CTD, to repeat, you said that RAZD knows nothing about "creationist models". I asked you to present one. What were you referring to exactly? Your continual failure to do so is telling.
Your continued attempts to sidetrack the discussion are telling. You have already indicated that you are familiar with creation science models. Either you know where & how to find them yourself, or reading a handful of talkdeceptions' slanders constitutes 'familiarity'.
Referring to rivers that periodically flood, such as the Nile and the Mississippi, is evidence for a global flood, or that said flood carved the Grand Canyon . . . how exactly?
Why don't you answer that one yourself? Or is your reading comprehension so poor that you think I ever said this?
Okay.
You seem much more certain about this "in place growth" than the author of the one article. His article is really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the difficulties a flood geologist will face if he tries to employ the shortcut of using evodates in his research. All any of those designations mean is that certain fossils were found in the rock - they don't indicate the composition, relative position, or depth of the stone. That the shortcut doesn't work well has been known for quite some time. I would urge anyone not to employ it.
The author of the other, well, his idea is interesting if it can be confirmed. From what I can tell, that soft tissue "stalk" he claims to have discovered might just as easily be a parasite.
I see no mention of any of these indicators in connection with the fossils found in the Grand Canyon. Your sources are lacking in detail, and I suspect you're putting a lot of effort into erecting a straw man which has nothing to do with what is thought to have taken place.
The major tectonic activity that took place was probably similar to that discussed in this pdf:
http://www.icr.org/pdf/imp/imp-381.pdfThe small-scale events which follow, I have called 'residual'. I believe this to be the best term; but you may suggest alternatives.
As for your link about the "bird tracks," I've had a look around and the only references to these that I can find are a couple of creationist sites, and the only proof that they are bird tracks is creationists saying "they look like bird tracks."
If you googled for "bird tracks" that was probably why. One cannot expect evolutionists to refer to them as such. "Unidentified tracks" or something might work better, but I wouldn't expect much. What? Maybe on some board someone asked "can you help me imagine a critter that could have lived at the right evotime & made these tracks?" Shoot, even HUMAN footprints, unique among all known lifeforms, are disputed when evolutionism finds them inconvenient.
What's more, I'm surprised that creationists actually refer to this, because what are fossilised animal prints of any kind doing in so-called flood sediments? This formation also contains ripple marks. Can you explain how footprints and ripple marks can get fossilised in the middle of sediment that was supposed to have been created by a catastrophic flood?
I expect it might take some work. One would have to know some details. For someone seeking truth, I should hope to tackle the task. For someone who has convinced me she fully intends to shut her eyes and stop her ears... barkin' up the wrong tree.
These could be pre-flood, post-flood, or tracks made before the waters got too high. In some locations there was also some substantial flooding after the waters subsided, which is technically post-flood, but fairly close temporally. (The Grand Canyon is one of those areas, for those who still somehow haven't noticed.)
Having looked into dozens of similar evoclaims, and found every last one of them utterly meritless, my only real doubt on the issue involves my own intellectual capacity, which I know to have limits. Still, if an evolutionist composed a creation science riddle, it can usually be solved by a 10-year-old.
That gives me an idea. Some summer vacation, it'd be interesting to see how many kids it'd take to debunk talkdeceptions thoroughly - with creationwiki blocked, of course. You know, starting fresh.
