Created by Noah’s flood a few thousand years ago?
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”
In August 2003, Park Superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale at park bookstores of Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, a book claiming the Canyon developed on a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. NPS Headquarters, however, intervened and overruled Alston. To quiet the resulting furor, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna told reporters and members of Congress that there would be a high-level policy review of the issue.
According to a recent NPS response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by PEER, no such review was ever requested, let alone conducted or completed.
make fun of Christ and Christians all you want but radioisotope dating has been proven to be very inaccurate. for example… mount saint helens erupted in 1980. using the same dating method, they dated rocks formed by lava 27 years ago to be as old as 10 million years old. hows that for accuracy. look that up if you dont believe me. im tired of everyone bagging on Christians. Nobody bags on any other religion. If you have any questions on the Grand Canyon go to answersingenesis.com they will answer them.
Please feel free to read this evidence and many others about the inacurate “scientific” dating and other things that go against a million or billion year dating.
http://www.probe.org/content/view/680/67/
but then agaon its just easier to make nasty comments or name call then to view the evidence and really see that their are majot issues with dating.
I am so glad that scientists are finally giving credit to Genesis. I have recently participated in a creation vs. evolution class and was blown away by the evidence of creation and the results of the Biblical flood. I always believed but it just made it so much clearer to me. I can see why people would not want to believe that the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old, because that supports a Creator and would then create a moral dilema for many.
Hate to tell you this, FRAGaLOT, but there is a canyon in Texas that was created by flooding in just 3 days – not as deep as the Grand Canyon, but very similar in layout. A Canyon caused by flooding would create straight walls verses sloped walls which would indicate erosion. And, FYI, Noah’s Flood covered the entire earth, not just the Middle East.
The evolutionary claims for the age of the grand canyon have *evolved* over the 50 – 60 yrs.
It has gone from being as old as 40ma to now being said to be **less than** 5 – 6ma (ma = mega annum or million years for our non-geologist readers). Of course they are careful not to specify how much less than 5 – 6ma with some evolutionary folks suggesting it may have formed as recently as 1 million years ago or less.
It is good that scientists (as we ought) are able to revise former predictions/hypotheses…and yes, even theories. But changing paradigms (or removing reigning paradigms) is not as easily accomplished among scientists as many might imagine. It generally takes decades/generations for paradigm shifts to occur.
Perhaps even more interesting is that many evolutionary geologists have moved away from the gradualistic (uniformitarian) view of the canyon’s formation. Many now embrace the view that it was formed by catastrophic processes (a lot more water and a lot less time…than originally claimed).
Maybe in another 50yrs or so, the view that it could have been formed as recently as a few thousand years ago and that it was likely formed by catastrophic flooding or flood relevant processes will be the vogue reigning paradigm.
In the meantime, the claim by PEER (and others that have circulated the claim) that rangers are not allowed to comment on the age of the canyon is ludicrous and nothing short of a lie. The Bush administration has never stifled the park staff from openly declaring the NSF, et al claims of millions of years.
Both the park website (and related gov sites) as well as the gov staff are free and usually quick to say that the canyon is ~ 5-6ma…and most of them don’t emphasize the **less than** aspect of their claim.
The controversy should be taught rather than suppressed and censored (our evolutionary friends would prefer censorship)
Good ? I should certainly pronounce, impressed with your web site. I had no trouble navigating through all the tabs as well as related info ended up being truly simple to do to access. I recently found what I hoped for before you know it at all. Reasonably unusual. Is likely to appreciate it for those who add forums or anything, site theme . a tones way for your customer to communicate. Excellent task..