Vishnu Temple at the Grand Canyon

Gesundheit.

What kind of temple is it?

It's beautiful.

Beautiful picture.

I had a look at the Wiki page linked that the picture text links to.

Forgive me, perhaps I am a bit slow today, what is it specifically that destroys the YEC explanation? That most of the layers are formed in shallow water? That they took along time? Something else? All of the above?

I am not a YEC, I just want to make sure I am on the ball with this one.

In truth, everything we know about geology (and physics, and chemistry) refutes YECreationism.

But here's one of my favorites. YECreationists love to claim that the Grand Canyon was formed by the retreat of Noah's flood waters, laying down all the sediments and then carving the canyon, as it were, leaving the rest of the rapidly consolidating sediments for us to see. How nice. How convenient. A good story for pre-K Sunday school, perhaps, but it's absurd on the face of it.

If they understood anything about geomorphology and catastrophic flooding, they would know all sedimentary rocks on every continent would have been washed into the oceans by their 'flood', leaving bare cratons of metamorphic rocks, denuded of all sediments. And the oceans would be filled to the brim with one giant graded-bed (coarsest at the bottom and finest at the top, with all organic remains ground to dust) - no deep water anywhere, no ocean trenches, no fossils.

There would be no Grand Canyon had there been a worldwide deluge.

This is not what we see. We have the Grand Canyon. But a YECreationist doesn't see clearly, can't see reality.

Does anyone know of any Creationist Geology programs, in any Bible colleges, that grant degrees in 'creationist' geology? I wonder if they've figured out the Post-flood/Pre-flood boundary yet. Surely they've had enough time. How hard could it be?

There would be no Grand Canyon? I would have guessed it would be the other way around. If the flood was global, why just one?

I was just thinking there was something specific about this temple in particular that would be simple, straight forward and obvious once pointed out.

For a global flood: The Vishnu Temple should be a rounded formation, shaped like a teardrop, with the rounded end upstream and the pointy end downstream (a drumlin). There should be a big pile of loose sediment downstream of the Vishnu Temple, which got caught there in the eddy. Imagine a huge flood pouring over that thing. That's just for starters.

Instead, the Vishnu Temple looks like it was formed by mass wasting.

There are a couple of ways that the features of the Grand Canyon destroy YEC Creationism, or any variety that requires a Global Flood. One that I looked into recently was in direct response to an Answers in Genesis claim that features like the Coconino sandstone formation were laid down in a massive flood event over just a few days. This is incredibly wrong, and it's not difficult to understand why.

The actual Coconino sandstone represents ancient wind-swept, desert geography. It has an extremely "mature" quartz composition which doesn't happen with marine sandstone; basically all that's left in the grains is well-rounded quartz and some feldspar. This is characteristic of sandstone formed from sand in dry, windy conditions and contradicts a marine origin. Sandstone deposited by floods would have a lot of other minerals and sedimentary material present). Then we can see the distinctively preserved remains of sand dunes shaped by the wind, which are easily distinguished from ripple patterns made by running water over sand. Perhaps most damningly, there are the fossilized footprints and animal tracks in the sandstone itself, made by animals that lived on land. How would those have gotten into sand that was supposedly laid down quickly in the midst of a world-ending flood, and then immediately buried with even more layers of muck?

Check these sources out for yourself and compare them to the AiG description: COCONINO SANDSTONE, Geology of National Parks, Grand Canyon Fossils

All the rocks that now make the walls of the Grand Canyon would have been washed into the sea too, just like the rocks that once filled the gorge itself. Arizona would be just above sea level, flat for the most part, like north-central Canada, without any sedimentary rocks at all, and no fossils.

(Nice photo Matt, one Miner to another.)

Nice photo Matt, ...

Take a glass jar and fill it half-way up with dirt, and top it off with water. Close and secure the top. Shake it up. Wait a day for the mud and silt to settle. You will get a gradation of sediment from coarse at the bottom to fine at the top, just like prongs said. You may notice some layers in the mud. But you will not get a random set of mixed-granularity layers, as shown in this photograph.

The photo also shows vertical cliffs hundreds of feet high. Recently drained mud does not form vertical cliffs hundreds of feet high no matter what is the erosive force cutting it away. The mud slumps. Wet mud does not have the coherent strength to form high vertical cliffs, or anything like the enormity of Washer Woman Arch.

Leszek said: There would be no Grand Canyon? I would have guessed it would be the other way around. If the flood was global, why just one? I was just thinking there was something specific about this temple in particular that would be simple, straight forward and obvious once pointed out.

Lots of things refute both a young-earth and a world Flood. There is evidence from relative dating techniques - including stratigraphy and especially biostratigraphy. Even at the most rapid rates of deposition (which could include occasional localized catastrophic events), early nineteenth century geologists concluded it would take much more than a few thousand years for layers many kilometers thick to form. Also, these same early nineteenth century geologists that observed the incredible order of the geological column concluded this could not have resulted from a single abrupt event like a world flood. This and other evidence - such as astronomers measuring the speed of light from distant stars - convinced mainstream science to abandon a young-earth (and a world Flood) nearly two centuries ago. This video (by an ex-YEC) might be helpful.

