So now RAZD et al are 'geologists'? Why doesn't someone tell me these things?
I never said that RAZD was a geologist, nor did I claim to be. RAZD did consult with writings by geologists concerning the Grand Canyon.
Note that there is more than one actual trained geologist who finds the features of the Grand Canyon consistent with the theory mentioned by Kent Hovind. Not that this will change much; the appeal to authority will just morph into an appeal to popularity, as it always does.
An appeal to authority is not always a logical fallacy. If the authorities are qualified in the field of study which the appeal addresses. So who are these geologists that completely agree with the hypothesis mentioned by Kent Hovind? Do you know of any writings by them that I could look at? If you know of any showing research on the Grand Canyon, that would be great.
If the water in the lakes were to rise high enough to cause a break in the Kaibab uplift where the Grand Canyon goes through it, then the lakes would have already overflowed in other places on the uplift where it is lower. RAZD also made that point which I reiterated. CTD's response was to ignore that one point in my post and instead to call me stupid, delusional and possibly mentally unstable.
When it suits your purpose, you claim there's always uplift. But when it doesn't, you argue as if the topography's always been the same. Doesn't take an expert to diagnose this fallacy.
You were the one who claimed to agree with the Kent Hovind hypotheses which does not mention uplift at all. RAZD was merely following your requirement to its logical conclusion....if there were no uplift then the lakes should have overflowed in a location different from where the Grand Canyon is flowing now.
Are you saying that the area was lower in the place where the lakes "broke through the dam" and it has since uplifted to be higher than the surrounding area?
Interesting response from someone who calls himself a servant of Christ.
I've always found it interesting that so many evolutionists claim to be the intellectual superior of creationists, yet they regularly resort to feigned stupidity rather than acknowledging information provided which would further their understanding.
Not that
all stupidity is necessarily feigned. A good amount is the direct result of the habitual self-delusion and mental laziness required by the religion of evolutionism. All pro-evolution propaganda is based upon faulty assumptions and/or logical fallacies, absolutely all without exception. To be an advocate for such in the presence of intelligent criticism entails obtaining evogoggles.
Judging by your response to my calling you a follower of Christ, I guess you felt insulted by that label. My apologies. Are you a follower of Islam?
That would take a little research. However, the waters of the lakes would have rushed out and we would find indications of that rapid drainage...which we don't.
According to the local team of 'experts'...
Nope. According to the findings in peer reviewed research of mainstream geology.
No matter what we decide for the initiating cause of the Grand Canyon, slow erosion is the best explanation for all the features we see there.
Oh? What about this feature?
What about them? Can you explain how those pictures illustrate that the Grand Canyon was formed in a short time by single event? The explanation on the forum you linked to is quite inadequate. To me it show layers of sediment not "wear patterns". How about providing something from a geologist stating what those "patterns" are and how they indicate a rapid erosion.
