Provide the proof of what I specifically just asked you! Not that hard to do!
Any scientist I present or reference you will not accept because that scientistâs opinion would not agree with the belief you have in long ages.
What evidence can you provide from the GC that shows long ages?
Answer my question or move on. You canât so you deflect. Sad.
Oh I see, I get a run around excuse from you then followed by a question from you to provide my proof. I see how you operate! You canât provide proof to support your assertion but you expect me to acquiesce to your demands? How is that being reciprocal in this debate? Provide your proof.
Big deal! Letâs post a video! Blah blah blah!
How about providing a published peer review paper from a credible source that proves that a credible geologist uses Mt ST Helens as a reliable comparison that backs up your assertion? Can you do that? If not then you should move on! You proved nothing!
Do you understand what a âpeer reviewedâ paper consists of? Do you understand that a âpeer reviewed paperâ is reviewed by like-minded people, many of who are not educated in the particular field that the paper covers?
Now, answer my question if you can and stop trying to take this debate down a rabbit-hole to avoid supporting your objection. Your repeated denial is not evidence. I have provided evidence for a different, more logical and observed model. You provide insults and diversion.
Ok I will give you that, and itâs an article filled with useful information! It is good reading and raises questions to other explanations of possible occurrences.However it still doesnât prove that the Grand Canyon was formed in the same way, at this point itâs still a theory!
This is what I think happened with the formation of the Grand Canyon.
Just as long ages is a hypothesis. You video is an opinion, the videos of MtStH are recorded history.
1 Like
No I am not providing insults I am pointing out to you that your trying to assert your hypothesis as being fact when in actuality itâs only a theory. That is where we disagree. You do know the difference between a theory vs established fact right?
Peer review is often done in the circles of academia by credentialed experts in a specific field of study. Your assertions of not being qualified is an accusation. Are you a geological expert?
It doesnât matter if itâs recorded, itâs also a theory and also formed opinions as well. What does matter is that itâs still a subject under current study that was formed by a volcanic catastrophic event. What catastrophic event formed the Grand Canyon?
Rocks and layers of them are recorded history too!
This video is interesting (I watched yours, now watch mine.) It speculates the GC was eroded in a short period of time by a massive amount of water accumulated on the plateau, which we agree. The speaker in the video however makes no positive claim for long ages only assumptions (his words, listen carefully). In the video the hypothesis of continental drift seems to be agreed on by both models, except for the timeline (which is only speculation).
The layering over millions of years should, if correct show signs of erosion between the layers, which it does not. The layering of totally different materials suddenly changing does happen, as proven by observable, testable and repeatable experiments in elementary school science lab, by putting a handful of dirt into a Mason jar of water and shaking it up to watch the separation of the dirt into layers of disparate material. Just as observed today in our geology across the world.
All this to point out, there is no discrepancy found in geology for the young Earth/Genesis Flood model, but numerous incongruities exist for millions of years models.
Ok, but letâs go back to Mt St Helens and Catastrophic event premise, and apply that to the Grand Canyon. Letâs say you are correct, that the Grand Canyon was formed in a matter of days, then what was the Catastrophic event that caused it?
I NEVER claimed the model I am defending is FACT. Both models are hypotheses. (Do you know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?)
I NEVER claimed to be a geologist, just an avid reader and student of both creation models. My assertion of peer reviews not done exclusively by experts âin the fieldâ is easily disproved, if you chose to check.
The formation and erosion of the canyon in Washington is not theory or hypothesis but a recorded event. Scheesch?!?!
I am going to disagree with you on the peer review assertion part, I participate in peer review for law journals and the standards are pretty brutal in terms who I measure against especially now in this age of social media where credentials are crossed referenced religiously, itâs pretty easy to be discredited.
Your video presented the hypothesis of rapid erosion of the Grand Canyon by a massive body of water. The model I am defending also hypothesizes a massive body of water flowed through the region carving the canyon. So we agree there.
Over two hundred isolated outcrops of horizontally stratified, basaltic lava flows within the inner gorge of western Grand Canyon indicate that several natural âlava damsâ blocked the flow of the Colorado River during the Pleistocene, resulting in the formation of several lakes within the canyon. The largest lake was 90 m above the high water level of present-day Lake Powell and backed up a distance of over 480 km to Moab, Utah. Although early studies indicated that three or less dams once blocked the inner gorge, work completed in 1994 indicated that at least thirteen distinct lava dams may have blocked the Colorado River. Comparison with modern erosion rates of cliff retreat (Niagara Falls) indicate that the thirteen dams would have required a minimum of 250,000 years to erode during the Pleistocene. However, geologic features and relationships not previously considered indicate that the dams formed rapidly (hours, days, or months) and failed catastrophically soon after formation. Excess radiogenic argon is contained within many basalts of Grand Canyon. This initial argon invalidates K-Ar model ages which are assumed by many geologists to require an age of more than one million years for the oldest lava dams. We envision that the entire episode of the lava dams can easily be reconciled within a time frame of less than two thousand years. Our observations and interpretations reveal serious flaws in the current long-age timescale of the Pleistocene Epoch."
http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Lava-Dams-of-the-Western-Grand-Canyon-Arizona.pdf
Of course itâs a recorded event, formed by different circumstances than that of the Grand Canyon which have different properties of rock types. What is a theory is suggesting that Grand Canyon was formed in days not years!
Ahhh, in the law, does not forensic science speculate on the past events. Often the evidence can not prove the perpetrator of the event or the exact time. How many men have been falsely accused and jailed based on forensic science? How many convicted men have been released based on new methods of testing DNA?
So forensic science is a guessing game, based on assumed conditions and evidence.