4. Survival of the Fittest. If we evolved by “survival of the fittest,” then getting rid of the unfit is desirable. To conquer and exploit weaker people, businesses, or countries is just the law of the jungle from which we evolved. Mercy killings, forced sterilization, and selective breeding of humans, while unpopular with some, would be beneficial, in the long run, and very logical—if we evolved.

5. Communism. Friederich Engels, one of the founders of communism, wrote Karl Marx, another founder, and strongly recommended Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species. In response, Marx wrote Engels that Darwin’s book “contains the basis in natural history for our view [communism].” Marx offered to dedicate his book, Das Capital, to Darwin, but Darwin declined.
Joseph Stalin, ruthless dictator of the Soviet Union from 1929 to 1953, killed millions of his people. Stalin read Darwin’s book as a student at a church-based school and urged others to read it. During that time, he became an atheist.

6. Personal Responsibility. If everything came into existence by chance and natural processes, then we have no responsibility to some supernatural being. Religions would be a crutch for the weak-minded and superstitious. Churches would be monuments to human ignorance.
Furthermore, if evolution happened, then we and our actions are consequences of billions of years’ worth of natural events—over which we had no control. Our responsibility for our situation is relatively small. If bad things happen to us, we are primarily victims.
Response: We were created for a purpose, so we have great responsibility, and our Creator will hold us accountable. More will be expected from those who have been given more.

7. Relativism. There are no absolutes, moral or otherwise (except the fact that there are absolutely no absolutes). Your belief is just as good as mine; your truth is just as good as my truth.
Response: Obviously, the One who created the universe, life, and humans has the authority and ability to establish timeless moral absolutes—and He has.

8. Social Darwinism. If life evolved, then the human mind evolved. So did products of the human mind and all social institutions: law, government, science, education, religion, language, economics, industry—civilization itself.
Response: Technology progresses, information accumulates, and civilization often improves, but humans remain humans—with all our frailties and shortcomings.

9. Secular Humanism. If the “molecules-to-monkeys-to-man” idea is correct, then man is the highest form of being. Man should be the object of greatest concern, not some fictitious Creator that man actually created.
Response: That philosophy is called secular humanism (a humane, intellectual-sounding term) that claims God is irrelevant and the Bible is fiction. Secular humanism will decline as people increasingly learn the scientific flaws of evolution.

10. New Age Movement. If people slowly evolved up from bacteria, then aren’t we evolving toward God? Aren’t we evolving a new consciousness? Aren’t we evolving into a glorious New Age?
Response: These beliefs, built on evolution, continue to spread like a cancer, even in many churches in the world. New age beliefs also will decline as the scientific errors of evolution become known.

11. Marriage. If marriage is a cultural development, begun by ignorant tribes thousands of years ago, then why not change that custom, as we do other out-of-date customs? Animals don’t marry; why should people? After all, we’re just animals. If people are a product of natural processes, then why not do what comes naturally? What’s wrong with sexual activity outside of marriage as long as no one is hurt?
Response: God instituted marriage when He created a man and a woman, Adam and Eve, and said they should become one.

12. Racism. If humans evolved up from some apelike creature, then some people must have advanced higher on the evolutionary ladder than others. Some classes of people should be inherently superior to others.
Response: But that’s racism. That’s the twisted logic Hitler used to try to establish his Aryan master race and to justify killing six million Jews in the Holocaust. This does not mean that evolutionists are racists, although Charles Darwin and many of his followers of a century ago were extreme racists. However, evolution has provided the main rationale for racism. Stephen Jay Gould wrote that “Biological arguments for racism ... increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” People with darker skin have suffered greatly from evolutionary racism. Belief in evolution has also caused others to suffer even more. They are victims of a greater holocaust going on all around us—abortion.

