Well there is a reason why the moon incident alledgedly happened sooner than later. There is still the choice of appearance and actuality. So figuratively a perfect place is unknown to us if all we have are current facts. If we choose to relegate the Word of God as just contradictions and figurative mythology we have backed ourselves into a corner with no where to go. I suppose we could run into a race of beings who possibly recorded the event and can make it so we can view it, but I am not holding my breath.
If God points out to us what happened but left it up to us to figure out, why toss out the data God left us in written form and just wait for something better to come along?
Probably because of the fact God is involved, and religion and science a good marriage does not make. Except religion and science are just tools not laws of the universe. It is the human thought behind religion and science where the struggle happens.
I’m sorry Tim, but I have absolutely no idea what on earth you are talking about. What do you mean by “the moon incident”? What is a “choice of appearance and actuality”? Who is choosing to “relagage (sic) the Word of God as just contradictions and figurative mythology” and how? I’m struggling to even parse some of the things you’re writing here as valid English.
My point was that if something was in existence for the alleged time why are we seing more activity now than millions of years of inactivity. Wiki only dates it to 100 million years, but what we currently see, only happened in the last 30 to 3 K. That is too wide of a time guess for me. A lot of things can happen in 27 K years. Or nothing at all. Even if the river itself was 100 M, it has been wiped clean, filled in, wiped clean again. It may have even been under ice or water for millennia with no activity at all. Your point was it took millions of years. My point was it only takes certain conditions, and not necessarily time itself.
extend the application of (a method or conclusion, especially one based on statistics) to an unknown situation by assuming that existing trends will continue or similar methods will be applicable. From google search.
The closest word to the point I was trying to make. Is it the best one? I am not accusing any one of making stuff up out of no where if that is what you are asking.
I didn’t think you were Tim. I just found it very difficult to understand what point you were trying to make and how it was relevant to the subject under discussion.
The topic still is the origen of six days and the Sabbath. I widened the topic and pointed out that before Noah, the relationship with the moon was totally different and that months with lunar connotations only started after the Flood.
Seeing as how I am not into putting gaps into the first chapter of Genesis, if there was no moon at creation like we know it, and other ANE accounts seem to indicate that humans experienced and recorded the moon being formed, and that the predominance of the sun and moon come last in the evolution of the ANE gods, then the formation of the moon was during the Flood. There is no written record of any other major event outside of the Flood. I have not found any indication of geological evidence of the moon event either. We understand that an event took place. I do not think that there is just “an appearance” of an event. It just answers a few more questions raised about phenomenon that we have no answer for.
There have been major flooding events since the modern exploration of the area. One of the reasons for building dams. The other condition is the volatile plate interactions in the area. The history of Flooding is too prevalent in the area to just say, “flooding is off the list of reasons, and all we have is time.” For one thing there is no longer a large body of water needed to do the job. So watching it in action is no longer an option.
Most of the dams on the Colorado River are for irrigation, hydroelectric power or drinking water. Only 5 are used for flood control.
How is being earthquake prone a reason for building a dam. Or are you saying that somehow earthquakes could explain how the river was created? Were you there to see that? Do you have an example where this was seen somewhere else?
Flooding is off the table due to the fact that flooding doesn’t explain what you see.
A meandering river implies a slow process that takes a lot of time. To what major release of water are you referring?
I am not sure what you are trying to ask. Your point is: “According to the dating of each and every event in the geological record, such flooding did not form the deep canyons. Any flooding only used the channel that was there millions of years prior. So any flooding is not the answer you are looking for.”
So you are basically wanting me to believe in miracles and assume flooding was not used period? Then all the evidence of Floods happened. Now we are back to the innocent little river, now that it does not flood any more? Because without flooding, the river would have to form a little here. Then it would have to re-elivate itself to find another section to form. Enough times to remove multiple miles across. Once that layer was done, it would go back over the same way it had just came from. The proof for that is that about every ten feet down one side of the Canyon would have millions of years differences in ages. The oldest being 10 ft. on one side. Then the next youngest would be down to 20 ft. on the opposite side. The next youngest would cross back over to the other side down to 30 ft. It would keep crossing back and forth as the river etched out the ground between either side of the Canyon.
Saying that it just happened because there was enough time does not overcome the logic of it happening without the use of Flooding. You can have flooding that leaves naturally forming curves in their original state. You can also have rivers that completely change course during a major Flood. What goes against logic is a river with no flooding whatsoever decide on its own to move back and forth between two specific Canyon wall miles apart etching out a canyon thousands of feet deep. If you say there could have been slight flooding here and there, you cannot rule out any major floods either. A flood even small is still a flood. If there is evidence of floods, and science can prove crest of up to 700 ft. Did these floods magically do nothing to change the way the Canyon looks today? That is the second leap in logic. The geological evidence proves there were large seas covering the majority of North America. Yet you say none of these had any effect on the Grand Canyon, because it was already there millions of years prior. 3rd point of not adding up logically.
I agree that the Grand Canyon has an appearance of millions of years as evidenced in the geological record. I just accept a more natural and logical way of how it formed. I think it would also be ok to say that God’s handi work makes for a great 100 my old river.
Sorry but I don’t think I understand what it is you are trying to say.
The youngest rocks at the Grand Canyon date to 270 mya. Most of these layers were deposited before the river existed and were deposited while that area was under a large inland sea. So it is seas first and then the river formed, slowly. The course of the river has actually changed over time and there are traces of where the river used to run.
How can there be traces where there is physically empty space?
You did not specify where these youngest rocks are found. Are you saying that the Grand Canyon has been in it’s current form for 270 my? When I hear youngest, it is the most recent event. My youngest brother was born last and closest to current time. If you mean the youngest as being young 270mya, it is pointless. All things are young at the beginning of their existence. If you mean oldest, then forget me trying to figure out what you mean. Otherwise you are saying in this empty space we call the Grand Canyon we can without observation, see exactly how things happened over time where empty space now is.
Ie. It just happened because it can. The date of some rocks date to 270mya. Not all of them? Technically only the ones found near the top would indicate the age when the river was there before a Canyon formed. Not to be mean. But if we dug down thousands of ft. Into the earth, and uncovered a rock dating 270mya then we can assume 270mya worth of history as been laid down on top of this one rock, or it took 270mya for this rock to travel that distance.
When it comes to the Grand Canyon you seem to be saying that the Grand Canyon took 270my to form the walls and then perhaps half that to carve out how it currently looks. Because if the river itself was under a lake and there was no Canyon, as we see it today, are you saying that the ground actually moved up while the river moved down? If a 270mya rock is found at the bottom near the current river, it could have come from anywhere. Saying that it took 270mya for the river to find this 270mya rock does not make sense. It is like trying to dig down yourself to a certain level in the earth and find the same 270mya rock. The point of dating is to not point out certain rocks. It is to date as many items as possible in as many areas as possible and then give as best of a picture as to be had taking into consideration all the natural things that could happen. My point was if things did not happen as predicted, and there was a phenomenon that changed anything at any time, that picture is just fake, even if it looks real.
I get the point there were seas in the area. However the rock could also have been there 270mya before the seas themselves.
Thanks for the link. I think that would prove my point though. Age is already there in the rock formation. The river had nothing to do with the age of the Canyon.
Now the part that 270mya the river existed at the top before any depth prior to a Canyon. The first assumption would be did none of the Canyon exist even before a sea was formed. There could have still been a river prior to the sea, and even a Canyon unless you can prove the sea itself happened more than 270mya. Is there proof that the sea put down a billion years worth of material?
My theory. There was already a Canyon in place however the size does not matter. After the Flood came the sea or even multiple seas for that matter. The sea/s helped form the Canyon even more. There does not have to be any specific timetable for when or even how the sea or seas came and went. Since this is not dogma nor doctrine, then figuring out an exact time frame is not right or wrong. We know that flooding and the formation of seas do not need long periods of time. I know that using dating methods and all the new satalite imaging of all types may give us evidence of a tighter time frame. But if we agree there were seas, I think that we would also have to acknowledge flooding as factoring into how the Canyon was formed and not just a river without any flooding at all.
Isn’t the problem with re-interpretations of the Bible that as children we are indoctrinated to believe it is the word of God? Isn’t that a misconception passed on to children which they later have to deal with struggling with faith?
Do you have an example where this was seen somewhere else?