You are getting what you dish out and all you can do is whine? You are as immature as RADZ is.

I'm not wasting my time telling you what you already know. It's your choice and you have made it. Which also means there is no excuse. Not my problem.

No. It's not about any creationist. It's about creation science. I've never claimed no creationist exists who isn't well-educated on every topic.

The article clearly does not say the flood carved the canyon. How many articles can you supply that support what I say? Quite a few, I expect.

Sad part is: that was written by a layman, and it's still not what RAZD needs. Shoot, he may have the uplift part right. I wish I could remember it better.

In recent geological history, portions of the United States have been the site of several massive flooding events caused by the abrupt drainage of glacial lakes. The most dramatic of these events are the Ice Age Floods that covered parts of Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. For a better understanding of the Floods, perhaps a good place to start is to first look at the geological and climatic changes that led up to these cataclysmic floods.

At the end of the last Ice Age, a finger of the Cordilleran ice sheet crept southward into the Idaho panhandle, forming a large ice dam that blocked the mouth of the Clark Fork River, creating a massive lake 2000 feet deep and containing more than 500 cubic miles of water. Glacial Lake Missoula stretched eastward for some 200 miles and contained more water than Lake Erie and Lake Ontario combined. When the highest of these ice dams failed, lake water burst through, shooting out at a rate 10 times the combined flow of all the rivers of the world.

This towering mass of water and ice literally shook the ground as it thundered toward the Pacific Ocean, stripping away hundreds of feet of soil and cutting deep canyons—”coulees”—into the underlying bedrock. With flood speeds approaching 65 miles per hour, the lake would have drained in as little as 48 hours.

Over time the Cordilleran ice sheet continued moving south and blocked the Clark Fork River again and again, recreating Glacial Lake Missoula. Over approximately 2,500 years, the lake, ice dam and flooding sequence was repeated dozens of times, leaving a lasting mark on the landscape.

Today we can see how the floods impacted the landscape. They carved out more than 50 cubic miles of earth, piled mountains of gravel 30 stories high, created giant ripple marks the height of three-story buildings, and scattered 200-ton boulders from the Rockies to the Willamette Valley. Grand Coulee, Dry Falls, Palouse Falls—all were created by these flood waters, as were the Missoula and Spokane ground-water resources, numerous wetlands and the fertile Willamette Valley and Quincy Basin.

A braided river is one of a number of channel types and has a channel that consists of a network of small channels separated by small and often temporary islands called braid bars or, in British usage, aits or eyots. Braided streams occur in rivers with high slope and/or large sediment load (Schumm and Kahn 1972). Braided channels are also typical of environments that dramatically decrease channel depth, and consequently channel velocity, such as river deltas, alluvial fans and peneplains.

Braided rivers, as distinct from meandering rivers, occur when a threshold level of sediment load or slope is reached. Geologically speaking an increase in sediment load will over time increase the slope of the river, so these two conditions can be considered synonymous and consequently a variation of slope can model a variation in sediment load. A threshold slope was experimentally determined to be 0.016 (ft/ft) for a 0.15 CFS stream with poorly sorted coarse sand (Schumm and Kahn 1972). Any slope over this threshold created a braided stream, and under the threshold created a meandering stream or for very low slopes a straight channel.

So what is the creation science explanation CTD?

Sadly, what LindaLou and I have been talking about is that creationists have used - and continue to use - the flood as the cause of the Grand Canyon, and you do not get to redefine what we were talking about to suit your argument.

I'll take this as agreement that some creationists have used the flood as the cause of the Grand Canyon. I'll also agree that this may be due to a lack of education on some of the finer points.

Note that we also have repeatedly asked for your explanation, so the lack of information "about creation science" and how it explains the process is not our failure. When people go to AiG and see articles like the one quoted it is not their fault if the information is wrong is it?

If you want to move the goal posts you need to define the new location.