13. Abortion. We dispose of unwanted animals such as cats and dogs. If humans are evolved animals, why not terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Isn’t it the mother’s right? Shouldn’t she have a “choice” in such a personal matter? After all, a fetus has no name or personality. During its first three months, it’s just a tiny glob of tissue—no more important than a little pig or rabbit. Why shouldn’t a fetus, having less value than an adult, be “terminated” if adults or society would benefit? This will help solve our population problem. We must guide our destiny.
Response: Abortion is the premeditated killing of an innocent, defenseless, developing (but completely human) baby. Calling an unborn child merely a “fetus” is dehumanizing. Nor should we speak of “terminating a pregnancy.” That is simply a euphemism for killing a very young human.

Nine years after Darwin published his theory of evolution, Professor Ernst Haeckel announced that animal embryos, including unborn humans, pass through stages that mimic their evolutionary steps. Human embryos begin as microscopic spheres, because, Haeckel said, humans evolved from bacteria, which are sometimes microscopic spheres. Later, unborn babies look like fish, because humans evolved from fish. Still later, human embryos look like chimpanzees, because humans evolved from some apelike ancestor. So, human embryos are not yet human. Can you see the errors in this logic? Similarity does not imply a genetic relationship.

Haeckel faked his drawings to fit his theory. In the following 130 years, hundreds of textbook writers copied these drawings, popularizing the theory. It has since been taught as fact worldwide, even in medical schools. Today the theory is completely discredited, although it is still taught.

Unborn children are human. Each adult’s body has about 100 trillion cells. When you were just one cell inside your mother, all the marvelous, complex information that physically defines you and every organ in your body was there. Although you were tiny and immature, you were completely human when you were one cell. While you were in your mother’s womb, she was your support system, just as medical support systems are needed by some sick or elderly people. Needing a support system does not remove a person from the human race or justify killing that person.

Although these matters have nothing to do with whether evolution is true or false, they have much to do with the importance of the issue and the adverse consequences of teaching that evolution is a fact. These social problems did not originate with evolution, but they follow logically from evolution. No doubt most evolutionists are as opposed as creationists to many of these social problems, but from an evolutionist perspective these behaviors are easily justified, rationalized, or tolerated. Evolution, while not the cause of evil, can usually defend or justify such behavior—with seeming scientific credibility.

Obviously, the creator of a complex machine can best provide its operating instructions. Likewise, only our Creator has the authority and ability to establish timeless moral absolutes. By what logic could anyone oppose these thirteen viewpoints if there were no moral absolutes? Without moral absolutes, “right” and “wrong” will be decided by whoever is in control, but that will change from time to time. A false understanding of origins has subtle and far-reaching consequences.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
 
D

ddallen

Guest
No, I am saying Creation has been the most widely accepted belief for all the world for thousands of years. The recorded history in the Bible of the Great Flood accounts for why there are sea shells and ocean fossils on Mt. Everest. It explains how the Grand Canyon could have formed in weeks instead of millions of years. It explains how a tree could be found extending through several layers of the "geological record." If you are talking about all creation myths Then yes you are correct - however that does not make them correct. If you are specifically talking about the christian creation myth - then you are incorrect - many more people have believed other creation myths than the christian one. Fossils on everest can and have been explained through plate tectonics. I can assure you that it is impossible for flood water to carve out a structure like the grand canyon - hydrology is very precise on this and the mechanics of flood waters is very well known.

Secular evidence strongly supports the existence of Jesus including writings by several Roman authors and of course Josephus. These writings include the miracles Jesus performed even His resurrection. The Bible is the most widely circulated book in history.

Even if you don't believe Jesus was the son of God (which would be a HUGE mistake unless you want to spend eternity in fire and torment), the existence of Jesus is not in doubt. Also not in doubt is that Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophesies contained in the Old Testament, most of which were written many hundreds of years before he arrived. And while it could be argued that a smart man claiming to be Messiah could knowing fulfill some of these prophesies, he certainly could not choose having the Roman's crucify him or pick the town (Nazareth) where he was born just to cite a few examples.

All living creation has been carefully designed. There is no doubt of the complexity of the design of the human body (and other mammals). Such a design could not have evolved from inorganic material under any conditions, let alone the hostile conditions which evolutionist claim existed 50 million years ago. To have a design, one must have a designer. That is an inescapable fact!! Also a fact is there is no evidence of any life form changing from one kind to another today which we should see if evolution was real. You cannot 'see' evolution in action - it does not proceed in a uniform constant manner but rather as jumps - when ecological or environmental changes force a change on an organism - also these changes take a long time and do not happen all at once. Evolution DOES NOT say how life began - that is abiogenesis and is currently unknown. Evolution only deals with the development of life after it got started.

