Christian Geologist Sues National Park Service for Denying Request to Conduct Research in Grand Canyon

PHOENIX – A leading Christian geologist has filed suit against the U.S. National Park Service, alleging that they wrongfully discriminated against him on the basis of his religious beliefs by not allowing him to conduct research in the Grand Canyon.

Dr. Andrew Snelling is a research geologist who currently serves as director of research at Answers in Genesis. In November 2013, Snelling requested permission to study sedimentary layers within the Grand Canyon. However, four months later, the National Park Service (NPS) denied Snelling’s request.

According to a lawsuit filed by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) on behalf of Snelling, the NPS sought counsel from three geologists upon receiving Snelling’s request. All three criticized Snelling’s Christian faith and discouraged NPS officials from accepting his research request.

The suit alleges that Dr. Karl Karlstrom of the University of New Mexico took issue with Snelling’s work for Answers in Genesis, saying it would be better if Snelling conducted research at “alternate sites.” Dr. Peter Huntoon of the University of Wyoming said Snelling’s proposal was “inappropriate,” describing it as “dead end creationist material.” Dr. Ron Blakely of Northern Arizona University said, “It is difficult to review such an outlandish proposal.”

On March 4, 2014, the NPS denied Snelling’s permit request, stating, “It has been determined that equivalent examples of soft-sediment folds can be found outside of Grand Canyon National Park.” When Snelling asked for the locations of the alternate sites, the NPS did not respond.

In his lawsuit, Snelling argues that the geological features he wants to study are unique to the Grand Canyon.

“This was in direct contradiction to Dr. Snelling’s position that his due diligence research had not disclosed any adequate alternate locations; that the folds that he sought to examine were unique to the Canyon location; and that a primary purpose of his proposed study was to evaluate these particular folds to determine when the folding occurred,” the lawsuit, which was filed in a U.S. District Court in Arizona, states.

  • Connect with Christian News

Snelling and his legal counsel believe that the NPS rejected his request because of his faith and biblical scientific viewpoints.

“The government isn’t allowed to discriminate against someone based on their viewpoint, and National Park officials have absolutely no legal justification in stopping a scientist from conducting research simply because they don’t agree with his views,” said ADF attorney Michael Kitchen in a statement. “Using someone’s views to screen them for a government benefit is unconstitutional.”

A press release from Answers in Genesis proposed that NPS officials are worried that Snelling’s research findings would challenge the prevailing viewpoint of the Grand Canyon’s formation.

“Dr. Snelling’s proposed study could yield results that will undermine an idea that is heavily promoted inside the park: namely, the argument that the canyon’s strata were formed over millions of years,” it outlined. “With his intended research, Dr. Snelling seeks to gather samples at folds inside the canyon where all the layers were bent but were not shattered because the rocks were still soft as they folded—supposedly remaining soft over a period of 450 million years.”

Snelling said that his findings would be “openly reported for all scientists to draw their own conclusions, whether [or not] they agree with my worldview interpretation of the history of the Earth.”

“We expect debate about what the evidence means, but the park shouldn’t prevent us from collecting data just like other scientists,” he added. “I am merely asking for equal treatment by the government.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • bowie1

    Sounds like a reasonable request. What problem do his critics have with it unless it would expose their own credibility or lack there of?

    • Grace Kim Kwon

      They want their park to look old, always and for-ever, so they could keep thinking they don’t have to acknowledge the Creator God.

      • johndoe

        The park is old and always will be. The river created the Grand Canyon

        • Redboyds

          Idiot

          • johndoe

            Thx

        • Amos Moses

          “The river created the Grand Canyon”

          sure …. but the question is …. how long did it take …… and the so called, self-proclaimed “open-minded” ….. are proving they are not …………..

        • Grace Kim Kwon

          God created the rivers and floods. Genesis chapters 1, 2, 6-9.

    • Croquet_Player

      They don’t just let any crank start digging in the Grand Canyon.

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        Do you realize the education, publications, and awards Andrew has?

        • johndoe

          Working for aig speaks volumes…..

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Indeed it does. More and more scientists are becoming born again Christians and that’s got atheists shorts in a wad. Talk about histrionics.

          • johndoe

            Not in a wad at all. Just think it’s funny that aig thinks it has any credibility outside its own little sphere.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You do know Snellling got his education at an acclaimed university and has published in peer reviewed journals, don’t you? Are you afraid to get an MRI because its inventor is also a member?

          • johndoe

            I order mri’s on a regular basis and have had one. aig has zero credibility

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yet the man who invented the MRI praises AIG. He’s a genius too. You? Not so much. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            No, more and more scientists are certainly NOT becoming born again Christians. Source please.

          • Chris

            The idea that more and more scientists are becoming creationists is creationist folklore.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why do you want sources? When you’re given obvious ones – like court case rulings – you pretend they don’t exist. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            We have all seen that you are constantly dishonest in all your claims. So direct, unaltered sources – please.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            LOL Keep lying with all your alts intact. 🙂

          • Parodyx

            You mean all the people who call you out on your flat-out dishonesty? THOSE alts?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You mean the people who make the identical posts, word-for-word, under different handles and answer questions for each other? And the homosexual agendist who has a pedophile symbol as his avatar as well as a sodomite, sexualized handle? Yep, those (that) guy(s). 🙂

          • Parodyx

            Well, your dishonesty is in full bloom here. No one posts things word for word under different handles. I would have spotted that ages ago. There are no homosexual agendists here, just people opposed to bigotry and hatred, and two hot dogs is not a pedophile symbol. Otherwise everything you said was perfectly true. 🙂

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            But – but – you’ve only been here since Dec 2016, not “years ago”. /eyeroll

            You may be able to fool some people, but you’ve given yourself away to the discerning as a pedophile.

          • Parodyx

            You were told that I’ve been a longtime poster. I wasn’t banned, I simply left and forgot my login information and created a new one. If you don’t believe me, I don’t care. And when you make unsubstantiated accusations like that one, you get reported. That’s how it works.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            All these names and yet you’re just one person. 🙂

            I know that a group of you have gotten together to flag anyone with whom you cannot win a debate. I’ve been targeted before and expect to be targeted by the gaystapo again. Not surprised an open pedophile has jumped on board.

        • Joseph Meert

          Education? He has degrees, that’s not necessarily the same thing as an education

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Of course it is. You probably don’t have any degrees. What do you think a Ph. D is ?

      • Daryle Henry

        Of course not. It’s a lot easier to accuse creationists of not doing science if you don’t let them do it. It’s a lot easier to write it off as pseudo-science and claim they have no evidence when you don’t let them gather it. In any case, he isn’t just a crank, he is a credentialed scientist who has every right to study in his field and denying him that right is discrimination. It doesn’t matter if you agree with him or not.