Radiometric dating came along much later than relative dating: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

As an independent method, radiometrics could have overturned the evidence from relative dating if the results had been different. As it turns out, relative dating and so-called absolute dating (e.g. radiometrics) well correlate with each other. Radiometric dating of rocks reconfirmed the findings of relative dating that successive rock layers are of different ages. In addition, radiometrics also found that the rocks are up to millions and billions - not thousands - of years old.

Tenncrain said: Lots of things refute both a young-earth and a world Flood. There is evidence from relative dating techniques - including stratigraphy and especially biostratigraphy. Even at the most rapid rates of deposition (which could include occasional localized catastrophic events), early nineteenth century geologists concluded it would take much more than a few thousand years for layers many kilometers thick to form. Also, these same early nineteenth century geologists that observed the incredible order of the geological column concluded this could not have resulted from a single abrupt event like a world flood. This and other evidence - such as astronomers measuring the speed of light from distant stars - convinced mainstream science to abandon a young-earth (and a world Flood) nearly two centuries ago. This video (by an ex-YEC) might be helpful. Radiometric dating came along much later than relative dating: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html As an independent method, radiometrics could have overturned the evidence from relative dating if the results had been different. As it turns out, relative dating and so-called absolute dating (e.g. radiometrics) well correlate with each other. Radiometric dating of rocks reconfirmed the findings of relative dating that successive rock layers are of different ages. In addition, radiometrics also found that the rocks are up to millions and billions - not thousands - of years old.

prongs said: Does anyone know of any Creationist Geology programs, in any Bible colleges, that grant degrees in 'creationist' geology?

Mr. Woolf suggests "a link to [his] full essay on the Grand Canyon and creationism, which answers the question someone asked about how the Vishnu Temple helps demolish YEC." I have not read the material yet.

Leszek said: Geology isn't my strong suit and I didn't know anything about this particular formation and why it in particular refutes YEC'ism. Normally I know exactly what arguments a particular example refutes and why. (I must spend too much time reading FSTDT.com) Just not this time.

One thing I do have to thank the YECs for is providing me with a convenient excuse to learn more about geology. And biology, for that matter.

It was fortuitous reading this post on the same day that NASA's rover web said: "Before NASA's Curiosity rover landed on Mars, the strata exposed in Mount Sharp were compared to those in the Grand Canyon of the western United States, shown here. Now that the rover has arrived, scientists are surprised by just how close the similarities between the two terrains are. "

Curiosity sent back a striking picture of strata on Mars: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/images/PIA16105u_malin04MAINIMAGE-br2.jpg It doesn't look all that much like the Grand Canyon to me, but it makes me wonder what happens to Great Flood explanations when similar features are found on other planets.

prongs said: In truth, everything we know about geology (and physics, and chemistry) refutes YECreationism. But here's one of my favorites. YECreationists love to claim that the Grand Canyon was formed by the retreat of Noah's flood waters, laying down all the sediments and then carving the canyon, as it were, leaving the rest of the rapidly consolidating sediments for us to see. How nice. How convenient. A good story for pre-K Sunday school, perhaps, but it's absurd on the face of it. If they understood anything about geomorphology and catastrophic flooding, they would know all sedimentary rocks on every continent would have been washed into the oceans by their 'flood', leaving bare cratons of metamorphic rocks, denuded of all sediments. And the oceans would be filled to the brim with one giant graded-bed (coarsest at the bottom and finest at the top, with all organic remains ground to dust) - no deep water anywhere, no ocean trenches, no fossils. There would be no Grand Canyon had there been a worldwide deluge. This is not what we see. We have the Grand Canyon. But a YECreationist doesn't see clearly, can't see reality. Does anyone know of any Creationist Geology programs, in any Bible colleges, that grant degrees in 'creationist' geology? I wonder if they've figured out the Post-flood/Pre-flood boundary yet. Surely they've had enough time. How hard could it be?

Henry said: The sedimentary layers were laid down during the Flood, but the Canyon was carved out by a post Ice Age break of a dam. http://www.icr.org/article/grand-staircase/ http://www.icr.org/article/red-rock-pass-spillway-bonneville-flood/ http://www.icr.org/article/megafloods-english-channel/

The Grand Canyon is the product of the Colorado River. It is not a great flood washaway. These are wide in proportion to length and get wider, fan-shaped in plan, and are straight-sided and direct. The course of the Colorado winds sinuously, with many bends approaching or surpassing 120 degrees, and it is v-shaped and narrow in proportion to its length. It can only be the result of a relatively small flow of water over a long time, not a large flow over a short one.