Evolution is a lie of Satan which started with Darwin around 1860. Evolution is a myth and theory. It is not science as none of it can ever be verified in a lab with a repeatable process. As far as theories go, creation makes way more sense than evolution. Creation is way more consistent in terms of what we see and can observe. Nonsense, you cannot see creation nor can you see God.

As far as the school shootings go. If kids are taught that there is no God then there is no consequences as morality is only defined by fallible man. If you don't fear in where you spend eternity, then you are less likely to care about minor earthly consequences.
Evolution DOES NOT teach that there is no God, evolution has no say on if God exists or not, that is religion.
 
D

ddallen

Guest


Your assertion that Christianity is a myth is based on what, your false preconceptions? What other religions can boast of hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies? such as: I never stated Christianity was a myth - I stated that the creation story as believed by a minority of Christians is a myth

100 fulfilled Bible prophecies

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

10 Bible prophecies fulfilled recently

60 Genuine divine Bible prophecies fulfilled

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch06/default.htm

As to the connection between evolution and murder, consider this:

Opinions about origins have profound social consequences and even affect the way we think. Consider the following perspectives and some responses. Notice that all these perspectives presume evolution occurred, despite the scientific evidence. We recognize that some people believe that God used evolution to create and that evolution is compatible with the Bible; however, a careful reading shows, in dozens of ways, that it is not.

1. Animal-like Behavior. If humans descended from animals, why shouldn’t humans behave like animals? Humans, as primates, are part of the animal kingdom. We share common traits, the need to eat, excrete and reproduce, we share the desire to protect our young with the other mammals. If humans were to behave more like the lower animals then we wouldn't commit genocide or destroy our living habitat, things only we do.

2. Meaninglessness. If evolution happened, why believe that life has any purpose other than to reproduce and pass on your genes?
Response: Evolution did not happen. Your life has purpose and hope. God does not make mistakes. You are not an accident. If creation happened why have any other purpose in life than to reproduce more christians and die.

3. Good vs. Evil. If nature is all there is, why believe there is good and evil?
Response: Distinguishing good and evil requires broad, even absolute, standards—and Someone competent to set those standards. Humans instinctively know there is good and evil, right and wrong. Someone implanted that understanding in us; the laws of physics can’t. Good and evil are not absolute - they are subjective. A couple of hundred years ago It was good for christians to kill all non christians as long as it was done in the name of God.

4. Survival of the Fittest. If we evolved by “survival of the fittest,” then getting rid of the unfit is desirable. To conquer and exploit weaker people, businesses, or countries is just the law of the jungle from which we evolved. Mercy killings, forced sterilization, and selective breeding of humans, while unpopular with some, would be beneficial, in the long run, and very logical—if we evolved. Nonsense. That is a gross misstatement of evolution. Evolution does not preach this. The term 'Survival of the fittest' states that that organism which is most adapted to its environment and able to withstand environmental change will pass their genes along. It has absolutely nothing to do with exploiting the weaker or getting rid of the unfit.

5. Communism. Friederich Engels, one of the founders of communism, wrote Karl Marx, another founder, and strongly recommended Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species. In response, Marx wrote Engels that Darwin’s book “contains the basis in natural history for our view [communism].” Marx offered to dedicate his book, Das Capital, to Darwin, but Darwin declined.
Joseph Stalin, ruthless dictator of the Soviet Union from 1929 to 1953, killed millions of his people. Stalin read Darwin’s book as a student at a church-based school and urged others to read it. During that time, he became an atheist. Absolute nonsense. So what if communists read Darwin. This is a stretch with no merit.

6. Personal Responsibility. If everything came into existence by chance and natural processes, then we have no responsibility to some supernatural being. Religions would be a crutch for the weak-minded and superstitious. Churches would be monuments to human ignorance.
Furthermore, if evolution happened, then we and our actions are consequences of billions of years’ worth of natural events—over which we had no control. Our responsibility for our situation is relatively small. If bad things happen to us, we are primarily victims.
Response: We were created for a purpose, so we have great responsibility, and our Creator will hold us accountable. More will be expected from those who have been given more. Personal responsibility is a function of societal pressure. If we are to live and prosper in a society we must have personal responsibility otherwise the society will collapse.

7. Relativism. There are no absolutes, moral or otherwise (except the fact that there are absolutely no absolutes). Your belief is just as good as mine; your truth is just as good as my truth.
Response: Obviously, the One who created the universe, life, and humans has the authority and ability to establish timeless moral absolutes—and He has. Again morals are a function of society, any society in which the citizens do not have a moral code will collapse in upon itself. What is truth?

8. Social Darwinism. If life evolved, then the human mind evolved. So did products of the human mind and all social institutions: law, government, science, education, religion, language, economics, industry—civilization itself.
Response: Technology progresses, information accumulates, and civilization often improves, but humans remain humans—with all our frailties and shortcomings. Not sure what is meant by this?

9. Secular Humanism. If the “molecules-to-monkeys-to-man” idea is correct, then man is the highest form of being. Man should be the object of greatest concern, not some fictitious Creator that man actually created.
Response: That philosophy is called secular humanism (a humane, intellectual-sounding term) that claims God is irrelevant and the Bible is fiction. Secular humanism will decline as people increasingly learn the scientific flaws of evolution.

10. New Age Movement. If people slowly evolved up from bacteria, then aren’t we evolving toward God? Aren’t we evolving a new consciousness? Aren’t we evolving into a glorious New Age?
Response: These beliefs, built on evolution, continue to spread like a cancer, even in many churches in the world. New age beliefs also will decline as the scientific errors of evolution become known. We are probably still evolving. What is wrong with that?

11. Marriage. If marriage is a cultural development, begun by ignorant tribes thousands of years ago, then why not change that custom, as we do other out-of-date customs? Animals don’t marry; why should people? After all, we’re just animals. If people are a product of natural processes, then why not do what comes naturally? What’s wrong with sexual activity outside of marriage as long as no one is hurt? Nothing. Marriage is a man made custom.
Response: God instituted marriage when He created a man and a woman, Adam and Eve, and said they should become one.

12. Racism. If humans evolved up from some apelike creature, then some people must have advanced higher on the evolutionary ladder than others. Some classes of people should be inherently superior to others.
Response: But that’s racism. That’s the twisted logic Hitler used to try to establish his Aryan master race and to justify killing six million Jews in the Holocaust. This does not mean that evolutionists are racists, although Charles Darwin and many of his followers of a century ago were extreme racists. However, evolution has provided the main rationale for racism. Stephen Jay Gould wrote that “Biological arguments for racism ... increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” People with darker skin have suffered greatly from evolutionary racism. Belief in evolution has also caused others to suffer even more. They are victims of a greater holocaust going on all around us—abortion. This is what makes my blood boil - equating evolution with racism - utter and absolute nonsense. Most evolutionists and scientists are totally opposed to racism as evolution shows that we are all the same and there is no such thing as race. Religious beliefs have caused and still cause most of the misery in the world by trying to divide people

13. Abortion. We dispose of unwanted animals such as cats and dogs. If humans are evolved animals, why not terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Isn’t it the mother’s right? Shouldn’t she have a “choice” in such a personal matter? After all, a fetus has no name or personality. During its first three months, it’s just a tiny glob of tissue—no more important than a little pig or rabbit. Why shouldn’t a fetus, having less value than an adult, be “terminated” if adults or society would benefit? This will help solve our population problem. We must guide our destiny.
Response: Abortion is the premeditated killing of an innocent, defenseless, developing (but completely human) baby. Calling an unborn child merely a “fetus” is dehumanizing. Nor should we speak of “terminating a pregnancy.” That is simply a euphemism for killing a very young human. Abortion is s tricky subject - I personally believe in a womans right to choose. Question is abortion still wrong in the case of Fatal Fetal Syndrome - or if continuing on with the pregnancy will cause harm or death to the mother?

