Zion's Narrows Refute Uniformitarian Thinking! | Creation on Location
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июн 2024
- Watch the full series here: • Creation on Location
Join Dr. Brian Thomas as he embarks on an awe-inspiring adventure through the breathtaking landscapes of Zion National Park. In this episode, he discusses the formation of the Narrows. Uniformitarians claim that slotted canyons like this form slowly, but when you look at the evidence, that just doesn't work!
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @icrscience
Join us on Patreon: / instituteforcreationre...
---
Follow us!
Facebook: / icrscience
Instagram: / icrscience
X (Twitter): / icrscience
LinkedIn: / institute-for-creation...
Pinterest: / icrscience
TikTok: / icrscience 
Наука
Thank you for sharing.
Beautiful!
Scripture provides reasonable explanations. Millions of years provides us with... assumptions.
The video is nonsense.
@@nicholaschristie-blick4516 you mean it makes perfect sense, right? Okay.
@@refuse2bdcvd324 Mr Thomas makes a series of claims for which there is no basis in fact, and that are directly contradicted by evidence. You may wish to look into what is actually known.
@@refuse2bdcvd324 Quite literally nothing Brian Thomas says is true.
@@nicholaschristie-blick4516 yet you haven't explained the error in anything he has said.
The true shall set you free...
Free from nonsensical pseudo science that children are forced to endure in public schooling.
The video is nonsense pseudoscience.
The large round stones at the bottom of this gorge were obviously moved there by water forces that smoothed them off in travel. I wonder if anyone has traced those stones to their source up river? These types of stones would move swiftly only in a deluge and could quickly bore out softer rock on the sides of this canyon...there do appear to be score marks on the upper walls of this gorge indicating that hard objects etched them out. Those interested should lookup catastrophic dam failure videos to see what water can do very quickly...Mt St Helen is another fine example.
Bedload sediment transport swiftly rounds pebbles and larger fragments. River-moved sediment is characteristically rounded. It has nothing to do with a 'deluge' as you imagine it.
The cliffs of Zion canyon were rock when the canyon was cut, not 'softer rock' (whatever that is).
Mt St Helens is irrelevant. It tells us exactly nothing about the incision of Zion canyon.
@@nicholaschristie-blick4516 actually large stones can be carried tremendous distances with large amounts of water. The glacial runoff from Mt St Helen's chewed a canyon 1/40th the size of the grand canyon in a day. Large stones and wash are extremely destructive to the rock around them. You would know that if you were up to speed.
@@alantasman8273 Indeed, large stones can be 'carried tremendous distances with large amounts of water.' That's what rivers do.
The canyon to which you refer at Mt St Helens is frequently misrepresented by creationists. It relates to erosion of easily eroded volcanic materials since the famous 1980 eruption. And yes, the tiny glacier that formed inside the crater since 1980 is subject to an annual cycle of growth and decay, and hence to variations in discharge within the Loowit drainage.
Zion canyon was incised within the past 1-2 million years. See my previous comment on how the Virgin River relates to the Colorado River and formation of the Gulf of California 5-6 million years ago. The Colorado drainage has nothing to do with a global flood. The Navajo Sandstone (early Jurassic, ~200-175 million years old) is composed of wind-blown materials. It too has nothing to do with a global flood.
Source: Biek, R.F., Willis, G.C., Hylland, M.D., and Doelling, H.H., 2000, Geology of Zion National Park, Utah, in D.A. Sprinkel, T.C. Chidsey, Jr., and P.B. Anderson, eds., Geology of Utah’s Parks and Monuments: Utah Geological Association Publication 28, p. 107- 138.
Why is Dr Thomas wearing socks in the water 😭⁉️
Great fact regarding continental erosion rate measurement not working on evolutionary models of billions of years
Not a fact. Just making stuff up.
@@nicholaschristie-blick4516 Yes you are.
@@alantasman8273 I'm a professor, Alan. This is my field of expertise. You may wish to become better acquainted with what is actually known.
@@alantasman8273 The puzzlement, Alan, is why you have no interest in becoming informed.
@@nicholaschristie-blick4516 I'm informed..it;s just that so much of what you think you know is wrong...get up to speed.
Nice explanation showing another error in Evolutionism dogma.
Strangely, no contrary evidence has come to light in more than 150 years.
@@nicholaschristie-blick4516 nicholas, your statement is in error. Evolution is a religion, so is unfalsifiable, no matter the mountain of evidence against it.
It will take the supernatural appearing of God, or perhaps Satan, to convince people that they built their worldview on the lie of Evolution.
Please repent, and follow your Creator - Jesus Christ, today.
@@statutesofthelordevolution isn’t a religion and not theist who’s claimed that has ever backed it up. Will you be the first?
Evolution is a scientific theory.
@@therick363 Definition Dogma: A principle or statement of ideas, or a group of such principles or statements, especially when considered to be authoritative or accepted uncritically. That which is held as an opinion; a tenet; a doctrine.
Evolution is dogma...with the magic of deep-time being a sacrament.
@@alantasman8273 that may be the definition of dogma…but it doesn’t apply to evolution because scientists welcome new data, new discoveries and welcome others to try to disprove a theory. Thats how science keeps advancing.
So NOT dogma.
Magic of deep time….that shows you can’t discuss these things honestly.
Try again.
I do respect Dr Thomas when he talks about biology but geology is not his area of expertise! ICR do you not have any Christian geologists?
Dr. Tim Clarey is ICR’s geologist, but he might be working on another project. But I’m pretty sure Dr Thomas is still knowledgeable enough in geology since his field is paleobiochemistry 🤔
The truth is the truth no matter who's telling it.
Quite literally nothing Brian Thomas says in this video is true.
@@NaturalismFlops Tim Clarey had a legitimate career in the petroleum industry before coming off the rails with Young Earth Creationism. Clarey is surely aware that what he is saying isn't true because I have laid out the evidence for him.
@@nicholaschristie-blick4516Oh that’s interesting. Idk if that’s true, pretty sure Dr Clarey is aware of ICR’s projects & would’ve objected from promoting flawed arguments on geology.
The Navajo Sandstone is wind-blown (eolian). The inversely graded climbing translatent wind ripples are diagnostic.
Zion Canyon was incised by the Virgin River within the past 2 million years. Like the Grand Canyon, incision was due to headward erosion of a river system that developed since tectonic opening of the Gulf of California 6-5 million years ago. There was no catastrophe, no tunneling, no burrowing. 'Slow and gradual' isn't a dogma. Rates of geological processes are based upon mountains of geological and geochronological data. The rate of erosion globally is highly variable (many orders of magnitude) because the controls on erosion are variable. The continents are more than 3 billion years old. So no. They wouldn't disappear after 50 million years.
The global flood myth of Genesis is contradicted by entire disciplines of science. There never was any such event. That Jesus insists in the gospels that there was such a flood shows that he could not have been who he claimed to be. Knowing stuff is the whole point of omniscience.
The Navajo Sandstone is demonstrably not the product of a flood. The rocks were rocks when they were incised, not unconsolidated sediments.
Continents aren't deposited. And they didn't form recently.
It is hard to imagine a guy as clueless as Brian Thomas with respect to geology. I was able to locate just one legitimate publication in his Ph.D. field (biochemistry).
So where you there to see this happen? No! So at best, this is the guess of the some of the scientific community. What we are observing is best explained as a much more recent event...as evidenced by the low erosion rates witnessed.
@@alantasman8273 A characteristic of all creationist non-explanations, Alan, is to ignore most of the evidence that needs to be accommodated (like the entire Earth science literature).
Earth science, like most science, doesn't depend on 'being there.' What matters instead is evidence of many kinds, evidence to which I allude in my post.
The essence of science isn't 'guesses' but testing explanations for natural phenomena against evidence. That's why science works (and religion doesn't work).
As already noted, erosion rates vary greatly, for reasons that are well understood (and quantified). Quantitative geomorphology is research frontier.
@@nicholaschristie-blick4516 A characteristic of evolutionists is to disregard any evidence that does not fit their prevailing deep time paradigm. This requires evolutionists to actually ignore evidences for catastrophic events such as a global flood and the extensive evidence that is available to support it. They continue with the fallacy of deep time even when presented with such evidences as soft dinosaur tissue which cannot possibly survive for 65+ million years. Some of these tissues include partial DNA which only has a half-life of 521yrs. Evolutionists continue to promote the myth of macro-evolution which has never been observed in nature, for which the fossil record shows no support. Science is not about consensus among peers...it is about following the evidence where it leads. You guys need to stick to looking for those missing links that have never been there.
@@nicholaschristie-blick4516 You guys just keep on looking for the missing links that aren't there and leave the real science to those who will follow the evidence where it leads.
@@alantasman8273 Which guys, Alan? There is no such thing as a 'missing link.' The expression is creationist shorthand for 'I have no idea what evolution is or why the science has been settled for 150 years.'
None of the people responsible for this video is a scientist. No scientist was even consulted. None of them has the least interest in evidence. To be a creationist is to insist on beliefs for which no evidence exists and in spite of all facts to the contrary.
My credentials are easy to check.
What a job you have, Brian. ;)
It’s too bad evolution has to be looming in the background of all these wonderful sights (and sites), instead of just being able to enjoy them in wonder and worship of our Creator. Just think of all the time, energy, and money that evolutionists (and their funders, including all of us, taxpayers) have wasted due to their refusal to interpret the evidence logically. :(
I agree. It's unhappy, wearisome lies they peddle, subjecting us to them.
@@kathleennorton2228evolution isn’t a lie
Your post is interesting.
What’s an evolutionist?
Do you call people gravitationalists?
Refusal to interpret the evidence logically….evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory because of the evidence. Only those who aren’t able to see things logically refuse to even be able to acknowledge it’s a scientific theory
Wearing sockies with your sandals in the water?🫨👣
Your mom must have really gotten on you in your youth! LOL.
@@alantasman8273 🤣