10 reasons why the Grand Canyon can not have formed Recently


1. Immense Sediment Transport: The sheer volume of rock that had to be excavated to form the Grand Canyon is staggering. A sudden event, like a massive flood 4,000 years ago, wouldn't have the capacity to move that much material in such a short time.

2. Lack of Catastrophic Flood Evidence: Geologists have extensively studied the Grand Canyon and surrounding areas. There's no evidence of a single, massive flood event capable of carving the canyon. Instead, evidence points to gradual erosion by the Colorado River over millions of years.

3. Side Canyons and Tributaries: The Grand Canyon isn't just a single chasm. It has a complex network of side canyons and tributaries. These intricate formations would require time to develop through gradual erosion, not a sudden event.

4. Layered Rock Formations: The Grand Canyon exposes layers of rock that represent millions of years of geological history. These layers show different depositional environments and would take vast periods to form.

5. Fossil Record: The canyon's layers contain fossils that document the evolution of life over millions of years. A sudden creation event 4,000 years ago wouldn't allow time for this fossil record to develop.

6. Radiometric Dating: Radiometric dating techniques consistently show the canyon's rocks to be millions, even billions, of years old. These methods are well-established and reliable, contradicting a recent formation.

7. Colorado River's Path: The Colorado River's path through the Grand Canyon shows a meandering course that has been carved over long periods. A sudden event wouldn't produce this kind of meandering riverbed.

8. Erosion Rates: Observed erosion rates in the Grand Canyon and similar geological formations are consistent with a gradual formation over millions of years. A sudden event would require impossibly high erosion rates.

9. Lack of Upstream Evidence: If a massive flood had carved the Grand Canyon, there should be evidence of its source and path upstream. No such evidence exists.

10. Scientific Consensus: The overwhelming majority of geologists and other scientists agree that the Grand Canyon formed gradually over millions of years. This consensus is based on a vast body of evidence and research.

In summary: The evidence overwhelmingly supports the scientific explanation of the Grand Canyon's formation through gradual erosion by the Colorado River over millions of years. A sudden creation event 4,000 years ago is not supported by the geological evidence.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The "One-Way" Speed of Light is measured for the first time.

Image
Jeremiah 33:25 Thus says the Lord, 'If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established, Job 38:19 "Where is the way to the dwelling of light?.. That you may take it to its territory And that you may discern the paths to its home? The observation of gravitational waves and gamma ray bursts from two neutron star–black hole coalescences in 2020 was a major breakthrough in astrophysics. It was the first time that gravitational waves and gamma ray bursts had been detected from such a system, and it provided new insights into the nature of these extreme objects. One of the most intriguing aspects of these observations is that they confirm the one-way speed of light. The speed of light is a fundamental constant of nature, and it is the same in all frames of reference. This means that, regardless of how fast you are moving, light will always travel at the same speed relative to you. The one-way speed of light has been tested
Read more

Distant Starlight and the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention: A Challenge from Neutron Star Mergers

Image
“As these neutron stars spiraled together, they emitted gravitational waves that were detectable for about 100 seconds; when they collided, a flash of light in the form of gamma rays was emitted and seen on Earth about two seconds after the gravitational waves .” The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) is a proposed solution to the " distant starlight problem" encountered in young-earth creationism. It was proposed by Dr Jason Lisles of Answers in Genesis. This problem arises from the apparent contradiction between the young earth biblical age of the universe (thousands of years) and the vast distances we observe through telescopes (billions of light-years). The ASC proposes that the speed of light is not constant in all directions, but rather travels instantly towards the observer, explaining how we see light from seemingly young stars. However, recent observations of neutron star mergers present a significant challenge to the ASC.  In 2017, the LIGO and
Read more

The nebular hypothesis - a challenge to Young Earth Creationism?

Image
Psalms 90 : (written by Moses before Genesis) “ Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night.” Some recent Young Earth Creationists (YEC) posit that stars were created on Genesis Day 4 of creation as described in the Bible, using the 24-hour day interpretation. This implies that we shouldn't expect to find stars actively forming in the universe today . However, the nebular hypothesis , which proposes that stars and planets form from the gravitational collapse of giant clouds of gas and dust, is fully supported by scientific evidence.  Answers in Genesis (AiG) criticizes the nebular hypothesis over 700 times on their website. Their claims haven't been accepted by the scientific community as well as many many other Christians. On their website an article has the below illustration and
Read more