Henry said:

prongs said: In truth, everything we know about geology (and physics, and chemistry) refutes YECreationism. But here's one of my favorites. YECreationists love to claim that the Grand Canyon was formed by the retreat of Noah's flood waters, laying down all the sediments and then carving the canyon, as it were, leaving the rest of the rapidly consolidating sediments for us to see. How nice. How convenient. A good story for pre-K Sunday school, perhaps, but it's absurd on the face of it. If they understood anything about geomorphology and catastrophic flooding, they would know all sedimentary rocks on every continent would have been washed into the oceans by their 'flood', leaving bare cratons of metamorphic rocks, denuded of all sediments. And the oceans would be filled to the brim with one giant graded-bed (coarsest at the bottom and finest at the top, with all organic remains ground to dust) - no deep water anywhere, no ocean trenches, no fossils. There would be no Grand Canyon had there been a worldwide deluge. This is not what we see. We have the Grand Canyon. But a YECreationist doesn't see clearly, can't see reality. Does anyone know of any Creationist Geology programs, in any Bible colleges, that grant degrees in 'creationist' geology? I wonder if they've figured out the Post-flood/Pre-flood boundary yet. Surely they've had enough time. How hard could it be?

The sedimentary layers were laid down during the Flood, but the Canyon was carved out by a post Ice Age break of a dam.

Dave Luckett said: The Grand Canyon is the product of the Colorado River. It is not a great flood washaway. These are wide in proportion to length and get wider, fan-shaped in plan, and are straight-sided and direct. The course of the Colorado winds sinuously, with many bends approaching or surpassing 120 degrees, and it is v-shaped and narrow in proportion to its length. It can only be the result of a relatively small flow of water over a long time, not a large flow over a short one.

Henry, has the ICR ever said, written, or published on the internet anything at all that that you now know to be just plain wrong? Have they ever retracted anything, or made any statements disappear (tacit admission of error)?

Henry said: The sedimentary layers were laid down during the Flood, but the Canyon was carved out by a post Ice Age break of a dam.

Rainbow Bridge would have gotten knocked over within 5 seconds by a great flood. But there it is, intact and still standing over the meandering watercourse that formed the bridge over millions of years.

Flood Geology is not Biblical. Henry Morris made that up.

Henry said: The sedimentary layers were laid down during the Flood, but the Canyon was carved out by a post Ice Age break of a dam.

stevaroni said:

Henry said: The sedimentary layers were laid down during the Flood, but the Canyon was carved out by a post Ice Age break of a dam.

Um... When exactly did all this happen Henry? After all, by definition, ice ages take quite some time. Ages, in fact Noah got off the Big Boat with his heard in 2348BCE. At about this point, the Egyptians were, one assumes, scraping the mud off the pyramids and setting up for the second half of the Old Kingdom. The Minoans were flourishing on Crete, Greece was in its Cyladic phase, and and Early Babylonia was starting to exert its power. These were, to belabor the point, all civilizations that had ports. On the Ocean. Although they might not have seen the glaciers, they might, just perhaps, have the thousand-foot drop in sea level. Egypt and Babylonia would also have been keenly aware of the of the odd behavior of the Nile and Euphrates rivers because, well, their entire existence depended on them. These civilizations had language. They wrote shit down when things went weird, Henry. This is how we know the old Kingdom collapsed in 2150 in no small part because some drought years on the Nile made it hard to feed everyone. Yet somehow none of these civilizations ever made a ledger entry "Odd day. very chilly - Oh, and the sea receded 100 miles last night. All doomed."

ksplawn said:

Henry said: The sedimentary layers were laid down during the Flood, but the Canyon was carved out by a post Ice Age break of a dam.

How does that explain the fossil animal tracks in the Coconino Sandstone formation, as I pointed out above?

apokryltaros said: You would think that the inhabitants city of Ur, or the archaeologists who excavated it would have taken enough note of the resulting water damage a year-long, world-destroying flood would have done ...

Henry said: The sedimentary layers were laid down during the Flood, but the Canyon was carved out by a post Ice Age break of a dam.

eric said:

Henry said: The sedimentary layers were laid down during the Flood, but the Canyon was carved out by a post Ice Age break of a dam.

Question for the resident geologists: are there any examples of a glacier carving out a canyon or valley where it leaves something like the Visnu Temple butte smack dab in the middle? At first I thought 'no.' But then it occurred to me that some sufficiently hard granite outcropping might survive a glacier. Is there anything like that? Not that this would save henry's point, it just peaked my curiousity.

And don't glacial valleys tend to be smoothly rounded, U-shaped in transverse cross section?

Henry said: The sedimentary layers were laid down during the Flood, but the Canyon was carved out by a post Ice Age break of a dam.

prongs said: (Can't you see that geology is not like religion?

all various opinions are NOT equally valid. Agreement with evidence decides which are most likely correct, until proven otherwise.)

I once logged a Rotasonic drill hole collected in unconsolidated deposits in Dayton, Ohio. The core was collected on the surface of a rapidly-aggrading gravel bar on the Mad River. In fact, the City of Dayton routinely mines gravel from the bar, and it re-forms the next year.

Sediments in the top seven feet were the gravel bar. Below 15 feet ws different outwash and till deposits. What was interesting was the unit between 7 and 15 feet below the ground surface. It was a heterogeneous accumulation of fluvial sediments, some coarse, and some fine, with nothing really distinctive for determining its age - until I found a lead-foil milk bottle cap within a bedding plane at a depth of 12 feet. That dated it well, to just after Easter Sunday, 1913. That's when Dayton was clobbered by a monster flood. The sediments I logged were the slackwater deposits laid down in the aftermath of the flood.

