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.
Ah, well I've seen how RAZD tends to "interpret" things. No thank you.
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 when Russ provides all those quotes from experts on evolution...
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.
Dr. Brand might show up on google.
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.
I have not required 'no uplift', and neither has Kent Hovind.
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?
I have lost track of exactly when the uplift apparently took place. I remember it works out cool, because it refutes another evoclaim that hasn't shown up yet in the spam. Best I keep mum on that one. If LindaLou wants something to go into hysterics over, she can search it up herself. That one's backwards too, not unlike the RAZD arguments. Although it supports the truth, I don't care if I never see it again.
Lots of opportunities for pretending to be stupid, and that crap tries my patience.
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?
Ouch. Not! Misinterpretations are so passe...
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.
Oh? So have you done the little research? Yet you keep it to yourself rather than take advantage of this opportunity to share...
Or... what's the politically correct term for 'blowing smoke'?
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.
Sorry, but I'm not sure I can put it in simpler terms. Might it help to point out that although water and air are both fluids, they have different densities and viscosities? Water also has the potential to dissolve solids, something air doesn't usually manage.
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.
It should show both wear patterns
and layers of sediment, since the layers are what was worn. But I have no evogoggles through which to filter the images.
Now as an evolutionologist I'm curious: to what shall we attribute your lack of response on the meander issue? Since you've indicated you support the evotime story(ies)...
