Still no substance here. I seem to be beginning every post to you in this way.
I don't think that's against the forum rules. Spend your credibility as you see fit.
You said in a post to RAZD that he knew nothing about "creationist models." I asked you to present one.
You asked for
my model. That's a pretty specific 'one', and I haven't written anything up.
You continue not to do so. I said that if it were legitimate science, it would withstand scrutiny, but you obviously don't think it will stand up to that so you've obfuscated as usual.
Really? I thought I was pretty clear. I have not written up a creation science model. Which part is unclear?
All you've done so far in this thread is say "I don't believe it" without giving any evidence as to why, and you have not presented an alternative model.
Actually there was a video in the first post of the thread. Folks have said they don't believe it, and so far nobody's given any reasoning or evidence that's worth 2 cents.
The flaws are pretty obvious, without exception. For the benefit of those who aren't in the habit of thinking too much about this stuff, and for laughs, I point out some of these flaws. Mostly for laughs.
You've been asked to look at the links provided here to information about the scablands and see how they are different from the formations in the Grand Canyon. This is called geography. The links are quite accessible, with lots of photos. The scablands aren't some freak of nature, they are characteristic of what scientists have found when they have studied areas carved by floods. (Last time I looked, the Nile area had not been carved by a catastrophic flood, so your comment there seems rather bizarre.
Well, one might say the same for the Mississippi, yet RAZD thinks we should look at it to see what flooding does. I'm guessing he'd prefer that we don't follow the Father of Waters all the way down to the Gulf - you know what's there.
There are formations in the Grand Canyon that would have been washed away by a flood.
There isn't much that a flood won't wash away if it lasts long enough. It's mostly a question of duration. This point seems exceedingly obvious to me, but if you're going to claim not to understand I think I can be excused for pointing it out.
You ignore every inconvenient point such as this.
How about bringing up a point that is both inconvenient and valid? This business of searching the world for flood results & rivers that differ from the Grand Canyon just doesn't cut it. Neither does the rest of the nonsense.
I've already asked someone else here today this question: are you interested in facing reality, or only when it suits?
I'm guessing the 'someone else' wasn't yourself.
That would include explaining why there are multiple layers of brachiopods ("clams") in the Grand Canyon which show all the signs of having grown there for their 20-year lifespans.
Didn't see anything about them in your links. I wonder whether this is because you could find no links supporting your claim, or you misinterpreted what they say.
According to creationist flood models, they had to have been washed there, but that is not consistent with the evidence.
Which models? If you have one you'd like to discuss...
Regarding LinearAQ telling you that the Himalayas are still being uplifted, check any geological website. He's not making it up. You also should try Googling plate tectonics.
Why do you pretend I said it wasn't so? Someone's making something up. For the record, I fully expect to see residual tectonic activity.
I enjoy talking here with people who bring up interesting points for discussion and who attempt to back up their views in some way. It's getting to be tedious to address post after post which does nothing but blather. What are you actually doing here, if you don't want to engage with what people are saying?
Yeah Right...
Your whole problem is that I actually do read what people are saying. You take the polarized approach of just figuring out who's side someone is on & letting it go at that. You don't care if it makes any sense at all if you like the conclusion, and you don't care how sound the reasoning and how solid the evidence is if you oppose the conclusion.
And you don't allow anyone to even doubt that this is the case. Diverting discussions is your whole game. You always sling mud at sources & resort to false accusations rather than sticking to any topic. Ever consider learning some of the alternative approaches?
While googling to find out just exactly what kinds of fossils are found in the Grand Canyon area, I found a little more evidence.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/09067.htmAnother interesting track was found in the Permian Hermit Shale of the Grand Canyon (Gilmore 1927). It looks precisely like a bird track, but since birds are not thought to have evolved until the Mesozoic, this Permian track is just listed as an "unidentified track"
So it
would be an out-of-place fossil, but only if one is (is this the term?)'unsophisticated' enough to take it at face value. Or maybe 'unimaginative' might be preferred? After all, the workaround in this case is to
imagine a non-bird leaving a bird's footprint.
