Conversely I have no problem repeating the evidence that contradicts your claims.
Well, since you've never laid out any argument beyond "20 year old clams disprove the flood",
... False again CTD, what I said is that the existence of 20 year old clams means that the sediment cannot be explained by a flood measured in days - a point you agree with.
Since when? I do not believe I have ever said sediment cannot contain the remains of 20 year old clams. Sediment can contain remains of creatures of any age.
That's like saying a grave dug in a day can't contain the remains of an 80 year old man.
You still have yet to explain how those clams get on tops of mountains, seeing as you agreed that they did not grow during the flood, and I rather doubt you'd think they grew after (however now we have two floods ...). It doesn't "disprove the flood" it just means that clams and other mature marine deposits cannot be used as evidence FOR a flood, they are inconsistent with the duration.
You're not making any sense at all. In this case, I have to hope this is intentional because if it ain't... that's too dim a picture for my imagination.
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.
Just with them being on tops of mountains. Unless water flows uphill.
You need to explain how water lifts clams and surrounding marine life up on top of mountains and deposits them undisturbed, layer after layer. Geology explains both the layers of sediment building up with long periods of mature marine growth, as well as how those layers end up on mountain tops by plate tectonics and uplift -- movement that can be measured today and that is (shock?) still going on.
What shock? I have already acknowledged that residual tectonic activity still occurs.
Water does flow uphill too. All it needs is a good running start. It also flows uphill underwater - it's a matter of temperature, and I expect salinity variance would cause this as well.
But if you're still trying to omit tectonic activity from the great flood, I'd say we're looking at another straw man. How their ranks continue to swell...
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.
No you haven't, all you've done is
claim to have dealt with it.
The reason there ARE meanders is because they were made by a slow process, erosion, just as river erosion is creating meanders today, and not by a catastrophic one, such as a flood outflow, which even today does not create meanders, especially ones that double back on the flow:
![[Linked Image]](http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/wwwamgwvua.jpg)
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?
Which does not answer the question of why the Grand Canyon cuts across the ridge at a point higher than places both north and south of the canyon:
Which was not the issue I was discussing. Haven't I explained that before? I'm sure I have. Are your goggles filtering even this simple information?
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, ...
Just because you make up arguments doesn't mean they are real or even remotely based on evidence. Floods do not create this shape for a number of reasons:
Now you could provide evidence that "flooding also creates meanders" instead of just asserting it,
Try reading
Life on the Mississippi by atheist Mark Twain. Or try supporting your own meander claim. You'll have to cherry pick your links if you want to avoid supporting what I said, you know.
Or folks can keep reading & maybe a little thinking & the answers are obvious enough.
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?
Which doesn't answer the question of how the rock pillars are made by floods.
Didn't realize there was a question. It's all
so obvious.
Get real. The floods in the 4500 year model must remove all the pillars and meanders, but the evotime story is exempt?
No, CTD, the problem is that flood flows do not
make pillars and meanders,
Goggle up, RAZD. You ain't gonna like this, but water - a little or a lot - follows the path of least resistance. This is how it flows; this is how it erodes. If there's a patch that's hard to erode, the water will do what? Go around!
and side canyons and many other features found in the Grand Canyon, while slow erosion does. If the Grand Canyon was made by flood flows these features would not exist because they would not have been made, and instead you would have features like those found in the scablands.
Fast or slow, water follows the easiest path. It's a fluid. It's subject to inertia. It has mass and takes up space. Are there any other simple, obvious properties I need to spell out?
Now about those super-ancient meanders, any answers? Doesn't look like you'll be getting any help, so you might want to field this one yourself. And it is the responsible thing to do - you brought this on your team, after all.
