The Grand Canyon: Evidence for the Flood

New Scientific Evidence for the Flood
Genesis 7:20
The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.

If there was a great world wide Flood, as described in Genesis, such a catastrophe certainly should have left obvious evidence of itself all over the world. Scientists who believe in creation say that we are surrounded by these evidences. Many of them also believe that some of the features associated with glaciers can be better explained by a catastrophic flood. While evolutionary scientists scoff at the biblical account of the Flood, they continue to run across evidences of what they take to be huge floods. Now further evidence has been reported of a continental flood.

The September 1989, issue of Geology, a scientific professional journal, carried an article about drumlins in northern Saskatchewan. Drumlins are hills that are traditionally associated with glacial activity. When viewed from the air, they resemble eggs lying on their sides, all pointing in the same direction.

Over the last few years some scientists have proposed that drumlins were formed by large quantities of water running in the same direction. The article in Geology offers yet more evidence for large quantities of water moving over the continental land surfaces. One of the scientists remarked that, "There's nothing in recorded history that matches the size of these floods."

If we consider Genesis to be recorded history, rather than ancient and ignorant myth, there certainly is an historical record of a huge Flood!

http://www.drdino.com/letting-god-create-your-day.php

Prayer: Dear Lord, in our age of unbelief, so many don't even feel they need to apologize for rejecting Your Word as ancient myths. Help me, along with all of Your people, to be bright, shining lights for Your truth in this dark world. In Jesus' Name. Amen.

References: R. Monastersky, Hills point to catastrophic Ice Age floods, Science News, September 30, 1989, p. 213.

Discover what killed 1 to 10 billion nautiloids at one time. Garner has a BSc in geology and biology and is a Fellow of the Geological Society of London. He works full-time as a speaker and researcher with Biblical Creation Ministries. He is also a Committee Member of the Biblical Creation Society, co-editor of the BCS journal, Origins, and is on the Board of Genesis Agendum. Paul Garner is a Fellow of the Geological Society, he takes us on an in depth tour of the Grand Canyon. Paul does not think the canyon was formed by gradual erosion from the Colorado River. The fossil record of early tetrapods: evidence of a major evolutionary transition? - http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/tetrapod.asp Edinburgh Creation Group is an active forum where scientifically minded people meet to discuss evidence supporting the biblical account of creation. http://edinburghcreationgroup.org

Category:

Education

Tags:

• EdinburghCreation
• crxxxev
• Encyclopædia
• Britannica
• Geology
• Edinburgh
• Charles-Lyell
• Darwin
• uniformitarianism
• geology
• cephalopods
• ammonoids
• belemnites
• coleoids
• gastropods
• bivalves
• Palaeozoic

[lizoir]

Sooo .. dumb cunt Garner has a split-major degree, has never worked as an exploration/academic geologist, and has a super hard-on for jesus, right?? Aaaand, the thousands of doctoral-level geologists whose work attests to the slow formation of the canyon and its surrounds are just noodly-doodles, right?? That's our starting point for believing what this guy presented at a religion conference, right?? Jesus titty-fucking christ that's priceless!

[heresatissue]

What happens when you ask a YEC for a SINGLE, peer reviewed, published, scientific paper on intelligent design? You will find NONE. Why? Because ID is not science and never can be. Problem with YEC's is their goal is not scientific knowledge, faith does not require knowledge, it does not even require independent thought. Hey YECers, you'll have to have faith that your flood even happened because there is no evidence.

[Logic4Win]

@1:08 It is particularly telling just how deliberately deceptive this fellow is being. He chooses to NOT use the very simple terms of 'Angular Un-conformity', 'Proterozoic' or 'Lower Cambrian'. Even though those are the fundamental points when observing this well known formation. @10.43 and in other instances he uses the term "Conventional Dating Methods" and @11:35 states that he 'does not accept those dates'. Very well. WHY? And what accurate dating method does HE propose? This is a joke...

[NotInMyName2012]

@Logic4Win you are an idiot! You were not paying attention to what he was saying. I wont waste my time trolling with you. ciao bella

[Logic4Win]

@NotInMyName2012 "All the idiots who pooh pooh this lecture really need to realise that all previous geological theories are just that THEORIES." You are voicing a very common mistake re the definition of a Scientific Theory. You should take a moment to research and then rephrase that so to more accurately say what you mean without sounding foolish.

[Logic4Win]

*contd The reason that this does not qualify as either a Hypothesis or a Theory is because it does not propose any predictive experiments that can be used to confirm it's accuracy, or to build future experiments upon for other scientists to use. What he is presenting here offers nothing of use for scientists. Science only deals with ideas that function, and can lead to technologies that work. I'd like to say he is presenting 'compelling questions' for Science. Unfortunately even that isn't so.

[Logic4Win]

A Scientific Theory is a cohesive explanation of multiple sets of measurable observations that can be repeated by different scientists with very predictable results. It must be entirely consistent with all facts observed, as well with related observations explained in other supported and accepted Theories. A Theory is the HIGHEST degree of certainty in Science.

This man is NOT presenting a Hypothesis, much LESS a Theory, in the same way that I am NOT typing a recipe for Onion Soup.

[h0lystrike]

@animefan2k9 yea really, i see peer reviewed articles all the time from drug companies that have total bogus for information.

[animefan2k9]

@heresatissue being peer reviewed doesn't mean it is true.