Originally Posted by LinearAq
Originally Posted by CTD
Lately, RAZD's arguments follow an odd formula. The idea is to take that which should lead a person to think one thing, and twist & turn things & extract the opposite conclusion.

Works something like this:
Cats are bigger than mice.
Cats have claws and sharp fangs.
Cats eat mice.
Elephants are much bigger than cats, and more dangerous.
Elephants are afraid of mice.
Therefore, cats are afraid of mice.

I'm curious to see if he's the only one using this formula, or if it's some sort of new fad. It's really just a ploy to exploit short attention spans, & create an argument that nobody will bother to counter. Really, why would anyone bother? (But oh, don't the cheerleaders emerge when one doesn't!)
I suppose that this in some way addresses the issues that RAZD brought up. However, I don't see how.
It is observation & analysis. Like any other science, evolutionology relies upon these.

Quote
I see that you are like Russ in that you are able to express these enormous logical leaps which make sense to you but seem to be over our heads. Since you obviously want to be understood, could you point out exactly how RAZD's explanation and examples match up with the logic (illogic?) twist-and-turn illustration you provided?
I thought I had done so. RAZD takes evidence which is commonly used to demonstrate the truth of the historic record, and attempts to make folks believe just the opposite - that it somehow is a problem and cannot be reconciled.

We have yet to be informed why no clams could be conceived 20 years prior to the flood, etc. His meandering river argument clearly destroys the evostory, yet he pretends it is a problem for flood models.

Quote
Quote
The clam issue is one example, and this Grand Canyon story is another. He mistakenly condensed this one into one post, so it's very simple to dissect.
Could you be a little more specific here? I saw the clam fossils and the Grand Canyon evidence as 2 different issues that contradict the Flood story.
Well, that's how they were presented, right? But there's no real rhyme or reason behind the conclusion that they are in conflict at all. Saying it doesn't make it so. And throwing in a few dozen nonsensical sentences won't make it so either.

Quote
Can you show me how RAZD misleads us by making them the same thing? Please be specific and remember you are writing to someone whom you believe is of low intelligence.
As you have missed the point, it will be easy to remember.

I was not saying that RAZD made the two issues the same. I said he employed the same method when formulating both 'arguments'.

Quote
Originally Posted by RAZD
Another piece of evidence against the Grand Canyon being carved by flood outflow is that everyplace where you have a meandering river in a flat area -- say the Mississippi, for instance -- and you have a flood, the flood waters cut across the meanders during the flood,

I think RAZD is saying that if there were a flood drainage that carried lots of mud, and the Grand Canyon did not already exist, then the carving out by the flood waters would look very different than the Grand Canyon looks now. Are you saying that the Canyon was already there when the flood waters were receding and that's why it was carved differently by those flood waters? This is getting confusing for me because it seems like you are saying that the Grand Canyon caused the flood waters to carve the Grand Canyon the way it was carved???
You are mixing the stories. Imagine your way back in time to the start of the evostory, back when there was no canyon at all; and apply what RAZD was talking about. The land was fairly flat, right? So why didn't the river straighten itself out? It'd have several million years to do so.

Quote
Help!! I really don't understand what you are saying here, either. The uphill flow has already been explained by something called plate tectonics, which you agreed is a fact.
I agreed that there are plate tectonics - not that it solves your problem. Generally plate tectonics doesn't result in one special spot being chosen to rise, rise, rise eternally.

Continental plates can rise as a whole, or when they collide one may go under while the other goes over. There's nothing in that which accounts for one special spot always rising at the same rate throughout all time. If for example, one plate slid up entirely atop another, wouldn't it eventually slide off the other side & go back down?

That your scheme requires just one part of the plate to gradually elevate & not the rest - that part just doesn't work.
Quote
Are you saying that RAZD's explanation that the meanders would have been compromised by a massive influx of water, combined with actual data showing that they have not been compromised, is a problem for "evostory"? Again, this must be another teaching moment. Please connect the dots using simple language.
Well, they're just not a problem. When the water subsided, the bottom of the canyon wouldn't likely be perfectly flat. So the relative trickle that followed would follow the path of least resistance and flow through the lowest part. Why should anyone expect this to be a straight line?

I guess I took for granted that folks could figure that much out for themselves. I shall now take for granted that some will be unable to manage it even with assistance.

In order for rivers to straighten, repetitive flooding is generally required. One model doesn't have much potential for repetitive flooding, and the other cannot escape it without special pleading.
Quote
Quote
But compare the flips & twists one has to do to convince oneself the Grand Canyon is evoaged to the elegant explanations provided by creation science. The evogarbage can't compete; it isn't even in the same league. Research based upon trying to find the truth is so much better than fantasies invented to prop up disintegrating mythology.

Maybe you could show us a direct comparison between the two that:
1. Shows the places where the evologic performs each flip and twist.
2. How the elegant explanations provided by creation science mesh with the evidence. That would require details in the creation science explanation that go beyond "Lots of water flowed and we wound up with a formation kinda like the ruts in a dirt road after the rain."
3. Shows where evologic fails to explain particular formations in the Great Rut and creation science flood recession explains them exactly.

Flip 1: no delta
Flip 2: the river's too puny to carve the canyon, and the riverbed is protected by a lining of rocks.
Twist 1: river either flows uphill, or in violation of all that is known about plate tectonics, one special spot chooses to elevate itself perpetually at the same rate.
Twist 2: the box canyons are just there, although nothing carved them.

That's really enough I think.

Oh yeah! RAZD's point. Do we count that one as a flip or a twist? Anyhow, the meanders cannot be reconciled with the evostory. The river would have straightened its channel fairly quickly, and all subsequent digging it performed would have been straight & true.

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