        • Croquet_Player

          You’re right, it doesn’t matter if I personally agree with him or not. However it does matter how the scientists the Grand Canyon administrators have appointed to review proposals view his proposal: ‘Dr. Ron Blakely of Northern Arizona University said, “It is difficult to review such an outlandish proposal.”’

        • Chris

          The modern creationists have been in operation since Morris’ book ‘the Genesis Flood’ was published in 1961. Creationists are only NOW getting around to researching their claims?

          • cadcoke5

            There has been a some research by Creationists in the Grand Canyon. But, I don’t know how much of it was the kind of work that would require a permit. But, that has no bearing on if Dr. Snelling should be permitted to do research. Perhaps the political climate there has change enough that they want to block any further research.

            In 2004, there was a controversy when some wanted a book by creationists “Grand Canyon: A Different View,” by Tom Vail, removed from the book store at the Grand Canyon. So, at least up to that point there were tolerant of other scientific views that weren’t faithful to the materialistic dogma that many geologists demand.

          • Chris

            I have no idea why they would want to stop Snelling from doing research in the Canyon. Since the canyon is a draw for tourists they may well be worried that his research could damage the look of the canyon, if not it’s environment.

            In any case, since he says he is truying to prove the flood why he would need to go to the grand canyon. Why not research it in his own backyard since the flood was supposed to have been worldwide. It sounds to me like he wants to justify a holiday at his supporters expense.

            As to creationist book being sold at the canyon it would depend upon whether the books sold there are supposed to represent science. Since creationist organizations do not do science they can hardly claim that their work is scientific. Science doesn’t include statements of faith in their organisations for example, but creationist organisations do.

      • Leslie

        No just millions of visitors a year. Literally.

      • bowie1

        The Grand Canyon looks pretty big to me so I can’t see that it would be barely noticeable. Besides, they cannot simply refuse him permission simply because of his beliefs since that would be illegal based on discrimination laws.

        • Croquet_Player

          You’re right, they can’t (and shouldn’t) refuse him simply on the basis of his religious beliefs. But they can refuse him on the basis of his proposal. And while the Grand Canyon is very big, the standard metric is not whether the dig is “noticeable” to laypeople, but whether the environmental impact is merited and outweighed by the potential scientific benefits. As it stands, his proposal has been described as “outlandish”. That’s not a good start for him, but it says nothing about his religious beliefs. Perhaps he can modify his proposal.

      • Chet

        Were bulldozers and earth movers planned?

    • MadScientist1023

      Proposals to extract geological samples from a national park undergo a peer review process, like most scientific proposals. His proposal was rejected based on its scientific merits or lack thereof.

      • bowie1

        How can they determine that before he has even begun his research. First research. Then peer review.

        • MadScientist1023

          This is how science works. When starting a project, you usually need to write out what your research question is, how you will test your hypothesis experimentally, what your experiments will prove, etc. This is standard practice when asking for any kind of resources, including permission to do something in a normally restricted area.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Pagans and atheists have no fair play in the power-oriented world. Fairness is another exclusive concept of the Reformers’ truth-oriented Western Christendom.

    • johndoe

      As usual, you haven’t a clue. Pagans and atheists are Americans too

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Pagans and atheists should not oppress the Christians in America because America was created by the Christians for Christian happiness. Besides, in this case, the atheists broke the laws.

  • Croquet_Player

    From the article above: ‘Dr. Ron Blakely of Northern Arizona University said, “It is difficult to review such an outlandish proposal.”’ I can imagine.

  • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    Persecution.

    • johndoe

      Histrionics

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        So if this were a black man refused something he was lawfully entitled to, you’d be okay with that?

        • johndoe

          Christians have a view of persecution that’s beyond ridiculous

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            At least one Christian per hour is killed around the world. They are the most persecuted group of people today. You are part of the problem.

          • Amos Moses

            he is being denied because he holds an opinion that does not match the “recieved knowledge” of other “scientists” …… and it is his view that is being persecuted …..

        • Tangent002

          Snelling is not legally entitled to deface national parks.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So you think digs are defacing parks? Funny view of science you got there, bud.

    • Tangent002

      Lack of preferential treatment is not persecution.

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        No, but lack of equal treatment is.

  • Michael C

    It shouldn’t be easy to get a permit to literally chip away at one of the 7 natural wonders of the world.

    • http://OnlyJesusSaves.org Director@OnlyJesusSaves.com

      And that is the point. They don’t want to lose their status, and thus money, when a Scientist shows their park is merely 4400 years old.

      • Tangent002

        Snelling already tried this when he was a part of the RATE program that attempted, unsuccessfully, to discredit radiometric dating.

      • Michael C

        4400 years? Is that when the entire Earth, from the deepest valley to the highest mountain peak, was completely engulfed in water after the planet’s very first rainfall?

        • Leslie

          Guess what? If there’s a worldwide flood as reported by different ancient cultures such as China and First Nation people, scientifically speaking, you can’t carbon date anything before it. The Smithsonian also has a dinosaur print fossil with a human woman and childs’ footprint on top of it. Million of years old? Un-provable and billions is even more dubious. If you aren’t able to view both sides of a scientific debate, factually, it isn’t science. Same with climate change. I have read both sides and your side is not the most compelling evidence wise.

          • Chris

            Guess what. If there was a worldwide flood then it would leave a worldwide flood layer. No flood layer = no flood. Well for over a hundred years humans have dug down, drilled down and that flood layer [which should be easy to find since it should be everywhere] isn’t there. Now why is that?

          • Leslie

            There are many papers written on it. And if you looked at other countries texts in history and the indigenous people’s stories, China has many. There are geology reports about the folding of sediment layers in what becomes solid rock and different layers of color in stripes and flowing patterns as if sediment layers were flowing depending on their weight. And then it solidified, much like how sand, gold and diamonds stay at one layer in the layers of silt. It’s almost as if you know nothing about the subject…hmmm.

          • Chris

            “There are many papers written on it.”

            Please provide some peer-reviewed examples of these papers.

            “And if you looked at other
            countries texts in history and the indigenous people’s stories, China
            has many.”

            Legends are NOT history and legends of flood in diverse countries is rather easy to explain. Most civilizations started close to rivers for the water supply they provided. Rivers flood, sometimes very badly. Stories would grow up of ‘back in my day there was this big flood.’ Over time such stories grew until the floods were said to be worldwide. Study the flood legends sometime. There is very little similarity between them. For example the norse legend is that the flood was caused when Odin killed Ymir [the father of giants] and the blood from his wound flooded the Earth. Little bit different to that found in Genesis isn’t it?

            Added to which we already know how the flood story in Genesis developed. Go to youtube and do a search for a vdeo entitled ‘Noah’s Ark is Plagiarized. Here’s how we know…’

            “There are geology reports about the folding of sediment layers in what becomes solid rock …”

            So what? Scientists can already show how rocks were folded. Heat, and pressure. Labs can do it now.

