Yes, CTD, creationists have all kinds of evidence that they misrepresent.
your link
http://creationsafaris.com/crev0702.htm is typical.
On the western end, a series of volcanic lava flows dammed the canyon several times, forming lakes that filled quickly and broke catastrophically, “almost instantaneously.” Using the cosmogenic radionuclide method, they dated one of the lava flows at only 1300 years old.
A typical "misrepresentation", eh? Well then why don't we take a look?
The portion you've chosen says "On the western end, a series of volcanic lava flows dammed the canyon several times..." I don't see you disputing this or presenting evidence that it didn't happen.
It says this happened "...forming lakes that filled quickly and broke catastrophically, “'almost instantaneously.'” Again, you offer no evidence or argument. You do not point out any mistakes.
Finally, it says "Using the cosmogenic radionuclide method, they dated one of the lava flows at only 1300 years old." If there were no mistakes in the previous parts, this looks like the last chance. Yet you still do not even attempt to demonstrate a mistake.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that in RAZDese a straightforward report containing nothing to be disputed constitutes a "typical creationist misrepresentation". I cannot say for certain without further review, but I have a strong hunch this is precisely the same meaning the term has in Standardized Evolutionese.
Which can only happen once the canyon has already formed, and later volcanic activity causes the lava flow. You will note that they mention "several times," not once, and you will also note that none of these flows were high enough to fill the canyon.
Dating of the lava does not mean that the canyon is only 1300 years old, just the lava. The rocks in the canyon still date substantially older.
As nobody has stated or implied that dating the lava = dating the canyon, you're either playing straw man games or spelling things out to a degree that borders on absurdity for your slow-witted fellows. I'd have to toss a coin on that one.
Simple math shows the largest recorded flows in the Grand Canyon are much less than flood flows recorded in other places, and all these flows, whether in the Grand Canyon or elsewhere, occurred in multiple instances and at different times in the geological past.
In other words the flows in Grand Canyon, while large, are not large enough to be due to biblical flood flows. They are however, large enough to erode the land faster than it has, has been and is rising. Sufficient to account for the canyon being cut through a - now - high point, one of those issues that the biblical flood cut concept fails to explain.
Try again?
Enjoy.
Lots of words, but meaningless. Rate x duration = volume. Comparing rates alone, while omitting durations, tells one nothing about total volume.
And all for what? Just another straw man! Just another member of the straw army marauding about the forum these days. Yes, some of them are slain, but a good number remain in outstanding condition like this one - not a scratch on him! It's got to be depressing when you can't even whup your own straw men.
And this one's pretty lacking in the quality department. There's been no suggestion whatsoever that all the waters of the Great Flood flowed through the Grand Canyon. You were grasping at straws just to create this.
L-evo's please PM RAZD and ask him to take a break. It'll save you a lot of embarrassment.
