Originally Posted by CTD
Originally Posted by RAZD
You started talking about bends when you said that water flow bends around obstacles: this is not the same thing as a meander, and I am not aware of anyone claiming that water meanders around obstacles. So bends around obstacles would not be classed as meanders.

Nor does this in any way provide evidence that the formation in this picture was formed by flood waters:

[Linked Image]
You say "bends around obstacles would not be classed as meanders" and post that pic! Now folks, is it your brains or your eyesight RAZD underestimates?

I don't understand your response to the comments or picture. So perhaps I am the one whose brains RAZD didn't underestimate. RAZD said that Horseshoe bend is a bend and that flood waters that would carve the majority of the Grand Canyon in a few months would not make that formation. That makes sense to me but I am willing to change my mind if you can show me how his conclusions are not valid.

Quote
Quote
Seeing as I keep repeating this image, there can be no doubt in anyones mind that I am talking about these types of formations, no matter what you call them, and the fact remains that these formations do not form during flood conditions.
You said it - not me.
I don't understand your response here either. Are you saying that a flood of massive proportions could form the Horseshoe Bend or are you agreeing with RAZD's statement?

Quote
Quote
Flood waters tend to flow straight (follow the energy gradient rather than any bottom configuration), and this also means flowing straight over obstacles when those obstacles are covered by the flood waters, including the peninsula's of ox-bow meanders, carving new channels in the process.

The fact remains that there is no evidence of this behavior in the Grand Canyon.
In how many evoyears' worth of floods? If you pulled peoples' legs as hard literally as you do figuratively, we'd all be amputees.

Your response here also doesn't seem to address the point that RAZD was making. It seems that he is saying that massive flood flows don't make those kinds of formations so there was no massive flood flow of the kind that Hovind claims in his video. Your response makes me think that you believe RAZD was saying that there were many massive floods. Could you point out where he said something like that?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Should evidence come up that this or that meander formed when he said it shouldn't, ...
Curiously all you need to do is show evidence that a flood has made a meander like the one in the picture above and you know I will agree that you have invalidated my point.

So do you have evidence, or just more equivocating red-herring nit-picks on terminology that don't amount to a hill of beans for how the Grand Canyon actually formed.
Not much more evidence is needed. The pictures you've chosen are a good start, perhaps enough that nothing further will be required.
RAZD was using the pictures of those formations to show that a massive flood had not carved the Grand Canyon, yet you say they are evidence that a massive flood can make those formations. I don't understand how you can say that without assuming that which you are trying to prove. RAZD has stated earlier that studies have shown that those formations have never resulted from any known massive flooding. From the observation of known massive floods, he and almost all geologists conclude that the existence of those formations in the Grand Canyon indicates that massive flooding, on the scale that Hovind hypothesizes, has not occurred there.

I understand the logic involved in the construction of their conclusion. I don't understand yours in this case. Could you elaborate on it?

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke