Still stalling CTD?
quickly demonstrate Baumgardner supports the proper creation science theory - not the fantasy version of RAZD & herself.
And still no theory or concept from CTD. No explanation of what this "proper creation science theory" involves OR
ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.
What we have here is just another attempt to have people refute every single creationist concept CTD can find while he sits and says, "nope, not my theory" ... Gish would be proud.
... has a good supply of links to reality-based articles. It came up in the search, but doesn't directly discuss the canyon.
So it should be easy to pick one you think is valid and provide evidence to support it.
Of course if I dig a hole in my yard we all understand the age of the hole is not the same as the age of my yard. It'd be kind of hard to dig a hole before the yard existed, but anytime thereafter it's no problem. Evohype is full of such gross insults to the intellect of the target audience.
So you therefore accept the age of the rocks at the bottom of the canyon as valid? Interesting argument for a young earth.
You will note that not one real geologist claims that the age of the canyon is the same as the ages of the rocks at the bottom -- while a number of creationists DO propose this -- this is just more distraction from CTD while he avoids the evidence.
What have we here? Another individual not scrolling.
And when you actually have evidence to support an assertion it is easy to repeat it. Pretending it exists elsewhere in the thread is just another example of typical creationist self-delusion caused by cognitive dissonance (they convince themselves that they already answered the question).
Conversely, I've read the whole thread and watched the silly video, and I know that there is no evidence for a biblical flood in any post or video on this thread. I also know that there is evidence that contradicts the canyon being carved by biblical flood flows, evidence that is easy to comprehend.
The Horse Shoe Bend in the Grand Canyon is NOT a flood flow formation - the water would have to flow uphill against it's own flow in order to make it during flood conditions:
![[Linked Image]](http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/wwwamgwvua.jpg)
Flood flow does NOT cut through a high point on a ridge/dam/levee, rather it cuts through at the lowest point. There are lower points north or south of the Grand Canyon:
![[Linked Image]](http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/qyzmpsuyva.jpg)
(the darker green is higher land)
This evidence shows that uplift has indeed occurred, in spite of CTD's denial.
Uranium deposits on rocks made while they were submersed in shallow water all agree with the geological age of the canyon and show the slow erosion rates that are consistent with other evidence.
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/columnists/hc-thorson0605.artjun05,0,5552522.column
Before their work, geologists had a pretty good idea of how and when the Grand Canyon formed. But they were unable to determine the rate of erosion beyond the last million years. The new paper applies recent advances in uranium-lead dating methods to a very old idea — that cave deposits could be used to date the vertical erosion of the canyon at any level, at any point along its length.
Plotting the elevation of a water table indicator above the river against the age at which it formed yields the rate of vertical erosion at that point. By plotting a number of such points, scientists worked out the style and rate of canyon cutting in both space and time. This methodology is unimpeachable. The results are completely consistent with what had been previously known.
The formations that are dated here are only made while in relatively shallow still water inside caves, while the uranium bearing coating forms on the original rocks in the caves. This dates their formation independently of when the rocks themselves were formed.
Must be a real downer, LinearAQ, to witness even more manifestations of stupification. Had you followed my advice and PM'd RAZD to take a break... just maybe you could have avoided some of this suffering. You may want to take a break yourself, for their failure to defeat even this weak straw man could be even more distressing. Better not watch.
And we still have no evidence that the Grand Canyon was not formed by natural processes over millions of years, we still have no CTD explanation for how the Grand Canyon formed. All we have from CTD is hand waving and ignoring of the evidence, coupled with the usual insults. It's like a broken record.
Enjoy.
