Hi LinearAq,
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.
Another piece of evidence against the Grand Canyon being carved by flood outflow is that everyplace where you have a meandering river in a flat area -- say the Mississippi, for instance -- and you have a flood, the flood waters cut across the meanders during the flood, straightening the river course, plugging the ends of the old meanders with sediment and creating "
oxbow" lakes" ... there are
no such oxbow lakes or abandoned watercourses in the Grand Canyon, meaning that there was never water high enough to cut across a meander section, even though some of the peninsula's formed by the meanders are lower than the canyon rims.
This picture
http://www.nps.gov/archive/grca/photos/images/T441.jpgshows a perpendicular tributary canyon and knife thin peninsula's also perpendicular to the main river.
These are features not made by flood outflows.
Enjoy.
Lately, RAZD's arguments follow an odd formula. The idea is to take that which should lead a person to think one thing, and twist & turn things & extract the opposite conclusion.
Works something like this:
Cats are bigger than mice.
Cats have claws and sharp fangs.
Cats eat mice.
Elephants are much bigger than cats, and more dangerous.
Elephants are afraid of mice.
Therefore, cats are afraid of mice.
I'm curious to see if he's the only one using this formula, or if it's some sort of new fad. It's really just a ploy to exploit short attention spans, & create an argument that nobody will bother to counter. Really, why would anyone bother? (But oh, don't the cheerleaders emerge when one doesn't!)
The clam issue is one example, and this Grand Canyon story is another. He mistakenly condensed this one into one post, so it's very simple to dissect.
Another piece of evidence against the Grand Canyon being carved by flood outflow is that everyplace where you have a meandering river in a flat area -- say the Mississippi, for instance -- and you have a flood, the flood waters cut across the meanders during the flood,
One of the first things one should be expected to notice about the Grand Canyon is that it's not flat. Those who overlook this detail may happily nod in agreement with RAZD, while others are left to scratch their heads, wondering what he's talking about.
Of course, in the evostory, the River, way back in imaginary time, flowed (uphill) over fairly flat terrain. So if what RAZD says is true, any flooding would have cut some of the meanders. We have no evidence that it did so, according to RAZD. So in reality (you know, the realm avoided by evolutionists), this is actually just one more big problem for the evostory.
I suppose they could posit tens of millions of years passing with no flooding, and the faithful would buy into it, but those lacking the special predisposition are going to view this as a flaw. Evolutionism has had a long relationship with special pleading, so we shouldn't be surprised the marriage endure. (Actually, all logical fallacies are members of the harem.)
But compare the flips & twists one has to do to convince oneself the Grand Canyon is evoaged to the elegant explanations provided by creation science. The evogarbage can't compete; it isn't even in the same league. Research based upon trying to find the truth is
so much better than fantasies invented to prop up disintegrating mythology.