Nine years after Darwin published his theory of evolution, Professor Ernst Haeckel announced that animal embryos, including unborn humans, pass through stages that mimic their evolutionary steps. Human embryos begin as microscopic spheres, because, Haeckel said, humans evolved from bacteria, which are sometimes microscopic spheres. Later, unborn babies look like fish, because humans evolved from fish. Still later, human embryos look like chimpanzees, because humans evolved from some apelike ancestor. So, human embryos are not yet human. Can you see the errors in this logic? Similarity does not imply a genetic relationship.

Haeckel faked his drawings to fit his theory. In the following 130 years, hundreds of textbook writers copied these drawings, popularizing the theory. It has since been taught as fact worldwide, even in medical schools. Today the theory is completely discredited, although it is still taught.

Unborn children are human. Each adult’s body has about 100 trillion cells. When you were just one cell inside your mother, all the marvelous, complex information that physically defines you and every organ in your body was there. Although you were tiny and immature, you were completely human when you were one cell. While you were in your mother’s womb, she was your support system, just as medical support systems are needed by some sick or elderly people. Needing a support system does not remove a person from the human race or justify killing that person.

Although these matters have nothing to do with whether evolution is true or false, they have much to do with the importance of the issue and the adverse consequences of teaching that evolution is a fact. These social problems did not originate with evolution, but they follow logically from evolution. No doubt most evolutionists are as opposed as creationists to many of these social problems, but from an evolutionist perspective these behaviors are easily justified, rationalized, or tolerated. Evolution, while not the cause of evil, can usually defend or justify such behavior—with seeming scientific credibility.

Obviously, the creator of a complex machine can best provide its operating instructions. Likewise, only our Creator has the authority and ability to establish timeless moral absolutes. By what logic could anyone oppose these thirteen viewpoints if there were no moral absolutes? Without moral absolutes, “right” and “wrong” will be decided by whoever is in control, but that will change from time to time. A false understanding of origins has subtle and far-reaching consequences.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Still taking ideas from Walt Brown - at least it is consistent.
 

PlainWord

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2013
7,080
151
63
If you are talking about all creation myths Then yes you are correct - however that does not make them correct. If you are specifically talking about the christian creation myth - then you are incorrect - many more people have believed other creation myths than the christian one. Fossils on everest can and have been explained through plate tectonics. I can assure you that it is impossible for flood water to carve out a structure like the grand canyon - hydrology is very precise on this and the mechanics of flood waters is very well known.
You could not be more wrong. Check out the below video of the Canyon created by Mt. St. Helen's volcano.

Little Grand Canyon - YouTube

A global flood with thousands of feet of water could easily carve out Grand Canyon in days or weeks. You can't base historical plate tectonics on that we see today. Massive plate changes occurred in the past during the flood and are coming again very soon.

Evolution is nothing more than a religion with no god. It has no basis in science. It only attempt to explain how we got here in the absence of a god. It's sad really.

As far as other religions go, most require a lot from the believer by a god who gives back little. None of the religions that I know about have a God who gave their son to die in order to save the world. The Christian religion requires little, just faith, in the one and true God and Jesus Christ who died for our sins in order to receive eternal life. Not just eternal life but eternity in paradise.

Christ is returning to earth, I strongly believe within the next 20 years. He isn't going to rapture the church, that is another lie of Satan which incidentally was also popularized in the 1800s along with Evolution. He is, however, going to defeat Satan and establish his rule on earth. Anyone who believes in the false Christ or Anti-Christ is rejecting Jesus in favor Satan. Most will be killed and face the same fate as Satan. However, those who turn to the true Christ will receive eternal life.

Have you ever wondered why the world has hated the Jews throughout history so much? Israel is a tiny young nation who until recently was scattered for 2,000 years. The world hates Israel because they are God's chosen people. But through Jesus, salvation was opened up to everyone. Salvation is free. It doesn't cost a thing. You just need to believe and have faith and you will be saved. Doesn't this sound a whole lot better than living a life without purpose and having nothing to look forward to but death?

