You have not answered my question about what your "creation science" model is.
I have not yet claimed to be the author of any creation science model, have I?
I said that if it wasn't legitimate, you would dodge the question. So far that looks to be the case.
What about if it didn't exist? What would I do in that case? You never said...
How do you people make up such things? What do you call this, the ghost straw man, or something? If you paid a little attention, you might not need to go about inventing new logical fallacies.
You have not explained why the Grand Canyon is different from the scablands in Washington state, which were carved by a flood.
So? I haven't promised to explain this either. Maybe if someone would convince me they'd pay attention and try to understand... But that's almost impossible.
There is no evidence that you have even bothered to find out what these are or what features they exhibit which we expect to see in a flood-carved area.
I'm not terribly concerned about what you expect, or what you'd cop to expecting. Contrary to uniformitarian philosophy, not all floods are identical, and not all floods produce identical results. We could look at pictures of the Nile and claim the Scablands can't be the result of flooding.
But we already have a pretty good idea what you 'expect': Whatever suits your purpose. Rivers form deltas; yet you cannot 'expect' a delta when to do so would jeopardize your evomyth, can you? You cannot expect erosion to chew away at layers containing sea fossils while they ever-so-slowly rise up to become the highest mountain range in the world, oh no!
Methinks your expectations are restricted and bounded by your desires.
I told you that brachiopods are found in layers in the Grand Canyon, as well as on the top of Mt. Everest. Again, we have layer after layer of 20-year-old clams which grew anchored to the river bottom.
Really? In RAZD's straw man the clams grew 20 years during the Great Flood. Please form a consensus about which straw man to use.
I also provided a link which explains how we know that they weren't just washed there, but grew in place.
Are you actually, EVER, going to address any of the evidence?
Are you EVER going to LOOK AT any of the evidence?
My hypothesis is: you can't. Because creation "science" is no such thing, and in order to believe in it you have to ignore reality. We're asking you not to ignore it, we're asking you to address it, and it simply isn't possible for you is it?
I can't read your mind, so until you decide which straw man you wish to discuss... Even then, I don't really care about any of your straw men. Suppose one of them was just super-vulnerable, and you utterly destroyed it. What difference would it make?
It's not very risky to hypothesize that the reason you have to attack straw men is because you find the truth far too difficult to attack.
All you are able to do here is insult people and claim that scientists are liars.
Source?
So far, the best of the whole lot in this thread is Linear's idea that the high spot has just always been creeping its way higher and higher. One wonders how deep a chasm was present '4.5 billion years ago'. Or how long it will take this special spot to grow up and protrude out of the atmosphere. Extrapolations can be fun. Given time, it should be able to swat at the moon like a softball bat.
I think we're about due for someone to post something really, really funny. At least I hope so. I'm bored.
