Re: Creation Science Investigates: Proving Evolution didn't create the Grand Canyon

For a limited time only (in astronomical terms), actual creation science exploring the real facts behind the global flood!

DonExodus2's reuploaded video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irw2tmUTRtU

His new channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/theanswersofnwo3

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Creation
• science
• flood
• grand
• canyon
• water

[dondude69]

How does peeing in a hole prove anything?

[EdwardHowton]

@dondude69 Well, for one thing, it proves that what's his face, I had to look up his name just now because he's so forgettable, theanswersofnwo has had a completely disheartening lack of education. So there's one proven fact from his "demonstration".

To be fair, though, he's not peeing. It's actually from a garden hose.

To be even more fair, the video would have had a much better appeal if he was peeing. Maybe not on this website, but definitely others. Some people like that, I guess.

[brother234]

How stupid, absolutely stupid. The grand canyon has two canyons which carved the canyon in opposing directions. His theory cannot explain. Also, entire layers are missing - cubic miles of material, which only a catastrophic force can explain the energy needed to have that outcome.  As well, their are more logical routes for the "erosion theory" over time to have taken than the one actually taken. I could go on and on and on. Finally, Flood theory accounts for most outcomes.

[EdwardHowton]

@brother234 While you're wrong about every single point, let's assume you're right and what you laughably call "flood theory" does account for most outcomes.

There's a few problems:

1. It's possible to make up a convoluted explanation that fits all known details as well as a real explanation.

2. A flood would've left evidence of the entire planet being covered in water, which it didn't.

See, the fact that it eroded (and is still eroding today) accounts for EVERY fact. A flood doesn't.

[dondude69]

@EdwardHowton Yeah, I knew he wasn't peeing, but the camera placement and sound sure make it funny.

[ExcaliburClan]

@LordZion133 there is atleast one more explanation that you conveniently left out, namely that himalaya is raised at the collision point between 2 colliding plates (as in plate tectonics), the indian having broken loose from africa long ago and no hading straigh into the asian, casuing himalayas. This explanation that you left out, is actually the scientifically accepted one. Stop lying for jesus, it will only send you to hell.

[EdwardHowton]

@ExcaliburClan I can't believe I missed that detail in everything else! Well spotted!

Yes, earthquakes handily refute that particular creationist's ideas. Or should, anyways, if they had such a thing as an "education", or "critical thinking ability", or "the capacity to feel shame when such an immense mistake is made".

[ExcaliburClan]

@brother234 newsflash: plate tectonics is active still today, in your explanation it should have stopped completely after the alleged flood event.

[thisis3d]

@brother234 umm yeah it does. you see we live on this thing called a planet, and planets are super fucking mega hot on the inside, that hot melts fucking rocks. the plates are less dense then the magma so they float, very slowly on it. also we still see the plates moving today so we know it isn't a one time thing.

[brother234]

@thisis3d plate tectonics cannot explain the energy necessary for the continents to have moved. A water layer under them, broken by a 45 thousand mile mountain ridge (ridge exists today as evidence, dividing the continents) shooting water up and then the continents sinking then rising suddenly, would weaken with faults and heat with lava a layer upon which to slide as the world reestablishes its perfect original shape. Sliding quickly, the plates dive and smash together finall stopping themsel