Hi CTD, still having trouble dealing with the issues eh?
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.
What it means is that I look deeper than just the superficial appearances of things to see what they really mean. The best explanation is one that explains ALL the evidence, not just the bits and parts that fit certain conceptions. After all, if one is free to ignore evidence then one can believe the world is flat.
Only a simplistic view could consider that a 20 year old clam was evidence of an event measured in days. Such a simplistic view must ignore most of the evidence that it claims supports it, a curious position to take.
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.
So, if you don't start with
flat land, you must think there was an initial canyon before any flood occurred? You must also agree that the flow level inside this initial canyon never overtopped any of the pennisula formations formed by the meandering river carved deep into the rock? that the flow never exceeded the capacity of the canyon?
One has to wonder then, how anyone can think that this is evidence of the flood: a pre-existing canyon already confines the flow, and flows so low that they don't fill the canyon and that are indistinguishable from the erosion caused by known flow, including seasonal and climatological variations.
Just as we see with the 20 year old clam on top of a mountain, the ability of a flood to actually explain the evidence evaporates when you look at (all) the details in depth.
Of course, in the evostory, the River, way back in imaginary time, flowed (uphill) over fairly flat terrain.
Nope, that is a creationist falsehood. You should try seeing what geologists actually say.
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.
Of course, you also don't have any evidence to present to contradict this either: mockery is an empty argument, built on lack of substance.
The fact remains that the Grand Canyon meanders in a "V" shaped canyon. The fact remains that flood flows create wide flat canyons like the scablands. It seems we are agreed that the Grand Canyon does
not - at any location - look like this:
![[Linked Image]](http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/projects/geoweb/participants/dutch/GeoPhotoVtrips/Scablands1994/DSC27286s.JPG)
Now we do have evidence that the scablands were caused by flood outflows that were massive, and that they were also
repeated several times in the past. The curious thing, is that if you ran
ONE of those repeated scabland flows through the Grand Canyon now it would destroy many of the existing features.
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.
And yet, curiously, we still see no example of one of these "elegant explanations" nor any discussion of how it explains the actual evidence of the Grand Canyon, meanders, "V" shaped canyons, perpendicular tributary canyons that have perpendicular tributary canyons that flow in the opposite direction of the Colorado river.
One should not mistake "inadequate" or "incomplete" for "elegant" ...
Enjoy.
