Originally Posted by RAZD
So what is the creation science explanation CTD?
You already know it, and so does everyone else. The great flood deposited sediments which were subsequently eroded.

You have what Kent Hovind said, you have AiG, you have my posts, you have Linear's posts which show he figured it out twice.

How long will you persist?

Originally Posted by RAZD
Originally Posted by CTD
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.
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.
It's clear even to Linear (sometimes) that your strawman is distinct from the actual creation science theory.

Quote
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.
If you think I've agreed to any such thing you're deluded. But it does not matter. We were not discussing creationist mistakes - we were discussing the theories of creation scientists as summarized by Kent Hovind.

Quote
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?
You haven't demonstrated an error in the AIG article. Neither have you demonstrated that it matches your straw man.

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

Quote
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.
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.
Not at all. The dams could've broken up to 200 or 300 years later. Some of the sediments had time to start hardening. This is not a single event.

It's a tad late to try to claim I'm playing word games. You've been losing to this straw man for quite a while now.

Thanks for supplying such a nice example of a false analogy. Let's stay with the dog theme & see how it should go. Your version: I stink and my knee is bleeding because I stepped on a dog and fell. Real version: I stepped in dog poop.

I'll consider taking the braided river stuff to the proper thread. Pretty obvious why there isn't a braided river in the Grand Canyon, IMO.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson