How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument

[otseng]

Where is your evidence that no such erosion of older rocks is found?

We see massive erosion that cuts through practically the entire sedimentary strata and creating a canyon after all the layers were deposited. And while the layers were formed, is there any evidence of a canyon forming cutting through all the sedimentary strata? No. I've also argued we should see staggered faults, unparallel layers, and river erosion patterns.

So, the question still stands which you have not yet answered:

The final erosion you speak about is only after all the layers have been deposited. What about while the layers have been deposited? During all those supposed hundreds of millions of years, why was no erosion cutting through layers of rock as you've mentioned?

And again, even if this couldn't be explained, why would 'a Global Flood' be the default answer?

There are many things SG cannot explain. And even if an explanation is offered, they are ad hoc explanations (like any explanation for unconformities).

Why is a global flood a better answer than SG? We can deduce it from the evidence of the sedimentary strata pattern. Anyone can deduce it for themselves simply by having a unbiased look at the evidence. Looking at all the photographic evidence I've already presented so far (and which I can provide plenty more of if necessary) and not assuming whether SG is true or FM is true, then by logical inference, the conclusion is closer to a global flood. And this is just simply looking at one data point - the sedimentary strata pattern. There are many other empirical evidence to support the FM, but we've just touched on the sedimentary pattern and it's almost already 20 pages.

If one assumes SG is true a priori and then you look at the sedimentary strata pattern, then it is not objectively looking at the evidence.

Note the question I ask of the sedimentary rock pattern does not presuppose either SG or FM is true.

Do we see a general pattern in the sedimentary rock strata around the world where parallel layers are deposited (with relatively little evidence of any geologic activity) and then after the layers were formed we see massive geologic activity (erosion, faults, mountain building)?

It is simply looking at the raw evidence, gathering facts from the evidence, and making inferences on what we see. After we view the evidence, then we come up with what is the most logical explanation to explain the facts.

But, if you assume an explanation is true before making the inferences, then it is just confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is evident when ad hoc explanations are added to explain away things. And when sufficient ad hoc explanations are added, it makes the position practically useless. An example of this which we've talked about earlier is the doctrine of inerrancy. Many ad hoc explanations have been added to it to hold it up. And to the unbiased observer, it makes the doctrine of inerrancy not tenable.

Even though nobody else has agreed to the pattern existing, the pattern is quite clear to me. The reason the pattern is not acknowledged to exist by others is because SG is assumed to be true, and then ad hoc explanations are invented in order to uphold SG.

Again, using the doctrine of inerrancy, it doesn't matter what evidence is provided to show there are contradictions, an ad hoc explanation can be provided to explain it. And I strongly believe it is the same with SG. Both beliefs are unassailable.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #378]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #379]

I don't see how these answers the questions I've posed.

As for angular unconformities, I do have a theory for that from a FM perspective which I will present later.

If your tu quoque is justified and you've asked an unanswered question of similar importance, however, I invite you to repeat it because I missed it.

No time now to give a complete response to your post. I'll get to that tomorrow. But in the meantime, one set of questions which I just asked regarding unconformities was:

I do not recall you explaining how to tell the difference, why there could be no deposition, or why or how erosion can result in a layer parallel to the one below it, or if erosion was above water when it occurred.

[brunumb]

Why is a global flood a better answer than SG? We can deduce it from the evidence of the sedimentary strata pattern. Anyone can deduce it for themselves simply by having a unbiased look at the evidence.

I have tried to take in as much of this discussion as possible but I am still somewhat lost. Could you please give a summary, perhaps in point form, of the events prior to and as a consequence of the biblical flood, that would have ultimately produced the Grand Canyon as we have it now.

[TRANSPONDER]

Where is your evidence that no such erosion of older rocks is found?

We see massive erosion that cuts through practically the entire sedimentary strata and creating a canyon after all the layers were deposited. And while the layers were formed, is there any evidence of a canyon forming cutting through all the sedimentary strata? No. I've also argued we should see staggered faults, unparallel layers, and river erosion patterns.

So, the question still stands which you have not yet answered:

The final erosion you speak about is only after all the layers have been deposited. What about while the layers have been deposited? During all those supposed hundreds of millions of years, why was no erosion cutting through layers of rock as you've mentioned?

And again, even if this couldn't be explained, why would 'a Global Flood' be the default answer?

There are many things SG cannot explain. And even if an explanation is offered, they are ad hoc explanations (like any explanation for unconformities).

Why is a global flood a better answer than SG? We can deduce it from the evidence of the sedimentary strata pattern. Anyone can deduce it for themselves simply by having a unbiased look at the evidence. Looking at all the photographic evidence I've already presented so far (and which I can provide plenty more of if necessary) and not assuming whether SG is true or FM is true, then by logical inference, the conclusion is closer to a global flood. And this is just simply looking at one data point - the sedimentary strata pattern. There are many other empirical evidence to support the FM, but we've just touched on the sedimentary pattern and it's almost already 20 pages.

If one assumes SG is true a priori and then you look at the sedimentary strata pattern, then it is not objectively looking at the evidence.

Note the question I ask of the sedimentary rock pattern does not presuppose either SG or FM is true.

Do we see a general pattern in the sedimentary rock strata around the world where parallel layers are deposited (with relatively little evidence of any geologic activity) and then after the layers were formed we see massive geologic activity (erosion, faults, mountain building)?

It is simply looking at the raw evidence, gathering facts from the evidence, and making inferences on what we see. After we view the evidence, then we come up with what is the most logical explanation to explain the facts.

But, if you assume an explanation is true before making the inferences, then it is just confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is evident when ad hoc explanations are added to explain away things. And when sufficient ad hoc explanations are added, it makes the position practically useless. An example of this which we've talked about earlier is the doctrine of inerrancy. Many ad hoc explanations have been added to it to hold it up. And to the unbiased observer, it makes the doctrine of inerrancy not tenable.

Even though nobody else has agreed to the pattern existing, the pattern is quite clear to me. The reason the pattern is not acknowledged to exist by others is because SG is assumed to be true, and then ad hoc explanations are invented in order to uphold SG.

Again, using the doctrine of inerrancy, it doesn't matter what evidence is provided to show there are contradictions, an ad hoc explanation can be provided to explain it. And I strongly believe it is the same with SG. Both beliefs are unassailable.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #378]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #379]

I don't see how these answers the questions I've posed.

As for angular unconformities, I do have a theory for that from a FM perspective which I will present later.

If your tu quoque is justified and you've asked an unanswered question of similar importance, however, I invite you to repeat it because I missed it.

No time now to give a complete response to your post. I'll get to that tomorrow. But in the meantime, one set of questions which I just asked regarding unconformities was:

I do not recall you explaining how to tell the difference, why there could be no deposition, or why or how erosion can result in a layer parallel to the one below it, or if erosion was above water when it occurred.

Let's be real here, otseng mate. You are asking me to explain all global geology to you, finding examples of what you imply isn't found, when I'm pretty sure that it it is, and where it is, there are known tectonic or erosion forces that explain it better than a global Flood, the Grand Canyon being old and hard rocks cut through over some million years relatively slowly, as the meandering course shows, the river originating from a mountain source. It does not comport with a cataclysmic year long Flood.

You are in effect saying 'my questions undermine the conclusion of geology as a science, which does not conclude that a global flood over a year or so best fits the evidence'. I have answered (we have) many of your questions about tectonic plate movement, mountain formation strata movement and erosion, which if you really wanted answers to, you could have looked up just as I did.

I won't labour the point but will just say that it is ...what was it?..."if you assume an explanation is true before making the inferences, then it is just confirmation bias." Well, that seems to apply more to yourself. Explanations given, you look for more questions, but now you seem to be restating the questions that have been answered. You are, frankly, old mate, pulling our legs.

Even if you could present a credible alternative Flood -scenario to explain Geology, it would be equal points and round 2 and 3 would be on the dating and fossil - sequence. And again, you have it all to do with science -denial, which is what you are actually doing, saying that Geologist have it wrong and the evidence actually fits a Flood better, which (re the Canyon, mountains, coal-seams, salt mines, creamed off tilted strata, does not fit a Flood better than deep time geology.

That's not to say I refuse to answer. I feel obliged to if only to avoid handing you a draw by you kicking the board game over. But these requests for Globally broad explanations is a big ask.

Why not start a (more appropriate) thread to present your flood-scenario that we can address instead of just tossing question after question at us?

[TRANSPONDER]

Otseng, chum. Your post above wasn't too specific other than the Grand canyon which has been answered before and i answered again. The appearance of erosion, the planing off the tilted strata, the gradual erosion of the hard rock - Slowly - by the river - all answered and indicated deep time, not a global flood.

But as to sediments, Talk Origins has something to say about it.
Claim CD220:
At current rates of erosion, only thirty million years are needed to account for all the sediments in the ocean. If the earth were as ancient as is claimed, there should be more sediments.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 155-156.
Response:
The thickness of sediment in the oceans varies, and it is consistent with the age of the ocean floor. The thickness is zero at the mid-Atlantic Ridge, where new ocean crust is forming, and there is about 150 million years' worth of sediment at the continental margins. The average age of the ocean floor is younger than the earth due to subduction at some plate margins and formation of new crust at others.

The age of the ocean floor can be determined in various ways -- measured via radiometric dating, estimated from the measured rate of seafloor spreading as a result of plate tectonics, and estimated from the ocean depth that predicted from the sea floor sinking as it cools. All these measurements are consistent, and all fit with sediment thickness.

[otseng]

Unconformities is a problem for SG, not a support of SG.

What problem do you think they present? You're just making assertions without support and vague ones at that.

We can explore those problems when you've answered the questions I've posed:

Why would there either be no deposition or erosion in unconformities? How could you tell the difference? Why and how would erosion result in a layer parallel to the one below it? If erosion did occur, was it above water when it occurred?

Maybe, but your argument so far seems to rely on a lack of unconformities. You've asserted without support that there aren't any (or aren't enough or something) and I've given you sources that discuss multiple unconformities corresponding to different time periods.

My argument is: unconformities are an ad hoc explanation to inject erosions into the strata to claim that erosions have occurred.

Are there many unconformities in the Grand Canyon and all of them defy explanation or is the Great Unconformity the only unconformity at all? One of the documents I linked listed ten different ones. Is ten not very many? Are those not really unconformities? Is your argument that geologists can't explain them or that they're some invented artifact of the data and don't really exist?

The more unconformities are posited in the Grand Canyon, the more explanations are required. The questions above are multiplied with each unconformity.

So far, the main strength of your argument is that nobody can figure out exactly what it is in order to refute it.

No strength is really required to counter ad hoc explanations. The burden is for SG to show what really happened in unconformities.

The explanation relies on deep time, but the unconformities themselves are just observations.

If you viewed a sedimentary strata, would you be able to identify where are the unconformities? Highly doubtful unless someone told you how old each strata is supposed to be. Visually, they do not show there is any particular time gap. So, no, I would disagree they are just observations.

Yes, unconformities rely on deep time. So, using that to say a strata represents deep time would be circular logic.

Is your argument that those sources are invalid or is this a non sequitur?

I'm saying facts are more solid evidence than theories.

You've been providing photographs, but using them to support statements that apply to anywhere from hundreds of thousands of square miles to the entire world.

Up to now, I would only claim the photographs represents sites that we see in the photographs I've presented. But, I will now extend the claim and make a prediction. The pattern that I speak about should apply to any place around the world that has sedimentary layers. That is, all sedimentary strata (whether we've yet seen them or not), should exhibit the pattern of relatively little geologic activity in the layers and then after all the layers are deposited would we see major geologic activity.

If your argument for the Flood is independent of science, say that now and I'll know that I'm not the intended audience. If it's not, reference the data.

Everything I've presented is emperical evidence that anyone can verify for themselves. All sources I've used are from secular sources. And I have not appealed to faith or even the Bible. So, not sure what you mean about my arguments are independent of science. If this is not science, what is?

