Hey CTD, still having trouble eh?
RAZD has on more than one occasion presented conclusions of evolutionists as facts. Obviously evolutionism is not science, according to his own standard.
Even if this statement were true, as opposed to just one more
ad hominem in a long string of
ad hominems, it still does not answer the question or even begin to address the issue.
What's hilarious about this is that (1) this is almost all
you ever do - assert things as being true
according to your conclusions, and you expect me to take them as fact? and (2) you have never shown that this is so, so it is just another case where you have made a conclusion and want to pawn it off as fact.
Now, are you ever going to explain how a flood scenario is necessary to understand the formation of the Grand Canyon? Without that explanation then calling the Grand Canyon evidence of a flood is just another logically false statement.
How would a flood form the meanders, cross canyons and ridges sticking out into the canyon? By magic?
Enjoy.
