Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Noah Claim Annoys Scientists
The Guardian (UK) ^ | 1-9-2004 | Duncan Campbell

Posted on 01/08/2004 7:02:31 PM PST by blam

Noah claim annoys scientists

Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Friday January 9, 2004
The Guardian (UK)

Noah and his ark have entered the choppy waters of a debate about the age and geological history of the Grand Canyon. For years, geologists have held that the 217-mile-long canyon in Arizona was fashioned by the Colorado river between 5m and 6m years ago, and contains some of the oldest exposed rocks on Earth.

But now a book sold in the offical Grand Canyon park bookstore suggests that it was created by the flood that is reported in the book of Genesis.

Grand Canyon: A Different View, by a local trail guide, Tom Vail, claims that years of erosion had nothing to do with the canyon's creation. Instead, its shape can be attributed to the Old Testament flood - meaning that it is only a few thousand years old.

The book's presence in the bookstore has created a rumpus between creationists and evolutionists.

Vail writes: "For years, as a Colorado river guide, I told people how the Grand Canyon was formed over the evolutionary timescale of millions of years.

"Then I met the Lord. Now, I have a different view of the canyon, which according to a biblical timescale, can't possibly be more than a few thousand years old."

The claim has prompted the American Geological Institute and seven scientific bodies to flood the National Park Service with complaints, in which they call for the book to be removed from the shop.

So far, the book remains on sale - although it has been moved from the natural sciences section to the "inspirational reading" department.

"We struggle," Deanne Adams, the park service's chief of interpretation for the Pacific region, told the Los Angeles Times.

"Creationism versus science is a big issue at some places. We like to acknowledge that there are different viewpoints, but we have to stick with the science. That's our training."

The Grand Canyon superintendent, Joe Alston, is seeking advice from National Park Service headquarters in Washington.

The book has sold out, but is being reordered.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: annoys; claim; creationism; grandcanyon; greatflood; noah; noahsark; noahsflood; scientists

1 posted on 01/08/2004 7:02:32 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blam
What's the big deal? Why would these scientists/geologists care?
2 posted on 01/08/2004 7:07:30 PM PST by MontanaBeth (Tagline on vacation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Rank Location Receipts Donors/Avg Freepers/Avg Monthlies
5 New York 1,127.00
33
34.15
669
1.68
308.00
19

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

3 posted on 01/08/2004 7:08:11 PM PST by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
The book has sold out, but is being reordered.

Well - now that's a good sign, in a manner of speaking. I have actually sat through one of these lectures by a YEC - it was, entertaining, to say the least.

But, didn't bother to correct him. There is a possibility that all of the "data" indicating great age is God's idea of what an omnipotent sense of humor looks like. Rather remote, but possible. I'm not one to deny Him his chuckles...

That said, keep up the good work YECs - not everyone thinks you incurably wacky here at FR!!
4 posted on 01/08/2004 7:10:53 PM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MontanaBeth
Howdy. As one who has chatted a few times with these folks, they care ALOT. Such a book in a *gasp* government run bookstore.

The SHAME of it all - next thing you know, the gov't will start making Bibles available, and then, blamo, the state has endorsed a religion, and then, well of course, the pitchfork and torch crowd is going to go after the heretics, and then, they won't get to be famous publishing there very popular geosci articles.....


Hmmm, maybe I'm guilty of ranting....
5 posted on 01/08/2004 7:15:14 PM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
bump
6 posted on 01/08/2004 7:19:26 PM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: blam
Never loan a geologist money. They think 10,000 is a short period of time.
7 posted on 01/08/2004 7:19:57 PM PST by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
"That's our training."

Uh-huh.

Can't add a thing to that.

8 posted on 01/08/2004 7:21:22 PM PST by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Books about one unprovable theory ... books about a different unprovable theory. Who should have a problem? I'd think most people just want to look at the pictures, anyway :-).
9 posted on 01/08/2004 7:23:17 PM PST by Tax-chick (I reserve the right to disclaim all January 2004 posts after the BABY is born!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MontanaBeth
What's the big deal? Why would these scientists/geologists care?

It's a religious thing for them, too.

10 posted on 01/08/2004 7:32:39 PM PST by thulldud (It's bad luck to be superstitious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
There is a possibility that all of the "data" indicating great age is God's idea of what an omnipotent sense of humor looks like. Rather remote, but possible. I'm not one to deny Him his chuckles...

Dinosaur fossils were placed in the earth by Satan to deceive mankind into disbelieving Genesis

11 posted on 01/08/2004 7:56:37 PM PST by WackyKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WackyKat
Dinosaur fossils were placed in the earth by Satan to deceive mankind into disbelieving Genesis

Umm... you're joking, right?

12 posted on 01/08/2004 8:14:54 PM PST by SedVictaCatoni (You keep nasty chips.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: blam
"Then I met the Lord."


I used to be messed
up on drugs.  Now
I'm messed up on the
Lord!
13 posted on 01/08/2004 8:21:23 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
There is a possibility that all of the "data" indicating great age is God's idea of what an omnipotent sense of humor looks like.

Actually, as shown by the Mount Saint Helens eruption and also the Washington State Scablands, large geological formations such as the Grand Canyon can form rapidly under the intense hydraulic pressure of floodwaters. If you think about it, isn't it a bit incredulous to believe that a canyon a mile in diameter was carved by that slender little blue strand of a river at the bottom? If this wasn't about creation-evolution, wouldn't the burden of proof be on those who argued that major flooding didn't erode it?

If the Grand Canyon is, say, forty million years old and Ice Ages occur, say, every forty thousand years, then the Grand Canyon must have been covered with ice over a thousand times in its history. Odd that the Colorado River can leave its mark, but being covered by an ice pack a mile thick a thousand times -- for centuries at a time -- does not.

14 posted on 01/08/2004 8:23:10 PM PST by JoeSchem (Did George Washington rebel from the British so that George W. could submit to the Mexicans?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
> There is a possibility that all of the "data" indicating great age is God's idea of what an omnipotent sense of humor looks like. Rather remote, but possible.

Couple of questions if you have time. Since we can easily see that there are creatures "beneath" us that cannot possibly ever fathom many things we understand, we can see that there could be a being above us, understanding things we can't understand. That's God. Extend it: He's omnipotent (can do anything). He can create something out of nothing (at least that is how it would appear to us). So say He creates a Universe. How "old" does it look the moment He creates it? What does such a question even mean? I think if you look into it, you will find that there exists no scientific concept for a physical object that has no age! One more thought: if we discard our conditioning to believe that "scientific" methods have "proven" that things are "really old" (it's a belief, and I will challenge you here to prove that you are a scientist who understands any scientific dating method beyond carbon 14) we might think of a young Earth as more a test of our faith (in this age only -- "old Earth as science" is fairly new) than a cruel joke by God.

15 posted on 01/08/2004 8:24:03 PM PST by old-ager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: blam
Oh No! How come people are allowed to hear something other than the athiests view? How did the ACLU and other leftists ever let this one slip through? God did it, how and when our puny little minds can not even concieve of it.
16 posted on 01/08/2004 8:29:52 PM PST by vpintheak (Our Liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Why are people so afraid of alternative views being presented? The market place of ideas should prevail here, not a bunch of blowhards who are "annoyed."
17 posted on 01/08/2004 8:32:04 PM PST by bethelgrad (for God, country, and the Corps OOH RAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
This is the same Grand Canyon bookstore that sells several books detailing Native American beliefs about how their spirits formed the geological features of Northern Arizona. Liberals love censorship almost as much as they love accusing others of it.
18 posted on 01/08/2004 8:42:32 PM PST by azcap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SedVictaCatoni
Umm... you're joking, right?

Yes, but some Creationists have claimed that.

No joke

19 posted on 01/08/2004 8:51:57 PM PST by WackyKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bethelgrad
Why are people so afraid of alternative views being presented?

Generally speaking, most often because they don't have a whole lot of confidence in their own views and don't want to admit it to themselves (or others). There are a few other reasons as well, none any more or less valid.

20 posted on 01/08/2004 8:54:55 PM PST by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
My goodness, pithy wisdom indeed....
21 posted on 01/08/2004 8:55:08 PM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JoeSchem
Well, technically speaking, it's the one river and ALL THE tributaries that are resp for the great width. The ice stuff is easily believable b/c of measurable rebound still going on today in Canada in nothern europe.
22 posted on 01/08/2004 8:57:51 PM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
Should I have put a </pith>?  (Pith off)
23 posted on 01/08/2004 9:02:22 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: old-ager
Well, it can be both, a test in faith, and God being amused, and not capriciously so...but not necessarily either is true. That old earth evidence is overwhelming can't be argued with me - I've been exposed to too much evidence. That said, you are STILL right.

Other than C14, the other chronometers rely on assumptions about past events that can't be refuted in a lab under any circumstances. Their assumptions are so reasonable that they can be accepted as gospel though...to a secularist.

So, as for proving dating methods, all have their shortcomings, including c14. However, many of the other methods are plausible too....and I don't use them professionally, so I can cop out of discussing them further.