I don't know if this is complete, but I think it's sufficient.

What I posted is pointing out exceptions to the pattern does not nullify the pattern.

For the Great Unconformity, I've covered it in post 353.

If you thought I meant literally, I didn't, but didn't expect that to be confusing.

I know it wasn't literal, but readers that pop in here would not. So, it needs to be clarified I've never said that.

I meant it figuratively as you dismissing supported arguments without presenting any support of your own. If you don't think you figuratively did that, either, here is an example:

As for even being figurative, I would disagree with that also. My point is finding an exception here and there does not invalidate the general pattern.

But, we can spend more time investigating the Surprise Canyon formation.

Surprise Canyon formation was only discovered recently.

"George Billingsley of the United States Geological Survey first recognized the Surprise Canyon Formation as a separate stratigraphic unit, belonging to neither the Supai Group or the Redwall Limestone, during reconnaissance geologic mapping of the western Grand Canyon in the mid-1970s."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surprise_Canyon_Formation

Outcroppings of the Surprise Canyon are remote and difficult to reach.

"The outcroppings of the Surprise Canyon Formation are in remote areas of the Grand Canyon and very difficult to reach."
https://azdailysun.com/suprise-at-the-c ... 76fc8.html

The Surpise Canyon Formation does not appear to be a continuous layer of rock, but only exist as scattered lens-shaped areas.

"In addition, the outcrops are not a continuous layer of rock as are other in the Grand Canyon but exist only in lens-shaped areas atop the Redwall Limestone."
https://azdailysun.com/suprise-at-the-c ... 76fc8.html

"Within the Grand Canyon regions, the Surprise Canyon Formation is exposed as isolated, lens-shaped patches throughout much of the Grand Canyon and in parts of Marble Canyon to the east. All of the known outcrops are discontinuous lenses up to several tens of meter thick and from a few tens of meters to nearly a kilometer wide. Nowhere does this formation occur as a single, continuous sheet, as do all of the other sedimentary rock units of Paleozoic age in the Grand Canyon."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surprise_Canyon_Formation

If it is lens-shaped areas, it would not classify as a paleoriver that exhibits erosion. It could just be areas of deposition of sediment of different composition. And it does appear the sediment is qualitatively different than other sediments since it is high in marine fossil content.

"The middle limestone unit of Surprise Canyon Formation contains an abundant and diverse fauna of marine invertebrate. Its coarse-grained limestones have yielded more than 60 species of marine invertebrates."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surprise_Canyon_Formation

If Surprise Canyon Formation is formed as part of a sinkhole or valley, it would be strange that it is on top of a karst surface. Underneath the SCF is the Redwall Limestone, which is a soluble rock. Shouldn't it form underground drainage systems within the limestone, not on the surface of it?

Does your idea of "practically none" allow for these? That's not a rhetorical question. I don't know what you mean.

Prior to 1970, the SCF wasn't even discovered yet. And even now we know little of it. Further, it represents a very small part of the Grand Canyon, in both scale and time. So, even if SCF was an example of erosion (which I've argued it is not), then it is practically none compared to the entire Grand Canyon.

Here's another way to ask it - do we see any canyon formation (or even a river formation) in the lower layers?

No, the SCF is not an example of ancient river or canyon formation.

Just offer scientific sources that together describe the Grand Canyon in a way that you agree with and think can only be explained by the Flood.

I could offer articles from creationist journals, but I highly doubt anyone would accept those.

[TRANSPONDER]

Unconformities is a problem for SG, not a support of SG.

What problem do you think they present? You're just making assertions without support and vague ones at that.

We can explore those problems when you've answered the questions I've posed:

Why would there either be no deposition or erosion in unconformities? How could you tell the difference? Why and how would erosion result in a layer parallel to the one below it? If erosion did occur, was it above water when it occurred?

Maybe, but your argument so far seems to rely on a lack of unconformities. You've asserted without support that there aren't any (or aren't enough or something) and I've given you sources that discuss multiple unconformities corresponding to different time periods.

My argument is: unconformities are an ad hoc explanation to inject erosions into the strata to claim that erosions have occurred.

Are there many unconformities in the Grand Canyon and all of them defy explanation or is the Great Unconformity the only unconformity at all? One of the documents I linked listed ten different ones. Is ten not very many? Are those not really unconformities? Is your argument that geologists can't explain them or that they're some invented artifact of the data and don't really exist?

The more unconformities are posited in the Grand Canyon, the more explanations are required. The questions above are multiplied with each unconformity.

So far, the main strength of your argument is that nobody can figure out exactly what it is in order to refute it.

No strength is really required to counter ad hoc explanations. The burden is for SG to show what really happened in unconformities.

The explanation relies on deep time, but the unconformities themselves are just observations.

If you viewed a sedimentary strata, would be able to identify where are the unconformities? Highly doubtful unless someone told you how old each strata is suppossed to be. Visually, they do not show there is any particular time gap. So, no, I would disagree they are just observations.

Yes, unconformities rely on deep time. So, using that to say a strata represents deep time would be circular logic.

Is your argument that those sources are invalid or is this a non sequitur?

I'm saying facts are more solid evidence than theories.

You've been providing photographs, but using them to support statements that apply to anywhere from hundreds of thousands of square miles to the entire world.

Up to now, I would only claim the photographs represents sites that we see in the photographs I've presented. But, I will now extend the claim and make a prediction. The pattern that I speak about should apply to any place around the world that has sedimentary layers. That is, all sedimentary strata (whether we've yet seen them or not), should exhibit the pattern of relatively little geologic activity in the layers and then after all the layers are deposited would we see major geologic activity.

If your argument for the Flood is independent of science, say that now and I'll know that I'm not the intended audience. If it's not, reference the data.

Everything I've presented is emperical evidence that anyone can verify for themselves. All sources I've used are from secular sources. And I have not appealed to faith or even the Bible. So, not sure what you mean about my arguments are independent of science. If this is not science, what is?

I don't know if this is complete, but I think it's sufficient.

What I posted is pointing out exceptions to the pattern does not nullify the pattern.

For the Great Unconformity, I've covered it in post 353.

If you thought I meant literally, I didn't, but didn't expect that to be confusing.

I know it wasn't literal, but readers that pop in here would not. So, it needs to be clarified I've never said that.

I meant it figuratively as you dismissing supported arguments without presenting any support of your own. If you don't think you figuratively did that, either, here is an example:

As for even being figurative, I would disagree with that also. My point is finding an exception here and there does not invalidate the general pattern.

But, we can spend more time investigating the Surprise Canyon formation.

Surprise Canyon formation was only discovered recently.

"George Billingsley of the United States Geological Survey first recognized the Surprise Canyon Formation as a separate stratigraphic unit, belonging to neither the Supai Group or the Redwall Limestone, during reconnaissance geologic mapping of the western Grand Canyon in the mid-1970s."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surprise_Canyon_Formation

Outcroppings of the Surprise Canyon are remote and difficult to reach.

"The outcroppings of the Surprise Canyon Formation are in remote areas of the Grand Canyon and very difficult to reach."
https://azdailysun.com/suprise-at-the-c ... 76fc8.html

The Surpise Canyon Formation does not appear to be a continuous layer of rock, but only exist as scattered lens-shaped areas.

"In addition, the outcrops are not a continuous layer of rock as are other in the Grand Canyon but exist only in lens-shaped areas atop the Redwall Limestone."
https://azdailysun.com/suprise-at-the-c ... 76fc8.html

"Within the Grand Canyon regions, the Surprise Canyon Formation is exposed as isolated, lens-shaped patches throughout much of the Grand Canyon and in parts of Marble Canyon to the east. All of the known outcrops are discontinuous lenses up to several tens of meter thick and from a few tens of meters to nearly a kilometer wide. Nowhere does this formation occur as a single, continuous sheet, as do all of the other sedimentary rock units of Paleozoic age in the Grand Canyon."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surprise_Canyon_Formation

If it is lens-shaped areas, it would not classify as a paleoriver that exhibits erosion. It could just be areas of deposition of sediment of different composition. And it does appear the sediment is qualitatively different than other sediments since it is high in marine fossil content.

"The middle limestone unit of Surprise Canyon Formation contains an abundant and diverse fauna of marine invertebrate. Its coarse-grained limestones have yielded more than 60 species of marine invertebrates."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surprise_Canyon_Formation

If Surprise Canyon Formation is formed as part of a sinkhole or valley, it would be strange that it is on top of a karst surface. Underneath the SCF is the Redwall Limestone, which is a soluble rock. Shouldn't it form underground drainage systems within the limestone, not on the surface of it?

Does your idea of "practically none" allow for these? That's not a rhetorical question. I don't know what you mean.

Yes, even prior to 1970, the SCF wasn't even discovered yet. And even now we know little of it. Further, it represents a very small part of the Grand Canyon, in both scale and time. So, even if SCF[/i] was an example of erosion (which I've argued it is not), then it is practically none compared to the entire Grand Canyon.

Here's another way to ask it - do we see any canyon formation (or even a river formation) in the lower layers?

No, the SCF is not an example of ancient river or canyon formation.

Just offer scientific sources that together describe the Grand Canyon in a way that you agree with and think can only be explained by the Flood.

I could offer articles from creationist journals, but I highly doubt anyone would accept those.

So far I'm seeing continued evasion of presenting any Flood -geology evidence other than saying that photographs look to you like they show the results of a Flood and dismissing any explanation or evidence or the conclusions of Geologists as 'ad hoc' (the same ploy you used to dismiss critique of the resurrection) which you say don't merit an answer. Have you any idea how poor your case is looking?

Still in denial about the Grand Canyon, you refer to lens -shaped deposits or formations without saying why these represent Flood - geology rather than Deep -time geology, but I suppose we'll have to look at that

[TRANSPONDER]

From Creationism and the geology of the Grand Canyon.

"Austin also fails to give any adequate explanation for the eroded surfaces present between a number of Grand Canyon formations. The most significant of these is the interval between the Redwall Limestone and the Supai Group, which in places is marked by the Surprise Canyon Formation. In places there is a distinct angular unconformity between the Surprise Canyon layers and the overlying Supai layers, indicating that the region was very gently tilted after the Surprise Canyon rocks were deposited and before the Supai was laid down. The Surprise Canyon Formation itself poses a problem for Austin's scenario. If Austin is right, the presence of Redwall fragments and fossils in the lowermost Surprise Canyon rocks implies the Redwall was soft enough to be rapidly eroded to create the channels which the Surprise Canyon Formation fills, yet hard enough for chunks of Redwall rock to hold together after this occurred. This appears contradictory, to say the least."

Austin and Woodmorappe come up notably in the (AiG) material presented as evidence for the Noachian Flood. Again, Though the above was from a different geological site, Talk Origins refutes many of these creationists claims, particularly the Flood and specifically the ones referencing the Grand Canyon. It doesn't take long to look up these refutations.

Even if it was 'Honours Even, 'there would be no reason to prefer the Biblical account over the Evolutionary one, and even if the Radiometrixc dating and fossil evidence that refutes a Flood -scenario is deferred as part of the argument, the evidence of the Geology really doesn't favour the Creationist hypothesis, though I can well imagine that it looks convincing to those who only read Creationist material.

[TRANSPONDER]

And finally, here is a summary (Talk origins) of why the Grand Canyon, (mentioned specifically, rather than a vague reference to general geology) does not support the Biblical Flood -theory.

Claim CH581:
The Grand Canyon was created suddenly by the retreating waters of Noah's Flood.
Source:
Austin, Steve, 1995. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. Santee, CA: Inst. for Creation Research.
Response:
We know what to expect of a sudden massive flood, namely:
a wide, relatively shallow bed, not a deep, sinuous river channel.
anastamosing channels (i.e., a braided river system), not a single, well-developed channel.
coarse-grained sediments, including boulders and gravel, on the floor of the canyon.
streamlined relict islands.

The Scablands in Washington state were produced by such a flood and show such features (Allen et al. 1986; Baker 1978; Bretz 1969; Waitt 1985). Such features are also seen on Mars at Kasei Vallis and Ares Vallis (Baker 1978; NASA Quest n.d.). They do not appear in the Grand Canyon. Compare relief maps of the two areas to see for yourself.

The same flood that was supposed to carve the Grand Canyon was also supposed to lay down the miles of sediment (and a few lava flows) from which the canyon is carved. A single flood cannot do both. Creationists claim that the year of the Flood included several geological events, but that still stretches credulity.

The Grand Canyon contains some major meanders. Upstream of the Grand Canyon, the San Juan River (around Gooseneck State Park, southeast Utah) has some of the most extreme meandering imaginable. The canyon is 1,000 feet high, with the river flowing five miles while progressing one mile as the crow flies (American Southwest n.d.). There is no way a single massive flood could carve this.

Recent flood sediments would be unconsolidated. If the Grand Canyon were carved in unconsolidated sediments, the sides of the canyon would show obvious slumping.

The inner canyon is carved into the strongly metamorphosed sediments of the Vishnu Group, which are separated by an angular unconformity from the overlying sedimentary rocks, and also in the Zoroaster Granite, which intrudes the Vishnu Group. These rocks, by all accounts, would have been quite hard before the Flood began.

Along the Grand Canyon are tributaries, which are as deep as the Grand Canyon itself. These tributaries are roughly perpendicular to the main canyon. A sudden massive flood would not produce such a pattern.

Sediment from the Colorado River has been shifted northward over the years by movement along the San Andreas and related faults (Winker and Kidwell 1986). Such movement of the delta sediment would not occur if the canyon were carved as a single event.

The lakes that Austin proposed as the source for the carving floodwaters are not large compared with the Grand Canyon itself. The flood would have to remove more material than the floodwaters themselves.

If a brief interlude of rushing water produced the Grand Canyon, there should be many more such canyons. Why are there not other grand canyons surrounding all the margins of all continents?

There is a perfectly satisfactory gradual explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon that avoids all these problems. Sediments deposited about two billion years ago were metamorphosed and intruded by granite to become today's basement layers. Other sediments were deposited in the late Proterozoic and were subsequently folded, faulted, and eroded. More sediments were deposited in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, with a period of erosion in between. The Colorado Plateau started rising gradually about seventy million years ago. As it rose, existing rivers deepened, carving through the previous sediments (Harris and Kiver 1985, 273-282).
Links:
Woolf, Jon, 1999. Young-earth creationism and the geology of the Grand Canyon. http://www.jwoolfden.com/gc_intro.html
References:
Allen, J. A. et al., 1986. (see below)
American Southwest, n.d., Mexican Hat. http://www.americansouthwest.net/utah/m ... index.html For photos, see http://www.americansouthwest.net/utah/m ... se2_l.html and http://www.americansouthwest.net/utah/m ... ose_l.html
Baker, V. R., 1978. The Spokane flood controversy and the Martian outflow channels. Science 202: 1249-1256.
Bretz, J. H., 1969. The Lake Missoula floods and the Channeled Scabland. Journal of Geology 77: 505-543.
NASA Quest, n.d. Mars Team online photo gallery. http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/mars/photos/pathfinder.html; see especially http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/mars/photos/i ... pfsite.gif
Harris, D. V. and E. P. Kiver, 1985. The Geologic Story of the National Parks and Monuments. New York: Wiley.
Waitt, R. B. Jr., 1985. Case for periodic, colossal jökulhlaups from Pleistocene glacial Lake Missoula. Geological Society of America Bulletin 96: 1271-1286.
Winker, C. D., and S. M. Kidwell, 1986. Paleocurrent evidence for lateral displacement of the Pliocene Colorado River delta by the San Andreas fault system, southeastern California. Geology 14: 788-791.
Further Reading:
Allen, J. A., M. Burns and S. C. Sargent, 1986. Cataclysms on the Columbia. Portland, OR: Timber Press.