That brings me to the point of this excursion. In floods, the Dayton flood sized or larger, up to the Channeled Scablands floods in Washington and Idaho, the first process seen is erosion. Deposits are laid down as the water velocity slows and the sediments carried in suspension or by saltation drop out.

So if the Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's Flood, we would see erosion into some original, undifferentiated "Creation Rock", with sedimentary layers laid down within the carved channel. Instead we see differentiated sedimentary rocks laid down first, and a channel cut into them. It's precisely the opposite of what we'd see in a Noah's Flood.

Case closed, Creatonists!

I'm no expert in flood geology, either scientific or creationist, but it seems to me that there are some unasked questions here.

If the canyon was formed in the flood, it would have to have been made by water moving from one place to another, at seriously high rates of speed. You don't get large amounts of erosion from gradually rising or sinking waters.

According to my knowledge of the story, the biblical flood started quickly, with an initial deluge and torrential rains (the fountains of the deep opening up and whatnot), and finished quietly, with the waters gradually receding over a period of months (the question of where it all went to continues to remain rather vague).

So when exactly in this sequence did the canyon form? The initial deluge seems to be the only stage where the forces were violent enough to cause that level of erosion, but then wouldn't it have been filled up again under thick layers of sediment as it sat under the flood waters for half a year or so?

Unless of course the recession was also so rapid that it also/instead somehow caused huge torrents of water to flow across the rock and into the ocean basins as well. Basins which of course should already have been full of flood water. Was there perhaps a big drain hole somewhere down there letting it all out?

And remember, drainage that rapid doesn't fit with the biblical account of the waters gradually receding over several months.

So far we have had only one "real" possible explanation, Henry's breaking-dam claim, where it wasn't actually created in the flood itself, but only as some kind of after-effect. And as the follow-ups showed, the evidence doesn't fit that hypothesis either.

So when and how did it happen, exactly?

'Flood Geology' was dismissed as contrary to all known evidence more than 150 years ago.

Nothing has changed since then.

Why are ignorant creationists still pushing their old, tired hobby-horse?

prongs said: 'Flood Geology' was dismissed as contrary to all known evidence more than 150 years ago. Nothing has changed since then. Why are ignorant creationists still pushing their old, tired hobby-horse?

Note that Young Earth Creationism was discarded by nearly everyone, including fundamentalists, a century ago. It was revived in the 1960s.

Why are ignorant creationists still pushing their old, tired hobby-horse?

Henry said: The sedimentary layers were laid down during the Flood, but the Canyon was carved out by a post Ice Age break of a dam. http://www.icr.org/article/grand-staircase/ http://www.icr.org/article/red-rock-pass-spillway-bonneville-flood/ http://www.icr.org/article/megafloods-english-channel/

The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity. Yet no direct evidence has ever been presented for the existence of the Creator himself, not even by ICR itself. The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator. Ditto. Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions). No evidence of any limitation to changes in lines of organisms has ever been found, not even by ICR. The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life. There is no evidence for this. The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm. The actual scientific evidence completely refutes an Earth of less than 10,000 year old. Claims to the contrary by ICR are simply lies. Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates, but since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator. Yet no direct evidence has ever been presented for the existence of the Creator himself, not even by ICR itself. Without that, this claim has no rational basis, let alone an empirical one. The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order. The idea of "negative" changes is entirely subjective. And there is no point in claiming that Creation was originally "perfect". That too is a subjective issue. Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose. Since the earlier points are without support, this one cannot be taken seriously by objective investigators. Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally, scientifically, and teleologically.Science does work according to certain rules to detect and debunk fraud. By putting the dogmas of the Bible above criticism and asserting that Christian teachings MUST be true, the ICR members actually make the detection of fraud impossible and actually give motivation to themselves to COMMIT fraud! The Creator of the universe is a triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is only one eternal and transcendent God, the source of all being and meaning, and He exists in three Persons, each of whom participated in the work of creation. Not only is there no evidence for this, the Trinity dogma is not shared by Jews, Muslims, Unitarians, and others who may also believe in a single God. Indeed, these others reject the Trinity as a manifestation of polytheistic thinking, contrary to original Jewish teachings. The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological. This is an outright lie, as readings of the Bible itself and examination of the historical evidence has revealed. The attempts to defend the infallibility of the Bible are nothing more then rhetorical tricks. All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false. All things that now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation. Something cannot be "factual" if it is not based on any evidence that we all can examine. The first human beings, Adam and Eve, were specially created by God, and all other men and women are their descendants. In Adam, mankind was instructed to exercise "dominion" over all other created organisms, and over the earth itself (an implicit commission for true science, technology, commerce, fine art, and education), but the temptation by Satan and the entrance of sin brought God's curse on that dominion and on mankind, culminating in death and separation from God as the natural and proper consequence. The Book of Genesis indicates two "bottleneck" events in which humans descended from only a few individuals; one at Creation itself and one at Noah's Flood. If this was valid, the genetic diversity of humans even today should be virtually nil, unless Creationist ARE affirming evolution in this case. The biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and Fall of man, the Curse on the Creation and its subjection to the bondage of decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the days of Noah, the post-diluvian renewal of man's commission to subdue the earth (now augmented by the institution of human government), and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel. Noah's Flood is actually impossible; it could never have happened as depicted in the Bible. Languages have been found to evolve and diversify just as lines of organisms do. There is no evidence for anything like the tower of Babel thousands of years ago. The alienation of man from his Creator because of sin can only be remedied by the Creator Himself, who became man in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, through miraculous conception and virgin birth. In Christ were indissolubly united perfect sinless humanity and full deity, so that His substitutionary death is the only necessary and sufficient price of man's redemption. That the redemption was completely efficacious is assured by His bodily resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven; the resurrection of Christ is thus the focal point of history, assuring the consummation of God's purposes in creation. A God that depends on the death of his own Son in human form to redeem mankind is more of Pagan constriction than one that reflect original Jewish theology. Also, the stories of Jesus in the New Testament are too full of contradictions to be taken as factual. The final restoration of creation's perfection is yet future, but individuals can immediately be restored to fellowship with their Creator on the basis of His redemptive work on their behalf, receiving forgiveness and eternal life solely through personal trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, accepting Him not only as estranged Creator, but also as reconciling Redeemer and coming King. Those who reject Him, however, or who neglect to believe on Him, thereby continue in their state of rebellion and must ultimately be consigned to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. So for not believing in God, despite the lack of evidence for his existence and the clear evidence that religion is perpetrated by fraud, God condemn people to constant eternal torture? With a God like this, who needs Satan? In character, they are both the same. The eventual accomplishment of God's eternal purposes in creation, with the removal of His curse and the restoration of all things to divine perfection, will take place at the personal bodily return to earth of Jesus Christ to judge and purge sin and to establish His eternal kingdom. No evidence for this. Indeed, one must wonder why God has been taking so long to finish to process of redeeming Creation since the time of Jesus. It has been 2000 years! Each believer should participate in the "ministry of reconciliation" by seeking both to bring individuals back to God in Christ (the "Great Commission") and to "subdue the earth" for God's glory (the Edenic-Noahic Commission). The three institutions established by the Creator for the implementation of His purposes in this world (home, government, church) should be honored and supported as such. In other words, you are invited to take direct part in the scam. By working for the faith, it reinforces your belief in it.

dalehusband said: Discrediting the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is easy. The responses in bold are mine. http://www.icr.org/tenets/

The first human beings, Adam and Eve, were specially created by God, and all other men and women are their descendants. In Adam, mankind was instructed to exercise "dominion" over all other created organisms, and over the earth itself (an implicit commission for true science, technology, commerce, fine art, and education), but the temptation by Satan and the entrance of sin brought God's curse on that dominion and on mankind, culminating in death and separation from God as the natural and proper consequence. The Book of Genesis indicates two "bottleneck" events in which humans descended from only a few individuals; one at Creation itself and one at Noah's Flood. If this was valid, the genetic diversity of humans even today should be virtually nil, unless Creationist ARE affirming evolution in this case.

Henry said: http://www.icr.org/article/6942/

dalehusband said: Discrediting the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is easy. The responses in bold are mine. http://www.icr.org/tenets/

The first human beings, Adam and Eve, were specially created by God, and all other men and women are their descendants. In Adam, mankind was instructed to exercise "dominion" over all other created organisms, and over the earth itself (an implicit commission for true science, technology, commerce, fine art, and education), but the temptation by Satan and the entrance of sin brought God's curse on that dominion and on mankind, culminating in death and separation from God as the natural and proper consequence. The Book of Genesis indicates two "bottleneck" events in which humans descended from only a few individuals; one at Creation itself and one at Noah's Flood. If this was valid, the genetic diversity of humans even today should be virtually nil, unless Creationist ARE affirming evolution in this case.

DS said:

Henry said: http://www.icr.org/article/6942/

dalehusband said: Discrediting the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is easy. The responses in bold are mine. http://www.icr.org/tenets/

The first human beings, Adam and Eve, were specially created by God, and all other men and women are their descendants. In Adam, mankind was instructed to exercise "dominion" over all other created organisms, and over the earth itself (an implicit commission for true science, technology, commerce, fine art, and education), but the temptation by Satan and the entrance of sin brought God's curse on that dominion and on mankind, culminating in death and separation from God as the natural and proper consequence. The Book of Genesis indicates two "bottleneck" events in which humans descended from only a few individuals; one at Creation itself and one at Noah's Flood. If this was valid, the genetic diversity of humans even today should be virtually nil, unless Creationist ARE affirming evolution in this case.

Sorry Henry, wrong again. HEr is a reference for you from the real literature: Venema (2010) Genesis and the genome: Genomic evidence for human-ape common ancestry and ancestral Hominid population sizes. Perspectives on Science and CHristian Faith 62(3):166-178. Now Henry, when you have read and understood the article and when you can show convincingly that the analysis that proves that the ancestral population size has always been in at least the thousands and that there is no evidence whatsoever for any bottlenecks as described in the bible, then maybe someone will care what your opinion is.

Henry said: http://www.icr.org/article/christian-professor-claims-genetics/

Second, the idea that an initial group of 10,000 humans evolved from primates is mathematically impossible.

References 1) Genesis 2, Acts 17:26, and 1 Corinthians 2) Hagerty, B. B. Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve. NPR Morning Edition. (etc)

Henry said:

DS said:

Henry said: http://www.icr.org/article/6942/

dalehusband said: Discrediting the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is easy. The responses in bold are mine. http://www.icr.org/tenets/

The first human beings, Adam and Eve, were specially created by God, and all other men and women are their descendants. In Adam, mankind was instructed to exercise "dominion" over all other created organisms, and over the earth itself (an implicit commission for true science, technology, commerce, fine art, and education), but the temptation by Satan and the entrance of sin brought God's curse on that dominion and on mankind, culminating in death and separation from God as the natural and proper consequence. The Book of Genesis indicates two "bottleneck" events in which humans descended from only a few individuals; one at Creation itself and one at Noah's Flood. If this was valid, the genetic diversity of humans even today should be virtually nil, unless Creationist ARE affirming evolution in this case.

Sorry Henry, wrong again. HEr is a reference for you from the real literature: Venema (2010) Genesis and the genome: Genomic evidence for human-ape common ancestry and ancestral Hominid population sizes. Perspectives on Science and CHristian Faith 62(3):166-178. Now Henry, when you have read and understood the article and when you can show convincingly that the analysis that proves that the ancestral population size has always been in at least the thousands and that there is no evidence whatsoever for any bottlenecks as described in the bible, then maybe someone will care what your opinion is.

http://www.icr.org/article/christian-professor-claims-genetics/

Still waitin Henry. The article presented seven different types of data and each was consistent with the hypothesis of descent with modification. None were consistent with the hypothesis of ID or special creation or the creation myth in the bible. The article carefully explains why. The site you linked didn't address any of this evidence. I wonder why?

Maybe you can explain synteny or SNP/LD analysis. Maybe not. Now Henry, if you don't understand the data and cannot explain the data, why should anyone believe you or anyone you quote? Not everyone is a gullible as you you know.

Likewise, you have completely failed to explain any of the evidence for the ancient origin of the Grand Canyon. I see a pattern here Henry. You spout any nonsense that crosses your mind, completely ignore all of the evidence, quote those just as ignorant as yourself and then refuse to explain when questioned. Until you are willing to engage the evidence you ain't gonna get nowheres nohow. Best get ready to commence to begin.

Henry, I am an ex-YEC. I grew up a YEC, even using an original copy of The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb & Morris) that was printed about two decades before I was born. When I was a teen, I eagerly awaited Impact and other ICR material in the mailbox (we weren't on the internet at the time). Even after my science classes in college, I was very reluctant to discard my YEC beliefs.

But now I feel basing one's theology on horrific pseudoscience like YECism/Flood geology can do Christians more harm (click link here) than anything dreamed of by militant atheists.

As DS has pointed out numerous times, how do you explain SINE insertions being in the same places in humans and other primates (which suggests common descent)?

How do you explain why your particular Designer would intentionally put broken genes (such as the Vitamin C pseudogene and hemoglobin pseudogene) in the same places in humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas and other primates? We especially want to know why these defective genes often have exact matching defects (in both humans and other primates). As an example, the hemoglobin pseudogene has six defects. This includes a particular defective stop switch in middle of the pseudogene that is a triple-copy; these six defects (including the particular off switch which is, again, a triple-copy defect) are in the exact same place in humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas.

It’s not just broken genes giving evidence of common descent. Functional genes can have much redundancy within a DNA sequence, which allows certain mutations to happen but with no basic change in the gene (like the DNA that makes up the Cytochrome C protein). These mutations, like other DNA evidence, show nested hierarchy/common descent when compared among different species.

Henry, you like to try to feed us your ICR drivel and other YEC links. How about returning the favor? Some time ago, you seemingly looked at the website of Pandas Thumb poster Carl Drews. Now try here (by a fellow Believer, albeit an ex-YEC) as well as here.

stevaroni said:

Henry said: http://www.icr.org/article/christian-professor-claims-genetics/

Ow! That was so stupid it actually hurt. Among the highlights, such logical gems as...

Second, the idea that an initial group of 10,000 humans evolved from primates is mathematically impossible.

This in response to the idea that "Given the genetic variation of people today, says scientists can't get that [starting] population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history". Go ahead, you figure out what one statement has to do with the other. I'll wait. But I especially love the authoritative references

References 1) Genesis 2, Acts 17:26, and 1 Corinthians 2) Hagerty, B. B. Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve. NPR Morning Edition. (etc)

DS said:

stevaroni said:

Henry said: http://www.icr.org/article/christian-professor-claims-genetics/

Ow! That was so stupid it actually hurt. Among the highlights, such logical gems as...

