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!)
I suppose that this in some way addresses the issues that RAZD brought up. However, I don't see how.
I see that you are like Russ in that you are able to express these enormous logical leaps which make sense to you but seem to be over our heads. Since you obviously want to be understood, could you point out exactly how RAZD's explanation and examples match up with the logic (illogic?) twist-and-turn illustration you provided?
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.
Could you be a little more specific here? I saw the clam fossils and the Grand Canyon evidence as 2 different issues that contradict the Flood story. Can you show me how RAZD misleads us by making them the same thing? Please be specific and remember you are writing to someone whom you believe is of low intelligence.
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.
I think RAZD is saying that if there were a flood drainage that carried lots of mud, and the Grand Canyon did not already exist, then the carving out by the flood waters would look very different than the Grand Canyon looks now. Are you saying that the Canyon was already there when the flood waters were receding and that's why it was carved differently by those flood waters? This is getting confusing for me because it seems like you are saying that the Grand Canyon caused the flood waters to carve the Grand Canyon the way it was carved???
Please explain this in simple terms that I can understand.
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.[quote]
Help!! I really don't understand what you are saying here, either. The uphill flow has already been explained by something called plate tectonics, which you agreed is a fact. Are you saying that RAZD's explanation that the meanders would have been compromised by a massive influx of water, combined with actual data showing that they have not been compromised, is a problem for "evostory"? Again, this must be another teaching moment. Please connect the dots using simple language.
[quote]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.)
Again, I don't see how what RAZD said is "special pleading". Maybe you could be more direct and point out exactly where RAZD's explanation becomes special pleading.
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.
Maybe you could show us a direct comparison between the two that:
1. Shows the places where the evologic performs each flip and twist.
2. How the elegant explanations provided by creation science mesh with the evidence. That would require details in the creation science explanation that go beyond "Lots of water flowed and we wound up with a formation kinda like the ruts in a dirt road after the rain."
3. Shows where evologic fails to explain particular formations in the Great Rut and creation science flood recession explains them exactly.
By the way, you came dangerously close to posting something that did not contain demeaning remarks or insults. I guess
Pwcca better start sharpening up his razor.
