Nope, all I did was Google him. You could too, rather than intimating that I'm lying to you. But as RAZD aptly put it, we've been asking you to give evidence here for the Grand Canyon being less than 6,000 years old and having been carved by the flood. What people like Baumgardner believe is immaterial to this discussion, unless you believe he has presented some good science for his ideas that you can in turn present here. So far you have neither refuted the science that evolutionists have given in this thread, nor have you presented a scrap of your own.

The information and links to mountain-building and stresses on rocks were in my last long post here, which it seems clear you did not read in any detail.



No, all I need is some basic knowledge of plate tectonics. Baumgardner accepts paleomagnetism evidence and uses it in his runaway subduction model; he claims that God created Pangaea (all the continents joined together) and that it broke apart and the plates rapidly migrated to their current positions during catastrophic events in the flood.

The problem for him is that he and other creationists claim that the Biblical flood began in the Cambrian period. But paleomagnetism shows that Pangaea formed in the Permian period, halfway through the geological column. It would appear that Baumgardner only uses paleomag dates as far as they suit him, which is not good science. There are other problems with his model but that's a pretty glaring one.



Like your comment about refusing to face the truth, the shoe would appear to be on the other foot here. You're consistently refusing to even tell us what you think the "real creationist theory" actually is.

I'll ask you again, though I'm not holding my breath: will you discuss any of the pieces of evidence in this thread for an old Grand Canyon NOT carved by the flood, and explain why these are wrong? Will you show us how creation "science" can make any claim whatsoever to being scientific?

You can start by putting us all in the picture about what you think the geological column really shows. Tell us where the flood layer begins and where it ends. Then we can talk about the evidence contained therein. Like I said, creationists have had a few hundred years to work out where it is in the geological record, so it shouldn't be a problem for you to tell us, and it really would be a fundamental part of any flood model.

Hint: a post full of more ad hominem remarks doesn't count as evidence.