Let me know if I can help you brother to find the truth and to come to know our God and His son. It will change your life and more importantly, your eternal destiny.
 
Last edited:
D

ddallen

Guest
You could not be more wrong. Check out the below video of the Canyon created by Mt. St. Helen's volcano.

Little Grand Canyon - YouTube

A global flood with thousands of feet of water could easily carve out Grand Canyon in days or weeks. You can't base historical plate tectonics on that we see today. Massive plate changes occurred in the past during the flood and are coming again very soon.

Evolution is nothing more than a religion with no god. It has no basis in science. It only attempt to explain how we got here in the absence of a god. It's sad really.

As far as other religions go, most require a lot from the believer by a god who gives back little. None of the religions that I know about have a God who gave their son to die in order to save the world. The Christian religion requires little, just faith, in the one and true God and Jesus Christ who died for our sins in order to receive eternal life. Not just eternal life but eternity in paradise.

Christ is returning to earth, I strongly believe within the next 20 years. He isn't going to rapture the church, that is another lie of Satan which incidentally was also popularized in the 1800s along with Evolution. He is, however, going to defeat Satan and establish his rule on earth. Anyone who believes in the false Christ or Anti-Christ is rejecting Jesus in favor Satan. Most will be killed and face the same fate as Satan. However, those who turn to the true Christ will receive eternal life.

Have you ever wondered why the world has hated the Jews throughout history so much? Israel is a tiny young nation who until recently was scattered for 2,000 years. The world hates Israel because they are God's chosen people. But through Jesus, salvation was opened up to everyone. Salvation is free. It doesn't cost a thing. You just need to believe and have faith and you will be saved. Doesn't this sound a whole lot better than living a life without purpose and having nothing to look forward to but death?

Let me know if I can help you brother to find the truth and to come to know our God and His son. It will change your life and more importantly, your eternal destiny.
This is a false analogy. The structure of both the canyons is completely different. The 'Little Grand Canyon' is composed of soft material such as as and mud whereas the Grand canyon is composed of sandstone, limestone and granite - much tougher material. Looking at the two there is nothing beyond a superficial resemblance, The grand canyon has a deep 'V' shape with the river filling the basin, the little canyon has a 'U'shape with the river meandering in the centre. The grand canyon also has the Vishnu Temple, along with many others that could not have survived a catastrophic flood in the magnitude you are talking about.
 

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
This is a false analogy. The structure of both the canyons is completely different. The 'Little Grand Canyon' is composed of soft material such as as and mud whereas the Grand canyon is composed of sandstone, limestone and granite - much tougher material. Looking at the two there is nothing beyond a superficial resemblance, The grand canyon has a deep 'V' shape with the river filling the basin, the little canyon has a 'U'shape with the river meandering in the centre. The grand canyon also has the Vishnu Temple, along with many others that could not have survived a catastrophic flood in the magnitude you are talking about.

Figure 42: The Grand Canyon. Probably the most spectacular of the seven wonders of the natural world is the Grand Canyon. It is awesome when viewed from its rim, but even more so from the air. From above, new insights become obvious, as you will see. For example, have you ever wondered how the Grand Canyon formed? Since the late 1800s, the standard answer has been that primarily the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon over millions of years. If that happened, wouldn’t you expect to find a gigantic river delta where the Colorado River enters the Gulf of California? It’s not there. Nor have geologists found it anywhere else. Where did all the dirt—800 cubic miles of it—go?
Notice the four segments of this river near the center of the picture. Compare the thin river with the canyon’s vast expanse. Could that relatively small river carve such a huge, wide, and deep canyon? If so, why hasn’t the same thing happened along dozens of faster and larger rivers? Why do hundreds of large side canyons, with no visible water source to erode them, enter the Grand Canyon?
In first studying this overview chapter and then the chapter on the Grand Canyon (pages 201235), you will see a gigantic, focused water source and a surprisingly simple, but complete, explanation for the Grand Canyon’s rapid formation as well as where all the dirt went. As you might expect, the Grand Canyon’s origin is directly related to the origin of many other amazing and mysterious sights in the southwestern United States.

