Ovi -
we cover every issue
newsletterNewsletter
subscribeSubscribe
contactContact
searchSearch
Resource for Foreigners in Finland  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
worldwide creative inspiration
Ovi Language
Ovi on Facebook
Stop violence against women
Tony Zuvela - Cartoons, Illustrations
Stop human trafficking
 
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
GermanGreekEnglishSpanishFinnishFrenchItalianPortugueseSwedish
Is the Grand Canyon Proof of The Great Flood?
by Jack Wellman
2008-07-07 10:13:51
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon
Two people can often look at the same thing and come to opposite conclusions. The Grand Canyon is a perfect example. Evolutionists use it as proof that the earth is billions of years old, claiming that the Colorado River carved the canyon over millions of years. Bible-believing Christians interpret the canyon as a spillway from Noah's Flood. One believes it formed slowly, with a little water and a lot of time. The other believes it formed quickly, with a lot of water and a little time. What a stark difference.
 
If the Bible is true, and the earth is only about six thousand years old, we should find evidence that debunks the evolutionist theory about the Grand Canyon. We do. For example, the top of the Grand Canyon is over four thousand feet higher than where the Colorado River enters the canyon, meaning it would have had to flow uphill for millions of years. Additionally, in contrast to all other rivers, we do not find a delta (a place where washed-out mud is deposited). This alone makes the evolutionist interpretation impossible.

The evidence does, however, point to a great, global flood. Even today, we see two beach lines from what used to be two large lakes near the Grand Canyon. Creationists believe that after the flood, the lakes got too full and spilled over the top. When water overflows a dam, the weakest point is instantly eroded. Thus, the Grand Canyon would have been formed quickly, supporting the creationist interpretation.

So, which interpretation is right? Knowing that rivers don't flow uphill and no leftover sedimentary deposits are found, evolutionists have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to the Grand Canyon. The Bible, however, says that a great flood covered the whole earth (see Genesis 7:18-20). There is archaeological evidence for this over all land masses and even at the top of the tallest mountains. This means we should find places where the water drained. The Grand Canyon is one of those places. It is a washed-out spillway and provides great evidence for a great worldwide flood. Plus, nearly every culture in the world has some story from their ancient relatives of the past that speak of a great flood that happened, and it's often associated with being near to the birth of their nation. Interesting. This appears to be very much like a cultural universal.

Is Carbon Dating Reliable?

Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in "lead" pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon. Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.

Age estimates which are obviously wrong or contradictory are sometimes produced. For example, new rock in the form of hardened lava flows produced estimated ages as great as 3 billion to 10.5 billion years, when they were actually less than 200 years old. A popular and supposedly foolproof method was used on two lava flows in the Grand Canyon that should be ideal for radioactive age estimation. The results were similarly bad. Young basalt rock at the Canyon's top produced an age estimate 270 million years older than ancient basalt rock at the Canyon's bottom. The problem seems to arise from basic wrong assumptions in the method (rubidium-strontium isochron).

Ordinary carbon (12C)is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.

We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body. In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on.
 
In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a "clock" which starts ticking the moment something dies. Obviously, this works better for things which were once living, but even then, dating organic matter can produce wrong estimates. But what about rocks, which over thousands of years have a fairly constant rate of 14C to 12C, whether they be volcanic or igneous rocks? Rocks adjacent to each other can test radically different in dates. The problem is that rocks can accumulate C14 atoms from surrounding rocks, plants, animals, water or other means. But they can just as easily lose C14 atoms from floods, burials and cataclysmic events (i.e., volcanism).
 
Tremendous natural forces (water, fire, pressure) can reset the atomic clock in matter or restoring the original 14C/12C ratio. Either way, it is just too easy to skew the isotropic C14 to C12 ratio test. Hundreds of times, carbon dating of rocks and animals has shown to be highly unreliable and inaccurate. Animal and human skulls, fossilized or not, are subject to the very same loss or gain in C14 atoms, just like rocks are.
 
Plant and animal fossilized remains have already formed under the lava and ash flow of Mt. Saint Helen‘s 1980 eruption. It took less than 30 years [not millions of years is as supposed necessary] for them to fossilize. These animals and plants were obviously not very old, but carbon dating estimated some remains at (unbelievably) 300,000 years old! The cataclysmic event may have caused this [pressure and fire in this case]. What other reason is there? Carbon dating can only be classified as having such a high rate error, as to make it impractical to date anything with any kind of certainty or reliability.
 
We are all compelled to believe one way or the other. It is either evolution or creation. To not believe in an Intelligent Designer is just as much a free will choice as believing in a Creator. Everyone that makes a choice to believe in something had to take action first: that action was to choose to believe it. A free will choice. If you choose not to believe the Bible, you are still choosing...choosing not to believe it. Choosing to believe that the Bible is a fairy tale is a choice nonetheless. With worldwide natural catastrophes, economic and political crisis and civil disobedience increasing exponentially, every day it seems, I wish more would choose what is a very real and certain safety and security...but only with One (John 10:28-29), and no other. Choose wisely, for the consequences of the choice are eternal.

    
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Comments(15)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
 (comments policy)

Sand2008-07-06 10:14:44
The recent news is rather dull and any attempts at humor is much appreciated.


Emanuel Paparella2008-07-06 14:50:44

The fool says in his heart, "there is no God."

Psalm 14:1


Sand2008-07-06 15:16:50
And the other fool says, as if he could know, that there is a God.

Sand Theology 1.01


Emanuel Paparella2008-07-06 15:40:42
And the third fool says: read what's there with the eyes of your heart. It is not a question of mere knowledge. The heart has reasons that reason knows not. And the fourth fool said: Ah, I see! But Homer, of course, was physically blind.


Sand2008-07-06 15:48:27
Evidently we have come upon a congregation of fools. Since I do not belong there I will depart.


Emanuel Paparella2008-07-06 18:05:56
To the church of the FSM (The Flying Spaghetti Monster). Jung had it on target: thows religion out the window and it will promptly came back the back door via an ideology. Man needs to worship something and fools usually worship their own image in the pond and the idols of thei own intellect; they change their gods but hardly the way they worship them, as Santayana insightfully pointed out.


Sand2008-07-06 18:15:53
Thanks for confirming how comfy you are in that group. I'll leave you to your cohort.


Emanuel Paparella2008-07-06 18:34:54
And I to yours in the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the idol FSM)which defines itself thus:

"... when a piece of spaghetti dutifully wags its tail and leaps into your mouth when sucked, that is a solid miracle to destroy all doubts that a superior being exists. Probably, considering the context, it is The Spaghetti Monster."

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

FOOD FOR FOOLS!



Jack2008-07-06 19:58:11
To believe that there is a Creator is not an intellectual or empirical-evidenced decision. It is a free will choice. A choice that each one must make. To make no choice to believe is still making a choice nonetheless...one in which the person has decided not to accept belief in a Creator.

Since scientific evidence and empirical knowledge has not proven evolution true, (in fact it was doomed from the beginning to be unprovable due to it's unreachable chasms in supporting fossil evidence and records of the theory of evolution), this same empirical, scientific knowledge alone can not dis-prove that there is a God.

As free-will human beings, we are all free to choose to believe something or not. Someone''s not believing in something certainly doesn''t make it not exist while in actual scientific fact it does. Certainly scientist''s belief that the earth flat or that it was at the center of the universe or solar system did not move the earth and sun. What changed? Man''s understanding. They ingnored the ancients knowledge, deemed inferior; yet for all their intellectual discrimminations, even the Ancient Greeks understood long before the Enlightenment, that the earth was not flat or that they were not at the center of the universe.