            “and different layers of color in stripes and flowing patterns as if sediment layers were flowing depending on their weight.”

            In fact those sedementary layers disprove Noah’s flood. Go back to youtube and watch two videos entitled ‘Noah’s flood debunked’. In comes in two parts.

      • Leslie

        I think the flood was more of a 7800bc to 9800 bc. I was reading a scientific paper from an archeology geologist studying the strata in an area much like the Grand Canyon and that was his take with his evidence. Of course with google such as it is I can’t find it anymore, I looked back 25 pages all evolution, all day. smh. There was also a show on NG or the History channel 10 years ago that he was on as well. Can’t find that either. Of course they are worried, the geologists info was very compelling. And their sycophants don’t even wonder why two sides aren’t presented, so easily fooled.

        • Chris

          Snelling is the scientist who says one thing in his scientific papers and another to creationists. He must be lying to one group.

      • TheLastHonestLawyer

        4,400 years? Do you realize that both the Egyptian and Sumerian lists of Kings go much farther back that that, and we have evidence to support it? The Great Pyramid, built during the Fourth Dynasty, was completed 4,600 years ago. We have the mummy of Djoser, who reigned during the Third Dynasty, close to 4,800 years ago.

        These people left copious records, and large monuments. They were around and kicking 4,400 years ago.

        • Amos Moses

          ok …. so many question a book as authentic (the Bible) because of its supposed age and other bona fides ……. but you are going to accept Egyptian and Sumerian records ……… when the scriptural record far exceeds any other written record by leaps and bounds and miles and miles …… riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight ………… i think i just squirted my root beer out of my nose on that bogus claim ………..

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            There are portions of the Old Testament, that are helpful in understanding the history of the region. However, it was written by one group to support their claim that they were the chosen of god, so you have to look for supporting evidence.

            Tell me, did a young George Washington cut down one of his father’s cherry trees and then own up to it, saying “I cannot tell a lie.”? It’s a classic American view of the Father of Our Country as being brave and honest as a boy.

            It never happened. It was made up for a book written 30 years after Washington died. The Washingtons didn’t even have cherry trees on their plantation.

            So when you study history, you have to look for evidence. We have evidence that supports the lists of Kings in Sumer and Egypt. We have evidence for the history of Israel and Judea that is supported by some of the accounts in the Old Testament. Other parts remain unproven.

            Are you going to now claim that the Step Pyramid of Djoser doesn’t exist? I has his name written all over it, and we found his mummy inside it, with multiple prayers written for him. He existed, and ruled 4,800 years ago.

          • Amos Moses

            no …..

            40 authors wrote the Bible over a period of 1,500 years. These Bible writers wrote as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit (see 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Moses was the first person to write portions of Scripture while John, the disciple of Jesus, was the last. Other famous people who wrote the Bible include: David, Daniel, Peter, Paul, Jonah, Isaiah, Solomon and David.

            Diversity of Bible Writers
            Those who wrote the Bible lived at different times, some separated by hundreds of years. In many cases they were complete strangers to one another. Some Bible writers were businessmen or traders; others were shepherds, fishermen, soldiers, physicians, preachers, kings—human beings from all walks of life. They served under different governments and lived within contrasting cultures and systems of philosophy.

            and yet ….. there is a consistent story and narrative …… among people who never or could ever meet ……..

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            Ever hear of H.P. Lovecraft? He wrote horror stories centering around the idea that there are ancient and powerful beings that we can barely imagine of without going mad. Called the Cthulhu Mythos.

            Lovecraft died in 1937. Yet sitting on a shelf next to me is a recently published book sotry stories set in Lovecraft’s twisted world. How is that possible? People read the older stories and then write their own.

            As I said, much of the Old Testament is a pretty good, if utterly biased, history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judea. But to say that it was impossible for later authors to build on what was written before is just silly. And the existence of variant books shows that everyone was rewriting the old stories as they saw fit, not to mention adding and removing books as they saw fit.

            Tell me, does your copy of the Bible have the Song of Songs in it?

            Just because a set of tales had multiple authors who added to it over time doesn’t make it true, or do you think the tales of the Greek Gods are also factual? They grew over the centuries, with new stories being added all across the Greek world, but all keeping the essential facts in order. By your standard, that makes them true.

          • Amos Moses

            “But to say that it was impossible for later authors to build on what was written before is just silly.”

            the only work any of all of them might have had was the Pentateuch ….. and there was no Barnes and Noble to run out and buy a copy and carry it around with you in any manner ….. so yours is the “silly” assertion ………..

          • Amos Moses

            “it was written by one group to support their claim”

            and do you contend that the Egyptians and Sumerians did not ………

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            Of course they did! The Sumerian list has legendary kinds that ruled for centuries, like En-men-lu-ana, who ruled for 48,000 years. But move down the list, and you find real people who ruled for a few decades (or less) and who we find physical evidence of, like Ur-Nammu, who wrote the first known legal code.

            Again, you look for corresponding evidence. Take King David. Very important figure in the Bible. There is good evidence that he lived, and founded a dynasty that ruled Israel and Judea. The whole thing with the sling? Probably a metaphor added later when Israel was weak and surrounded by enemies.

          • Sharon_at_home

            So what is the difference between your focus on the ‘People’ who wanted to be “the” chosen people of God, and the Koran saying that Muhammad was chosen by God to correct the corruption of the bible and become so close to the Lord that he actually spoke like he helped the Lord do things by referring to them by “we” when talking about an occurrence that he said was something they both made a decision to do it? God doesn’t use a human being as a helper when he deals with His people – (all around the world). His thoughts are too beyond anything a human being can imagine or think about. Why would He want a mere mortal to help him with Godly business?
            Can you prove that Muhammad actually saw Gabriel and was given a duty from God to do? I don’t think so, so you can’t prove it any more than the Jews can prove they are the chosen people of God, other than by what each Holy Books says.
            It is said that Muhammad talked of many times of violence used to kill and destroy as much as possible until they give up, then make the remnant slaves, and taking all the valuables. He even led some that were only because he wanted their riches and he was annoyed that they wouldn’t accept Islam as their religion.
            I’ve also been curious about something else; I hear all the time that Allah offers the faithful for when they die, 72 virgins to enjoy in Paradise, is that true?
            Because our God loves us and wants the best for us, but feels that lust is a sin, and is not acceptable in His Heaven at all. We must all repent Before we go to Heaven… Why would “the same God” tell us that Lust in a sin, and his faithful will be in a wonderful happy no sin world with Love and People who won their battle of faith; But He tells you that your reward is sex in Paradise when it’s a sin to Him? God wants females in heaven too, but I don’t hear that Allah offers the women paradise at all
            So what’s your proof about Muhammad being the “one” chosen of God?

