Noah’s Grand Canyon?


When creationists claim that the Grand Canyon was formed by lots of water in little time I immediately raise a few objections.

1. Meanders and sharp U-turns – great floods, no matter how great, do not generate such sharp meanders.

2. Rock layers – I am a fan of geography and I full well know, when I look at the Grand Canyon, that it must have been formed by millions of years of gradual erosion and tectonic activities.  I fail to see how there would be these delicately discrete layers (as opposed to a smooth slope) if the canyon was formed in such a short amount of time.  And, if the flood was indeed so explosively powerful as to form this canyon, why do we not see any other similarly-formed canyons?
 

In response to the utmost ignorance of creationists,
namely Mr. Hovind.

3. Delicate features – such as this “Duck-on-a-Rock” would not have withstood an explosive flood which was strong enough carve the canyon in the first place.

Duck-on-a-Rock

4. Delta sediments from the Colorado River – has been moved along the faults over the years which would not be possible if the canyon was formed in a single-event flood.

5. Fossils – found in the Grand Canyon shows evolutionary gradations and does not favour creationism.  If the creationist should like to use the Grand Canyon as an argument against evolution he should try to explain why the fossils are there to begin with. 

On a final note, if Noah’s Flood should be taken accountable for the formation of the Grand Canyon, we should expect the “creation scientists” (ie. not scientists) to try and prove that every other canyon formation, each of which has its own, and often independent, geological history, was created in like manner.  To my understanding the creationists have not ventured (or succeeded) to do so.  If I believed that evolution could form the eye, I must venture to explain how evolution could form the ears, or the respiratory system, or the human brain as well.  A good theory should explain most or all aspects of the natural world, not just one.

Science has a good understanding of the formation of Grand Canyon without resorting to any biblical fairytale.  My question is, do creationists also deny the fact that mountains were and are still being formed by gradual processes, such as plate tectonics, wind and water erosion?  Or do they, in all their great ignorance of sciencific knowledge, resort to the “micro-erosion as opposed to macro-erosion” idiocy?

Advertisements