The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview

New evidence shows that the earth has experienced a devastating, worldwide flood, whose waters violently burst forth from under earth’s crust. Standard “textbook” explanations for many of earth’s major features are scientifically flawed. We can now explain, using well-understood phenomena, how this cataclysmic event rapidly formed so many features. These and other mysteries, listed below and briefly described in the next 11 pages, are best explained by an earthshaking event, far more catastrophic than almost anyone has imagined. Entire chapters are devoted to the italicized topics listed below.

  • The Grand Canyon (pages 202235)
  • Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Earth’s Major Components
Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire (pages 150183)

Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
Submarine Canyons
Coal and Oil
Methane Hydrates
Ice Age
Frozen Mammoths (pages 252282)

Major Mountain Ranges
Overthrusts
Volcanoes and Lava
Geothermal Heat
Strata and Layered Fossils (pages 186198)

Limestone (pages 244249)
Metamorphic Rock
Plateaus
The Moho and Black Smokers
Salt Domes
Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
Changing Axis Tilt
Comets (pages 286318)

Asteroids and Meteoroids (pages 322348)

Earth’s Radioactivity (pages 350395)


Each appears to be a consequence of a sudden, unrepeatable event—a global flood whose waters erupted from interconnected, worldwide subterranean chambers with an energy release exceeding the explosion of trillions of hydrogen bombs.[SUP]1[/SUP] The hydroplate theory, explained later in this chapter, will resolve all these mysteries.But first, what is a hydroplate? Before the global flood, considerable water was under earth’s crust. Pressure increases in this subterranean water ruptured that crust, breaking it into plates. The escaping water flooded the earth. Because hydro means water, those crustal plates will be called hydroplates. Where they broke, how they moved, and hundreds of other details and evidence—all consistent with the laws of physics—constitute the hydroplate theory and explain to a great extent why the earth looks as it does.

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

PlainWord

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2013
7,080
151
63
This is a false analogy. The structure of both the canyons is completely different. The 'Little Grand Canyon' is composed of soft material such as as and mud whereas the Grand canyon is composed of sandstone, limestone and granite - much tougher material. Looking at the two there is nothing beyond a superficial resemblance, The grand canyon has a deep 'V' shape with the river filling the basin, the little canyon has a 'U'shape with the river meandering in the centre. The grand canyon also has the Vishnu Temple, along with many others that could not have survived a catastrophic flood in the magnitude you are talking about.
For a more in depth study on the Grand Canyon, watch this much longer video.

How Long Did it Take to Form the Grand Canyon? | Creation Today
 

PlainWord

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2013
7,080
151
63
You could not be more wrong. Check out the below video of the Canyon created by Mt. St. Helen's volcano.

Little Grand Canyon - YouTube

A global flood with thousands of feet of water could easily carve out Grand Canyon in days or weeks. You can't base historical plate tectonics on that we see today. Massive plate changes occurred in the past during the flood and are coming again very soon.

Evolution is nothing more than a religion with no god. It has no basis in science. It only attempt to explain how we got here in the absence of a god. It's sad really.

As far as other religions go, most require a lot from the believer by a god who gives back little. None of the religions that I know about have a God who gave their son to die in order to save the world. The Christian religion requires little, just faith, in the one and true God and Jesus Christ who died for our sins in order to receive eternal life. Not just eternal life but eternity in paradise.

Christ is returning to earth, I strongly believe within the next 20 years. He isn't going to rapture the church, that is another lie of Satan which incidentally was also popularized in the 1800s along with Evolution. He is, however, going to defeat Satan and establish his rule on earth. Anyone who believes in the false Christ or Anti-Christ is rejecting Jesus in favor Satan. Most will be killed and face the same fate as Satan. However, those who turn to the true Christ will receive eternal life.

Have you ever wondered why the world has hated the Jews throughout history so much? Israel is a tiny young nation who until recently was scattered for 2,000 years. The world hates Israel because they are God's chosen people. But through Jesus, salvation was opened up to everyone. Salvation is free. It doesn't cost a thing. You just need to believe and have faith and you will be saved. Doesn't this sound a whole lot better than living a life without purpose and having nothing to look forward to but death?