As for an object that has no age....fair enough. But I submit to you very strongly the following. If the creation evidence were iffy enough to indicate a young earth, too many would be green lighted to pure discernment based living and given no incentive to sharpen their reason.

That is why I don't claim the "scientist" title, nor the theologn...but in professional circles I can pose as either with all the other posers and be taken seriously....

That's why I wrote to Zulu about my objections to agreeing to the secularists demands that "science and religion" are seperate.
24 posted on 01/08/2004 9:11:36 PM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: azcap
Ouch, didn't know that. Good one!!
25 posted on 01/08/2004 9:12:32 PM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: blam

Valles Marineres...Some view the gigantic rift on Mars as the aftermath of an impactor which struck Mars on the opposite side of the planet..the outgoing transitional shock wave as the impactor tunneled deep into Mars's core region..rupturing Mars ..as the energy burst out the other side of the planet.

Wal Thornhill..of * Electric Universe conveys the theme of Electrical gouging....Valles Marineres...the arc strike action from a celestial body passing near mars...A.K.A Velikovsky type scenario.

The story of the Illiad is intersting...Mars..and Venus..warring in the heavens.

Venus [Pallus Athena]...strikes Mars in the belly....Mars roars in pain as his guts spill out!

The link below is an article at Electric Universe..the similarities of Electric Arc strike on Mars..and on Earth..focus on Grand Canyon

Mars and the Grand Canyon

26 posted on 01/08/2004 9:13:20 PM PST by Light Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Noah Claim Annoys Scientists

Noah Claim Annoys Some Scientists
27 posted on 01/08/2004 9:13:35 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
oops. Didn't know you we're a lib, libertarian. Now I get the sarcasm....mine wasn't though.

Well, pithy on!
28 posted on 01/08/2004 9:16:42 PM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: WackyKat
I would suggest they study the book of Job. At chapter 38, God gives him a pop quiz.In chapter 40, HE describes a huge beast called "behemoth". It sounds like a dinosaur to me.
29 posted on 01/08/2004 9:25:46 PM PST by labette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: labette
HE describes a huge beast called "behemoth". It sounds like a dinosaur to me.

No. Most Bible scholars conclude the reference was to Rosie O'Donnell

30 posted on 01/08/2004 9:32:07 PM PST by WackyKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Light Speed
Great picture.
31 posted on 01/08/2004 9:32:14 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: labette
At chapter 38, God gives him a pop quiz.In chapter 40, HE describes a huge beast called "behemoth". It sounds like a dinosaur to me.

Vine DeLoria says that the "water panther" of Indian legends is a stegosaur. It does have the sawteeth on its back. The pictograph at Agawa Rock is famous.

32 posted on 01/08/2004 9:35:23 PM PST by greenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: WackyKat
Couldn't be Rosie. The creature is referred to several times as he or him.....er, uh, never mind.
33 posted on 01/08/2004 9:44:02 PM PST by labette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MontanaBeth
If a group of scientists (and I'm one) spend a lot of time determining, through some accident of fate or experimental flaw, that something is "true" and are later looking to be "disproved" by by a more novel approach or new information they will fight to the death to maintain their theory. Alfred Wegner and plate tectonics is the supreme case in point. He put forth a great theory and had a bunch of young turks following and then was brutally crushed by the entrenched view. Magnetic sea floor mapping in wartime (WWII) finally vindicated him, but he died on a Greenland expedition before knowing it himself...
34 posted on 01/08/2004 9:45:08 PM PST by Axenolith (There might once have been patriotic Democrats, but then they brought the socialist pods home...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: greenwolf
An interesting picture.
35 posted on 01/08/2004 9:46:31 PM PST by labette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mercat
Meddler... You'll ruin my asperations yet! ;)
36 posted on 01/08/2004 9:46:42 PM PST by Axenolith (There might once have been patriotic Democrats, but then they brought the socialist pods home...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JoeSchem
The Grand Canyon wasn't subjected to major glaciation, to far south...
37 posted on 01/08/2004 9:49:38 PM PST by Axenolith (There might once have been patriotic Democrats, but then they brought the socialist pods home...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: old-ager
I will challenge you here to prove that you are a scientist who understands any scientific dating method beyond carbon 14

Whats so hard to understand? Other radioisotope methods are just with elements having longer half lives. Then there's isotope ratios, which assume a relatively constant rate of formation in the atmosphere (from things like solar and cosmic radiation) which is cut off at deposition (burial) or creation (like a shells formation)...

