It Ain’t True!

Allow me to tell you why I take this position. It takes only a little bit of logic. The Nile River in Egypt is as old as the Colorado River, perhaps even older. If age and continual flow are the key factors, why hasn’t the Nile River cut out a canyon as awesome, or at least similar to, the Grand Canyon? Then there’s the Mississippi, the Ohio, the Rio Grande, and many other old waterways. Why haven’t they hewed out canyons? Well, why?

The answer is obvious. Time and continual flow have little if anything to do with canyons whose walls are sheer rock, like the Grand Canyon. And we’ll even allow for a little erosion along the way. That still doesn’t cut it, however. For if erosion carved out the Grand Canyon, why hasn’t erosion carved out other old waterways, thus forming canyons of them? Well, why? Again, age and continual flow have little to do with canyons whose walls are compacted rock.

The great Colorado could not have shaped them. The raging billows of the river would have by-passed them. I can see the river’s back flow pervading the gorges at one time, at least fractionally, but carving them out? No way! And I’m allowing for a small fraction of erosion in the process. Erosion, however, is not the author of the inner gorges, or of the Canyon itself. We must look for a greater source than erosion.

I have hiked the Grand Canyon a number of times, all the way to the floor and back. In 1993, I hiked to the floor and back the same day, the most difficult task I have ever experienced—even though I was in excellent physical condition. Of all my Canyon excursions, I have never once viewed any evidence that the Colorado River is responsible for carving out such an awesome gully. I have seen, however, layer upon layer of solidified sediment, one placed upon the other, caused by a violent revolution of the Earth, when a global catastrophe in the form of a flood occurred—such as the one described in Noah’s day (Genesis, chapters 6-8).

Those of you who believe the Grand Canyon was formed over a period of millions of years should re-examine your evidence by examining the canyon formed by the eruption of Mount St. Helens. (If you’re interested in viewing my material on “God’s Timetable For Creation,” click on “Creation” toward the end of this feature.)

Researchers have concluded Monterey Canyon could not have been cut out by a flowing river. They attribute its creation to catastrophic events such as earthquakes or floods. Well, now, isn’t that interesting? It is even more interesting that National Geographic and these same researchers fail to ascribe the same catastrophic events to the forming of the Grand Canyon! As noted above, water flow could not have arranged the Grand Canyon. But instead catastrophic events such as earthquakes and a diversity of other geologic revolutions, when the earth experienced a spasmodic convulsion, such as the one described during the global flood in Noah’s time.

The salvational issue arises when one denies that God played a role in creation and, instead, credits it to eras of evolution. This is atheism, as opposed to evolutionism. And we all know, or should know, that atheists—or the godless—are excluded from eternal salvation. Ample scripture bears this out (Job 8:11-12, Psalms 14:1). Jude wrote that certain atheistic men had “slipped in among” believers, and said their condemnation was settled long ago (Jude 4). Atheistic men are still “slipping in.” When we give them a podium or a soap box, we err.

“I offer no objections to this claim if we ascribe the ‘uplifting’ to God and not stretch it out over millions of years. So, when did this ‘uplifting’ occur? The ideal time would have been during the global flood, when the earth experienced a violent seizure.”

If we assign millions of years to the formation of the Grand Canyon, as many believers have been academically tutored to believe, we are in direct conflict with God, who announced, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens [universe] and the earth” (Exodus 20:11). There can be no doubt—except in the minds of evolutionists and atheists—but that the Lord is talking about six solar days when we contemplate that “six days” is used in the same manner as the “six days” in verse 9. “Six days you shall labor and do all your work,” God told Israel.

My point is elementary, not encumbered with an array of humanistic rhetoric. If the “six days” of creation (v. 11) can be stretched out over a period of millions and billions of years, so may the “six days” the children of Israel were to labor (v. 9). I’ve checked the Hebrew text, and “six days” in both verses are used uniformly.

In truth, this reader has rejected God in favor of her academic education. Physics tells her the Earth and universe are many millions of years old. It makes little or no difference what God says. It is sad that other evolutionists as well misrepresent heaven’s testimony to fit into their humanistic and academic deductions.

But here’s another rampant inconsistency on the part of Christian evolutionists. Wherever “six days” are used in scripture, in both the old and new covenant writings, they accept them as six solar days, except—I repeat, except—when six days are mentioned in conjunction with creation. This is where the distortion begins. To me, this boils down to intellectual dishonesty.

If I’m correct in my assessments, and if the biblical texts in Exodus are translated accurately, and they are, the evolutionary theory is bunk, poppycock, baloney, hogwash, nonsense. I think I’ll buy into reality, not drift into the realm of illusions.

Traditions pertaining to a worldwide deluge are found among nearly all the nations and tribes of the human family, including some tribes of the American Indians. Even among the ancient inhabitants of India is found some trace of a worldwide flood tradition that destroyed mankind and left but a few survivors. It is only natural that the memory of such an event was rehearsed in the ears of the children of the survivors again and again.

Until about 100 years ago, the historical fact of the Flood was universally accepted, even by men of science. Then arose the humanist doctrines of uniformitarianism and Darwinism. The Flood didn’t fit into these systems, so it was rejected. But not by everyone—only by agnostics, evolutionists, and the ill-informed.