Second, the idea that an initial group of 10,000 humans evolved from primates is mathematically impossible.

This in response to the idea that "Given the genetic variation of people today, says scientists can't get that [starting] population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history". Go ahead, you figure out what one statement has to do with the other. I'll wait. But I especially love the authoritative references

References 1) Genesis 2, Acts 17:26, and 1 Corinthians 2) Hagerty, B. B. Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve. NPR Morning Edition. (etc)

The interesting thing to me is that the article did not even include the reference that they were attacking! It's almost like those guys didn't bother to read the actual paper either. No wonder they didn't actually address any of the evidence in the paper. No wonder Henry can't either. All he can do is cut and paste crap from people who don't understand any more than he does. The evidence is not going to go away Henry. If you want to convince anyone of anything you better deal with it or STFU.

Tenncrain said: Henry, I am an ex-YEC. I grew up a YEC, even using an original copy of The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb & Morris) that was printed about two decades before I was born. When I was a teen, I eagerly awaited Impact and other ICR material in the mailbox (we weren't on the internet at the time). Even after my science classes in college, I was very reluctant to discard my YEC beliefs. But now I feel basing one's theology on horrific pseudoscience like YECism/Flood geology can do Christians more harm (click link here) than anything dreamed of by militant atheists. As DS has pointed out numerous times, how do you explain SINE insertions being in the same places in humans and other primates (which suggests common descent)? How do you explain why your particular Designer would intentionally put broken genes (such as the Vitamin C pseudogene and hemoglobin pseudogene) in the same places in humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas and other primates? We especially want to know why these defective genes often have exact matching defects (in both humans and other primates). As an example, the hemoglobin pseudogene has six defects. This includes a particular defective stop switch in middle of the pseudogene that is a triple-copy; these six defects (including the particular off switch which is, again, a triple-copy defect) are in the exact same place in humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas. It’s not just broken genes giving evidence of common descent. Functional genes can have much redundancy within a DNA sequence, which allows certain mutations to happen but with no basic change in the gene (like the DNA that makes up the Cytochrome C protein). These mutations, like other DNA evidence, show nested hierarchy/common descent when compared among different species. Henry, you like to try to feed us your ICR drivel and other YEC links. How about returning the favor? Some time ago, you seemingly looked at the website of Pandas Thumb poster Carl Drews. Now try here (by a fellow Believer, albeit an ex-YEC) as well as here.

Henry said:

DS said:

stevaroni said:

Henry said: http://www.icr.org/article/christian-professor-claims-genetics/

Ow! That was so stupid it actually hurt. Among the highlights, such logical gems as...

Second, the idea that an initial group of 10,000 humans evolved from primates is mathematically impossible.

This in response to the idea that "Given the genetic variation of people today, says scientists can't get that [starting] population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history". Go ahead, you figure out what one statement has to do with the other. I'll wait. But I especially love the authoritative references

References 1) Genesis 2, Acts 17:26, and 1 Corinthians 2) Hagerty, B. B. Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve. NPR Morning Edition. (etc)

The interesting thing to me is that the article did not even include the reference that they were attacking! It's almost like those guys didn't bother to read the actual paper either. No wonder they didn't actually address any of the evidence in the paper. No wonder Henry can't either. All he can do is cut and paste crap from people who don't understand any more than he does. The evidence is not going to go away Henry. If you want to convince anyone of anything you better deal with it or STFU.

http://creation.com/historical-adam-biologos

Funny that the latest link doesn't cite the paper either. Funny that Henry still can't seem to find the words to express his understanding of the terms synteny and SNP/LD (two terms never discussed in either link). It's almost as if he thinks that linking to some crap posted by some know-nothings that was never actually published and doesn't address the real evidence is sufficient to convince everyone that he is right, even though he has shown no comprehension of the relevant issues whatsoever. Man, creationists should really learn a different tune. This one has gotten really old. It's dumb, da dumb dumb, dumb.

DS said: Funny that the latest link doesn't cite the paper either.

DS said: Funny that Henry still can't seem to find the words to express his understanding of the terms synteny and SNP/LD (two terms never discussed in either link).

DS said:

Henry said:

DS said:

stevaroni said:

Henry said: http://www.icr.org/article/christian-professor-claims-genetics/

Ow! That was so stupid it actually hurt. Among the highlights, such logical gems as...

Second, the idea that an initial group of 10,000 humans evolved from primates is mathematically impossible.

This in response to the idea that "Given the genetic variation of people today, says scientists can't get that [starting] population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history". Go ahead, you figure out what one statement has to do with the other. I'll wait. But I especially love the authoritative references

References 1) Genesis 2, Acts 17:26, and 1 Corinthians 2) Hagerty, B. B. Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve. NPR Morning Edition. (etc)

The interesting thing to me is that the article did not even include the reference that they were attacking! It's almost like those guys didn't bother to read the actual paper either. No wonder they didn't actually address any of the evidence in the paper. No wonder Henry can't either. All he can do is cut and paste crap from people who don't understand any more than he does. The evidence is not going to go away Henry. If you want to convince anyone of anything you better deal with it or STFU.

http://creation.com/historical-adam-biologos

Venema (2010) Genesis and the genome: Genomic evidence for human-ape common ancestry and ancestral Hominid population sizes. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 62(3):166-178.