Let me know if I can help you brother to find the truth and to come to know our God and His son. It will change your life and more importantly, your eternal destiny.
Also, sand stone and limestone are soft. Granite came from the plates being thrust upwards by the waters of the deep which proved most of the water for the Great Flood.
 

PlainWord

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2013
7,080
151
63
creationday.org also contains many excellent debates between creationist and evolutionist and frankly, the evolutionists get slayed and look foolish.
 
D

ddallen

Guest



Figure 42: The Grand Canyon. Probably the most spectacular of the seven wonders of the natural world is the Grand Canyon. It is awesome when viewed from its rim, but even more so from the air. From above, new insights become obvious, as you will see. For example, have you ever wondered how the Grand Canyon formed? Since the late 1800s, the standard answer has been that primarily the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon over millions of years. If that happened, wouldn’t you expect to find a gigantic river delta where the Colorado River enters the Gulf of California? It’s not there. Nor have geologists found it anywhere else. Where did all the dirt—800 cubic miles of it—go?
Notice the four segments of this river near the center of the picture. Compare the thin river with the canyon’s vast expanse. Could that relatively small river carve such a huge, wide, and deep canyon? If so, why hasn’t the same thing happened along dozens of faster and larger rivers? Why do hundreds of large side canyons, with no visible water source to erode them, enter the Grand Canyon?
In first studying this overview chapter and then the chapter on the Grand Canyon (pages 201235), you will see a gigantic, focused water source and a surprisingly simple, but complete, explanation for the Grand Canyon’s rapid formation as well as where all the dirt went. As you might expect, the Grand Canyon’s origin is directly related to the origin of many other amazing and mysterious sights in the southwestern United States.

The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview

New evidence shows that the earth has experienced a devastating, worldwide flood, whose waters violently burst forth from under earth’s crust. Standard “textbook” explanations for many of earth’s major features are scientifically flawed. We can now explain, using well-understood phenomena, how this cataclysmic event rapidly formed so many features. These and other mysteries, listed below and briefly described in the next 11 pages, are best explained by an earthshaking event, far more catastrophic than almost anyone has imagined. Entire chapters are devoted to the italicized topics listed below.

  • The Grand Canyon (pages 202235)
  • Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Earth’s Major Components
Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire (pages 150183)

Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
Submarine Canyons
Coal and Oil
Methane Hydrates
Ice Age
Frozen Mammoths (pages 252282)

Major Mountain Ranges
Overthrusts
Volcanoes and Lava
Geothermal Heat
Strata and Layered Fossils (pages 186198)

Limestone (pages 244249)
Metamorphic Rock
Plateaus
The Moho and Black Smokers
Salt Domes
Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
Changing Axis Tilt
Comets (pages 286318)

Asteroids and Meteoroids (pages 322348)

Earth’s Radioactivity (pages 350395)


Each appears to be a consequence of a sudden, unrepeatable event—a global flood whose waters erupted from interconnected, worldwide subterranean chambers with an energy release exceeding the explosion of trillions of hydrogen bombs.[SUP]1[/SUP] The hydroplate theory, explained later in this chapter, will resolve all these mysteries.But first, what is a hydroplate? Before the global flood, considerable water was under earth’s crust. Pressure increases in this subterranean water ruptured that crust, breaking it into plates. The escaping water flooded the earth. Because hydro means water, those crustal plates will be called hydroplates. Where they broke, how they moved, and hundreds of other details and evidence—all consistent with the laws of physics—constitute the hydroplate theory and explain to a great extent why the earth looks as it does.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview
To be clear - from what I read in this article is that the canyon was NOT formed by flood waters from Noahs flood - but rather when 2 lakes, Grand Lake and Hopi Lake durst their dams. These lakes were a playa system that did not have the depth required to cause such an event (William Dickison, Geospere ,GES00839.1, first published on December 13, 2012,) It also does not answer the question of the Vishnu temple and how it was formed or survived such a flood.