CTD has so far demonstrated the "creation science" position in this thread by being unable to answer any of the following questions:
Posts #35985, 37313, 37390, 37689, 37849, 37911
Why does the Grand Canyon not show the features of an area carved by flood release, such as the channeled scablands in Washington? (links provided by RAZD)
Posts #35986, 37749
Why does the Grand Canyon contain layer after layer of sediment all containing fossils of shellfish that are many years old? (links provided by RAZD)
Easy. The attempt to conflate the week of creation with the flood of Noah is an error. It is quite reasonable that at the time of the flood, creatures of all ages were extant - not just zygotes. I note that your idea would sure make it easy to fit all the animals on the ark!
As the record indicates about 1500 years between these events, I see no reason for anyone to confuse them. They are pretty easy to distinguish for most folks, including kindergarteners. I expect you will be unable to produce writings from anyone who has a problem with this who is not a victim of advanced evosickness.
Post #37327
Why are fossils sorted in layers in the Grand Canyon, in the same order in which they are sorted across the world? There are stromatolites at the bottom and larger, more complex life forms above them -- why is that?
Post# 37679
Why do you link us to a web page which says that part of the Grand Canyon is 700,000 years old, when you yourself believe that the entire world is only 6,000 years old? And when that same page (in a scientific news magazine) links to another page on the same website saying that other parts of the Grand Canyon are tens of millions of years old?
Why not? I said one had to do flips & twists to buy the evostory, did I not? I don't have a problem with the fact that they can't get their evodates right. Why do you pretend I should?
I can guess: you'd like for me to sort them all out for you in a way that makes a little sense. Well, you've got plenty of evomongers available to help out; try asking them.
Post #37776
Where in the geological record is the flood layer which must exist if the Biblical flood were a real event?
The flood layers found all over the world are real. The imaginary 'geologic column' isn't. I am not responsible for the contents or omissions of other persons' imaginations, nor have I claimed I can always account for them.
Post #37776
If the Biblical flood carved the Grand Canyon, how do you explain the fact that ripple marks appear in the Hermit Shale, the Hakatai Shale, and the Bass Limestone; quadruped footprints have been found in the Supai Group from the Pennsylvanian period, and the Hermit Shale; and paleosols (fossilised soils) are also found between various layers?
Footprints and other fragile impressions
must be the result of rapid events. They don't lay around for millions of years waiting for layers of dust to accumulate and preserve them. Instead, they are wiped out by the weather.
Indeed, even
footprints in solid stone have a perilously short endurance when exposed to the weather. Pictures taken of prints on the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, TX show that even dinosaur tracks erode drastically in a matter of 20 years. There isn't time for them to wait around a million years for an imaginary layer of fine particles to build up a couple of millimeters and protect them.
Don't gloat that you tricked me, either. I intentionally chose to defend your straw man on this occasion because the same principle applies no matter what, and it's good if folks are aware just how absurd the evomyths are. That your straw man benefits is a circumstantial side effect of explaining the truth.
But since you're so all-fired impatient about me getting around to this or that, when are you going to do some real damage to this straw man? Every day he survives just makes the situation funnier, and there's good reason to hope Jeanie will be sharing in the laughter now. For the record, most straw men are handily defeated. I can't say this is the first crew to get beat up by their own straw men, but for obvious reasons it doesn't usually work out that way.
If the Biblical flood carved the Grand Canyon, why did it not carve similar grand canyons on all of the continents? Weren't the waters receding all over the world?
Post #37735, 37736
How do you explain uranium-lead dating which has dated the erosion of the Grand Canyon to have been happening for millions of years? (Links provided by RAZD)
It's doing its job: providing unverifiable evodates, just like it was always intended to do. Thought I made that pretty clear, but since you're trying to paint me as not responding to anything, and you're not known for your accuracy, I'm not surprised that you included this.
Post#37821
Please explain why LinearAQ's information is wrong:
First Hovind says that the two lakes (left behind after the Flood?) were behind the Kaibab uplift and a breach in the uplift (dam) caused rapid erosion of the Grand Canyon. However, the Kaibab uplift is 4000 ft high and 270 MILES thick. So, what caused a breach in something that tall and thick? Typically, a dam is only a few meters thick at best and the force against the sides of a rift will be concentrated by that relatively thin cross-section. The "dam" in Hovind's theory is 270 miles thick...there would not be the same concentration of force against the sides of the rift.
Secondly, the Kaibab uplift is not made of just dirt like a farmer's dam would be. It contains hard stone from volcanic activity and deposits that have been hardened from extreme pressure that could not occur due simply being dumped there from a flood. Besides it is called an uplift for a reason...a cross-sectional view of it shows signs of the entire ridge having been pushed up from below. This hard substance is not rapidly worn away by water in the same way that a dirt dam would be.
Post #37849
Why would the Grand Canyon be cut into land which is higher than that surrounding it to the north and south?
Finally, you have been asked several times what your own position actually is. We are now 9 pages into this thread and you have not defined what it is you are trying to argue for. What we do see is zero evidence that the Grand Canyon is young and that it was carved by a flood.
Are you still claiming that creationism is science? Scientific theory explains all of the available evidence. If there is evidence which contradicts it, the theory has to be revised. Science cannot ignore evidence when it's inconvenient or doesn't fit with someone's beliefs about what it should show.
I'll make this easy for you. Please pick one of the questions above, and address it in your next post. Thank you.
Blah blah blah. In post 37544 I explained how RAZD's meander issue backfires and supports the truth.
In post number #37663, I sorted this out for Linear, and there hasn't been even an attempt to explain how meanders can be evidence against a 4500 year age of a river without utterly demolishing a 3 million year, or 700,000 year, 50 million year, or etc. age.
You can spam silly questions, phony objections, straw men, evodates, and assemblies of words that make no sense at all. But you can't handle this issue raised by one of your own. That's my conclusion, and I think the evidence here supports it exclusively.
If your capacity to spam nonsense, logical fallacies, and arguments that insult people's intelligence should exceed my capacity or will to respond, I guess you'll consider that a victory. You better - it's the only one you have any realistic hope of obtaining.