Beus, S. S. and M. Morales (eds.), 2002. Grand Canyon Geology, 2nd edition. London: Oxford University Press. (technical)

Chronic, Halka, 1983. Roadside Geology of Arizona. Missoula: Mountain Press Publishing.

Elders, Wilfred A., 1998. Bibliolatry in the Grand Canyon. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 18(4) (July/Aug.): 8-15.

[Difflugia]

Unconformities do not have to represent erosion, it can also represent periods of no deposition. It is entirely possible all the unconformities in the Grand Canyon are simply periods of no deposition. But, the problem of unconformities is there's no way to tell the difference, whether it's missing layers because of no deposition or erosion. And in either case, it's not explainable. I do not recall you explaining how to tell the difference, why there could be no deposition, or why or how erosion can result in a layer parallel to the one below it, or if erosion was above water when it occurred.

The concept of "unconformities" writ large can represent either erosion or periods without deposition that are nonetheless uneroded, but it is not "entirely possible" that any given unconformity could have any explanation whatever. Did you make that up or do you have a credible source that also makes that claim? You assert in your later post that the geological explanations are ad hoc, but have you actually examined those explanations?

Here is an image from a geology textbook (I extracted it from a commercial PDF, but Internet Archive has a scan that may be checked out and viewed: The Earth Machine: The Science of a Dynamic Planet). It's on page 51, if you care to look at it in context:



Note that the erosional unconformities between formations are not represented as flat planes. It's a stylistic drawing, of course, but geologists themselves aren't presenting the interface as being flat. Keep that in mind as you read this quote from pp. 56-57 of the same book:

The Grand Canyon displays many rock formations of the past 2 billion years, but not all the rocks that should be there are, in fact, there. Geologists know that there are missing pages in the geological record because certain rock formations that crop out in the vicinity of the canyon are missing in the canyon walls themselves. The reason is simple if we think about what is happening today. Especially when the rocks were above sea level, they were subject to erosion. These old surfaces of erosion are known as unconformities. Their significance is that they represent gaps in time—a missing part of the geological rock record, during which the region experienced uplift and erosion.

Further note that it says that "certain rock formations that crop out in the vicinity of the canyon are missing in the canyon walls themselves." Certain layers are present in some places, but not in others. That means that those erosional surfaces are neither flat nor uniform.

I've presented you with sources that describe the topographies of various unconformities. Those sources have analyzed sedimentation and erosion patterns to draw the conclusion they did, yet you've ignored them or dismissed them with little more than handwaving ("lol nope"). You yourself have presented conflicting descriptions of the region. You've described it as "flat," yet features that are obviously not flat (and obviously old, being covered by still more old rock) are dismissed as "sinkholes." That's the very essence of special pleading. What at first appeared to be a simple misunderstanding of the science has crossed over into active denial. When asked to refer to scientific sources yourself, your response has repeatedly been to denigrate science as an endeavor. It's clear now that one of the important (and perhaps most important), but unstated premises of your argument is that science itself is corrupt and dishonest. With that recognition, I concede the debate.

If we treat as axiomatic that science is intellectually bankrupt on a scale that renders no scientific conclusion more trustworthy than armchair theological speculation, then I agree that the Flood is as reasonable an explanation as that presented by the most expert geologist.

[benchwarmer]

If we treat as axiomatic that science is intellectually bankrupt on a scale that renders no scientific conclusion more trustworthy than armchair theological speculation, then I agree that the Flood is as reasonable an explanation as that presented by the most expert geologist.

I've been following along, and this quote sums it up nicely. If I could give 10 thumbs and 10 toes up I would

One side is presenting ideas AND sources to back the ideas up which can be further researched. The other side is presenting ideas with no sources to research.

I guess this is what happens when one tries to have a debate involving science in the apologetics subforum.

Thanks to ALL who have participated, if nothing else I learned a little more about geology. Dang you folks for making me learn stuff when I was just trying to watch people argue!!