Henry said:

DS said:

Henry said:

DS said:

stevaroni said:

Henry said: http://www.icr.org/article/christian-professor-claims-genetics/

Ow! That was so stupid it actually hurt. Among the highlights, such logical gems as...

Second, the idea that an initial group of 10,000 humans evolved from primates is mathematically impossible.

This in response to the idea that "Given the genetic variation of people today, says scientists can't get that [starting] population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history". Go ahead, you figure out what one statement has to do with the other. I'll wait. But I especially love the authoritative references

References 1) Genesis 2, Acts 17:26, and 1 Corinthians 2) Hagerty, B. B. Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve. NPR Morning Edition. (etc)

The interesting thing to me is that the article did not even include the reference that they were attacking! It's almost like those guys didn't bother to read the actual paper either. No wonder they didn't actually address any of the evidence in the paper. No wonder Henry can't either. All he can do is cut and paste crap from people who don't understand any more than he does. The evidence is not going to go away Henry. If you want to convince anyone of anything you better deal with it or STFU.

http://creation.com/historical-adam-biologos

Venema (2010) Genesis and the genome: Genomic evidence for human-ape common ancestry and ancestral Hominid population sizes. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 62(3):166-178.

I've downloaded it and started to examine it.

Henry, How is it going? The paper os only 30 pages long, not including the six pages of references. Maybe you should bake a course in introductory biology and genetics and population genetics and molecular genetics and phylogenetics first. Then maybe you could understand the paper. Of course then you might not disagree with the conclusions any more. :):):)

Now if the web sites you posted had dealt with the actual evidence already, you wouldn't be in such a bind. Maybe now you can see why they didn't do that.

By the way Henry, the article already described why common design cannot explain the observed patterns, so don't try to go there. Oh and Henry, "I don't want to believe it" is not an argument.

DS said: By the way Henry, the article already described why common design cannot explain the observed patterns, so don't try to go there. Oh and Henry, "I don't want to believe it" is not an argument.

Still a waitin son. Maybe you can find some ICR or AIG site where someone actually read the paper. Seems as though they really hate this guy. They seem to have interviewed him several times. You would think they would have wanted to read the paper and address the actual evidence. Maybe not.

Why don't we start with just the term SNP/LD. Here I'll give you a clue, it stands for single nucleotide polymorphism linkage disequilibrium. The paper describes what that means and why the analysis demonstrates that the human population size has been a minimum of 10,000 or so for at least the last few hundred thousand years. So, no Noah and the magic flood, no Adam and Eve, none of that. No wonder there isn'[t any evidence for any of it. Imagine that.

See here is the thing Henry, modern genetic analysis makes it possible to compare entire genomes nucleotide for nucleotide. This powerful type of analysis allows us to rigorously test many different hypotheses. The evidence is very clear, the biblical myths are just not true in the literal sense. Once you admit that, you can see them in a different light and come to appreciate them for the truth and beauty that they actually do contain. Until then you will be trapped in a heap of lies and distortions, denying reality and living in fear of the evidence. Come away form the dark side Henry, embrace the truth, it will set you free.

Where did ya get to Henry? Haven't you read that paper yet? Man at this rate you are going to have five more papers that you need to read before you get through the first one. See Henry, that's only one of about a thousand papers that disprove the Adam and Eve "hypothesis". And of course, everything that has ever been published in geology disproves the magic flood myth. Oh well, at least you tried. I guess.

Any time now Henry.

Done waitin Henry. Get back to me on the bathroom wall if you ever learn how to read. Until then, the evidence stands. There was no magic apple. There was no magic flood. deal with it.

For anyone who is actually interested, the evidence includes far more than just SNPs, mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data. It also includes polymorphism for MHC loci, microsatellite diversity, ALU insertions and divergence, etc. Of course I can provide references, but creationists seem incapable of reading then. The point is that modern genomics has given us a wealth of information which allows us to trace human history form our primate ancestors out of Africa and across the face of the earth. We are now able to reconstruct this history in great detail. In order to cling to outdated myths you have to deny all of this evidence. That has important consequences for the study of human diversity, disease, screening and treatment programs, etc. Creationist must become o=more and more insulated from reality in order to maintain their delusions. Hence the approach of covering the eyes and ears and screaming at the top of their lungs. You can choose to go back to the dark ages intellectually whenever you want to, just remember the average life span at that time and the reason why.

Guess Henry found out that he was mistaken. All of the evidence shows that there was no magic apple and there was no magic flood. Think he will change his tune? Or will he just come back here pretending that he never found out the truth?

DS said: Guess Henry found out that he was mistaken. All of the evidence shows that there was no magic apple and there was no magic flood. Think he will change his tune? Or will he just come back here pretending that he never found out the truth?

Here's another one for Henry to digest: Were Most of Earth's Fossil-Bearing Sedimentary Rock Layers Deposited by Noah's Flood? A Look at the Cononino Sandstone