If you do not believe in a Creator, then you have made the choice to not believe. Your choice not to believe does not mean He doesn''t exist...It means you refuse to except Him in your own mind. The objective is unaffected by the subjective, while the subjective is (should be) heavily influenced by the objective...i.e. the law of gravity is unaffected by my beliefs or by my personal opinion. One look at the TV talk shows "Jerry Springer" or "Maury Popovich" reveals that opinions are highly subjective....and that sometimes opinions can be pretty worthless.


Emanuel Paparella2008-07-06 20:47:35
Indeed, Jack. The people who have believed in God since the beginning of civilization are legion and are in fact the most intelligent of the species. Those who have an ax to grind against religion would like us to believe that only ignoramuses believe in God and that Enlightened people, those who are politically correct, are mostly atheists. The opposite is in fact true. They are the one who trivializing religion and its beliefs show a lack of thoroughness in their thinking. The most intelligent of the species homo sapiens, those who are able to dig deeper in the issue of the existence of God, have always reasoned from creaturehood to a superior Being beyond the creature called Man. (continued below)


Emanuel Paparella2008-07-06 20:48:08
For example, Avicenna took what for the Greeks was the central and highest subject of metaphysics, the existence of God, and drawing on Plato’s ideas made a distinction between essence and existence, to which you allude above. Essence is the nature of things, while their physical manifestation is separate. For example, the essence of a horse does not imply that the particular horse exists. Existence has to have been created by a necessary essence that is itself not caused. To put it another way, for the material world to have come into being, another factor must have caused it; in turn another factor must have brought this factor into being. But an essential cause and its effect cannot be part of an infinite chain. There has to be a First Cause, and this is God who is the necessary existent. The world emanates from God. And of course Thomas Aquinas, who was greatly influenced by Aristotle (who was no Christian) and by Avicenna (no Christian either) then proceeds to prove with reason the existence of God. When however he has a mystical vision he leaves his “Summa” unfinished declaring what he had written about the harmony of reason and faith “so much straw,” which supports our common assertion that faith while not contradicting reason is perceived with the eyes of the heart more than those of the intellect. Unless I am mistaken (given that for some reason all my contributions appear on Monday now once a week) tomorrow there will be a longer more exhaustive article by me on this very subject. Stay tuned. Glad to dialogue with you, Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna and Aquinas who were no fools by any stretch of the imagination.


Jack2008-07-06 20:57:31
The general approach for those who don’t believe in a Creator, the argument or theory is an equation: Space + Time + Chance = Everything. How can, in what in reality is, 0 + 0 + 0 = everything!? The space did not cause matter to come into existence, nor did time. Neither can chance influence or create events. Can being come from non-being… spontaneous generation of matter from nothing? Can chance actually do anything or cause something to happen? No. Chance is only the likelihood of something occurring. There must first come “cause” before an effect can occur. An a cause logically demand a Causer…and a Creator. Chance is powerless. It can not make something happen or create something from nothing. It is a non-being.

Yes, yes, this might be old news...but to those who first see, it IS new. Besides, certain things are worth repeating...it's like the movie you'd seen many times, yet never noticed what lay between the lines. Even "newspapers" are not actually new but old. They simply print, in actuality, what is old news (yesterday and prior). But it is deemed no less relevant.


Jack2008-07-06 23:45:20
Astronomer and mathematician Claudius Ptolemy had the earth as the center of the universe [using so-called 'empirical evidence'], and the majority of the world believed this [my 2 year grandson also has this perspective]. But in fact, when finally proved thru Copernicus' calculations, that the earth was not even the center of it's own galaxy. For this fact, Copernicus suffered much persecution, even though he had proof for his findings.

Yes, this may be old news and rather dull to some, but faith and science can both be true. They are not oil and water, but part and parcel, down to the subatomic, invisible-to-the-naked-eye level(see Hebrews 11:3, Colossians 1:16, Romans 1:20).


Hmmmm2009-07-10 23:54:51
Anyone ever hear of the Colorado River Delta? Hmmmmmm... maybe the author should have looked that up first.


Even more hmm2011-04-21 10:31:38
Despite the age of this article:

Ever consider comparing it with the Mississippi delta?


© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi