Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[rayskidude]

Sin is a meaningless concept that does no one any good.

 

It is only relevant within the confines of a particular religious viewpoint.

 

Human behavior is better explained by sociology, psychology and economics. Much better than the silly tautology of "we sin because we are sinners."

 

Actually, behavior is only described by the social sciences, but not explained. Life & behavior are explained by Scripture, which reveals the root cause of human nature.

 

Case in point, psychology can describe a human malady, but it cannot cure. Even the head of the Harvard Medical school psychiatry dept. has admitted that psycho-therapy has cured no one at any time.

 

But God can & does change hearts.

[oddbird1963]

Sin is a meaningless concept that does no one any good.

 

It is only relevant within the confines of a particular religious viewpoint.

 

Human behavior is better explained by sociology, psychology and economics. Much better than the silly tautology of "we sin because we are sinners."

 

Actually, behavior is only described by the social sciences, but not explained. Life & behavior are explained by Scripture, which reveals the root cause of human nature.

 

Case in point, psychology can describe a human malady, but it cannot cure. Even the head of the Harvard Medical school psychiatry dept. has admitted that psycho-therapy has cured no one at any time.

 

But God can & does change hearts.

 

There is no "evidence" of a "cure" in your religion. Neither is there any evidence that your religion has it right about the so-called "root cause" of human nature. The idea of a "changed heart" as passed along by evangelical protestants is just part of the mythology that you try to rationalize into reality at the cost of real knowledge.

 

And that is one practitioner's opinion. He might've been having a bad day and feeling morose. Or, he might be the advocate of a different approach to psychiatric treatment.

 

Even still, psychology, sociology and economics go much further into explaining and solving human problems than the christian religion. It may be that there is no cure to some problems that confront us.

 

Just because you claim that your religion somehow solves the problem does not mean that it does. There is no evidence. You're just insisting that Santa Clause is real or that Bigfoot has snacks in you back yard at midnight. Your christian claims have about the same value and meaning for real life.

[rayskidude]

Sin is a meaningless concept that does no one any good. Human behavior is better explained by sociology, psychology and economics. Much better than the silly tautology of "we sin because we are sinners."

 

Actually, behavior is only described by the social sciences, but not explained. Life & behavior are explained by Scripture, which reveals the root cause of human nature. Case in point, psychology can describe a human malady, but it cannot cure. Even the head of the Harvard Medical school psychiatry dept. has admitted that psycho-therapy has cured no one at any time.

 

But God can & does change hearts.

 

There is no "evidence" of a "cure" in your religion. Neither is there any evidence that your religion has it right about the so-called "root cause" of human nature. The idea of a "changed heart" as passed along by evangelical protestants is just part of the mythology that you try to rationalize into reality at the cost of real knowledge.

 

And that is one practitioner's opinion. He might've been having a bad day and feeling morose. Or, he might be the advocate of a different approach to psychiatric treatment.

 

Even still, psychology, sociology and economics go much further into explaining and solving human problems than the christian religion. It may be that there is no cure to some problems that confront us.

 

Just because you claim that your religion somehow solves the problem does not mean that it does. There is no evidence. You're just insisting that Santa Clause is real or that Bigfoot has snacks in you back yard at midnight. Your christian claims have about the same value and meaning for real life.

 

I see you have chosen to ignore the plethora of savage criminals, drug addicts, prostitutes, corrupt politicians, cannibals, capitalist bastards, liberal journalists, etc who have given proof from their own testimony and the evidence from their changed life from selfish sin to Christian love. And how is this objective thought?

 

Christians come from all walks of life - and they will furnish proof of their changed hearts.

 

Oh - gee. That top Harvard psychiatry prof just had a bad day - or maybe opposed what had been taught in his dept. Did you ask him that to verify your 'theory' - or is this another example of your rational thought process. When you can't defend your position or refute the other - just make it up!!!!

[Sconnor]

but God can & does change hearts.

 

That's a mighty big claim you have there. Care to provide objective evidence that god can and does change hearts?

 

How exactly do you know god wielded his awesome power to change hearts?

 

How exactly does god go about this?

 

Tell me exactly the method he uses? How do you know?

 

Isn't this an infraction on free will?

 

Pointing to sinners who "received jesus" and went from selfish sin to christian love doesn't prove some invisible entity intervened on thier behalf.

 

Pointing to the results does not prove god had ANYTHING to do with it.

 

You are the equivalent of an insane scientologist who makes the extraordinary claim, aliens called Thetans (invisible entities) have taken over our bodies.

 

Or you are like one of those deranged evangelicals who claim god sent earthquakes or hurricanes.

 

Can you see how ANYONE can make a claim that god intervenes? -- all the while never providing objective evidence for their outlandish claims?

 

The cold hard fact of the situation is you are erroneously attributing (without objective evidence) an "experience" to a divine hand, which (in reality) would have a reasonable real-life explanation -- no invisble entity needed.

 

--S.

[Phanta]

Case in point, psychology can describe a human malady, but it cannot cure. Even the head of the Harvard Medical school psychiatry dept. has admitted that psycho-therapy has cured no one at any time.

 

Can you cite the source for this, please?

[Deva]

Guyz - when the Bible says that all are sinners by nature (inherently immoral) - it does not means that everyone always acts in an immoral manner. God has given to each a moral conscience and human sensibilities >> but these aspects of our nature cannot overcome our sin nature.

 

Please do not imagine that I do now know what the Biblical idea of "sin" is all about. Sin is disobedience against God. Period. I would never define sin as you have supposed "means that everyone always acts in an immoral manner". What, do you think I am stupid? That sounds like you are addressing someone who has never set foot in a Christian church before - much less spent 30 plus years in it.

 

"Sin" is simply a lie. The idea that we are born sinners has no basis in reality. Despite how Christians like to twist it, sin has nothing whatsoever to do with right and wrong behavior. An infant does not know right from wrong, yet is a sinner, or as you put it, already has a "sin nature". It is only when it suits their particular purposes that Christians trot our the right/wrong thing. God himself is subject to "sin". He lets it control his actions because if he is all good, the world would look quite different.

 

Sin is a big can of worms, it is not simply "moral conscience" or right/wrong. Like the escaping oil in the Gulf, it is a contaminant that has spread from one central point - Adam and Eve - to all humanity. Where my analogy fails is that the oil can't seem to be stopped by BP, but God is all powerful.

 

It is obvious that right/wrong, morality, etc., is developed culturally and evolved as humans lived in groups to protect themselves. Then laws were established for the good of the group. Some laws are almost universal - no stealing or killing members of your own group, for example. No God need apply.

 

It is because all men are sinners and cannot be trusted to always act in a moral manner - in fact many will be wicked, esp if they think they can get away with it. So we have instituted technology and laws and jurisprudence to control human behavior and protect us from dishonesty and brutality.

 

Do you not recognize this?

 

Explained above. Human laws for humans living in a group. Key word - human. No gods need apply. So long as we live together in a complicated civilization or even a large tribe in the jungle - we need laws and some form of organized government for the good of the group.

[Deva]

The fact that we been reconciled to a holy God by the death of Christ - this saves our eternal soul from the condemnation that is well-deserved. However, we still inhabit physical bodies that are awaiting final redemption. So, until that point in time, God is working in our hearts - by His Bible, His Spirit, His people - to confrom us to the image of Christ.

 

Each Christian is to strive to be more loving, more kind, more forgiving, more generous, etc. If we call ourselves children of God - then we should look somewht like our Father. Right?

 

Thanks for pointing out all these major reasons for LEAVING the church and not being a Christian, Ray. I say yes to your last question here, but we simply see no evidence of it. We see a lot of hypocrisy and play-acting by Christians. Instead of being who they really are, they are trying to conform to some impossibly perfect standard that does not exist. No wonder so many of them have miserable lives.

[oddbird1963]

I see you have chosen to ignore the plethora of savage criminals, drug addicts, prostitutes, corrupt politicians, cannibals, capitalist bastards, liberal journalists, etc who have given proof from their own testimony and the evidence from their changed life from selfish sin to Christian love. And how is this objective thought?

 

Christians come from all walks of life - and they will furnish proof of their changed hearts.

Ray, Ray, Ray, Ray , Ray!

 

You know, I was a wreck until I was introduced to the concepts of Zen in the works of Alan Watts and a few others. When I was able to settle down and learn to experience things directly with a totally quieted mind, I found a sense of enlightenment and peace and joy that overpowered me more than any religious concept ever had. I'm here to tell you Ray, Zen changed my life. It transformed my mind and heart and the way I relate to other human beings! Zen helps me to cope successfully with the stresses and strains I experience in my life. Sure, there are times when I have my troubles. I have my set backs, but through it all Zen has been my way of coping and adjusting. I highly recommend it to everyone!!

 

There you have it! Objective evidence! Christianity is false, Zen is the true way to solving life's troubles. Close all the church doors. Let's all sit zazen!

 

You see Ray, the kind of thing you describe is true of any religion. They all have their anecdotes about how Islam, Hinduism, Bhuddism, etc changed their life and is the answer to the problems of the world. All of the heavily exaggerated and quite cliche examples you give are just anecdotes. Actually, your examples are summaries of anecdotes.

 

They don't count as evidence in any objective sense of the word. So, if you are relying on stories (aka "testimonies") as proof that only [the Christian] god can transform lives and cure societies ills, then it is you who are refusing to be objective.

 

 

Oh - gee. That top Harvard psychiatry prof just had a bad day - or maybe opposed what had been taught in his dept. Did you ask him that to verify your 'theory' - or is this another example of your rational thought process. When you can't defend your position or refute the other - just make it up!!!!

 

My response to what you said was was that one practitioner gave his opinion. In other words,(supposedly) one prestigious doctor's low opinion of psycho-therapy does not form an objective refutation of the entire discipline.

 

There may be an objective source out there that critically and scientifically demonstrates that psychotherapy is a wholly unsuccessful approach to treatment, but you do not provide such a source. You just sort of sloppily summarize what your recall some article saying about one unnamed doctor who may or may not be head of the psychiatry dept.

 

There are many approaches to the treatment of mental disorders and conditions. This supposed person (you provided no citations - - really "objective" there , Ray), the way you worded it, indicted one particular approach. Guess what , Ray! There are other approaches to treatment which fall under the category of "psychology." He/she is supposedly the head of a dept. of psychiatry. Surely you are not suggesting that even your presumed source rejects the whole of psychological therapies? Are you? What approach to treatment does your source follow? Phrenology?

 

And, yes. It is possible that the prof. spoke out of turn, gave a negative assessment on a bad day. Sometimes counselors and social workers and even preachers can lose sight of whether or not they are doing any good.

 

And surely you realize that you are over-exaggerating and over simplifying when you suggest that Christianity has a cure for anything? You know the drill, Ray Ray. You claim Christianity is a cure. Someone on this site points out the sins that Christians commit. You begin to make excuses about how Christians can lapse into their old sinful ways but can be forgiven. Or, you might suggest that they aren't true christians in the first place, so no wonder they are sinning. It's an old , sad, oft-repeated tale. Your contention that christianity is a cure for sin becomes just another litany of excuses until the claim to a cure dies the death of a thousand qualifications.

 

Might I suggest that even psychotherapy sounds like a cure the way you seem to define "cure?"

[Deva]

And surely you realize that you are over-exaggerating and over simplifying when you suggest that Christianity has a cure for anything? You know the drill, Ray Ray. You claim Christianity is a cure. Someone on this site points out the sins that Christians commit. You begin to make excuses about how Christians can lapse into their old sinful ways but can be forgiven. Or, you might suggest that they aren't true christians in the first place, so no wonder they are sinning. It's an old , sad, oft-repeated tale. Your contention that christianity is a cure for sin becomes just another litany of excuses until the claim to a cure dies the death of a thousand qualifications.

 

Might I suggest that even psychotherapy sounds like a cure the way you seem to define "cure?"

 

That's right. Always an excuse. There is really no point in discussing it, but I am glad Ray is posting because he is inadvertently continually pointing out the reasons we all want to continue to not be Christians.

[rayskidude]

And surely you realize that you are over-exaggerating and over simplifying when you suggest that Christianity has a cure for anything? You know the drill, Ray Ray. You claim Christianity is a cure. Someone on this site points out the sins that Christians commit. You begin to make excuses about how Christians can lapse into their old sinful ways but can be forgiven. Or, you might suggest that they aren't true christians in the first place, so no wonder they are sinning. It's an old , sad, oft-repeated tale. Your contention that christianity is a cure for sin becomes just another litany of excuses until the claim to a cure dies the death of a thousand qualifications.

 

Might I suggest that even psychotherapy sounds like a cure the way you seem to define "cure?"

 

That's right. Always an excuse. There is really no point in discussing it, but I am glad Ray is posting because he is inadvertently continually pointing out the reasons we all want to continue to not be Christians.

 

Lemme address some issues from the last few posts.

 

I am not making excuses for anyone's sin - least of all Christians. What I am stating is the REASON people sin - the presence of our sin nature, whether Christians or not. It is unacceptable for Christians to sin - since GOD has promised the means to resist temptation.

 

I Cor 10:12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Co 10:11–13). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

I say humans have developed many means to prevent or protect from sin - in stating this, I am simply pointing out that that people from all cultures at all times have recognized the truth that men will sin - and they do not need to be instructed by anyone - we all sin naturally. The Bible points out the reason for this - that from our original parents Adam & Eve we have inherited this sin nature. SOme Reformers coined the term 'Total Depravity" - which some have mis-interpreted as meaning the Bible teaches that all men are totally depraved in all that they do. This is not true.

 

The Bible teaches that every single human being has been made in the image & likeness of God; and as such we have a conscience and human sensibilities re: human suffering, pain, etc. We are capable and responsible to to good works which profit others. Total depravity means that every facet of our human nature has been stained and polluted by sin. Ergo - we are incapable of sinless behavior. Every aspect of our individual lives are affected & influenced by sin - i.e., we may do good works primarily to salve our conscience or to make up for a sin we've committed. So though our good work benefitted another - our primary motivation may have been selfish. I say all this, because I have found that 'sin' is misunderstood.

 

I find that many believe we are sinners because we commit sin - they do not understand that it is our sin nature that makes us sinners. Our actions are based on our nature.

 

Also, I am sure that some people have found meaning and change in other religious routes. However, I would like to ask Phanta if she's satisfied with "coping & adjusting" - not that those aren't good things, because they are. But God has promised that His children will overcome, will be perfected in Christ, will be completely redeemed one day, and that we are currently seated with Christ in the heavenly places, such that our life is now hidden with Christ in God, that we are empowered by His Spirit & word to live as Christ lived. Ergo - Christian sin results we fail to think Biblically and fail to appropriate God's resources given to us by His abundant grace.

 

I do understand that she has experienced joy & peace & enlightenment - which is tremendous. May I please ask;

 

Enlightened specifically about what?

How did this enlightenment generate joy & peace?

I don't fault you for your setbacks - the world can be a tough place & we've all said/done/thought things that were wrong - but how do you recover from setbacks?

Thnx in advance

 

And I will try to locate the statement by the Harvard psychiatry guy. I admit that I don't have these sources immediately available - but did anyone else see the recent Time or Newsweek that had the debate on whether psycho-tropic drugs actually work?

[Phanta]

Also, I am sure that some people have found meaning and change in other religious routes. However, I would like to ask Phanta if she's satisfied with "coping & adjusting" - not that those aren't good things, because they are.

 

Hi, Ray. Please cite the post you're quoting (my post?). I can't find it. I will consider your request. I'd like to know why you want the answers to those questions, though.

 

And I will try to locate the statement by the Harvard psychiatry guy.

 

I'd be interested in reading the quote in context. Thank you.

 

Phanta

[bornagainathiest]

A quick note to Ray.

Please don't forget that the question I put to you on January 26 is still awaiting an answer.

Thanks.

BAA.

I do apologize - plz remind me what the question was - I will attempt a response.

To all - I will try to be more regular, sorry for my unannounced hiatus. I appreciate your patience.

Ok Ray.

I posted this link... http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/mro20091215.html ...and asked you the following question.

"Using only YEC geology, please tell us why there is a flood-created canyon on Mars?"

Thanks,

BAA.

 

So this is how you appreciate my patience Ray?

 

I notice that you have no trouble at all getting back to Shyone, Deva, Legion, Skankboy, NotBlinded, Centauri and Oddbird... quickly.

 

Please note that I messaged you privately for one reason only - to settle the outstanding business between us. I've been waiting for 126 days now and I'd rather not wait much longer, thank you very much.

 

If it's not too much trouble I'd appreciate your answer, rather than any more delays, apologies or excuses.

 

Thank you.

 

BAA.

 

p.s.

I'm not an unreasonable man Ray. If you want me to rephrase the question in some way, I'll be happy to do so. But please do the decent thing and bring some closure to this issue.

[NotBlinded]

Until God brings about this fulfillment - we groan over our sin, seeking to be more like Him in all we do. But is is a process.

I don't believe it ray. It's a silly concept that denies part of our nature. We are both good and bad and we choose which to be. It's really pretty simple. There is no part of us that would actually know one from another if there weren't both. That is the story from your own bible. Christians want to believe that there was a time when people were created knowing nothing but good. That makes no sense whatsoever. One can't choose bad if there is no concept of what bad is. Bad is only recognized in relation to good. There was never a time when people weren't capable of both.

 

It's just a story about the nature of humanity...nothing more.

[NotBlinded]

Actually, behavior is only described by the social sciences, but not explained. Life & behavior are explained by Scripture, which reveals the root cause of human nature.

That's a little backwards ray. Scripture also tells of human nature by once observing life and behavior. There is no difference in what scripture does and what the social sciences do other than one having a little more evidence than the other.

 

There is no one root cause. That would be the fallacy of the single cause.

[Deva]

I am not making excuses for anyone's sin - least of all Christians. What I am stating is the REASON people sin - the presence of our sin nature, whether Christians or not. It is unacceptable for Christians to sin - since GOD has promised the means to resist temptation.

 

We are well aware of the "reason" you provide. We are saying we totally reject it as having no foundation in reality. It is useless for you to keep quoting from a book that is not authoritative for us. We do not find it to be true with regard to "sin" any more than a book of fairy tales.

 

 

I say humans have developed many means to prevent or protect from sin - in stating this, I am simply pointing out that that people from all cultures at all times have recognized the truth that men will sin - and they do not need to be instructed by anyone - we all sin naturally. The Bible points out the reason for this - that from our original parents Adam & Eve we have inherited this sin nature. SOme Reformers coined the term 'Total Depravity" - which some have mis-interpreted as meaning the Bible teaches that all men are totally depraved in all that they do. This is not true.

 

I am afraid the apostle Paul had an idea we were totally depraved otherwise why would any theologian ever think it had validity. So, does that mean that you think humans are good, or partially good? What a waste of time to think about this.

 

There is no such thing as "sin".

 

Also, I am sure that some people have found meaning and change in other religious routes. However, I would like to ask Phanta if she's satisfied with "coping & adjusting" - not that those aren't good things, because they are. But God has promised that His children will overcome, will be perfected in Christ, will be completely redeemed one day, and that we are currently seated with Christ in the heavenly places, such that our life is now hidden with Christ in God, that we are empowered by His Spirit & word to live as Christ lived. Ergo - Christian sin results we fail to think Biblically and fail to appropriate God's resources given to us by His abundant grace.

 

Having not answered certain of our questions, it is hardly appropriate for you to single out Phanta and expect her to answer yours.

 

"Redeemed one day" lol - this is nothing but a human idea or concept - like the whole of Christianity - a false one too. You cannot furnish any proof to the contrary.

[rayskidude]

Also, I am sure that some people have found meaning and change in other religious routes. However, I would like to ask Phanta if she's satisfied with "coping & adjusting" - not that those aren't good things, because they are.

 

Hi, Ray. Please cite the post you're quoting (my post?). I can't find it. I will consider your request. I'd like to know why you want the answers to those questions, though.

 

And I will try to locate the statement by the Harvard psychiatry guy.

 

I'd be interested in reading the quote in context. Thank you.

 

Phanta

 

P -

 

The post was was one where you spoke of the fact that Zen Buddhism had freed you from so many things from your past. You'd received enlightenment, ability to cope and adjust, peace, etc.

 

Reason for request - I am always interested in how religion operates in peoples' lives; how does it provide knowledge of God, meaning, morality, love, peace, etc.

 

Thnx,

[rayskidude]

Ok Ray.

I posted this link... http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/mro20091215.html ...and asked you the following question.

"Using only YEC geology, please tell us why there is a flood-created canyon on Mars?"

Thanks,

BAA.

 

So this is how you appreciate my patience Ray? I notice that you have no trouble at all getting back to Shyone, Deva, Legion, Skankboy, NotBlinded, Centauri and Oddbird... quickly.

Please note that I messaged you privately for one reason only - to settle the outstanding business between us. I've been waiting for 126 days now and I'd rather not wait much longer, thank you very much.

If it's not too much trouble I'd appreciate your answer, rather than any more delays, apologies or excuses.

 

Thank you.

BAA.

 

p.s.

I'm not an unreasonable man Ray. If you want me to rephrase the question in some way, I'll be happy to do so. But please do the decent thing and bring some closure to this issue.

 

First, let me state that we need to address this topic from the perspective of 'seeing the forest' - to limit the discussion to one phenomenon would have us being 'lost in the trees' - especially one specific tree.

 

So, re: Flood geology and the formation of the Grand canyon. From Gen 7;

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. 1

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ge 7:11–13). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

The Hebrew word 'Burst forth" or 'broken up' in some versions - refers to cleavage and quaking such that the land is split apart >> Num 16:31; Judg 15:19; Psalm 78:15; Isa 48:21 and Micah 1:4; Zechariah 14:4. So the Flood involves a breaking up of the Earth's crust and also the condensation of a canopy of water above the earth. The Greek word used to describe the Flood is Kataclusmos, from which we get 'cataclysm.' The Hebrew word for 'flood' is mabbul >> used only of the Genesis deluge. This indicates the uniqueness and enormity of this event.

 

 

Again from Gen 7;

17 The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ge 7:17–22). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

Here we see the extent and purpose of the Flood - all the high mountains were covered with water. And God's judgement against a wicked human race was accomplished.

 

Since the 1960's - a number of models have been proposed to explain the causes and effects of the Deluge. The best so far is the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics model (CPT). This theory posits that the face of the Earth was radically altered in the space of several months.

 

The presence of rigid tectonic plates was first posited by the scientist Antonio Snider-Pelligrini in 1859 as a partial explanation for the effects of the Deluge. But the uniformitarian views of Hutton and Lyell won out in public discourse.

 

Gotta go - I will finish this soon.

[rayskidude]

Ok Ray.

I posted this link... http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/mro20091215.html ...and asked you the following question.

"Using only YEC geology, please tell us why there is a flood-created canyon on Mars?"

Thanks,

BAA.

 

So this is how you appreciate my patience Ray? I notice that you have no trouble at all getting back to Shyone, Deva, Legion, Skankboy, NotBlinded, Centauri and Oddbird... quickly.

Please note that I messaged you privately for one reason only - to settle the outstanding business between us. I've been waiting for 126 days now and I'd rather not wait much longer, thank you very much.

If it's not too much trouble I'd appreciate your answer, rather than any more delays, apologies or excuses.

Thank you.

BAA.

p.s.

I'm not an unreasonable man Ray. If you want me to rephrase the question in some way, I'll be happy to do so. But please do the decent thing and bring some closure to this issue.

 

Here's some info from the link you posted;

 

One of the most distinctive features of the northern ice cap is Chasma Boreale, a canyon about as long as Earth's Grand Canyon but deeper and wider. Some scientists believe Chasma Boreale was created when volcanic heat melted the bottom of the ice sheet and triggered a catastrophic flood. Others suggest strong polar winds carved the canyon out of a dome of ice.

 

Other enigmatic features of the ice cap are troughs that spiral outward from the center like a gigantic pinwheel. Since the troughs were discovered in 1972, scientists have proposed several hypotheses about how they formed. Perhaps as Mars spins, ice closer to the poles moves slower than ice farther away, causing the semi-fluid ice to crack. Perhaps, as one mathematical model suggests, increased solar heating in certain areas and lateral heat conduction could cause the troughs to assemble. Data from Mars now points to both the canyon and spiral troughs being created and shaped primarily by wind.

 

To BAA - is this the Martian canyon you're referring to - a canyon in a frozen ice cap? If so, then you're comparing the formation of a canyon in an ice cap to a canyon chiseled out of a rock formation. Are you serious? Does the term 'apples-to-oranges' mean anything to you?

 

But please note >> many scientists think that the Martian canyon - Chasma Boreale - was formed in part by a catastrophic flood. Gee, does that sound familiar? Try looking at Genesis chap 6-9.

 

However, I think that the formation by wind is also very plausible. The Earth is held at an angle of 23.5deg by our moon. The moon stabilizes our planet as it rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, making life possible. But Mars, even though it has two moons, wobbles anywhere from 0 - 60 deg as it rotates & revolves. This wobbling causes very severe sandstorms, making life impossible (along with the freezing temperatures) - but provides ample opportunity for sand-blasting the Martian surface, especially some weaker crystalline structure such as ice.

 

So for the formation of the Chasma Boreale >> I vote primarily severe sandstorms; with some impact also from a catastrophic flood.

 

But back to the Grand Canyon and Flood geology >> the gradualism of Hutton & Lyell gained popularity in the late 1800's. But now, scientists know that a significant amount of catatrophism has occurred to form the Earth's geology. Especially, scientists agree that the continents were once all joined into one single supercontinent - which broke apart. This supercontinent has been called Rodinia.

Geologists know that the oceanic crust (made of dense rock called basalt) forms the ocean basins. The continental crust is composed of a lighter rock called granite - this floats higher on the Earth's mantle and forms the land masses. These crusts are composed of numerous rigid tectonic plates - which can move relative to each other by (1) spreading ridges which bring up molten rock to form new ocean floor, (2) subduction zones where one plate subducts under an adjacent plate, or (3) transform faults where two adjacent plates slip past each other.

 

From Genesis chap 1 -

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ge 1:9–10). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

So Flood geologists posit that a very large asteroid or comet may have triggered catastrophic plate tectonics - there are large craters; one in Arizona, and a huge one under the Gulf of Mexico. The ocean basalt crust breaks from the continental plates and sink into the less dense, molten mantle by subduction, even thermal runaway subduction of meters per second. The continental plates attached to the ocean plates are pulled along, splitting the pre-Flood Rodinia >> possibly forming an intermediate landmass termed Pangaea.

 

The subduction of the dense basalt into the mantle causes the mantle to flow; and seismic studies confirm the presence of cool slabs of material in the earth's mantle. As the basalt subducts, new molten mantle material rises up to where the plates are separating. When this molten rock hits ocean water, the water is vaporized - and ginormous geysers along thousands of miles continually spew steam into the air, which thens returns to earth as intense rain. So here we have the fountains of the deep burs forth and and the windows of heaven opened to inundate the Earth with water.

 

This is my second post on the Deluge - I will conclude with a third later.

[bornagainathiest]

Ok Ray.

I posted this link... http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/mro20091215.html ...and asked you the following question.

"Using only YEC geology, please tell us why there is a flood-created canyon on Mars?"

Thanks,

BAA.

 

So this is how you appreciate my patience Ray? I notice that you have no trouble at all getting back to Shyone, Deva, Legion, Skankboy, NotBlinded, Centauri and Oddbird... quickly.

Please note that I messaged you privately for one reason only - to settle the outstanding business between us. I've been waiting for 126 days now and I'd rather not wait much longer, thank you very much.

If it's not too much trouble I'd appreciate your answer, rather than any more delays, apologies or excuses.

 

Thank you.

BAA.

 

p.s.

I'm not an unreasonable man Ray. If you want me to rephrase the question in some way, I'll be happy to do so. But please do the decent thing and bring some closure to this issue.

 

First, let me state that we need to address this topic from the perspective of 'seeing the forest' - to limit the discussion to one phenomenon would have us being 'lost in the trees' - especially one specific tree.

 

No. Wrong. Incorrect. Not true. False. We do not not need to do that.

 

Here's why.

 

If that formation were located on Earth you'd have no hesitation in saying that it was caused by the Genesis Flood. Case closed, mind closed and debate closed. You wouldn't present the 'forest and the trees' argument because you wouldn't need to. God (allegedly) caused a Flood that covered the whole of this planet and you, toeing the YEC line of AIG and ICR, claim that ALL such formations were caused by this Flood. You don't look for alternative mechanisms for canyon-making because you've made up yours minds that, "God did it". Yet, when a near-identical formation turns up in a NASA image of Mars, you throw up a smokescreen (all the guff that follows below) of alternative mechanisms for canyon-making on other planets.

 

Maybe you can't see it - but we all can. You are not applying a consistent standard.

 

If you did apply a consistent standard, you'd have no option but to conclude that there was a global, canyon-creating Flood on Mars as well as Earth. But you won't do that. Please note that I say, 'won't'. You could, would and should draw that conclusion, if you applied to the Martian canyon the same standards you apply to all similar canyons, here on Earth. But you won't. It's a conscious, deliberate, calculated and premeditated decision on your part to reject and deny anything that undermines your belief system. As I will demonstrate in my reply to your next post.

 

 

 

So, re: Flood geology and the formation of the Grand canyon. From Gen 7;

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. 1

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ge 7:11–13). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

The Hebrew word 'Burst forth" or 'broken up' in some versions - refers to cleavage and quaking such that the land is split apart >> Num 16:31; Judg 15:19; Psalm 78:15; Isa 48:21 and Micah 1:4; Zechariah 14:4. So the Flood involves a breaking up of the Earth's crust and also the condensation of a canopy of water above the earth. The Greek word used to describe the Flood is Kataclusmos, from which we get 'cataclysm.' The Hebrew word for 'flood' is mabbul >> used only of the Genesis deluge. This indicates the uniqueness and enormity of this event.

 

 

Again from Gen 7;

17 The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ge 7:17–22). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

Here we see the extent and purpose of the Flood - all the high mountains were covered with water. And God's judgement against a wicked human race was accomplished.

 

Since the 1960's - a number of models have been proposed to explain the causes and effects of the Deluge. The best so far is the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics model (CPT). This theory posits that the face of the Earth was radically altered in the space of several months.

 

The presence of rigid tectonic plates was first posited by the scientist Antonio Snider-Pelligrini in 1859 as a partial explanation for the effects of the Deluge. But the uniformitarian views of Hutton and Lyell won out in public discourse.

 

Gotta go - I will finish this soon.

[bornagainathiest]

Ok Ray.

I posted this link... http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/mro20091215.html ...and asked you the following question.

"Using only YEC geology, please tell us why there is a flood-created canyon on Mars?"

Thanks,

BAA.

 

So this is how you appreciate my patience Ray? I notice that you have no trouble at all getting back to Shyone, Deva, Legion, Skankboy, NotBlinded, Centauri and Oddbird... quickly.

Please note that I messaged you privately for one reason only - to settle the outstanding business between us. I've been waiting for 126 days now and I'd rather not wait much longer, thank you very much.

If it's not too much trouble I'd appreciate your answer, rather than any more delays, apologies or excuses.

Thank you.

BAA.

p.s.

I'm not an unreasonable man Ray. If you want me to rephrase the question in some way, I'll be happy to do so. But please do the decent thing and bring some closure to this issue.

 

Here's some info from the link you posted;

 

One of the most distinctive features of the northern ice cap is Chasma Boreale, a canyon about as long as Earth's Grand Canyon but deeper and wider. Some scientists believe Chasma Boreale was created when volcanic heat melted the bottom of the ice sheet and triggered a catastrophic flood. Others suggest strong polar winds carved the canyon out of a dome of ice.

 

Other enigmatic features of the ice cap are troughs that spiral outward from the center like a gigantic pinwheel. Since the troughs were discovered in 1972, scientists have proposed several hypotheses about how they formed. Perhaps as Mars spins, ice closer to the poles moves slower than ice farther away, causing the semi-fluid ice to crack. Perhaps, as one mathematical model suggests, increased solar heating in certain areas and lateral heat conduction could cause the troughs to assemble. Data from Mars now points to both the canyon and spiral troughs being created and shaped primarily by wind.

 

To BAA - is this the Martian canyon you're referring to - a canyon in a frozen ice cap? If so, then you're comparing the formation of a canyon in an ice cap to a canyon chiseled out of a rock formation. Are you serious? Does the term 'apples-to-oranges' mean anything to you?

 

To Rayskidude - you're dealing with the wrong data Mr.Biochemist-turned-Creationist.

 

Here's the first sentence of the article in the link I posted. "This false-color image shows dozens of beds within a light-toned deposit located within a trough in the Noctis Labyrinthus region of Mars." You can read it for yourself here... http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/mro20091215.html Go on! Read it! Fyi, the coordinates for Noctis Labyrinthus are 7.0 degrees South, 102.2 degrees West, not far from the Martian equator. The Chamsa Boreale is located at 83 degrees North, 47.1 degrees West, at the Martian North polar cap.

 

See? You and I are talking about totally different features separated by thousands of nautical miles. This isn't my fault. You just didn't do your work properly.

 

But please note >> many scientists think that the Martian canyon - Chasma Boreale - was formed in part by a catastrophic flood. Gee, does that sound familiar? Try looking at Genesis chap 6-9.

 

So what if Chasma Boreale was formed by a catastrophic flood? Try looking at Noctis labyrinthus, not Chasma Boreale.

 

However, I think that the formation by wind is also very plausible. The Earth is held at an angle of 23.5deg by our moon. The moon stabilizes our planet as it rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, making life possible. But Mars, even though it has two moons, wobbles anywhere from 0 - 60 deg as it rotates & revolves. This wobbling causes very severe sandstorms, making life impossible (along with the freezing temperatures) - but provides ample opportunity for sand-blasting the Martian surface, especially some weaker crystalline structure such as ice.

 

So for the formation of the Chasma Boreale >> I vote primarily severe sandstorms; with some impact also from a catastrophic flood.

 

Well, we can dismiss the catastrophic flood mechanism, because the Noctis Labyrithus canyon is equatorial, not polar - so the volcanic heat + ice outburst notion is unworkable. No polar ice. Just hard, highly compacted layers of rock, not a poorly compacted ice/rock mixture. You tried that dodge before by comparing the poorly compacted ash deposits of Mount St. Helen's with the well compacted layers of the grand Canyon. It didn't work then and it doesn't work now. However, this does show that even if you aren't consistent about the data you cite, you are consistent in your attempts to compare apples to oranges in an unworkable and unethical way. Does the term 'apples-to-oranges' mean anything to you, Ray?

 

Also, you are playing fast and loose with the work of better scientists than yourself. You know full well that when they talk about polar winds carving out the Chasma Boreale, they are doing so over a time period of billions of years, not just 6,000.

Shame on you! Deliberately twisting the good work of planetary geologists for you own, narrow ends. Anyway, the Chasma Boreale isn't the canyon in question, is it? So, everything you say about catastrophic outbursts and polar winds is irrelevant.

 

Now, please deal with the formation in question, the Noctis Labyrinthus trough, shown in the link I posted.

But back to the Grand Canyon and Flood geology >> the gradualism of Hutton & Lyell gained popularity in the late 1800's. But now, scientists know that a significant amount of catatrophism has occurred to form the Earth's geology. Especially, scientists agree that the continents were once all joined into one single supercontinent - which broke apart. This supercontinent has been called Rodinia.

Geologists know that the oceanic crust (made of dense rock called basalt) forms the ocean basins. The continental crust is composed of a lighter rock called granite - this floats higher on the Earth's mantle and forms the land masses. These crusts are composed of numerous rigid tectonic plates - which can move relative to each other by (1) spreading ridges which bring up molten rock to form new ocean floor, (2) subduction zones where one plate subducts under an adjacent plate, or (3) transform faults where two adjacent plates slip past each other.

 

From Genesis chap 1 -

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ge 1:9–10). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

So Flood geologists posit that a very large asteroid or comet may have triggered catastrophic plate tectonics - there are large craters; one in Arizona, and a huge one under the Gulf of Mexico. The ocean basalt crust breaks from the continental plates and sink into the less dense, molten mantle by subduction, even thermal runaway subduction of meters per second. The continental plates attached to the ocean plates are pulled along, splitting the pre-Flood Rodinia >> possibly forming an intermediate landmass termed Pangaea.

 

Ok then. You want to talk about asteroid impacts, do you?

Presumably you only want enough in the way of impacts to start off the pseudoscientific catastrophic plate tectonic theory, as advocated by the ICR, right? You don't, can't and won't accept the sheer number of impacts remnants found across the face of the Earth, because that causes problems for a 6,000 year old world, doesn't it? http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/CIDiameterSort2.htm That one under the Gulf of Mexico is called Chicxulub. It's the third one up from the bottom of the page.

 

You see Ray, if we accept that all of these asteroids hit the Earth within the last 6,000 years, where did all the heat generated from their impacts go to? According to your time-scale, the catastrophic upheavals of the Flood came and went within what - a year or so? Now look at the last fifteen entries on the Impactor Database. These were Extinction Events with global effects. Whole species being wiped out. Firestorms raging around the world as forests burn to ashes. Pollution of the atmosphere by ash and dust which blocks out sunlight for decades. Now look at the next thirty-six impacts on the list, from Montagnais up to Logoisk. These guys were Regional events with continent-wide effects. More devastation, pollution and heat to take into account.

 

Q. If you will accept that an asteroid impact started off this runaway subduction model, why won't you accept that all of these impacts occurred within the Genesis timeframe?

A. Because then you'd have to account for how all the heat dissipated in under a year, how all the atmospheric pollutants 'vanished' in under a year, how mature forests that took centuries to grow recovered within a year, etc., etc.

 

Can't be done Ray. Surely you, with your scientific training can see that you can't cram all that global devastation into such a short period of time?

 

No, this is just another classic case of you dishonestly picking and choosing only that data that supports your delusion and not looking at the data as a whole or in proper context. Now, where have we seen you do this before?

Oh yes! I remember. You cited the Grand Canyon in Arizona (and all such canyons on Earth) as proof of the global Genesis Flood, but when a near-identical feature is found on Mars, that couldn't be proof of a global Martian Flood could it?

Hence the smokescreen of misinformation, half-arsed theorizing and simple, inexcusable mistakes.

The subduction of the dense basalt into the mantle causes the mantle to flow; and seismic studies confirm the presence of cool slabs of material in the earth's mantle. As the basalt subducts, new molten mantle material rises up to where the plates are separating. When this molten rock hits ocean water, the water is vaporized - and ginormous geysers along thousands of miles continually spew steam into the air, which thens returns to earth as intense rain. So here we have the fountains of the deep burs forth and and the windows of heaven opened to inundate the Earth with water.

 

This is my second post on the Deluge - I will conclude with a third later.

 

Yes, my time's limited too, but I await your next message.

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Well, it's your lucky day, Ray!

 

I do have a little time on my hands, so I've decided to help you out on this issue.

 

Now, please deal with the formation in question, the Noctis Labyrinthus trough, shown in the link I posted.

You seem to be having problems with the data and have ended up comparing, 'apples with oranges', so to speak.

No worries. I'll narrow things down for you to make sure that you stay tightly focussed and do a proper, like-with-like comparison between this...

 

http://thevibe.socialvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/arizona-grand-canyon-vista.jpg This is an image of the Grand Canyon, in the state of Arizona, which is one of the United States of America on the planet Earth.

 

...and this...

 

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/mro20091215.html This is an image of a trough in the Noctis Labyrinthus region of the planet Mars. This is not an image of Chasma Borealis, which, even though that feature is also located on the planet Mars, is an altogether separate and different geological formation.

 

Noctis Labyrinthus and Chasma Borealus are thousands of miles apart. They should not be compared on a like-to-like basis. That would be to compare 'apples to oranges'.

 

Comparing them would be as scientifically valid as comparing the McMurdo Dry Valleys in Antarctica (on Earth!) with the Wadi Rum in the Middle Eastern nation of Jordan (also on Earth!) and concluding they are they same.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Dry_Valleys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi_Rum

 

Not the same! One's an apple and the other's an orange, metaphorically speaking. So, the lesson here Ray is to validly compare like-with-like, not to invalidly compare like-with-unlike. Catch?

 

Ok then, assuming you're on board, let's continue.

 

Now let's run thru a list of points that are common (alike) in both the Grand Canyon on Earth and the Noctis Labyrinthus trough on Mars.

 

1. Both geological units have horizontal layers of deposits.

2. Both geological units have horizontal layers of differing colors.

3. Both geological units have horizontal layers of differing particle size (Note that the arrows in the Mars image indicate a layer of 'blockier', larger particles, sitting atop a lighter-toned, finer grained layer.)

4. Both geological units have extremely steep and/or near vertical walls.

5. Both geological units appear to have weathered in similar ways, yielding similar profiles.

6. Both geological units are 'cuts' in higher terrain, indicating that very large quantities of rock have been eroded by some mechanism.

7. Both geological units have had their eroded rock transported from these immediate locations by some mechanism.

8. Both geological units have repeated sequences of different types of layering, indicating changes in the layering materials over time.

9. Both geological units are located in non-Polar environments, indicating that that they are made up hard, well-compacted masses of solid rock and not poorly-compacted mixtures of ice and rock.

10. Both geological units are of a similar scale (thousands of feet deep) and so cannot be validly compared with the much smaller Mount St. Helen's mini-canyons.

 

So then Ray, if the Noctis Labyrinthus trough was a geological feature on Earth, you'd happily call it prime evidence for the Genesis Flood, just like the Grand Canyon, right?

 

But it isn't on Earth. It's on Mars.

 

The ten like-with-like points above clearly show that these two formations are very similar and share many common features. So, unless you have a good reason to do so Ray, you should compare both of these canyons on a like-with-like basis.

Your scripture-based YEC method of canyon-creation, should apply equally to both features, right? If not, please say why not.

 

Now it's time to ask the $1,000,000 question - again! (I first asked you this on January 26, so could you get your s**t together and answer please!)

 

Using only YEC geology Ray, please tell us why there is a flood-created canyon on Mars?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[rayskidude]

Ok Ray.

I posted this link... http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/mro20091215.html ...and asked you the following question.

"Using only YEC geology, please tell us why there is a flood-created canyon on Mars?"

Thanks,

BAA.

 

p.s.

I'm not an unreasonable man Ray. If you want me to rephrase the question in some way, I'll be happy to do so. But please do the decent thing and bring some closure to this issue.

 

Please note exact the question above >> and note from the information contained in the link you sent - that I did quote scientists that, in fact, there is a flood-formed canyon on Mars; Chasma Boreale. Thank you for your clarification of another canyon you're interested in.

 

RE: Flood geology.

 

The subduction of the basalt ocean crust floor the Earth's mantle causes flow of the liquid core, and results in changes to the Earth's magnetic field, even rapid reversals. In 1989 & 1995, articles were published from data taken at Steens Mountain in Oregon, which showed the Earth's magnetic field reversed within 2 weeks. So again, we see that CPT has occurred in the past - with huge impact on Earth's geology; forming mountain ranges and splitting the continents from the initial supercontinent.

 

Also, as the cold basalt ocean floor is replaced by the new, warmer ocean crust - this new crust is less dense and "rides higher" as it floats on the core. This makes the ocean basins more shallow, driving the ocean waters up onto the land. A similar effect was seen in the earthquake/tsunami at Sumatra in 2004, as many thousands died in the Banda Aceh area from the tsunami & flooding. These phenomena of the rising ocean floor, and the myriad of geysers formed along the plate/fault lines, asteroid collisions, catastrophic plate tectonics, etc raises the water level several kilometers - covering the mountains as they existed in the pre-Deluge Earth.

 

Some, esp Ouroboros et al - have stated that they calculated the water needed to cover Mt Everest. Why? The Bible states that significant tectonics and the buckling of the Earth's crust to form the high mountain ranges, occurred after the Deluge. See Gen 10:25 >> three generations (as they measured generations in those days) after Noah.

 

Also, CPT & Deluge explains why we see marine sediments throughout the Earth, covering thousands of sq. miles - some sediments even at higher elevations. And why we see the patchy nature of the magnetic strips in the ocean floor. And why we see the limestone chalk formations (consisting of armor plates from algae) extend well above current ocean levels; such as the White Cliffs of Dover.

 

The Deluge ends when the new, hot ocean floor cools, becomes more dense, and settles down further into the Earth's core, deepening the ocean bed. When this occurs, the water moves rapidly from the continents back into the oceans. Some of this can form turbulent flow which can form the 'scablands' we see in the state of Washington.

 

And I believe that - rather than the flow of a great river over millions of years chiseling out the Grand Canyon - that a great lake in Utah, dammed up by a mountain range, was released when weak point was damaged by subsequent catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT) after the Deluge - and the resulting cavitation from this violent flow was a significant factor in the formation.

 

Again - we see no evidence from the Amazon, Nile, Mississippi, Yellow, Tigris/Euphrates rivers and uniformitarian geology of canyon formation. Pure conjecture.

 

The Deluge >> CPT, asteroid collisions, ginormous geysers, turbulent water flow, etc. The Grand Canyon is a reminder of God's judgement against rampant sin.

 

Genesis 5 >> 5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ge 6:5–8). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

The specific canyon on Mars. I could see, because Mars wobbles from 0 - 60 deg, with the severe sandstorms, and some catastrophic plate tectonics, etc could form a canyon. But how it was formed - I do not know. But the Chasma Boreale may well have been was formed by a catastrophic flood - as some scientists believe.

 

But, since you don't like my thots on this subject - how do you say your specific canyon was formed? Care to venture a theory?

[bornagainathiest]

Ok Ray.

I posted this link... http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/mro20091215.html ...and asked you the following question.

"Using only YEC geology, please tell us why there is a flood-created canyon on Mars?"

Thanks,

BAA.

 

p.s.

I'm not an unreasonable man Ray. If you want me to rephrase the question in some way, I'll be happy to do so. But please do the decent thing and bring some closure to this issue.

 

Please note exact the question above >> and note from the information contained in the link you sent - that I did quote scientists that, in fact, there is a flood-formed canyon on Mars; Chasma Boreale. Thank you for your clarification of another canyon you're interested in.

 

Hello Ray! (waves.)

 

Wheeeeeeeee! This is fun, isn't it?

In fact, since we're having so much fun here, I'll start over (resetting the timetable that you don't feel beholden to back to zero) by rephrasing the question in a more rigorous way, for your benefit.

After all, I did say that I wasn't unreasonable, didn't I? So then, I'll be getting back to you once I've drafted a query that...

 

...restricts you to making a one-to-one comparison of the only Grand Canyon (located at 36.06 degrees North, 112.06 degrees West, in the state of Arizona, in the United States, here on Earth) with only the Noctis Labyrinthus trough (located at 7.0 degrees South, 102.2 degrees West, between the Vallis Marineris and the Tharsis Upland, on the planet Mars) on a like-for-like basis. The parameters of your like-for-like comparison are defined only by the 10 points of geological commonality (Between the two canyons in question.) that I listed in my June 7 "Lucky Day!" message.

 

Now Ray, if you feel that you can't abide by the criteria highlighted in red, please say why. I'm a reasonable man and would be very interested to hear the reasons why you don't want to perform a simple, straightforward, one-for-one, like-for-like comparison between these two canyons, using only the given geological parameters.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[NotBlinded]

 

Now Ray, if you feel that you can't abide by the criteria highlighted in red, please say why. I'm a reasonable man and would be very interested to hear the reasons why you don't want to perform a simple, straightforward, one-for-one, like-for-like comparison between these two canyons, using only the given geological parameters.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

I would love to see this in the arena. We haven't had a formal debate in a long, long time.

[rayskidude]

 

Rayskidude >> Please note exact the question above >> and note from the information contained in the link you sent - that I did quote scientists that, in fact, there is a flood-formed canyon on Mars; Chasma Boreale. Thank you for your clarification of another canyon you're interested in.

 

 

Hello Ray! (waves.)

 

Wheeeeeeeee! This is fun, isn't it?

In fact, since we're having so much fun here, I'll start over (resetting the timetable that you don't feel beholden to back to zero) by rephrasing the question in a more rigorous way, for your benefit.

After all, I did say that I wasn't unreasonable, didn't I? So then, I'll be getting back to you once I've drafted a query that...

 

...restricts you to making a one-to-one comparison of the only Grand Canyon (located at 36.06 degrees North, 112.06 degrees West, in the state of Arizona, in the United States, here on Earth) with only the Noctis Labyrinthus trough (located at 7.0 degrees South, 102.2 degrees West, between the Vallis Marineris and the Tharsis Upland, on the planet Mars) on a like-for-like basis. The parameters of your like-for-like comparison are defined only by the 10 points of geological commonality (Between the two canyons in question.) that I listed in my June 7 "Lucky Day!" message.

 

Now Ray, if you feel that you can't abide by the criteria highlighted in red, please say why. I'm a reasonable man and would be very interested to hear the reasons why you don't want to perform a simple, straightforward, one-for-one, like-for-like comparison between these two canyons, using only the given geological parameters.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I have already answered your question - now please have the 'common decency' (as you stated to me); to put out your theory on how both these canyons formed - and specifically how they were formed by identical methods; since that seems to be your hang-up.

 

Or do you just have no idea at all - as I suspect?