Biblical Flood: Actual Event or Myth

It is not possible to answer from the pictures. The information to determine the difference is in the geology of the rocks the geography of the areas and much more. I happen to have lived in Arizona and visited the two sights several times.
The grand canyon is just that a relatively narrow gorge cut through a plateau. It is long and narrow (relatively) bounded on the south by a 6000 foot plateau and on the north by 8000 ft plateau. The Colorado river runs down the effective center. There are other details that carry weight to determine that it was the river that cut through over a vey long period.
Monument Valley on the other hand is broad has no river or other indication that water flow cause any of the formation.
Again knowledge of geology and geography can provide information that there is no validity in the proposition that either was caused by the deluge.

 

Here is a list of Jesuit scientists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists The point is that you can have devout faith and also be a scientist and understand the difference.

Anthropology has NOTHING to do with evolution. You say you read about evolution...what did you read? What was the weakness in the arguments you found? Biology, genetics and other hard sciences are used to probe the past and determine what evolution is. Do you know that mitochondrial DNA has link us to Neanderthals? There are other studies of DNA that give information that we and all living things have evolved.

You misunderstand my points. As a catholic I understand you don't believe in the literal reading of the bible...yet many of your arguments such as the deluge, the age of the earth etc seem based on a belief that the bible is more accurate that current science.
I wasn't telling you what you believe or should believe but that faith and belief in god isn't dependent on whether the bible is accurate in its depiction of natural phenomena. That if you truly have faith people like Hawking who deny your faith are nothing.

 

I obviously agree with all of this. I am in the process of learning more about it. If I had read about dinosaur fossils giving carbon 14 readings of 30,000 years old previously, I certainly forgot about in the intervening twenty years.

 

That's not quite right. My contention is that scientists are human beings and that as such they are prone to error. You admit yourself that science/scientists are constantly pointing out flaws and adjusting theories. Science is hardly a settled matter.

The main point for me is that the claim made by some scientists that evolution is "proven" is evidence of either a conscious agenda or intellectual laziness. It is far from proven, as I think the carbon 14 tests of dinosaur fossils suggest.
I am sure you just lifted off your chair in indignation at that but let me finish the point.

If science were truly constantly verifying, validating, invalidating information about evolution why don't they do a complete review/series of tests on all dinosaur fossils? Carbon date them all, damn it....and let the chips fall were they may.

They don't do that though. They actually refuse to test them. I think they soil themselves at the thought that evolution may be incorrect, or at the very least overstated. I'll bet if you carbon date all the dinosaur fossils the vast majority would give similar readings.
Also, regarding fossils....they seem to be often associated with flooding events and rapid burial scenarios.

I mean, what? A rapid burial through a "water event" that is carbon dated to roughly 16,000-30,000 years and a fossil record where the majority of species that once existed no longer do.......and additionally, the fact that almost every culture on the planet has some sort of Deluge mythology where almost all life on earth was destroyed....this doesn't peak your curiosity even a little?

But according to you there is no need to look into it further. No need for further testing of fossils. We can simply dismiss the Deluge mythology of ancient cultures as superstitions of poor, ignorant Bronze Age man who probably had bad teeth even worse hygiene. With a wave of the hand we can declare dinosaur fossils universally contaminated samples, no need for further testing, here....please move along....and if someone does happen to find a scientist with solid credentials who does question evolution then your first response is to disparage his place of employment!

Sorry, but I think any adults reading this board would agree that one's place of employment may or may not reflect his true professional ability. We are all aware of individuals promoted far above their levels of competence for any number of reasons and other individuals whose brilliance and talents have been at the very least ignored or at the worst actively undermined by those around him.

So spare me the lectures on the pristine record of the scientist toiling away in anonymity, caring not one whit for the world and it's pleasures, driven only by his dogged pursuit of truth and light. Science is a fascinating endeavor but it is a human endeavor and from my reading of history if the humans get it it right, well don't get too cocky we will be sure to screw it up before too long.

My premise is that we did get off track....back in the mid to late 1800's when evolution became popular and scientists discarded the previously accepted view of a Deluge.

 

What do you mean it's not possible to answer from the pictures? It was a simple question, whether they appear similar or not?
I would not be surprised to find out that the similarities are superficial. I am aware that this happens often in life even when things are unrelated. But to claim you can't answer the question looks to me like, dare I say, dodging and weaving.......;-)

 

I understand that science and faith in God do not conflict. You are making the same point I made in the other thread.

Anthropology? I may be using the wrong terminology. It was the course where they discuss fossils and austro whatever and piltdown man, etc. It was over twenty years ago. The exact name of the course is irrelevant to the point, isn't it?
As far as the exact material I read after the course, it was quite a lot over a long period of time and I came to the conclusion that their evidence was incredibly flimsy. The part about punctuated equilibrium I remember pretty clearly. What a load of pure b.s. Are you familiar with concept? Do you agree with it?

I would argue that the use of DNA to support evolution is to misunderstand the function/operation of DNA. Are you aware that there are scientists who don't believe DNA supports evolutionary theory?

 

I will have to come back to this.