No, CTD, you have it backwards again.
This thread contains how many posts? And you're still in straw man mode? You can't name a single creation scientist who has claimed the Grand Canyon was carved during the Great Flood, yet you continue to pretend... Not worth wasting another second. It's funny, but it's a whole lot more boring than funny.
Whether I can name a creation scientist or not is totally irrelevant to the question of whether you can provide actual real objective evidence that the Grand Canyon was carved by a biblical flood.
You (and Russ, and anyone else who wants to play) are the ones that need to provide evidence.
What's hilarious is that you keep trying to use this same old (boring?) dodge every time it comes around to you substantiating a claim with evidence. We saw it with tanned skin, we saw it with 20 year old clams, we saw it with the Cliffs of Dover, we saw it with Darwin's theory and we saw it with the foraminifera.
I'm aware of several creationists that make bogus claims about the Grand Canyon, but not of any real evidence to support their - or your - or Russ's - claim.
The best you can come up with is a little flood here and there that had rather insignificant impact on carving the whole canyon from one end to the other.
What's hilarious is that I can - and have - presented evidence that demonstrates that the canyon was carved over long time periods by slow erosion, just as real geologist have been saying for many years.
What's hilarious is that I can - and have - presented evidence of what real flood outflows of a massive scale look like, and that they are nothing like the Grand Canyon.
What's hilarious is that I can - and have - pointed out features of the Grand Canyon that are contraindicative of the concept that the canyon was carved by a biblical flood.
What's hilarious is that you cannot deal with these issues but fall back - again - on avoiding the issues
This thread contains how many posts?
Yes, and the
second post of the thread is the first time I responded with evidence that contradicts the claim, evidence that has not been refuted.
And we haven't even discussed the issue of
The Principle of Faunal Succession demonstrated in layer after layer in the walls of the Grand Canyon:
The Grand Canyon as an Example of the Principles of Stratigraphy
The Grand Canyon spectacularly exposes rocks spanning hundreds of millions of years of Earth’s history. (
http://www.nps.gov/grca/pphtml/nature.html)
Many of the rock layers exposed in the walls of the Grand Canyon have not been disturbed by mountain building or other forms of deformation since they were originally laid down on Earth’s surface. This is an example of original horizontality. Some older layers, however, have been tilted; the surface where these tilted layers are overlain by undeformed strata is called an angular unconformity.
Many of the undisturbed formations can be traced from one end of the Grand Canyon to the other, a distance greater than 435 kilometers (270 miles). This is an example of lateral continuity. Some of the same formations are also exposed hundreds of miles farther away in other parts of the Southwest.
The oldest rocks in the Grand Canyon are exposed at the base of the gorge and are late Proterozoic. These rocks are overlain by younger Paleozoic-age rocks. This is an example of superposition: In a pile of sediment, the oldest deposits are at the bottom of the pile, underneath younger deposits.
Each major layer of sedimentary rock in the Grand Canyon contains different types of fossils. The succession of fossils in the Grand Canyon is consistent everywhere in the canyon and is also similar to the succession of fossils in other parts of North America and on other continents. This is an example of how the principle of faunal succession has been used to recognize that the Grand Canyon includes rocks from the Cambrian, Devonian, Mississippian, Pennsylvanian, Permian, and other geologic periods (each characterized by different fossils).
For those that are paying attention, this is more evidence of geological processes that do not include a biblical flood.
It's hilarious that you don't have evidence. And the more you try to make a joke out of the issues the more you show a complete lack of evidence for any of your assertions. It's like somebody that keeps trying to tell jokes, but they forget the punchlines.
Enjoy.
