Well CTD, it appears you have been busy, doing nothing. I'm away for the weekend and come back hoping for some evidence FOR this flood of yours, and all I get is

Quote
.
nada
.


So much for (even low) expectations, you keep true to form: no support of any kind for anything you say.

Quote
The attempt to conflate the week of creation with the flood of Noah is an error
Which would be of interest if any one HAD made such a conflation: seeing as no one here has, then you are the one introducing a new red-herring (another logical fallacy for Jeanie) as well as using a straw man argument.

All the questions have been about the flood, and how the Grand Canyon is (or is not) evidence for a biblical flood.

So far the evidence -- irrespective of dates -- shows that it isn't.

Quote
Blah blah blah. In post 37544 I explained how RAZD's meander issue backfires and supports the truth.
This is where you provided nothing but an argument from incredulity (another logical fallacy for Jeanie) and a (continued) failure to deal with all the evidence:

Quote
One of the first things one should be expected to notice about the Grand Canyon is that it's not flat. Those who overlook this detail may happily nod in agreement with RAZD, while others are left to scratch their heads, wondering what he's talking about.

Of course, in the evostory, the River, way back in imaginary time, flowed (uphill) over fairly flat terrain. So if what RAZD says is true, any flooding would have cut some of the meanders. We have no evidence that it did so, according to RAZD. So in reality (you know, the realm avoided by evolutionists), this is actually just one more big problem for the evostory.

I suppose they could posit tens of millions of years passing with no flooding, and the faithful would buy into it, but those lacking the special predisposition are going to view this as a flaw. Evolutionism has had a long relationship with special pleading, so we shouldn't be surprised the marriage endure. (Actually, all logical fallacies are members of the harem.)

But compare the flips & twists one has to do to convince oneself the Grand Canyon is evoaged to the elegant explanations provided by creation science. The evogarbage can't compete; it isn't even in the same league. Research based upon trying to find the truth is so much better than fantasies invented to prop up disintegrating mythology.
This "rebuttal" was DOA when posted, as it has no evidence to support it and it is composed of several logial fallacies.

It also does not deal with the evidence of meanders and other features that are characteristic erosion and characteristic of the Grand Canyon. It also does not deal with the evidence that features that are characteristic of flood flows are absent from the Grand Canyon. It just does not deal with the evidence.

This is a classic straw man argument as well -- pretending that the geological explanation starts out with flat ground, when it starts out with water flowing downhill, through existing water courses that continue to erode the valley they are at the bottom of (while still flowing downhill), while the earth gradually rises in one area (the Kaibib uplift) until the rim is higher than land upstream of the canyon. It completely ignores the point that geologists have never claimed the river flowed at the height of the Kaibab ridge -- only creationists (like Hovind and apparently CTD) make this claim -- and the problem they have is that this uplift also results in the area where the Grand Canyon goes through the ridge being higher than other points ALONG the ridge, both to the north and to the south. This is the reality:

[Linked Image]

A real geological explanation for the Grand Canyon (as opposed to the various creationists cartoon versions) is given on a number of websites, similar to this one:
http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/projects/geoweb/participants/Dutch/VTrips/GrandCanyonN.HTM
Quote
The topographic map above shows clearly that the canyon didn't cut down, but that the rocks were uplifted across the course of the river. East of the uplift the canyon is much shallower than in the Grand Canyon proper.

Below: a simplified physiographic map of the canyon. Canyonlands are in green. Areas above 1900 meters (6,200 feet) are in yellow, above 2200 meters (7,200 feet) in orange. Even though the north rim is higher than the south rim, the rock units exposed are pretty much the same because the land surface is a dome in the Permian Kaibab Limestone.

If you've ever wondered how one rim of a canyon can be much higher than the other, this is how: the canyon is cut in the flank of a domal uplift. Actually, the river stayed where it was and the land lifted up, but more to the north than to the south.
CTD does not explain this singular feature of the Grand Canyon - that it goes through a high point, not just east and west, but north and south as well. Pretending that his previous answer takes care of this problem of the canyon cutting a high point along the ridge is just (once more) not dealling with the evidence that contradicts his position. CTD does not explain this feature of the Grand Canyon: how does a canyon cut across a high point along a ridge?.

Flood flows do not make meanders, they cut meanders. Flood flows do not make rock towers, they undercut and topple rock towers. Flood flows do not create canyons perpendicular to the main flow. The plentiful existence of all these features throughout the Grand Canyon means that flood flows are not a significant cause of the Grand Canyon, that any seasonal or climatological floods in the history of the canyon were not significant enough to alter this evidence (ie destroy it):

[Linked Image]

From post #38117
Quote
Oh? What about this feature?
[Linked Image]

Rather obviously the rocks on the right are much more eroded than the ones on the left as they are weathered formations. Curiously the creationist models cannot explain this degree of erosional difference.

One would expect a canyon formed virtually all at one time would show similar erosion patterns at the top as at the bottom. One would expect a canyon formed over extensive periods of time to show different patterns of erosion at the top (where wind and ice would be the major causes) than at the bottom (where water would be the major cause), and curiously this is in fact what we see: worn vertical cracks in the older erosion sections that are not visible in the newer cut sections.

[quote]The evolutionist excuse for this is that the wear at the top is caused by wind. In which I ask: Does wind cause almost exact wear patterns as water? For this no evidence could be provided.
Notice the straw man and the argument from incredulity ...

Of course wind can, and does, erode rock in similar patterns, air currents are very similar to water currents (especially when they carry particles along), and they wear surfaces in similar patterns because the pattern is dictated by the rock being eroded. Weaker rock layers are more easily cut, thus the indentations. When the stronger rock is undercut so that it can no longer support itself it breaks off, and we start again.

There are many examples of this kind of wind erosion. Here is a rock with the layers on edge, showing a similar pattern of deep and shallow erosion:

[Linked Image]

... Ayers Rock in the middle of Australian desert, and one need only google "desert cliffs" to see many similar examples.

The vertical cracks, however are due to freeze and thaw cycles that force the rock apart along cracks that run vertically through the rocks, expanding and extending the cracks and making them bigger.

There are many examples of this kind of erosion, both inside the Grand Canyon and outside it in places where there is no canyon.

Geology explains all the evidence in the Grand Canyon without need to invoke magic.

Enjoy.

Last edited by RAZD; 07/27/08 05:43 PM. Reason: ps - your preview function is not working