Hey guys, this is Matt Powell.
So the Grand Canyon is probably one of my favorite places to go to demonstrate that the Flood of Noah is a fact,
because the Grand Canyon is where the geologic column is, and the geologic column is where evolution is based from.
And they say you have Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Archaeozoic ages in the Grand Canyon, and they say that this all represents
millions of years of supposed geologic time where one layer slowly formed upon another.
But the truth is that we find no erosion, virtually no erosion marks, between the layers.
If you have a layer forming, and then it takes a long time for the next layer to form,
you would expect to find erosion if you were to break the layers apart.
But when you break certain of the layers apart, you'll often find that there are water ripples connecting each of the layers.
So what that means is that it was laid down by water, and sedimentary rock,
which the Grand Canyon is even made out of, is defined as rock that was laid down by water.
So whenever people say the phrase Grand Canyon, it literally is defined as sedimentary rock,
which is defined as rock that was laid down by water.
So the name Grand Canyon literally means
canyon that was caused by a flood, layers that were laid down by water.
Now if certain of these layers were exposed for millions of years,
we would expect to find animal holes between the layers.
I mean if you have a layer forming, and then it takes a long time for the next layer to form,
you would expect to find animal holes between the layers of
animals that lived during those supposed ages that burrowed down in those layers during those ages.
And so we don't find that at all.
There is no animal holes whatsoever, no bioliteration.
And if certain of these layers were exposed for millions of years,
you would expect to find root remains of plants and trees
that grew down into the ground and put their roots down into the ground.
But again, we don't find that
because those layers were all formed at the same time in one event.
Now to answer an objection that I've heard from Bill Nye,
he stated that all of the clams were at the bottom layers,
all the lizards were closer to the bottom, and all the mammals were closer to the top, and the birds were up at the top layers.
So he says that you see how we evolved over time.
But the truth is that that's simply how the flood sorted it.
The flood sorted things based on their buoyancy.
And so of course the flood waters would put all the heavy stuff on the bottom,
not so heavy stuff closer to the bottom, less heavy stuff closer to the top, and then birds at the top, of course, because they're
the last ones to die.
And so when they see, well you see how we evolved over time.
It's such a con artist trick.
They don't actually think it through.
People that take and consider this, they don't think about what they're even being told, that they evolved from a sponge or that we all
evolved from literal jellyfish.
That's what evolution teaches, is that we evolved from jellyfish.
I always like to ask people, do you think that your ancient ancestor was a fish?
You know, it's like the incredible Mr. Limpet 2.0.
I wish, I wish I were a fish. Well, according to them, we were fish.
Millions of years ago.
Now another reason that we know that all of the layers were deposited in one event is because we find trilobite trails
before we actually find the trilobite fossil.
Millions of years before. And so what that proves is that when the flood waters were coming in and mud was being deposited,
these trilobites were trying to work their way up through the mud and they died in the upper layers
not able to outrun the mud.
You find salamander tracks and amphibian tracks 15 million years before you actually find the actual salamander that made the tracks.
I mean, let that sink in. You find trails of all sorts of different animals
before you actually find the animal that made the trail supposedly 15 or 20 million years
before the animal that actually made the trail that was found in the upper layers.
So it just completely falsifies
evolution because evolution is actually based on the geologic column and if the geologic column is false
evolution is false and it falsifies the theory from the bottom up and from the top down because that's where they base
evolution theory off of.
Charles Lyell said that his goal in life, and he was the one who invented the geologic column time scale,
he said that his goal in life was to free the sciences of Moses.
So Charles Lyell just hated God, he hated the Bible, and so he made up a complete and utter fairy tale
known as the geologic column. The Grand Canyon is absolute proof of a global event of a worldwide flood.
That's why we find 10,000 adult myosaur in the center of the United States buried together and they had left their young behind.
I mean, you think about it, that water that was coming in was states away
from the central part of the United States where the
myosaur, the 10,000 adult myosaur, were even buried and so that's not even part of the Grand Canyon.
But if we look all over the world, we see tons of flood evidence. We find
dinosaurs. A t-rex in particular that I could think of that was found under 50 feet of sediment.
And if you look at the fossil, it died in a position that it was gasping for air. It had suffocated
to death and that's how it died and it was preserved under 50 feet of mud. Let me ask you a question.
What would cause a t-rex, a fully grown t-rex dinosaur, to be engulfed and
encapsulated under 50 feet of mud and dying in a suffocation position?
The only way to explain that is the flood of Noah. There is no other option.
See, that's what people need to understand is that when they discount the global flood, they're taking away from science.
They're actually denying science and a lot of times they do it ignorantly, but there are some who do it willfully ignorantly.
Now when you point these things out about the fossils
that are found out of place and the fact that you find tracks before you actually find the animals,
15 million, 20 million, or even 30 or 40 million before finding the animals that supposedly existed
after those tracks existed in the layers, when you point this out to evolutionists,
typically what they do is they will say, well, we radiometrically date the Grand Canyon rock layers and so
radiometric dating proves that the Grand Canyon is
millions of years old and we evolved over time and that it represents millions of years of time. Well, the problem with that is that
radiometric rock dating has never worked even once for rocks of known age.
I mean, think about it. In 1980, Mount St. Helens erupted and it created igneous rock that flowed down the side of the mountain and
some creation scientists took and tested this rock, this fresh rock, that was less than 10 years old about 10 years after it had erupted and
so it was the worst volcano in US history.
Well, they sent the rock samples that were less than 10 years old to five different laboratories known as the Geochron Laboratories,
all of our best. And so they dated these rocks and the ages that they came back with were
astounding.
The samples came back as follows. The first one,
340,000 years. The second,
350,000 years. The third,
900,000 years. One came back as seven million years old.
Now this is the dating method that they're saying is reliable and we can date the crust of the earth
using this method.
Another one came back as 2.8 million years old. So here's the thing. Those are vastly different ages.
So if they can't even get a consistent date on rocks of known age,
how are we supposed to trust this radiometric dating process for rocks of unknown age? The Geochron Laboratories
used the radiometric dating process on
rocks that were the same age, less than 10 years old each, and
came to vastly different ages. Seven million years on one of them,
340,000 years on another one, 350,000 years, 2.8 million years on another rock. I mean, these are all the same age rocks
but they all come back as different ages, vastly different ages, which literally proves beyond any shadow of doubt
that this radiometric dating process is no good and that it's unscientific and should be thrown in the trash can.
you