            I’ve wondered about a couple of these for a while but had no one to ask unless I spoke to a stranger face to face and I didn’t know how to choose one that would agree to help me understand these things. There seems to be many that are angry and I don’t understand why. I hope you will answer so all of us can understand your view?

        • Sharon_at_home

          Why exactly does what is truth about the area around the Egyptian and Sumerians, mean that the Grand Canyon should be the same age, etc. they are on opposite sides of the earth and didn’t the Grand Canyon come to be, over a very long time before people first saw it (other than the aboriginals) The Pyramids were made by hand not by nature which the Canyon was.
          I can’t see the comparison you are making.

      • johndoe

        You’re kidding, right?

      • Joseph Meert

        Generally speaking, science does not move backwards. The age of the Earth was established back in the 1800’s as being much older than a few thousand years. The ancient age of the Earth was firmly established by radiometric dating in the 1900’s. Is there something in the bible that requires your salvation is hinged on the age of the Earth?

    • Amos Moses

      right …. because the Colorado River does nothing to it …..

    • Vaughn D

      A canyon is a HOLE in the ground, you can’t “chip away” at a hole, you can only fill it in. Chipping away at it would enlarge it, not make it disappear.

      • Lexical Cannibal

        It’s not just a hole though, is it? It’s a shockingly big hole with a specific, damagable structure, supporting its own ecosystem. It’s not just about making a bigger hole, it’s about the damage that could be caused to something we’re studying and the things that live there if we’re not really careful about it. With that in mind, scientific inquiry that we have reason to believe might be spurious or which can be accomplished without chipping away at the hole gets a critical eye.

        • Amos Moses

          ” It’s a shockingly big hole with a specific, damagable structure, supporting its own ecosystem. ”

          yes ….. and hundreds of people LIVE in it …. on a daily basis ……. i do not mean visit …. i mean they live there ………. the Havasupai, the Navajo, and the Hualapai to name some ………..

  • Trilemma

    It’s always good to look at evidence from a different perspective. Let Dr. Snelling do his research.

    • Tangent002

      Snelling has a long history of starting his “research” with a conclusion already in place.

      • Sisyphus

        Their HOW-TO gives the conclusions and the goal is to conduct “science” to fit. The opposite of actual science.

      • Trilemma

        Dr. Snelling’s hypothesis is that the Grand Canyon is thousands of years old and not millions. Let Dr. Snelling produce evidence for his hypothesis so that others can falsify it. The Columbia River Gorge was formed by large quantities of water over relatively short periods of time. Why couldn’t this be true for the Grand Canyon as well. Changing the age of the Grand Canyon doesn’t confirm the Bible or YEC.

        • Chris

          Because there are indicators of erosion caused by swiftly moving water. It tends to flow in a straight line. Erosion caused by slowly moving water over a long period tends to meander.

      • Sharon_at_home

        Isn’t that the point of an experiment? To prove what you think the test results will be? or is that not the same thing? and uh, why not?
        We were taught in science that you first think about what we want to show. Then the instruments, the steps used and the observations and conclusion at the end, but why couldn’t the conclusion and the Purpose show the same thing? They could right, so are you’re saying that Snelling lies about his conclusion? How can you do that if you show all the steps and observations etc. etc. Won’t they show that his conclusion was wrong?Don’t other scientists go over it to say whether it is a valid conclusion or not? Or is that not how it’s done?

        • Chris

          “Isn’t that the point of an experiment? To prove what you think the test
          results will be? or is that not the same thing? and uh, why not?”

          You are correct but the trouble is that there must be something which it is accepted will falsify the conclusion. Creationist organisation have NEVER proposed any discovery which will falsify their ideas.

          What they will do is look at the findings of science and declare that if X hadn’t been found it would have falsified their ideas. But that’s not how falsification works. Likewise they declare that if someone can prove God doesn’t exist that would falsify their ideas. But that’s not how falsification works either.

          On the other side numerous scientists were asked what would falsify evolution. There were numerous suggestions. One suggested that if modern animals were found in rocks of an era which should not contain them that would give him pause. Now if Snelling really wanted to prove a flood he would use his knowledge of geology to show him the most likely spot to make such a find and then go looking.

          See the difference between the two approaches?

          • Sharon_at_home

            Yes thank you for explaining Chris! God bless!

          • Chris

            Thank you. And God bless you also.

    • TheLastHonestLawyer

      Do you hold the same view when it comes to examining the claims made in the Bible?

      • Trilemma

        Yes. Do you have a specific claim in the Bible as an example of what you’re talking about?

        • TheLastHonestLawyer

          Certainly. The four Gospels describe stunning different events at Jesus’ crucifixion. Matthew, for example, claims a massive earthquake, the sun darkening, and tombs open to allow dead saints to walk. None of the other three come close to thing, but all differ in important points like Jesus’ final words, what happened immediately after he died, and how the body was handled.

          Dig into the Apocrypha, and you’ll find even more variations on what should be the single most important moment in the entire narrative.

          So how does one reconcile these contradictions? Jerusalem was an important city, with traders from all around the region and plenty of Romans, so why did no one report a massive earthquake around 33CE?

          If contradictions aren’t your thing, who did Cain marry? Genesis 4:16-17 has him entering the land of Nod (who named it?) and marrying. Where the heck did Mrs. Cain come from?

          • Trilemma

            If someone wants to make one of these claims an hypothesis and find the evidence to support it, then I’m all for it.

            There are plenty of apologetics on internet that try to reconcile the Gospel accounts. But a clever explanation of how the Gospel accounts might fit together is not evidence that these events actually happened.

            People coming out of the tombs didn’t happen at the crucifixion but sometime after the resurrection. If Genesis is literally true then Cain would have married his sister and Nod would have been the name of place he went when Genesis was written. But how would anyone know where Nod was after the flood?

    • Michael C

      I’m halfway there with you. What’s really the big deal with him taking his 50-60 samples?

      The issue is here, though, is the purpose of the permit requirements and whether or not Dr. Snelling was denied a permit on the basis of his religious beliefs.

      I think the argument that this was religious discrimination is pretty weak.

      • Trilemma

        The religious discrimination argument seems weak but makes for a nifty lawsuit. I think if an atheist scientist who was well known for believing the Grand Canyon was only thousands of years old had requested a permit to look for evidence to support his beliefs would have been denied as well. I think the scientific community tends to be dismissive of ideas that go against the consensus.

  • KissyJ

    If he believes it’s a dead end research then why object? And if he’s a real scientist why is afraid of research? I thought science was about discovery not stifling differing opinions. This suit is justified. These scientist are stupid in there logic. Flat earth was once heavily promoted but we all now know the earth is not. They are afraid this research will just prove the Bible right, again.

    • Tangent002

      The samples Snelling desires are available from other sites without chiseling them out of a national park. If every yahoo with a bizarre idea could go to the Grand Canyon and haul out a box of rocks, there’d be none left.

      • Trilemma

        What other sites? According to the article, Dr. Snelling wasn’t given alternate sites.

        • Chris

          I found it strange that Snelling, a geologist, would know where alternate sites were located.

      • Sharon_at_home

        To be honest I got the impression that the 3 geologists wouldn’t give Snelling the time of day for his request, so why would they allow him to do his own tests on the remains from them?
        I guess it would depend on whether samples for his use were available and/or if they would agree to access to an alternate site.

        • Chris

          “To be honest I got the impression that the 3 geologists wouldn’t give Snelling the time of day for his request…”

          To be fair creationist organisations like AIG, CMI, etc have been caught in lie after lie. Snelling himself is guilty of this. Since that is the case why would they treat him any other way? Scientists are humans too after all.

          • Sharon_at_home

            I can’t imagine lying especially to prove God. God hates liars!
            Besides it’s dumb to lie about something that someone else can see when they examine the evidence.
            It’s truly not of God to lie. It makes me question AiG more.
            Thanks again Chris. You are a blessing to me for helping me understand these things better!

          • Chris

            It’s certainly one of the things that shocked me when I was a Christian. I trusted these creationist leaders. Every time I ran across something dubious which they had claimed I kept telling myself ‘they wouldn’t lie. They’re Christians.’ But they did lie, repeatedly.

            Thank you Sharon. You’ve taught me much as well.

          • Sharon_at_home

            I have? Great! help is what I love to do and it’s only second to making them smile. Since I can’t see you, I still try to imagine what you would smile at.
            I’ve always encouraged people to smile; a friend of my brothers came for a visit and he remembered me as riding my bike around the neighbour with a big smile and He said he (or maybe they) used to call my beamer. I laughed at the memory because it showed me that I was trying to make people smile even when I was probably somewhere between 7 + 11 at the time.
            May God give you peace, Chris. Blessings, Sharon…
            Ok, I’ve admitted I’m a curious person already. What on earth was I able to teach you? Your knowledge seems way beyond my own. As I said, I’m curious.

          • Chris

            You were able to teach me to take a fresh look at how I was behaving. I hope you noticed I’ve adopted a less [let’s say intense] tone with others. Thank you for that.

            And you made me smile with that story as well. So thank you once again.

          • Sharon_at_home

            I’m so glad I made a difference then! And I really like that you have been able to adjust for it. It makes discussions so much more enjoyable and usually more informative, when everyone is getting along.
            When I first came here I was stunned at how some of the Posters were so – you said it, but I mean no disrespect by this – intense about everything and especially to others. I understand why you were intense though Chris, because I get the impression you are more of a gentle man and that you tend to speak quietly. (How’d I do? Grin!) I realize that you only really get your dander up when others are intense to you, and won’t even listen to what you are trying to get them to understand. It’s just as natural as to treat people well and will often bring that treatment right back to you. Did you know it is impossible to keep yelling at a person who is calm and talks very quietly? The yeller wants to hear what the other is saying eventually and it doesn’t take long usually, and can’t hear them because of the yelling, so they have to stop yelling. Then the calmness of the other person and the quiet voice has amazing calming effects too. It would be so different if everyone thought about it. I used to tell teenagers that said their parents always yelled and didn’t hear what the teen said, and it would end up in a yelling match with neither side listening to each other. I had one teenager that looked for me to tell me that it worked with her father and now they have calmer and better discussions instead of yelling at each other. That is what I do, try to make people’s life better in any way I can, even if it’s only a smile I can give them. It makes me so happy when I have someone smile back. A lot of the time I go further and point out what a nice smile it is and that they should do it more often. That always makes their smile widen.
            OH! before I ramble on further I’ll stop here.
            Again, thank you for letting me know (it made me happy) and I guess, for ‘listening’. Keep smiling! God is smiling too! Blessings!

          • Chris

            “May God give you peace, Chris. Blessings, Sharon…”

            Thank you Sharon. May God bless you and yours.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Thank you Chris, you are a good person and I like being able to talk with you. Your blessing means a lot to me, and I thank you.

    • Sisyphus

      Flat Earth was not promoted by science, the church did that, and threatened to execute Galileo.

      • TheLastHonestLawyer

        Galileo was tried for continuing to publish while under orders not to do so. He was also charged with ridiculing the current Pope. At the time of his trial, the Copernican system was being confirmed all over Europe, and even the Church was beginning to accept it.

        • Sisyphus

          Eventually, even religion finds it necessary to accept material facts.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            Indeed. Which leads to the “God of the Gaps” situation where as we understand the realities of the world, the things that God(s) get credit for shrinks.

          • MCrow

            Which has been the argument he’s used so far: ex post facto, these things in the Bible are interpreted as being true because science shows them to be true. The difference is that science explicitly, rather than implicitly, demonstrates such knowledge.

          • Amos Moses

            all material facts come from scripture ….. and no where else ……..

          • Sisyphus

            Text book example of begging the question. Always considered you an idealist versus a materialist Amos.

          • Amos Moses

            definitely NOT a materialist ….. materialism is a lie ……. i am a christian ….. never claimed anything else …………

          • Sisyphus

            Idealism contends reality can be understood through ideas and materialism maintains reality can only be understood via observing material objects. If I understand Christianity, it would classify as idealist.

          • Amos Moses

            no …. that is not what i believe ………. and that is not what christianity is …….. so wrong on those points ………

          • MCrow

            Where in scripture does it say that?

          • Amos Moses

            i did not say it did come from scripture …….. BUT ….. Christ said ….. “I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life” ….. all material facts come from the Creator and the Truth …….. everything else either supports that …. or it is a lie ….. and by default NOT a material fact …….

          • MCrow

            You said “all material facts come from scripture ….. and no where else ……..” By your own logic, it either says that in the Bible or it is false

          • Amos Moses

            nope …. it is not “logic” ……. it is acceptance of the Truth ….. all Truth is “material fact” …. and it does not have to specifically say it to be true ………….. it can be derived ………..

          • MCrow

            You said “all material facts come from scripture ….. and no where else …….”

            So tell me where it says scripture is said to be the sole source of all facts. If it’s in there, it should be something you can at least string together. Or tell me how you derive it, use some verses or chapters.

          • Sharon_at_home

            So why are you implying that Moses doesn’t know the bible like he speaks about? I’ll guarantee he knows it darn well. He knows it and often uses it in his comments, but I don’t know why you think he knows everything since he’s never mentioned that, and only that he knows the bible pretty well.

          • MCrow

            I’m not. I’m implying that his statement that all material facts come from the Bible and no where else is not actually in the Bible…actually, I’m not implying it so much as saying it. I’m sure he knows the Bible very well. I do as well, and I can say that no where does it say that the Scripture is the only source of information I should have. It contains all things necessary for Salvation in the Christian faith, but it does not contain knowledge of advanced medicine, world geography, history outside of the area in which it was written, etc.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Ok. I get it now. I think Christians often think that anything that has progressed in the world, like science for instance, was only in the world because God allowed them to be. (He gave them the knowledge to work with so to speak)
            Moses is very faithful and He is standing up for his faith when he tries to help others understand what he believes.
            We were told not to be as the people in the world are. Perhaps that is why Moses keeps those more ‘modern’ things out of a discussion about his religion? I guess we have to ask Moses. (which you did) and see what he says! Thanks for your help in understanding!

          • Amos Moses

            all material fact is truth ….. Christ is all truth ….. and i already gave you the scripture that says so ………….

          • MCrow

            But not the verse that says all material facts come from scripture. All i see is you shoehorning random verses to fit science. Well done, all you’re doing is showing that scientific discovery has huge bearing on what is true and what is not, or you would simply not care

          • Amos Moses

            material fact ……..

            scripture says the number of stars is similar to the grains of sand on the sea shore …..Genesis 22:17 and Hebrews 11:12 …… and gross scientific ESTIMATES say this is true …….
            22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
            11:12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

          • Amos Moses

            material fact ……….

            Atoms, electrons, neutrons, and all subatomic particles make everything we see ………… Romans ………
            1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

            all matter begins as the invisible and become visible ……

          • MCrow

            In context, that verse is speaking of spiritual realities. Even out of context, it is a huge stretch to argue the Bible was speaking of atoms

          • Amos Moses

            they speak of both …………

          • MCrow

            The verse directly before and after literally speak to revealing God, not atoms. Unless you are suggesting that the wrath of God hinges upon knowing atomic theory.

          • Amos Moses

            yeah ……. it is HIS creation …….. and HE IS REVEALED in HIS creation …….. DUH …… and that creation is of the invisible that becomes visible …… because HE CREATED it that way …..

          • MCrow

            I really want to teach you proper use of an ellipsis.

            That said, I don’t see God revealed in creation. The pre-Roman Greeks and the Indian people also theorized there was an invisible building block of matter. The term ‘atom’ comes from a Greek term for “uncuttable,” and they figured they would hit that point eventually. Neither of these groups believed in Yahweh.

          • Amos Moses

            “That said, I don’t see God revealed in creation. ”

            because you deny a creation …….. and the computer you are using ….. it just spontaneously appeared in front of you one day ……. yeah …… that will work ……..

            name even one thing that was not created ……. oh … right ….. sorry …… YOU CANT ……

            “The pre-Roman Greeks and the Indian people also theorized there was an invisible building block of matter. Neither of these groups believed in Yahweh.”

            so what ………… THEORIZED is just a guess …….. scripture stated it outright ….. the invisible makes up all visible things ….. and it is a direct reflection of Gods nature …….

            1:1 In the beginning (TIME IS CREATED, SCIENCE SAYS IT WAS CREATED)
            God created the heaven (SPACE IS CREATED) and the earth. (ALL MATTER IS CREATED)
            1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.(
            1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (ENERGY IS ADDED TO THE CREATION)

            no other creation account agrees with the evidence ….. and the scriptures declared it THOUSANDS of years ago ………..

          • MCrow

            If we go the “needs a creator” route, what created God? And if you say “God doesn’t need a creator,” well, then, why does the Universe?

            Your concept of theory is not correct. They took what they observed, then created a rule based on it. You are right, though, they ‘hypothesized,’ or created an idea which could be tested. Eventually, they were shown to be correct. Unlike what you are doing with the verse which is cited, which clearly, clearly is referring to things invisible being spiritual matters, but you are twisting to fit your own argument. Taking a single verse out of context can be used to prove almost anything.

            “Slaves, obey your earthly masters.” The Bible promotes slavery!

            Numbers 13:7 encourages killing children. The Bible promotes killing children!

            2 Kings 15:16 encourages ripping children out of the womb. The Bible promotes abortion!

            Single verses. No context. I can make the Bible justify anything.

            Now, to the creation account, a few things are out of order. First, the earth is created before the sun, which does not line up with how the solar system functions. Next, it also says that the sun and the moon were created simultaneously, and that the moon is a ‘light,’ when it is a very solid planetoid. We also know that stars continue to be created.

            I have looked at numerous accounts, various bits of evidence. You have one source that you are attempting to bend to make it fit the jigsaw.

            And again, why bother? If your bible is correct and all else is false, why are you bothering to twist it? Atomic theory can be just as wrong as evolutionary theory, so why twist the Bible to conform to it? Or twist it to fit cosmological phenomena?

          • Amos Moses

            the question is not “what created God” ……… God is by definition NOT a created being ….. He is God ……. the question is …. IF you are consistent … and follow science ….. and there was a “big bang” …… then what was the equal or greater force that caused it …… conservation of matter and energy has to be maintained ….. you do not get to side step those laws because they are inconvenient ……… so what was that greater or equal force …… i know ….. YOU DONT HAVE AN ANSWER …………

          • MCrow

            Well, you only define us as ‘creation’ because you claim God created us. I argue it’s possible we are not created. But then you’ll say something as complex as us needs a more complex creator…of course then you must admit that an infinitely complex being was not created, making that initial “needs a creator” argument invalid.

            I will admit, I don’t know much about cosmological origins. It’s not something I’m particularly interested in. However, just because I don’t have an answer doesn’t mean that yours is correct. Maybe the origins were a deist god who made things and then ignored us. Maybe it was interdimensional aliens. Maybe Islam is right. Maybe we are, as the evidence points to, originated by a sudden, vast expansion of the universe from which before is unknowable. Is that really so bad, to say we aren’t sure?

            It comes back to what I have been trying to get you to answer this whole time: why should I believe the Bible is, as you claim, the source of all facts when the Bible itself does not claim that?

          • Amos Moses

            ” But then you’ll say something as complex as us needs a more complex creator…”

            something as NOT complex as a book or comic strip …… NEEDS A CREATOR ……

            “However, just because I don’t have an answer doesn’t mean that yours is correct. ”

            and your not having an answer ….. is a big problem ….. for you ….. when you are trying to cast doubt on how what was created …. was created …………

            “maybe …. maybe …. maybe …..”

            lots of doubt for a person who seems so certain of what is and what is not ……… its not my job to convince you of God …… my job is to present you the truth ….. if you reject that … it is on you …… but ……… you are the one who came here to pontificate about how things are and came to be ……. and those are good questions to be asking ….. but then to say ….. “i dont know but you are wrong” …… ERROR ……… ERROR …. ERROR ……….

