Noah Claim Annoys Scientists

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 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!

> 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.

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.

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.

Grand Canyon Gorge Is 9 Times Older Than Thought
National Geographic News | 4-9-2008 | Hope Hamashige
Posted on 04/09/2008 1:26:29 PM PDT by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1999143/posts

Seniority should count(re: prevaricating press’ Grand Canyon flap)
Salt Lake Tribune LTE | 01/13/2007 | Stewart N. Thorpe
Posted on 01/19/2007 6:16:19 PM PST by Lorianne
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1770525/posts

Mea Culpa, Mostly
http://www.seattlest.com/archives/2007/01/03/mea_culpa_mostly.php

Fact Checking 101: How Skeptic magazine was Duped by an Environmental Activist Group
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-01-17.html

Grand Canyon Gorge Is 9 Times Older Than Thought
National Geographic News | 4-9-2008 | Hope Hamashige
Posted on 04/09/2008 1:26:29 PM PDT by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1999143/posts

Mea Culpa, Mostly
http://www.seattlest.com/archives/2007/01/03/mea_culpa_mostly.php

Fact Checking 101: How Skeptic magazine was Duped by an Environmental Activist Group
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-01-17.html

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.