So much spam - so little time.
Just a few more points to add to this.
CTD, I've just explained to Jeanie why people use evidence to back their claims in a disagreement. It's also been explained a number of times that any scientific theory must explain all of the evidence, or it no longer stands as a theory.
So this is how you intend to make your argument that I must debunk all bunk? Not very impressive. It's not even true. Aerodynamics has no obligation to explain warts.
And nobody is required to explain imaginary constructs either. The actual requirement is that theories
conform to evidence.
Creationists ironically seem to have an understanding of this, which is why they keep giving erroneous information to their flock which appears to invalidate an old earth and evolution.
Flock? Erroneous? What strange terms you use! Most creationists I know have no flocks, and eschew erroneous information. Since you spake so frequently of evidence, maybe sometime you can provide some to support these assertions, huh?
The problem is that they ignore the other side of the coin, which demands that they present evidence for their own theory, and show why it explains what we see better than the theories they wish to invalidate.
Oh my! So erroneous... You say creationists present erroneous information, yet you diagnose the problem as one of ignoring the other side of the coin. If the information actually were erroneous, that would be a more serious problem... for them. It'd sure make things easier for you! Just point out the errors - no more need to generate spam, create straw men, hurl false accusations... one wonders if you'd have any fun at all.
You then proceeded to publish false information about scientific methodology. But just for kicks, please present your own alternative theory to phrenology. Or astrology (wouldn't be fair to expect you to attack an important derivative of your religion).
This doesn't happen by ignoring the evidence or waving your hands and saying "it's all lies, I don't believe it." Is this really how your "creation science" works?
According to you it is. But I don't consider you an authority. Indeed, considering the amount of false information you already supplied in just this one post, I don't think it would be wise for anyone to take your word on such matters.
It is, however, a classic response pattern from someone who wants to hold onto a cherished belief despite the fact that there is ample evidence showing it is erroneous.
Let's have a look at some of these responses then.
You refuse to tell us where the global flood layer is in the geological record. I don't suppose you can, because I've never seen a creationist who will define it, even though defining your terms is a necessary foundation for any scientific investigation.
Come now! We all know there are flood geologists who apply the shortcut of matching evolayers to events. The method is quite problematic and unfruitful, but they exist. They were the primary topic of an article you yourself recently supplied - or was that someone else? Sorry, but I don't have time to waste scrolling for a point about which I'm very confident you do not care.
Why is this? Because they know that as soon as they do, it will be pointed out to them why it is geologically impossible for it to be a global flood layer.
Interestingly, it is impossible to find a global layer that was deposited by the flood. I'm sure you didn't mean to educate folks, but this looks like what they call a 'learning moment'.
The onion skin theory was discarded long ago, because it turns out different places have different geological features. This is consistent with non-shortcut flood geology. The layers formed by the flood in different places reflect the local events and local conditions. Would any sensible person expect a tsunami impacting a beach to leave deposits identical to rainfall impacting a jungle? This is the stuff of evolutionist straw men, but has little to do with science.
Best for them to draw attention away from this and shift the goalposts whenever necessary. Thanks for confirming this here.
I'm not the one changing subjects left & right, desperately spamming any random thought, and complaining that worthless junk arguments and straw men aren't receiving attention.
You also continually claim that "evodates are wrong," without explaining how. This is because you can't. You're simply in denial. Am I wrong? Prove it then.
You mistake the methods of history. The burden of proof is squarely on the evodates.
The "imaginary geological column" isn't real now? How can this be? You're simply in denial. Am I wrong? Prove it then.
More silly spam. I am now to prove common knowledge? Why? Just to waste my time so you can complain that I'm "afraid of" the rest of the spam. Oh how did I let myself get outfoxed again!
You also appear to have missed the point here:
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?
This has got nothing to do with prints being covered quickly by sediment.
Maybe it does. But we'll never find out if you have your way, will we? Well, those who care can probably figure it out or google a bit. And those like yourself can do without.
It's got everything to do with your continuing refusal to elucidate your own position.
My position isn't the topic of the thread. But I'll point out that Linear has proven more perceptive than you:
You were the one who claimed to agree with the Kent Hovind hypotheses which does not mention uplift at all.