          • MCrow

            Ok, let me break this down, simply.

            If EVERYTHING requires a creator, so does God.

            If God does not require a Creator, then NEITHER do we.

            You don’t get a third option here, since you are the one claiming all or nothing. So, which is it?

            I don’t need to have all the answers to know something is wrong. If someone tells me I can breath water, I won’t believe them. I’ve never tried, and have no intention to, because I know that statement is incorrect. If they tell me that I’m not sure until I try, I’ll admit that is true, but I would not be inclined to do so. This is an extreme example, but I know that the world was not created in 6 days, and I know that the Bible does not, as you claim, contain all material facts.

            I do have doubts. I think critically about things. I don’t assume I have all the answers, which lets me learn and develop. And again, I don’t need to have an answer to know that something is incorrect.

            NOW, are you going to finally cite where the Bible says it contains all material facts, or can I assume you don’t have it?

          • Amos Moses

            nope …. God is not a created being ….. He exists outside of time ….. where God is there is no time …. there is eternity ………. time had to be created to be ……. and there had to be a thing outside of time to create time as science says it was created ……. so what was that force that is outside of time that created it? ………… even the well known a-theist, Steven Hawking says it was created ………. quote …

            In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted.

            so what was that equal or greater force that created it …………..

            if you do not require a creator then you must not exist ….. because everything else is created ……….. so you are saying you do not really exist ……. yes, there is no third option ….. and if you deny God ….. guess what ….. He denies you ….. and your will be done ………..

          • MCrow

            “If you do not require a creator, then you must not exist.” So you’re saying God doesn’t exist? That’s the issue with what you’re arguing: you’re saying there cannot possibly be anything that wasn’t created and anything else is foolish. You then talk about a being that wasn’t created. It’s a contradiction: if god did not need to be created, then it is possible for something to exist without being created, and you acknowledge this is possible.

            Hawking is a favorite for quote mining, and I notice you skip quite a bit of the rest of that lecture to get the one you want. Hawking, at the time of writing, was a Christian and often used the language of ‘creator’ and ‘God.’ You can look it up. He is now openly an atheist and has stopped using that language, but that has not always been so. The first time he openly declared it was a scant few years ago, but he clearly followed the evidence.

            Even if Hawking didn’t retract his statement, I would still disagree with him. Plenty of intelligent people are still wrong about things. Vitamin C doesn’t help your immune system at all. The myth was started when a Nobel Prize winner said it.

            I’m getting tired of debating in circles. Are you going to answer my original question? If not, I’m going to stop answering your replies as you clearly have no interest in an open and honest discussion

          • Amos Moses

            God exists …. when you deny God …. you do not exist ….. no contradiction … paradox …….. your question was asked and answered …. you reject the truth ………….

          • MCrow

            No answer, then. Fine see you

          • Amos Moses

            answered … and you did not like the answer ….. and you were never interested “in an open and honest discussion” … you wanted to argue with christians …. and you got what you came for ……… so what …..

          • MCrow

            You never told me where in the Bible it says the Bible is the only source of material facts. You still have not

          • Amos Moses

            it does not have to state it …… it is the truth …… all material fact comes from the truth …… Christ is the way the truth and the life …… declared ….. and i gave you example after example of the material facts it contains …. you reject it and you reject the truth …. so i guess we are done ………..

          • MCrow

            It declares it, but why should I believe it? If you are being honest, you accept it based on faith, not facts. Jesus himself said “blessed are they who have not seen, but believe.”

            Also, you are mixing up “contains” with “contains all.” A math book contains fact. Nothing but facts, actually. It doesn’t contain all facts, though. It does not talk about history, biology or chemistry. That makes it no less true.

            If you want to say the Bible is true, fine. I don’t care. What I do care about is crippling other institutions for your religion.

          • Amos Moses

            again …. the truth is either accepted or rejected ……. it is self evident ….. it requires no proof ….. it is the proof ….. you reject it ….. and you reject it because the truth is not in you …… you are unable to see it …… because you stand in the way of your own perception ……. it is not my job to convince you of the truth ………. “It does not talk about history, biology or chemistry.” ……. yes it does ….. you just cannot recognize it ….. because as i said …. the truth is not in you ………..

          • MCrow

            Oh, also, on the pontificating bit, I believe when Christians do it in non-Christian forums, they call it ‘evangelization.’

          • Amos Moses

            it is evangelization no matter where it is done ………

          • MCrow

            Not disagreeing, but pointing out that it’s only fair when I come on and do the same.

          • Amos Moses

            i have no problem with you stating your opinion …… but it will be called what it is ….. lies ….. if they are contrary to scripture …………..

          • Amos Moses

            material fact ………

            Light waves and radio waves can be used for communication …… Job 38:35 ……… that is most of MODERN communication
            38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

          • MCrow

            …lightning is neithe rlight nor radio…it’s electricity…it’s a shaft of plasma generated by static discharge. Also, I can, in fact, send lightning where I want to go.

            It’s called a lightning rod

          • Amos Moses

            material fact ………

            information about disease and life condition in the blood …. the basis of modern medicine ….. in Leviticus THOUSANDS of years ago ….. you can get almost any medical treatment without blood work …….
            17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

          • MCrow

            Man, it’s not hard to say that a person needs blood to live. Literally cut a man and he can bleed to death. Aztecs also believed blood contained life essence. Human sacrifice and all…

          • Amos Moses

            material fact ……..

            Earth FLOATS in space ……… the bible told us this 3000 years ago ………..when the rest of the world said it sat on elephants or turtles or Atlas’ shoulders …….
            26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
            26:8 He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them.

          • MCrow

            Just going to ignore the “four corners of the earth” bit, are we? Keep in mind, a lot of flat earth believers are biblical literalists.

          • Amos Moses

            four corners refers to the points on the compass ….. and you are going to ignore what was posted ……..

          • MCrow

            You mean like you are ignoring my original question?

            The earth does not “hang,” nor does it “float.” It maintains a relative velocity, deals with centrifugal force, gravity, and a lot of factors. But to say it “hangs upon nothing” isn’t accurate.

          • Amos Moses

            material fact ……..

            Modern asepsis …………. not discovered in modern science until the 1800’s ….. in Leviticus THOUSANDS of years ago ….. recorded in the bible ………… especially quarantine …. not used in MODERN science/medicine until the 1700’s ………..

          • MCrow

            Asepsis is stretching it. They knew that if you did X, a person would be less likely to be sick. You see the same thing in pre-nation Europe as people seeing apothecaries and alchemists. They knew the things worked, but they could not explain why. The Bible does not explain why, either. These people had no contact with the Jews, so my conclusion is that it was through trial and error, i.e. scientific discovery.

