Our Websites

National Geographic goes Creation!

Creationists have always claimed that the Grand Canyon was formed by the results of the worldwide flood of Noah’s day. Now National Geographic is getting to the truth of the matter. Watch this short video from National Geographic. Finally someone is being intellectually honest and presenting the truth! The video describes the problem that geologists have with the formation of the Colorado River. How did it form?

When you watch this video, it makes you realize that 2 Peter 3:5-6 is so true. People looking at the evidence and saying that the flood did not occur are truly willingly ignorant!

We at CSE have tried to show people the truth of the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River for years. Here, watch this and see if it makes sense.

,

Leave39 Responses to testNational Geographic goes Creation!

  1. Michael Fisher October 20, 2010 at 7:20 am #

    Yeah . . .

    Noah’s flood theory of course only works if you ignore all the OTHER sedimentary data.

    Having the flood BOTH create the sedimentary layers OF the Grand Canyon AND cut the canyon requires a bit more than just asserting it to be so.

  2. Mike Ayala October 20, 2010 at 7:26 am #

    Hi Eric,

    Nice.

    However, I can see how they’d want to yank it from YouTube and fire the one responsible for releasing it if they realize that it supports the creationist’s argument lending credibility to God’s flood at the time of Noah. I wonder what would happen if you invited the National Geographic producers to a seminar to show them how much they are on the right track?

    God bless you all.

    Mike Ayala

  3. Dennis October 20, 2010 at 8:09 am #

    Please, then explain the problem with the genetic/population bottlenecks.

  4. H. Bosma October 20, 2010 at 8:18 am #

    Oh my dear.
    Eric, since when is a overflowing lake a world wide flood.
    For the lake theory to work, there needs to be dry land to carve into. When, like you always claim, the flood occurred the whole earth was covered in water. This make the forming of the grant canyon impossible.
    Nice way to bent a scientific discussion into a biblical answer. It can only be done be leaving just enough facts out.

  5. Mike C October 20, 2010 at 9:25 am #

    Firstly. National Geographic is not a science journal. It is a publication that contains scientific articles however it is not a peer reviewed scientific journal so do not assume a video or article from them enjoys the support of the scientific community.

    With that being said, the video simply says that geologists have conflicting ideas about the formation of the Grand Canyon. However at no point is a flood mentioned.

    In regards to your creation minute video I see nothing more than pure conjecture Eric. Just because professionals disagree does not equate to Magic Man dunnit.

    Try reading up one these things before you shoot your mouth off.

    The following is from Wikipedia. “The Colorado River, Mojave language ‘Aha Kwahwat, Spanish: Río Colorado (Red River),[6] is a river in the Southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico, approximately 1,450 miles (2,330 km) long,[4] draining a part of the arid regions on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains. The natural course of the river flows from the Continental Divide at La Poudre Pass in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, into the Gulf of California between the Baja California peninsula and mainland Mexico. ”

    What do we take from this? Well here is the part I noticed. You got the direction of flow of the Colorado river wrong. It flows from Colorado to the Gulf of California. From East to West, not West to East as your video implies.

    How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make that sort of mistake?

    • CSE October 20, 2010 at 10:03 am #

      Most Colleges don’t allow Wikipedia to be used for research papers. Can you tell us why?

  6. H. Bosma October 20, 2010 at 11:41 am #

    @CSE
    Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, which can be edited by everyone.

    I can perfectly used as a reference in normal discussion or to clarify some things.
    It’s not allowed in research papers because it has no credibility whatsoever. If tomorrow I place on it that the colorado river flows the other way around and cite it……..

    Science uses credible references, which have been checked by peers and are according to scientific methods.

  7. Mike C October 20, 2010 at 1:08 pm #

    Because it can be edited by anyone. However if you look at the bottom of the page you will see references. Each one of these makes a page more valid and less likely to have been fatuously modified.

    This Is not even the point. Are you disputing the origin of the Colorado river? If I was making a point that was anything other than basic trivia I would have used a different source.

    So what will it be? Does the Colorado river flow from the gulf of California to the northeast?

    Perhaps you can address my point rather than making.a pointless reply about my choice of sources. In fact ill make you a deal. You address my actual post and ill cite a new source about the direction that the Colorado river flows.

    Over to you.

  8. Jack Napper October 20, 2010 at 2:20 pm #

    Most Colleges don’t allow Wikipedia to be used for research papers. Can you tell us why?

    The reasons vary. Everything from errors to the dynamic nature of Wikipedia. Information is update, moved, changed and sources within article do the same or go dead. Wikipedia is also subject to vandalism by people who wish to spread garbage lies. One need only look at the article for abiogenesis and language such as “life from non-life“. Not only with the use of “non-life” do we see an utter disregard for proper grammar we see parroting by Creationists attempting to poison the well. This of course is exactly what you are doing with the comment you wrote which I quoted above.

    Wikipedia like science isn’t immune from false information but it’s also not immune to peer review. Wikipedia editors are reminded by other editors to cite sources and correct mistakes whenever they are found. When poor sources are cited or incorrect nonsense is injected it is quickly edited.

    You are really going to have to better than this. I would like to leave you with something to think about. It’s more about open source software but it applies very well to Wikipedia volunteer community and peer review in general:

    In his essay on the open-source movement, “The Cathedral and the Bazaar,” developer Eric Raymond wrote, “Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.”

  9. Jeff Schroeder October 20, 2010 at 1:37 pm #

    Mike C,

    Firstly, Wikipedia is not a science journal. It is a web database that any idiot with an internet connection can edit. If you are getting your “facts” here it is not surprising that you have left real science for wishful thinking.

    Get you map out… The video shows the river flowing in the correct direction, from east to west. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make that sort of mistake? (When the video is sitting in front of you and you obviously didn’t even watch it!)

    What do we take from this? You have added absolutely nothing to the debate.

  10. Joe Shlabotnik October 20, 2010 at 1:44 pm #

    The spill over theory was being discussed in my first geology class in 1968.
    Geologists have been looking for evidence for a long time.
    Back then there were several causes being discussed which include the one presented here and also one which looked for evidence that as ancient glaciers melted they left ice damns with large lakes behind them, which finally broke and contributed to the carving of the canyon.

    Never has the evidence for millions of years accumulation of the geologic column in the area been disputed.

    Quoting directly from Wikipedia is usually not permitted because the rules of proper citing include the fact that the original paper must be cited, not references to it. Nothing special there.

    My son, who is a sophmore in areonautics often uses Wkipedia to find references (included at the end of every article) which is a very good starting point for further research.

  11. Mike C October 20, 2010 at 2:23 pm #

    Eric. I apologize. I mistook your gesturing west to east as an indication of direction of flow. I withdraw my comment on that.

    Jeff. At no point did I claim Wikipedia was a scientific journal. In fact I took pains to point out the only reason I used it Was because the information I was copying was very basic.

    All you have succeeded in doing is appearing childish.

  12. Stephen Holshouser October 20, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    Just a quick comment from a previous topic;

    Carl M. said, “I noticed after September 11 2001 apologists reduced the use of the “Believers only die for things that are true” argument. Now that 9/11 is slipping into the footnotes of history that apologetics strategy is making a comeback.”

    First of all, you just pulled that out of nowhere (actually, it was from somewhere). Do you think there weren’t suicide bombers before 9/11 or after?

    What is said is that Jesus’ disciples would not have died KNOWING that they were lying about the resurrection. These eyewitnesses met, talked, touched, and ate with Him after His resurrection.

    Of course suicide bombers believe they are right and die for it (however tragically and eternally wrong they are). The point is that no one would die KNOWING that it was for a lie.

    Nice try Carl. The proof of Christ’s resurrection seems to trouble you… as well it should. Better re-think your beliefs!

  13. Charles Haley October 20, 2010 at 3:22 pm #

    I do. But I’ve been to a real college.

  14. David Ray October 20, 2010 at 4:43 pm #

    CSE October 20th at 10:03 am

    “Most Colleges don’t allow Wikipedia to be used for research papers. Can you tell us why?”

    Its for the same reason nobody cites any of the ‘evidence’ made up by CSE. It is often flawed and unreliable.

    CSE, you’re saying that we shouldn’t accept Mike C.’s arguments because they aren’t accepted by authorities on the subject. Doesn’t it follow that we also shouldn’t accept your arguments? After all, the views of CSE aren’t accepted by authorities in Biology, Geology, History, Anthropology, Physics,
    etc.

  15. Mike Ayala October 20, 2010 at 5:16 pm #

    Michael Fisher October 20th at 7:20 am

    Hi Michael,

    You have a very interesting post. What are the other sedimentary datum you reference, and what conflict do they pose? Also, how is it a problem that the global flood laid down the sedimentary layers through which the Grand Canyon was cut?

    Dennis October 20th at 8:09 am

    Hi Dennis,

    Which genetic/population bottlenecks do you mean? Does the carving of the Grand Canyon have a bearing on global population distribution?

    Thank you both for your consideration.

    Mike Ayala

  16. Michael Fisher October 20, 2010 at 6:31 pm #

    “Most Colleges don’t allow Wikipedia to be used for research papers. Can you tell us why?”

    Well, the big reason would be the same reason that by the time you’re in college they don’t want you using *any* encyclopedia. An encyclopedia isn’t even a secondary source, and by the time you’re in college you should be getting to at least secondary sources even if you’re not quite ready to be slogging through the primary source material.

    That checks on the Wiki where articles such as the one on the Grand Canyon are deliberately corrupted to see how long it takes for a correction to be made have shown that mis-information from such articles is removed within hours, if not minutes.

    So it’s hardly like the information in the Wiki is bad. An editorial board which went through and fact checked both the Britannica and the Wike found them essentially identical in overall accuracy.

    Educators, however, are still predjudiced toward a brick an morter publisher with fixed editorial boards. In practice it doesn’t seem to be making much difference.

  17. Carl M October 20, 2010 at 7:54 pm #

    @ CSE

    Most Colleges don’t allow Wikipedia to be used for research papers. Can you tell us why?

    What is the relevance of this comment to the flow direction of the Colorado River?

    • CSE October 21, 2010 at 8:51 am #

      Re the Wiki comment:

      This question was posed because we were challenged on out statement regarding the direction of flow of the Colorado River. The source referenced in opposition was Wikipedia. We would be mocked if we used Wikipedia as a source, and then would have been told that colleges do not accept it as a valid source for research. But then, when someone wants to oppose our statement, they use Wikipedia. Just a bit of irony. :)

  18. Carl M October 20, 2010 at 7:04 pm #

    Sometimes I’m not the sharpest spoon in the drawer but could somebody explain the chain of argument……

    Premise: The Grand Canyon may be a spill-way from an ancient lake

    Conclusion: The Grand Canyon is the result of Noah’s Flood

    Not only does the conclusion not follow from the premise but the premise contradicts the conclusion.

  19. Nathan Hess October 20, 2010 at 7:29 pm #

    I’d like to add that the grand canyon was probably not carved during the flood but afterwords when the water flowed back into what is now the oceans leaving behind large lakes. Then comes the national geographic video.

  20. Paul Markovich October 20, 2010 at 7:50 pm #

    Why are you excited about this?

    Both of the proposed theories aren’t a global flood. Also, neither theory says there’s a problem of things flowing uphill. Both theories involve a slow erosion over millions of years and both theories solve the uphill problem (not in this video, but in other sources) by having the initial river start before the ground level rose due to geological forces. Also, even the deniers of the big lake theory don’t argue with the date or the existence of an ancient lake, only with whether or not it was big enough of a water source…

    So nothing in this agrees with you…

    It makes no sense why you’d post this. its directly contradictory to your position.

  21. ant bourdon October 20, 2010 at 9:50 pm #

    Bosma,
    How can you be so wilfully ignorant? In order for us to be here, the water of the flood had to retire after the flood. Since there were no rivers anywhere on earth, they had to be carved from huge amount of water flowing away from the continents after the flood. The Grand Canyon wasn’t really carved by a lake, but way more water than the actual lakes could contain. Since the continents rose up in a fast fashion by the moving of the tectonic plates, there was even an over-flooding over the lakes. This is also why the Grand Canyon is very big at the top and small at the bottom. There was a huge debit on top and as the lake got drained, there was less pressure and finally, the canyon stopped to be carved. Another type of huge carving like that is the St-Laurence river in Quebec. Near Montreal, there is a huge plain as if there was there before a huge beach where sediments were deposited. It is somewhere more than 100 km large. What we can see in Quebec is that the huge river which is there was even larger in the past as if there had been an enormous amount of water passing there and creating a huge plain. Then, as the level of water dropped, the carving of mountains stopped making deposits where there was not enough pressure and it formed the St-Laurence river where there was less pressure.

    You can even do this activity in your backyard. You create a small hill with sand and you make a weak point where the water will tend to evacuate first. On the hill, there must be a sort of hole which would be still higher than the ground. Then, you drop a large amount of water at the same time in the hole. When the water will start to get out of the hole, it will carve a big river, but as the level of water will get low, the big carving will stop, but there will be another carving done at the bottom of that river which will create a river in a river. In the real world, the small river will be the rivers that we see today (even if they are very large) and the big river made by the flood will be the valley around that river.

    This is observable in the Grand Canyon, There is a huge canyon that could not have been formed by the actual river there and a small river at the bottom. It is a river in an ancient bigger river caused by a flood.

  22. David McCrea October 20, 2010 at 10:02 pm #

    I’ll bet NG’s toll-free, 24/7, anti-creation hotline has been ringing off the hook all day with the news one of their reports suggested/implied/imparted a degree of validity to the flood story.

    Someone’s got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do at NG!

    Peer review that!

  23. Julie Collins October 21, 2010 at 1:39 pm #

    “Oh my dear.
    Eric, since when is a overflowing lake a world wide flood.”

    maybe the absence of a VERY LARGE lake is a implication? besides, the absence of a lake, yet evidence of it being carved by water, the mantle upwelling theory in tow. makes this a highly probable theory. despite what ignorant people say.

  24. Carl M October 21, 2010 at 5:28 pm #

    @ CSE

    We would be mocked if we used Wikipedia as a source,

    Only if the information was wrong.

    However, if you used Creationwiki you would be dipped in honey and staked to an ant hill.

  25. Carl M October 21, 2010 at 5:35 pm #

    @ ant bourdon

    This is also why the Grand Canyon is very big at the top and small at the bottom. There was a huge debit on top and as the lake got drained, there was less pressure and finally, the canyon stopped to be carved.

    Your model has overlooked an important detail. The canyon meanders. Slow flowing rivers meander. Fast flowing rivers (your proposal) don’t.

  26. Alfred Russell Wallace October 21, 2010 at 9:51 pm #

    @ CSE

    Patriot University. Nuff said.

    Oh, and every single accredited college doesn’t allow the Bible to be used for research papers. Can you tell us why?

    • CSE October 22, 2010 at 7:49 am #

      Actually, Afred, there are many colleges and universities that are accredited and are Christian Institutions – the Bible is the #1 source for many forms of research.

  27. Alfred Russell Wallace October 21, 2010 at 9:54 pm #

    CSE:

    This question was posed because we were challenged on out statement regarding the direction of flow of the Colorado River. The source referenced in support was the Bible. We would be mocked if we used the Bible as a source, and then would have been told that colleges do not accept it as a valid source for research. But then, when someone wants to support our statement, they use the Bible. Just a bit of irony.

    fixed.

  28. Dennis October 22, 2010 at 1:35 am #

    Mike Ayala
    October 20th at 5:16 pm

    Which genetic/population bottlenecks do you mean? Does the carving of the Grand Canyon have a bearing on global population distribution?

    —————–
    No it isn’t about the carving of grand canyon, it’s an argument against the flood.

    Genetic bottlenecks are when populations go close to extinction, ie. their number is greatly reduced. When a genetic bottleneck happens, certain features or marks are leaved for a while. This has happened for Cheetah’s, who are said by scientists to have been through this bottleneck for around 10000-12000 years ago, as far as my memory goes.

    The marks left are such things as very similar MHC-proteins, which means that their body have a hard time recognizing foreign tissue. Experiments have been done, where skin exchange have been done, and everytime, the skin was accepted.

    If a flood had happened where all the animals had been reduced to only 2 animals, for only 4000 years ago, these kind of marks should be seen on basically any animal today, even including humans. But they don’t.

    and I want to know how this is possible if there were a flood.

  29. Julie Collins October 22, 2010 at 5:34 pm #

    ummm… just as a question… WHY are we debating in a comments section again?

  30. Geno Castagnoli October 22, 2010 at 7:59 pm #

    Nathan Hess wrote:
    I’d like to add that the grand canyon was probably not carved during the flood but afterwords when the water flowed back into what is now the oceans leaving behind large lakes.
    ##########
    Geno asks:
    That’s interesting. How would that be possible as the oceans would already be full of water?
    ######

  31. Geno Castagnoli October 22, 2010 at 8:15 pm #

    CSE wrote:
    Actually, Afred, there are many colleges and universities that are accredited and are Christian Institutions
    ######
    Geno comments:
    Yes, there are. I went to one for three years. The University of San Francisco has full academic accreditation and one of the best law schools in California.

    There are also several kinds of accreditation. Patriot University has never had academic accreditation. One of my mother’s students found out what happens when you try to transfer credits from a school without academic accreditation to one with it. She lost nearly all of the credits she had earned toward her four year degree.

    It is not unusual for my students to want to go to Oklahoma Baptist University. The only thing I say to them is they need to make sure that whatever school they choose has proper academic accreditation.
    #####

    CSE write:
    the Bible is the #1 source for many forms of research.
    ######
    Geno comments:
    Absolutely. Just not physics, chemistry, astromony, or history (other than Middle Eastern)
    #####

  32. Dennis October 23, 2010 at 5:31 am #

    No suggestions?

  33. Dennis October 23, 2010 at 1:30 pm #

    I guess not…

  34. Crystal Rose October 23, 2010 at 5:53 pm #

    If there was a global flood then where did the water come from and where did it go?!

  35. Alfred Russell Wallace October 23, 2010 at 8:10 pm #

    @ CSE Thanks for the laughs!

    “the Bible is the #1 source for many forms of research.”- CSE

    I’ll be quoting this a lot, thanks again!

  36. Dennis October 25, 2010 at 5:32 am #

    Not even Kent or Eric? Cmon, your fans are counting on you.