38 posted on 01/08/2004 9:55:01 PM PST by Axenolith (There might once have been patriotic Democrats, but then they brought the socialist pods home...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: blam
Click here to e-mail Frances Mainella, director of the National Park Service, if you don't like the idea of pulling a book that offers an alternate view. Be polite and articulate.

MM

39 posted on 01/08/2004 10:05:21 PM PST by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
YEC BELIEVER - INTREP
40 posted on 01/08/2004 10:54:44 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Light Speed
bump
41 posted on 01/09/2004 2:27:23 AM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
>the other chronometers rely on assumptions about past events that can't be refuted [and it follows, cannot be PROVED!] in a lab under any circumstances

and at that point the discussion has moved out of the realm of Science (big S because I invoke the technical and classical definition of the word!) and into that of Philosophy (at least) or even Religion. Actually, such beliefs are in the realm of science, but only in the Hypothesis stage of the process. But as you say, it will be hard to move into the experiment/observe step, won't it? So, people pick their Religion -- an assertion I think you would agree with! Since such things can't be proved, why not just give God the glory? Here's the chain: you believe in Jesus, I know. All we really know about Him is in "The Bible". He clearly thoroughly believed the Old Testament scriptures (and as God, He was there when those were written!). Genesis has some poetry, but is not essentially a poetic book. Jesus clearly accepted Genesis as history. If it's good enough for Him, it should be good enough for me. This leaves a huge task relating the relatively small amount of natural history in the Scriptures to what we can observe now. My main point is that if our physical observations are led by and subject to our faith, we will come to different conclusions than if not. There are quite a few very credible scientists in the creation camp.

gobucks: sincere thanks for your thoughtful reply!
42 posted on 01/09/2004 6:31:08 AM PST by old-ager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Axenolith
> Whats so hard to understand?

Never said I did not understand, and you know it. You ignore my assertion that it's you (your way of thought) that does not understand (or more correctly, WILLS itself not to understand). Understanding is not the problem. Believing is. Your way of thought refuses to believe that there is any other way of thinking. I have already been through thinking the way you do; I was in sixth grade at the time. This is a fact. If it ends up feeling like an insult, I am sorry, but maybe you are too proud.
43 posted on 01/09/2004 6:34:53 AM PST by old-ager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: old-ager
The "whats so hard to understand" is self referential. I don't have any problem with it as a matter of fact. AFIC, it's irrelevant. Regardless of the Earth being six thousand some odd years old, or 4.5 billion, there's evidence there for either side to use. Bottom line is, big critters still lived here at SOME time, and you can use evidential age and superposition to find things like minerals and oil. IMO, the only time the subject gets sticky is when old earthers utilize their arguement as a basis to attack Christianity and God rather than to suppport practical aspects of science.

I've discussed the subject with some more theologically knowledged than me, and they've gone so far as to speculate that mearly because the current world was formed "from the void and darkness" it doesn't necessarily assume that there was no previously existing world which could have generated the geologic record. The current world was created by God for Man, and I for one, meager sinner that I am, try not to let the age bickering overshadow that his Son died for us and is the road to salvation.

44 posted on 01/09/2004 7:18:58 AM PST by Axenolith (oh well, on to the 5th element...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Axenolith
Axenolith: great response; I am sorry for the rather contentious tone of my note to you; I had misinterpreted you.
45 posted on 01/09/2004 7:36:01 AM PST by old-ager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: old-ager
Your welcome. But, Deut 6 - 4-7...that's far more important than winning mental tussling matches with those who seek to nail kids. I keep hitting this kids issue, b/c how often do you see professors and hollywood types in front of classrooms of bored seniors at "Gentle Breeze Oak Farm". There's no ground there (well, from their perspective that is).

Arming kids with how God can be known, through witnessing, scripture study, and finally, that miracle of miracles, the grace of the Holy Ghost (for pete's sake, try talking about THAT with a secularist....it's worse than trying to describe chocolate to a penguin). Once that FIRST grace moment hits, then the Bible dramatically transforms into a calibration manual instead of a how to manual.

My aim with kids is very consistent....why oh why did Christ QUOTE Deut when the Pharisees tried to trap him with the question "so just what is the greatest commandment?"

Once I get through to them our God has a heart, and our love for Him, through trying at least to obey Cmd #1, can actually impact His heart....oh boy, does that EVER go a long way to stripping the veil secularists overlay on their furrowed brow of compassion and concern.

My aim is to get as many kids as possible to experience Him, and thus see that veil for themselves. Anyway, thanks for the encouragement. I'm for the most part ticking off too many FRs, though not intentionally.
46 posted on 01/09/2004 10:26:26 AM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson