It's all distraction, pure and simple. In no post on this page is there an attempt to engage with any of the evidence. We've heard things like "it's all illogical/lies" and "if I understood it better I'm sure I could expose it for the lies it is."

And again, the questions here are simple. If you are going to claim an alternative theory to the existing scientific one, you need to explain why your own theory works better. To repeat, CTD -- and no creationist here -- has been able to explain why cosmogenic and uranium dating methods are wrong, how a catastrophic flood can cut a meander of the type we've seen in pictures here, how layer upon layer of fossils from marine environments with evidence of growing in place can be evidence of a flood, what an aeolian (wind-blown) sandstone deposit is doing in a supposed flood layer and why it contains tracks of spiders and scorpions, why a flood would cut a channel into ground which is higher than that surrounding it, what paleosols are doing in the Grand Canyon, why none of the layers display mixed or hydrological sorting of fossils or other materials which would be expected in a flood . . . it's a long list, if you look back at the posts. I have been reminding creationists here of that but they seem to want to ignore the questions.

We are now in double digits of pages here and CTD has not even defined his position. Now he seems to be saying there were two floods which carved the Grand Canyon, though he hasn't presented any evidence that there was even one. And he has admitted that a global flood layer does not exist, which is the most frank thing he's probably said here IMO.

Any rational person would look at this and see the obvious. The creationists here are instead colluding in distraction techniques and congratulating each other on their adeptness in these. It has to be said, I'd give them 5 stars for it myself.