          • Amos Moses

            the stars are innumerable to man …… Jeremiah 33:22 ….
            33:22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.

            and yet they are finite ….
            40:26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.
            and God calls them by name …..
            147:4 He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names.

          • MCrow

            Actually, stars are numerable. Scientists catalog and name them all the time. Yes, there are a lot, but they’re not infinite. Ex post facto knowledge.

          • Amos Moses

            28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
            28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
            28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
            28:12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
            28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s the Qur’an that says the earth is flat, not the Bible.

          • Sisyphus

            The Qur’an…. another religious text I waste no time reading.

      • Amos Moses

        gee …. when you actually read scripture ….. it says no such thing ………

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        Uh, no, that was “science” at one point, and it was the catholic cult, not the church. Galileo himself was a Christian.

        • Tangent002

          No, science didn’t exist back when people thought the world was flat. There was no such thing as the “scientific method” or “peer review.” The best you can say is that a flat Earth was the commonly accepted world view.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So you don’t think Galileo was a scientist?

    • Colin Rafferty

      The Flat Earth Theory was never promoted by the majority of educated people. The myth of Columbus battling the entrenched scientific community about that is a corruption of what actually happened. All educated people knew the Earth was a sphere, but he believed the Earth was only 8000 miles in circumference, which is why he expected to get to Asia traveling West. He was very lucky there was another continent out there.

  • SFBruce

    It’s interesting that Snelling is called a “Christian geologist.” So, are there also Methodist and Baptist geologists? Jewish geologists and Buddhist geologists? I’m certainly not arguing that you can’t believe in God and also be a scientist, but actual scientists don’t approach their work with fixed, unchanging ideas and then look for, or manipulate, data to support those fixed, unchanging ideas. Again, if you’re convinced that the acceptance of certain beliefs are essential to the salvation of your soul, by all means follow your conscience. But that’s faith, not science.

    • Amos Moses

      “actual scientists don’t approach their work with fixed, unchanging ideas and then look for, or manipulate, data to support those fixed, unchanging ideas.”

      actually that is the only REAL science (minus the manipulation) …… truth does not change ….. science either confirms and aligns with the truth ….. or it is garbage ……. science is not a needed element of the truth …… truth is independent of any supporting structure like science, logic, or anything else …… and what most such “sceince” that is put forward here in this forum is exactly what you describe …… i.e. ” then look for, or manipulate, data to support those fixed, unchanging ideas” minus any truth to measure it by …… and it is garbage ………… because without the truth as a guide …… all you have is your own made up garbage ………..

    • cadcoke5

      If a scientist is faithful to omit any possibility that God could have caused a geologic event, then they are pushing a religious faith into their work. It may be and atheistic or deistic faith, but it is no different than a Christian accepting the historical record in scripture, and looking to see how the evidence fits into that history.

    • Sharon_at_home

      “but actual scientists don’t approach their work with fixed, unchanging
      ideas and then look for, or manipulate, data to support those fixed,
      unchanging ideas.”
      I think that should be made to say Some ‘actual’ scientists. Because I know of one by my older brother’s experience. He worked in the lab where they were looking at healing bones with electricity, and he was doing an experiment that looked at the changes in the bone while they experimented. He was not finished his experiments and wasn’t confident of the conclusion, but the man apparently would not let him, wrote his own conclusions on very little of my brothers observations, and pushed it through whatever the next part of the chain would be. My brother left the job because of it because he didn’t feel it was ethical to lie and guess what the conclusion would be without more testing.

      So there are of course many scientists that don’t approach their work the way others do, I guess.

      I think Dr. Snelling is called that because of his association with the AiG. It would be a reasonable assumption, wouldn’t it?

      • Chris

        It’s certainly true that some scientists have received opposition to their ideas rather than a fair hearing, Ignaz Semmelweis for one. But science has a method of dealing with such opposition – the slow accumulation of evidence. There is a saying – ‘we have the evidence so we win’. In science that’s exactly how it works. You bring enough supporting evidence and it doesn’t matter how extreme the prejudice against your views at least some scientists are going to review the evidence and think ‘they may have a point’.

        To accomplish that though you have to use the scientific method. No creationist organization uses the scientific method. They start with their conclusion first and then review the evidence, cherry picking as they go. That’s not science. That’s not even honest scholarship.

        • Sharon_at_home

          I think they probably feel that God’s Word says ‘this’ and that is what they are going to prove. Rather than God’s Word says ‘this’ and we need evidence to prove it.
          I can see Creationists looking at it differently than scientists, and they feel that if it is of God, it should not need Science to provide evidence, but God is not revealed unless He wants to be. I’m not saying it is better or worse, but it seems a weird way to go after evidence either way.
          I can understand finding something and finding the evidence that supports God, but not the other way around. God would lead them to what they require if He wanted something shown. At least that’s what I believe.
          By lying about something they said was proof, it makes them questionable for anything else they say. They are trying to show the unbelievers what God did in the bible, and trying to get them to turn to Jesus, but that is definitely not the way! God would never agree to lying.
          Thanks again!

      • SFBruce

        You make a good point. I’m certainly don’t mean to suggest that every single individual scientist is a paragon of virtue, but there are mechanisms that help ensure bad science is found out. Responsible scientists subject their work to peer review, a process whereby other scientists review the methodology used, including the way data are accumulated and the conclusions drawn. It’s also important that studies are replicable. This simply means if the study’s results are accurate, another scientist should be able to repeat the study with essentially the same outcome.

        I question calling anyone a “Christian” geologist because a scientist’s faith or lack thereof is irrelevant to his or her work as a scientist. He or she either does evidence-driven research using sound methodologies or they don’t.

  • NCOriolesFan

    I think the 3 universities should take a deep look at the religious bigotry of their professors. Their quotes are as outlandish as they claim the research of Dr. Andrew Snelling is.

  • Chris

    Ah good old Andrew Snelling. The guy who speaks of millions of years in his scientific papers and only a few thousand years when he’s speaking to creationists. What a guy.

  • Joseph Meert

    Generally speaking, scientific proposals in national parks are evaluated by a team of scientists and many requests are denied (creation science or otherwise). This is to protect the parks from being damaged. I’ve not read the proposal, but the three scientists who did are top-notch and if the NPS sought their counsel and denied the request, then that’s just science folks.

  • Tangent002

    Kinda. Hypotheses are generally based on at least some evidence. Snelling already emphatically asserts that radiometric dating is false and the Grand Canyon is orders of magnitude younger than generally accepted, without any evidence at all, except the grievously faulty findings of the RATE study.

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    CHRISTIAN GEOLOGIST DROPS LAWSUIT AFTER PARK SERVICE BACKS DOWN
    Bureaucrats imposed years of red tape on simple permit request for Grand Canyon rock hunt