I guess you must believe one of two things: that the rock from which the Grand Canyon was carved was deposited as sediment in the flood, or that the rock was already there before the flood and the flood carved it. Both cases are problematic.
I'm no expert on the Grand Canyon. I believe there may well be pre-flood sediments beneath the flood sediments. I don't think much post-flood sediment will be present.
Ooh! How will you twist that? Will you build a new straw man, or try to prop up the one you still haven't slain?
In the latter case, you would have to explain why all that pre-flood rock has been dated as being so very old,
I would?
and why it contains fossils layered in the same ways in whcih they are layered around the world, with trilobites near the bottom, dinosaurs above those, and humans above those.
I didn't know human fossils had been found in the Grand Canyon.
Didn't have time to check all the google results, but nothing near the top verified them.
Still, it wasn't a waste.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.aspwas good for
Because many of the tracks have characteristics that are ‘just about impossible’ to explain unless the animals were moving underwater, Dr Brand suggested that newt-like animals made the tracks while walking under water and being pushed by a current. To test his ideas, he and his colleague videotaped living newts walking through a laboratory tank with running water. All 238 trackways made by the newts had features similar to the fossilized trackways in the Coconino Sandstone, and their videotaped behaviour while making the trackways thus indicated how the animals that made the fossilized trackways might have been moving.
These additional studies confirmed the conclusions of his earlier researches. Thus, Dr Brand concluded that all his data suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil tracks should not be used as evidence for desert wind deposition of dry sand to form the Coconino Sandstone, but rather point to underwater deposition. These evidence from such careful experimental studies by a Flood geologist overturn the original interpretation by evolutionists of these Coconino Sandstone fossil footprints, and thus call into question their use by Young and others as an argument against the Flood.
and
http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro13.htmlwas also insightful and informative.
One of the most amazing facts about the Grand Canyon is that no one has ever found a single fossilized bone in the Canyon!
and
Even more amazing is the fact that most of the fossil footprints in the Coconino are headed in the same direction! Are we to believe that for 10 million years, amphibians and reptiles mostly walked in the same direction? Not only are the majority of these footprints headed in a northerly direction, but this direction generally slopes uphill! While camping in the Canyon, I heard a park ranger give a lecture on its fossils. She was quite serious when she explained that geologists now believe the reason most fossil footprints head uphill is that the reptiles who made them always walked uphill (leaving footprints), but had a habit of sliding down hill! Certainly, one could make a more plausible argument for reptiles running up hill to escape the advancing waters of Noah's Flood, than one could for "lazy lizards."
There's much more of course, but that's just funny!
Heads up, Jeanie! I provided two links for LindaLou, so the ad hom's are a pretty sure bet. Especially in cases when a creation scientist is mentioned by name, it's always been a sure thing in the past.
You would also need to explain where the sediment from the subsequent flood went.
In the former case, you would still have to explain the above, plus how we have layers of footprints. If sediment was being laid down in a flood, how did it dry out for long enough to be able to preserve a footprint or a raindrop? And the animals were supposedly being killed in the flood, so how could they have been walking around on different sediment layers? It would also be impossible to explain the existence of a single layer of paleosol, because these do not form underwater.
I don't have to explain anything.
And before I'll even consider 'paleosol' discussions, someone needs to present some evidence. I'm a little familiar with the assertions made about 'paleosols', but I'm totally unaware of any evidence to back them up.
This is of course in addition to the plentiful evidence already supplied here that the Grand Canyon was not carved by a flood, regardless of what you believe about the age of the rocks therein.
Oh sure... Like the meander issue nobody can solve?
Would you like to have a serious go at presenting some evidence to support your own position, whatever that may be? Or would you like to do what most creationists I've encountered do eventually, and go away and ignore all of this until you are ready to face the facts (if ever)?
For now, I'll stick with what's been presented. You can keep asking for more indefinitely, and keep failing to acknowledge things even longer.
I'm becoming rather fond of RAZD's meander stuff. Sure seems to have you stumped. Would you rather I forget about that one and divert to discussing your spam? My, that's the easiest question I've asked in ages! I'll be disappointed if anyone gets it wrong. Not surprised - just disappointed.
