I'm having a difficult time debating with my granchildren about creationism, I think it is because all they teach in school is evolution.
This is a pretty good article on the meaning of " a day"
The Meaning of "Day"
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:5).
Read Article
Bobby
What's in a Day?
What's in a Day?
BH:-6
Sorry to say but that article is nonsense. Perhaps he got his PhD. from some kindergarten class.
Creationist scientists are wannabe scientists. It is a total denial of reality.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Sorry to say but that article is nonsense. Perhaps he got his PhD. from some kindergarten class.
Creationist scientists are wannabe scientists. It is a total denial of reality.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What's in a Day?
I don't get why some people insist the two theories are mutually exclusive.
Also, why is it important if the day was 24 hours, a 16-hour workday, or from the time God started work until He took a break?
Also, why is it important if the day was 24 hours, a 16-hour workday, or from the time God started work until He took a break?
What's in a Day?
I have no problem with creation being taught in a religion class where all faiths are talked about.
Creationism does not belong in a science class. Myths are for English or religion class.
Hiding our children from reality is a very dangerous practice. I've seen the results from so called Christian Schools and they are not very good. On this I speak as a professional educator and administrator.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Creationism does not belong in a science class. Myths are for English or religion class.
Hiding our children from reality is a very dangerous practice. I've seen the results from so called Christian Schools and they are not very good. On this I speak as a professional educator and administrator.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's in a Day?
jester:-6
That he is into hydraulic engineering hardly qualifies his to make comments on evolution or theology unless they have been part of his education.
In science there are no ultimate proofs. All theories are theories. That being said theoretical physicist Paul Davis has been engaged in religious topics for years and in fact accepts the reality of God. His comment on evolution is that there is enough evidence to push it beyond just a theory to a reality.
Any one scientist can make all kinds of comments. The real question is are they submitted for peer review and given some credence by fellow scientists not just in a small group but generally.
Creationists submit their work amongst themselves and their work does not pass with the general scientific community.
Creationists used to say there were no transitional fossils. They hung their whole thesis on that. Now they have found transitional fossils so they have to resort to rather unethical ways to continue their drive to prove what has no proof. In fact I know for a fact that some has taken the work of biologists out of context to make them say what the author never intended. Such "honesty" hardly brings any sort of confidence with it. Many of these men and women are simply wannabe scientists who start with the conclusion and then try to make the evidence fit. This is not bona fide science.
Shalom
Ted:-6
That he is into hydraulic engineering hardly qualifies his to make comments on evolution or theology unless they have been part of his education.
In science there are no ultimate proofs. All theories are theories. That being said theoretical physicist Paul Davis has been engaged in religious topics for years and in fact accepts the reality of God. His comment on evolution is that there is enough evidence to push it beyond just a theory to a reality.
Any one scientist can make all kinds of comments. The real question is are they submitted for peer review and given some credence by fellow scientists not just in a small group but generally.
Creationists submit their work amongst themselves and their work does not pass with the general scientific community.
Creationists used to say there were no transitional fossils. They hung their whole thesis on that. Now they have found transitional fossils so they have to resort to rather unethical ways to continue their drive to prove what has no proof. In fact I know for a fact that some has taken the work of biologists out of context to make them say what the author never intended. Such "honesty" hardly brings any sort of confidence with it. Many of these men and women are simply wannabe scientists who start with the conclusion and then try to make the evidence fit. This is not bona fide science.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What's in a Day?
Jester;785200 wrote: If the word day is inconsistant, then it gives rise to the notion that the rest of the creation record is possibly false.So let it give rise. The truth will out. I gave 3 reasonable definitions of "day" (modern English word; I couldn't be arsed to find out the original), any one of which could be used consistently in the context. Notions don't matter when it comes to how the universe was created. Neither does faith, belief, or theories. I think we can all agree it exists. The knowing doesn't (or wouldn't) change the details of how it happened.
Sorry, I don't see the importance.
Sorry, I don't see the importance.
What's in a Day?
Jester;785200 wrote: If the word day is inconsistant, then it gives rise to the notion that the rest of the creation record is possibly false.
If each day for instance is 60 million years, then it would be consistant and we'd see consistant evidence to support that. But we dont see that in the evolutionary philosophy. What we do see is life in the past tense and the proof of that past life is that we live today, we see catastrophic destruction, and we see life surviving.
For lack of other evidence I believe the Genesis record. I do not belive in any notion of evoulition except for the observable science of survivability innate to animals and mankind.
You cannot possibly say that there is a lack of evidence to contradict both the literal interpretation of Genesis and the Creationist concept of the universe being less than seven thousand years old. Like it or not, that evidence exists and, if you want your theory to be believed, you have to explain it.
If each day for instance is 60 million years, then it would be consistant and we'd see consistant evidence to support that. But we dont see that in the evolutionary philosophy. What we do see is life in the past tense and the proof of that past life is that we live today, we see catastrophic destruction, and we see life surviving.
For lack of other evidence I believe the Genesis record. I do not belive in any notion of evoulition except for the observable science of survivability innate to animals and mankind.
You cannot possibly say that there is a lack of evidence to contradict both the literal interpretation of Genesis and the Creationist concept of the universe being less than seven thousand years old. Like it or not, that evidence exists and, if you want your theory to be believed, you have to explain it.
What's in a Day?
I decided to look this issue up in the "New Dictionary of Theology" ed. Ferguson, Weight and Packer.
"The words used for 'created' and 'made' in Gn. 1 cannot be pressed. Bara, which is used in vv. 1, 21, 27, is also used for instance in Ps. 104:30 and other places for a 'natural' or historical process. Indeed there is no distinction in the Bible between creation by a process and creation without process. There is, therefore, in principle no conflict between the truth of God's sovereign creation and idea that that may include the sort of process we could describe in science. Both are equally God's sovereign action."
Here again the ancient definition is most important. Going to a modern dictionary is of little value.
Shalom
Ted:-6
"The words used for 'created' and 'made' in Gn. 1 cannot be pressed. Bara, which is used in vv. 1, 21, 27, is also used for instance in Ps. 104:30 and other places for a 'natural' or historical process. Indeed there is no distinction in the Bible between creation by a process and creation without process. There is, therefore, in principle no conflict between the truth of God's sovereign creation and idea that that may include the sort of process we could describe in science. Both are equally God's sovereign action."
Here again the ancient definition is most important. Going to a modern dictionary is of little value.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's in a Day?
jester:-6
An hydraulic engineer is not qualified to interpret geology. That is a whole other profession requiring a much different line of study. He is not a geologist.
A quote from Louis Ginsberg's "Legends of the Bible" pg xxxviii "All of this multitude of tales is preserved in the legends of the Bible, and offers a striking example of how folklore, fable and myths were reminted in the workshop of schoolmen.
As far as some creationists being holders of degrees goes it is still necessary for their work to be subjected to peer review. So far not one of them has passed in the general community of scientists.
Shalom
Ted:-6
An hydraulic engineer is not qualified to interpret geology. That is a whole other profession requiring a much different line of study. He is not a geologist.
A quote from Louis Ginsberg's "Legends of the Bible" pg xxxviii "All of this multitude of tales is preserved in the legends of the Bible, and offers a striking example of how folklore, fable and myths were reminted in the workshop of schoolmen.
As far as some creationists being holders of degrees goes it is still necessary for their work to be subjected to peer review. So far not one of them has passed in the general community of scientists.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's in a Day?
jester:-6
You are trying to use a modern definition which is totally inappropriate. The word that is in my Hebrew Torah is "Bara". I have clearly given the ancient meaning. But here again you are trying to make the Bible say what you want it to say not what it does say. Now I really have no problem with that as far to many play the same game with Leviticus. It is called picking and choosing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You are trying to use a modern definition which is totally inappropriate. The word that is in my Hebrew Torah is "Bara". I have clearly given the ancient meaning. But here again you are trying to make the Bible say what you want it to say not what it does say. Now I really have no problem with that as far to many play the same game with Leviticus. It is called picking and choosing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Omni_Skittles
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am
What's in a Day?
BHughesNC;781828 wrote: I'm having a difficult time debating with my granchildren about creationism, I think it is because all they teach in school is evolution.
This is a pretty good article on the meaning of " a day"
The Meaning of "Day"
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:5).
Read Article
Bobby
Honestly i don't think it literally meant days... as in 24 hours. Honestly, can you you judge days when there was no days to begin with?
This is a pretty good article on the meaning of " a day"
The Meaning of "Day"
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:5).
Read Article
Bobby
Honestly i don't think it literally meant days... as in 24 hours. Honestly, can you you judge days when there was no days to begin with?
Smoke signals ftw!
-
Omni_Skittles
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am
What's in a Day?
DAY
(1) It sometimes means the time from daylight till dark. This popular meaning is easily discovered by the context, e.g. Gen 1:5; 8:22, etc. The marked periods of this daytime were morning, noon and night, as with us. See Ps 55:17. The early hours were sometimes called "the cool of the day" (Gen 3:8). After the exile the day. or daytime was divided into twelve hours and the night into twelve (see Matt 20:1-12; John 11:9; Acts 23:23); 6 a.m. would correspond to the first hour, 9 a.m. to the third; 12 noon to the sixth, etc. The hours were longer during the longer days and shorter during the shorter days, since they always counted 12 hours between sunrise and sunset.
(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
DAY
(7) On the meaning of "day" in the story of Creation we note (a) the word "day" is used of the whole period of creation (Gen 2:4); (b) these days are days of God, with whom one day is as a thousand years; the whole age or period of salvation is called "the day of salvation"; see above. So we believe that in harmony with Bible usage we may understand the creative days as creative periods. See also ASTRONOMY ; CREATION ; EVOLUTION .
(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
(1) It sometimes means the time from daylight till dark. This popular meaning is easily discovered by the context, e.g. Gen 1:5; 8:22, etc. The marked periods of this daytime were morning, noon and night, as with us. See Ps 55:17. The early hours were sometimes called "the cool of the day" (Gen 3:8). After the exile the day. or daytime was divided into twelve hours and the night into twelve (see Matt 20:1-12; John 11:9; Acts 23:23); 6 a.m. would correspond to the first hour, 9 a.m. to the third; 12 noon to the sixth, etc. The hours were longer during the longer days and shorter during the shorter days, since they always counted 12 hours between sunrise and sunset.
(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
DAY
(7) On the meaning of "day" in the story of Creation we note (a) the word "day" is used of the whole period of creation (Gen 2:4); (b) these days are days of God, with whom one day is as a thousand years; the whole age or period of salvation is called "the day of salvation"; see above. So we believe that in harmony with Bible usage we may understand the creative days as creative periods. See also ASTRONOMY ; CREATION ; EVOLUTION .
(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
Smoke signals ftw!
What's in a Day?
jester:-6
Bara is the word used. There have been many advancements since Strong did his work. I will go with my training and the several reference books I have in my library.
You may claim it is accurate but it is still and example of trying to make the Bible say what is not there.
Regardless of all of that the story is a myth. It was written to show the sovereignty of God and that it does. That is the truth presented in that part. God is sovereign over all of creation and human kind.
If we go to pg161 of "Understanding the Old Testament" by B. Anderson we read that the stories of creation are found in ancient folklore."
Shalom
Ted:-6
Bara is the word used. There have been many advancements since Strong did his work. I will go with my training and the several reference books I have in my library.
You may claim it is accurate but it is still and example of trying to make the Bible say what is not there.
Regardless of all of that the story is a myth. It was written to show the sovereignty of God and that it does. That is the truth presented in that part. God is sovereign over all of creation and human kind.
If we go to pg161 of "Understanding the Old Testament" by B. Anderson we read that the stories of creation are found in ancient folklore."
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's in a Day?
jester:-6
You are wrong on that. Such an engineer knows the effects of water on rocks. That is his job. However, he is not trained in geological interpretation. Such interpretation as he might give has no credibility if he is not trained in geology. He can say what he likes but it would be the same as me trying to tell a nuclear scientist how to run his business. That is not my field.
It has absolutely nothing to do with what I want. It has everything to do with the facts and the evidence. What I want is immaterial.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You are wrong on that. Such an engineer knows the effects of water on rocks. That is his job. However, he is not trained in geological interpretation. Such interpretation as he might give has no credibility if he is not trained in geology. He can say what he likes but it would be the same as me trying to tell a nuclear scientist how to run his business. That is not my field.
It has absolutely nothing to do with what I want. It has everything to do with the facts and the evidence. What I want is immaterial.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Omni_Skittles
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am
What's in a Day?
You also have to know that Moses wrote this from "oral" history. He wrote it so that the Israelites would have there history... I don't know really where i am going with that... haha
Smoke signals ftw!
What's in a Day?
jester:-6
Omni is doing exactly what you refuse to do. He is going to the experts to find some answers. He is not relying on his own understanding. Looks like a good source to me.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Omni is doing exactly what you refuse to do. He is going to the experts to find some answers. He is not relying on his own understanding. Looks like a good source to me.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Omni_Skittles
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am
What's in a Day?
Jester;786103 wrote: So can you go find that phrase in the bible 'one day with God is as a thousand years' and look each word up independently then interpret it?
Lets see what you come up with.
ARE YOU CRAZY? lol i will try... haha
Lets see what you come up with.
ARE YOU CRAZY? lol i will try... haha
Smoke signals ftw!
What's in a Day?
Omni:-6
That will be like trying to reinvent the wheel. You have already done the correct thing in checking a reputable reference. It is as reputable as anything else.
Shalom
Ted
That will be like trying to reinvent the wheel. You have already done the correct thing in checking a reputable reference. It is as reputable as anything else.
Shalom
Ted
-
Omni_Skittles
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am
What's in a Day?
Omni_Skittles;786109 wrote: ARE YOU CRAZY? lol i will try... hahahonestly i don't think that's in the bible....
Smoke signals ftw!
-
Omni_Skittles
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am
What's in a Day?
Just for ya'll's argument sake
Yom has several meanings. The word represents the period of "daylight" as contrasted with nighttime: "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease" Gen 8:22. The word denotes a period of twenty-four hours: "And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day..." Gen 39:10. Yom can also signify a period of time of unspecified duration: "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" Gen 2:3. In this verse, "day" refers to the entire period of God's resting from creating this universe. This "day" began after He completed the creative acts of the seventh day and extends at least to the return of Christ. Compare Gen 2:4: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [beyom] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens...." Here "day" refers to the entire period envisioned in the first six days of creation. Another nuance appears in Gen 2:17, where the word represents a "point of time" or "a moment": "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day [beyom] that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Finally, when used in the plural, the word may represent "year": "Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year [yamim]" Ex 13:10.
There are several other special nuances of yom when it is used with various prepositions. First, when used with ke ("as," "like"), it can connote "first": "And Jacob said, Sell me this day [first] thy birthright" Gen 25:31. It may also mean "one day," or "about this day": "And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business..." Gen 39:11. On Joseph's lips, the phrase connotes "this present result" (literally, "as it is this day"): "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive" Gen 50:20. Adonijah used this same phrase to represent "today": "Let king Solomon swear unto me today that he will not slay his servant..." 1 Kings 1:51. Yet another nuance appears in 1 Sam 9:13: "Now therefore get you up; for about this time ye shall find him." When used with the definite article ha, the noun may mean "today" (as it does in Gen 4:14) or refer to some particular "day" 1 Sam 1:4 and the "daytime" Neh 4:16.
The first biblical occurrence of yom is found in Gen 1:5: "And God called the light day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." The second use introduces one of the most debated occurrences of the word, which is the duration of the days of creation. Perhaps the most frequently heard explanations are that these "days" are 24 hours long, indefinitely long (i. e., eras of time), or logical rather than temporal categories (i. e., they depict theological categories rather than periods of time).
The "day of the Lord" is used to denote both the end of the age (eschatologically) or some occurrence during the present age (non-escha- tologically). It may be a day of either judgment or blessing, or both (cf. Isa 2).
It is noteworthy that Hebrew people did not divide the period of daylight into regular hourly periods, whereas nighttime was divided into three watches Ex 14:24; Judg 7:19. The beginning of a "day" is sometimes said to be dusk Est 4:16 and sometimes dawn Deut 28:66-67.
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)
Yom has several meanings. The word represents the period of "daylight" as contrasted with nighttime: "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease" Gen 8:22. The word denotes a period of twenty-four hours: "And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day..." Gen 39:10. Yom can also signify a period of time of unspecified duration: "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" Gen 2:3. In this verse, "day" refers to the entire period of God's resting from creating this universe. This "day" began after He completed the creative acts of the seventh day and extends at least to the return of Christ. Compare Gen 2:4: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [beyom] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens...." Here "day" refers to the entire period envisioned in the first six days of creation. Another nuance appears in Gen 2:17, where the word represents a "point of time" or "a moment": "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day [beyom] that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Finally, when used in the plural, the word may represent "year": "Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year [yamim]" Ex 13:10.
There are several other special nuances of yom when it is used with various prepositions. First, when used with ke ("as," "like"), it can connote "first": "And Jacob said, Sell me this day [first] thy birthright" Gen 25:31. It may also mean "one day," or "about this day": "And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business..." Gen 39:11. On Joseph's lips, the phrase connotes "this present result" (literally, "as it is this day"): "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive" Gen 50:20. Adonijah used this same phrase to represent "today": "Let king Solomon swear unto me today that he will not slay his servant..." 1 Kings 1:51. Yet another nuance appears in 1 Sam 9:13: "Now therefore get you up; for about this time ye shall find him." When used with the definite article ha, the noun may mean "today" (as it does in Gen 4:14) or refer to some particular "day" 1 Sam 1:4 and the "daytime" Neh 4:16.
The first biblical occurrence of yom is found in Gen 1:5: "And God called the light day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." The second use introduces one of the most debated occurrences of the word, which is the duration of the days of creation. Perhaps the most frequently heard explanations are that these "days" are 24 hours long, indefinitely long (i. e., eras of time), or logical rather than temporal categories (i. e., they depict theological categories rather than periods of time).
The "day of the Lord" is used to denote both the end of the age (eschatologically) or some occurrence during the present age (non-escha- tologically). It may be a day of either judgment or blessing, or both (cf. Isa 2).
It is noteworthy that Hebrew people did not divide the period of daylight into regular hourly periods, whereas nighttime was divided into three watches Ex 14:24; Judg 7:19. The beginning of a "day" is sometimes said to be dusk Est 4:16 and sometimes dawn Deut 28:66-67.
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)
Smoke signals ftw!
What's in a Day?
jester:-6
I haven't changed the argument at all. We were talking about what the Bible says about creation. I can't help it if you do not like what the Bible translators say. Yet, without them you would have no Bible. Regardless of how you feel they are the experts.
As for the hydraulic engineer if he is not trained in geological interpretation he is out of his league. He is not credible.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I haven't changed the argument at all. We were talking about what the Bible says about creation. I can't help it if you do not like what the Bible translators say. Yet, without them you would have no Bible. Regardless of how you feel they are the experts.
As for the hydraulic engineer if he is not trained in geological interpretation he is out of his league. He is not credible.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's in a Day?
Omni:-6
That is the interpretation of "yom" that I was trained it. Like other words in Hebrew it can have more than one meaning though related.
Shalom
Ted:-6
That is the interpretation of "yom" that I was trained it. Like other words in Hebrew it can have more than one meaning though related.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Omni_Skittles
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am
What's in a Day?
Just like my language... well Navajo haha. Okay I've researched, read the bible and the hebrew, and I've come to the conclusion... I just don't know. I wasn't there and in my belief i am going to ask the big guy when i get to heaven. 
Smoke signals ftw!
What's in a Day?
jester:-6
I disagree. He is not a credible geologist. His field is engineering not geology. There is a big difference. Just like the fact that the average GP is not qualified to treat cancer. The specialist treating cancer has to be an oncologist.
Perhaps you have some unresolved fear of specialists and experts?
Shalom
Ted:-6
I disagree. He is not a credible geologist. His field is engineering not geology. There is a big difference. Just like the fact that the average GP is not qualified to treat cancer. The specialist treating cancer has to be an oncologist.
Perhaps you have some unresolved fear of specialists and experts?
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's in a Day?
jester:-6
I would ask further as to whether or not his "research"? has been subjected to peer review? That too, is important.
Not only does it have to have scholar stamped on it, which may or may not be necessary, it has to be subjected to peer review. Then I will consider it. Notice I said consider it.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I would ask further as to whether or not his "research"? has been subjected to peer review? That too, is important.
Not only does it have to have scholar stamped on it, which may or may not be necessary, it has to be subjected to peer review. Then I will consider it. Notice I said consider it.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What's in a Day?
Jester;786120 wrote: Ted, hes a water specialist, okay, he plays with water, he understand its affects. If he tests the force of water on rocks, gets a result, matches it to what is observable in nature, then presummes that forceful water casued the formations we see in the grand canyon, thats right up his alley, besides, he had geologists on his staff, who assit him in interpretation of the affects on the rocks.
Get it now Ted? It a related field, observation is observation.
Good lord, if its not stamped 'scholar' you wont open it!
Could you please explain why it is relevant whether the Grand Canyon was cut gradually by river erosion or repeated flash floods or whether it was cut catastrophically in a single event?
There are several other examples of catastrophic land erosion such as the Badlands, formed when an ice dam burst and released megatonnes of water over many hundred thousand square miles.
I fail to see the relevance to creationism.
Get it now Ted? It a related field, observation is observation.
Good lord, if its not stamped 'scholar' you wont open it!
Could you please explain why it is relevant whether the Grand Canyon was cut gradually by river erosion or repeated flash floods or whether it was cut catastrophically in a single event?
There are several other examples of catastrophic land erosion such as the Badlands, formed when an ice dam burst and released megatonnes of water over many hundred thousand square miles.
I fail to see the relevance to creationism.