This is just playing semantic word games, that it wasn't the flood but the drainage of the flood waters -- they are still saying that without the flood the canyon would not be like it is. This is like saying that it wasn't the dog that broke the vase, it was the wagging tail of the dog that broke the vase.

The great flood deposited sediments which were subsequently eroded.

Question: If all of the universe came from the same matter in the Big Bang, why does not all matter date back to that Big Bang? If age dating was 100% accurate, that all planets, and all matter would date the same age. But they don't do they?

A closer more likely event that shows age dating wrong. The moon is said to have formed from the earth from a meteor impact. So the moon is of the same matter as the earth, correct? Why the age difference?

Is there such a thing as cross contamination in age dating? Yes there is. What this means is that if a fossil, that dates a few thousand year old, is buried in a geological layer that dates a millions years old. Given time the layer will cross contaminate the fossil to date the same age as the layer does. This is why layers date the fossils, and fossils date the layers so well.

When bones, teeth, or antlers are found at a site, fluorine analysis can be used to tell us whether or not the animals they were from actually lived at about the same time. This relative dating method is based on the fact that there are specific progressive chemical changes in skeletal remains that result from burial underground. As time passes, the organic components of bone (mostly fats and proteins) are lost primarily through bacterial action. Since these components contain nitrogen, there is a progressive loss of that element. At the same time, percolating ground water deposits trace amounts of fluorine and other elements, such as uranium, into the bone. As a result, the amount of fluorine progressively increases. If the bones of two animals are buried at the same time in the same site, they should have about the same amount of nitrogen and fluorine. If they do not, they most likely come from different eras, despite the fact that they were found in association with each other.

Actually, Linda might think that is a compliment.

Radiometric dating of igenous rock dates the time at which is cooled and crystallised. Cosmogenic dating dates the amount of exposure to cosmic rays that rock or ice has undergone, in effect dating the amount of time the surface has been exposed. Those are two I know off the top of my head. The uranium dating in the Grand Canyon discussions is also a way of doing this.

So you prove my point. Their are variables that make it inacurate.

One of the main objections to radiometric dating (on the part of young earth creationists) is that radiometric ages do not agree with each other or that contamination renders ages meaningless. In fact, the claim is partially true. Early mass spectrometers were not as sensitive as machines today and the methods for separating, cleaning and analysis were less sophisticated. Although ye-creationists like Snelling talk about contamination of isotopic systems as if it were a foreign concept to modern geology, most geochronologists routinely check for possible contamination using a variety of methods. In addition, geologists recognized that rocks could be contaminated with excess daughter or parent or loss of parent/daughter that would also affect the age as determined by radiometric methods. Creationists have seized upon these discoveries and held them forth as evidence that radiometric dating is inaccurate. But is this the case? Simply put each radiometric system is based on the assumption that each system has a different half-life (derived from the decay 'constant' which is simply the length of time it takes for 1/2 of the radioactive parent to decay to a stable daughter). In addition to variable half-lives, each mineral will 'close' at different temperatures (closure, is simply defined as the point where no daughter/parent is lost or gained*). There are a number of different methods that geologists use to check for loss/gain and these are incorporated into most analyses (isochron methods, stepwise degassing etc). If radiometric decay rates are not constant and rocks behave as open systems, it would be the exception, rather than the rule, for ages to agree with one another. Here are a few examples in the recent literature of radiometric age determinations on the same rocks (using different isotopic methodsa).

The ages of the Fen Complex (A,B) are on two separate dikes within the Fen Complex. Not only are their ages similar, but the direction of magnetization in the rocks is also identical and indicates that Oslo, Norway was located at about 30 degrees south at the time. This is an important consideration. In order to refute the ages, ye-creationists must not only explain how three different isotopic systems (with different decay constantsa and chemical behavior) all gave the same age and the same magnetic direction. It is also not trivial that the magnetic direction in these rocks indicates that Norway has moved northward following the emplacement of these rocks.

I know you are very analytical.