I guess you don't agree with the USGS evidence that those areas, where Hovind says the river had to flow uphill to cut through them, are actually rising. Annual surveying shows them rising at a rate that would have put the land below the river's starting point millions of years ago.
I guess you also employ the term 'evidence' when you actually mean "conclusions of evolutionists".
Could you be a little more clear on how you can say that survey results showing the altitude of the area in question rising each decade can be considered "conclusions"? The land is rising and the only way you can conclude that the land was not ever low enough for the river to traverse it when the canyon was first being cut is to ignore all evidence that the earth is millions of years old. That would make the Hovind "evidence" merely a "creationist conclusion". By your own, and Hovind's, reasoning for scrapping the uplift as evidence of slow erosion of the Grand Canyon, you must also scrap your "evidence" of the land altitude being indicative of a flash flood erosion. Of course that leaves you with no support for your contention while other geologic evidence still supports the slow erosion consensus of geologists.
It seems that you feel your snide remarks allow you to ignore RAZD's post #35985. It is the second one in this thread. It discusses what PHD Geologists have concluded from decades of studying the Grand Canyon geology. I am anxious to hear your erudite rebuttal to the evidence put forth in the links that he references.
Why should I pretend RAZD made even a dent in the case presented by the video? Even the lowliest peasants can see the evomythology about the Grand Canyon is a brazen insult to the intelligence of all who hear it.
As erudite and on topic as usual, I see.
You don't have to pretend anything concerning RAZD's post #35985. However, you should consider this. Your refusal to properly address the points in his post lend credence to the accuracy of that information and also indicate a fear on your part to actually confront the "evidence". Even the lowliest peasants can see that.
If you really feel that your position is defensible and has the upper hand in so far as the evidence is concerned, then why do you not step up to the plate?
Russ has stated: "When people attempt to tell a lie that is so obviously a lie, the only intellectual tactic they can resort to is "distraction". If they are desperate, they will often resort to character assassination as well." That is all you have done since you have been on this forum. You have used insulting language regarding evolution and evolutionists without a shred of evidence to support those claims. You fail to address direct rebuttals to your evidence and conclusion. Instead you choose to either ignore the rebuttal, misrepresent the rebuttal, or insult the person providing the rebuttal.
This is why I find myself doubting your claim of belief in Young Earth Creationism. You don't even try to defend it in any coherent manner. Is that because you believe it to be a lie?
