So much for (even low) expectations, you keep true to form: no support of any kind for anything you say.
So much for honesty, huh? I remind you that other members of the forum can scroll, and it ain't very far up the page to my post. As for you hoping to see evidence, I'll believe it when you doff the goggles.
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.
Well, since you've never laid out any argument beyond "20 year old clams disprove the flood", one must guess if one is to respond at all. If my guess is in error (which I doubt), why don't you explain why there can be no clams aged 20 years in flood sediments. The only way this makes sense is to conflate the flood with creation. If there was a world 20 years prior to the flood, and clams were inhabitants, there can be no problem with some of them being found in flood sediments.
Not that you could (or would) properly distinguish flood sediments from pre-flood or post-flood sediments...
I think the fact that you do not explain your mystery clam argument is a good indicator of its strength. Folks, an argument has to be pretty blamed pathetic if even RAZD is afraid to present it!!! If anyone had told me there was any evohype he'd shy away from, I'd have been incredulous. But here's a case, and I don't deny reality when it's staring me in the face.
All the questions have been about the flood, and how the Grand Canyon is (or is not) evidence for a biblical flood.
I've seen quite a few questions about why I don't make time to defend straw men. I shouldn't be surprised to see complaints that they've gone unanswered.
So far the evidence -- irrespective of dates -- shows that it isn't.
So far, only LindaLou and Linear have indicated that they consider you an authority.
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:
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.
The same could actually be said (and
honestly) about the argument it refutes. Very, very little common sense is required to figure that one out.
It also does not deal with the evidence of meanders and other features that are characteristic erosion and characteristic of the Grand Canyon.
I dealt directly with your meander assertions. If the meanders cannot survive for 4500 years, how can they be present if the river has been around since imaginary time? What events must one imagine if one is to account for this? You still do not answer.
It also does not deal with the evidence that features that are characteristic of flood flows are absent from the Grand Canyon.
No. I was not discussing your other assertions; I was discussing your meander assertion. I think this is pretty obvious. Unlike yourself, I try to communicate clearly, and discussing one thing at a time facilitates clear communications as I suspect you are aware. Why else would you avoid the practice?
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...
Which is exactly what all rivers do. I never claimed there wouldn't be a valley. Yet you claim meanders are removed over time. There's plenty of imaginary time, so why is this river exempt?
You insist the creation science model is flawed due to this principle, yet your own stories are how many times more vulnerable? This is most mockworthy.
(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]](http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/qyzmpsuyva.jpg)
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.HTMThe 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 creation science model says the Grand Canyon has been flooded twice, and allows for about 4500 years of subsequent events. How many floods must have occurred in all your imaginary time?
RAZD does not mention that flooding also creates meanders. Usually the removal rate exceeds the creation rate. Now is the evidence more consistent with a few floods, or with the many hundreds of floods which must have occurred during the silly amounts of time imagined by evolutionists?
What's every bit as pathetic? His claim that the pillars must be washed away. These rocks show that the waters have eroded them, but if the flood runs out of water before it finishes off the pillar, what remains?
Now apply countless floods to the pillar issue. Or goggle up.
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):
Get real. The floods in the 4500 year model
must remove all the pillars and meanders, but the evotime story is exempt? Just how dumb must that clam argument be if you'll say this and fear to present that one?
Meanwhile, I'm out of time. I'll try to see if there's anything responseworthy in the rest of the mess when I get a chance.
