News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

When deciphering, it pays to keep in mind that what you're working with may be illogical or contain no actual meaning at all. This is especially likely to be true when $500 words are present. The idea is to get you so busy looking up the word and trying to figure out which definition applies, that you overlook the fact that the rest of what is written is flawed or just nonsense.

You're too modest. There have been times when I refrained from posting because I didn't want to distract attention from the strong arguments and evidence you presented.

...if only people had been paying attention instead of hiding behind their evogoggles...

That's the whole key. Don't try to argue all issues. Don't try to debunk all bunk. I confess I do set a poor example.

Evolutionism has always been an argument from spam. Just look at Darwin's Origin book. One untruth, or ten thousand, which is easier to tackle? They know this, so they always insist it must all be debunked. If they had a case to present and evidence to back it up... well, they've had a century and a half, haven't they? But we cannot find hide nor hair of any real support for this myth, and neither can they! So instead, they must spam errors. And redefine terms. And obfuscate. And hurl false accusations. And you've seen the rest.

But spam is their strong suit. They have generated a lot over the many decades, and there's no sign they're going to slow down.

Nonparticipants will, if they think a bit, see that there are critical links in the chain. They may also see a pattern: this is false, this is false, that is false, and the rest of the crap remains unaddressed. People tend to recognize consistent patterns quickly.

This thread is but one example. Most of the bunk, perhaps all, wasn't fit to fool anyone. I addressed that which I thought might fool the inattentive, although it's hard to judge what's best in this group of losers. Now I'm accused of dodging.

But anyone can see that I have no need to dodge that which is harmless. This is just the same old spam strategy. If there is evidence which is inconsistent with the creation science model, it is reasonable for the evolutionists to present it and make it crystal-clear. How clear are any of their arguments? Where is the evidence that cannot be reconciled? There is no limit to the number of bogus arguments that can be presented about any subject, but the limit on legit arguments is zero in this case, to the very best of my knowledge. If there is a flaw in the creation science model, it will be creation scientists who find it. The evolutionists are too busy focusing on straw men.

I actually should probably have ignored everything they've presented so far. They imagine the non-participants are very stupid, but there's no reason for me to accept this assumption. Well, maybe that meander bit - it's worth a little pursuit since meanders will not reconcile with the bogus evostories.

I agree. I am aware of the intellectual smoke-screen game playing, but not confident enough or familiar enough to always unravel and expose it. Intimidation tactics can (and often do) work well, plus confusion. Particularly on those newer to these kinds of debates and less familar with the terminology.



A compliment indeed coming from you. Thank you! If it wasn't my content that was criticised, it was my technique from a certain member on here, so much so, it was almost comical had it not been so tiring.



No, you set a good example of someone not being swayed by ongoing petty criticism (peer pressure) to force you into 'debunking all bunk'. You seem to receive it with an air of amusement at times without really getting your feathers ruffled. Someone more emotional would not handle it quite so well.

I see no reason why you should feel pressured into anything, and you've shown...you're not.

Thanks for the rest of your post too. Knowing what to expect can help, or at least having it confirmed and realising one is not alone in picking up the same!

Cheers

If I understand what CTD and Bex are suggesting, posting in an intelligent, knowledged and well-researched manner makes the poster a fraud. Anyone who posts with an ounce of intellect is clearly trying to hide something.

Frm nouw onn im gona tipe luke this just soo noone thinkz im up ta no guud.

Down wiht intelect, up with uninteligblity!

You failed to understand the point. Do you think the definition of intelligence is being well versed in "confusing/impressing others with lots of complexity" continually? If so, consider yourself fooled by them. The most intelligent people are able to express their viewpoint clearly enough, without the need to resort to to this practice, because they can easily break down and express the argument clearly and simply enough, so that even laypeople can learn and understand exactly what is being said. It's a gift to do this. Probably not so easy to achieve.

You could compare this a little like the following. You can get people who are quite well off, but not as much as they would like. They may impress others by appearing much wealthier than they really are. The cars, the clothes, the house etc etc. Then you can get others who are of another class altogether. The TRULY wealthy, who can be mistaken for any ordinary "joe bloggs" because some don't feel the need to prove anything by donning the gear to appear so.

This is why some highly wealthy individuals will often sport ordinary clothes and tattier brief cases. They aren't the "would bes if only we could bes".

Sorry for misunderstanding. Could you cite me a few specific examples of where they are posting in a manner which is deceitful by way of "complexity", as you call it?

Additionally, LinearAq, LindaLou and RAZD, I kindly ask that you stop with the charades. It's just been brought to my attention by Bex that the three of you are posting in a manner which is deceitful. I demand that you confess that you were trying to decieve me and apologize for it at once. I am angered that my belief in evolution has been reinforced by your posts, only to find out that you post "complexly" so as to deceive me and stray me from the path of truth.

It's all distraction, pure and simple. In no post on this page is there an attempt to engage with any of the evidence. We've heard things like "it's all illogical/lies" and "if I understood it better I'm sure I could expose it for the lies it is."

And again, the questions here are simple. If you are going to claim an alternative theory to the existing scientific one, you need to explain why your own theory works better. To repeat, CTD -- and no creationist here -- has been able to explain why cosmogenic and uranium dating methods are wrong, how a catastrophic flood can cut a meander of the type we've seen in pictures here, how layer upon layer of fossils from marine environments with evidence of growing in place can be evidence of a flood, what an aeolian (wind-blown) sandstone deposit is doing in a supposed flood layer and why it contains tracks of spiders and scorpions, why a flood would cut a channel into ground which is higher than that surrounding it, what paleosols are doing in the Grand Canyon, why none of the layers display mixed or hydrological sorting of fossils or other materials which would be expected in a flood . . . it's a long list, if you look back at the posts. I have been reminding creationists here of that but they seem to want to ignore the questions.

We are now in double digits of pages here and CTD has not even defined his position. Now he seems to be saying there were two floods which carved the Grand Canyon, though he hasn't presented any evidence that there was even one. And he has admitted that a global flood layer does not exist, which is the most frank thing he's probably said here IMO.

Any rational person would look at this and see the obvious. The creationists here are instead colluding in distraction techniques and congratulating each other on their adeptness in these. It has to be said, I'd give them 5 stars for it myself.

OK, that's it. You've simply gone too far this time. LindaLou, I don't even know what these colludinationing or adeptnessness nonsense words mean but it's clearly an attempt to confuse me with complex wording. Just what are you trying to do, make me go and look up a word that I don't know the meaning to? Shame on you! Stop trying to deceive me with your lies. It's obvious to anyone that you and the entire scientific community have no idea what you're talking about.

[/snarky shitheadedness]

I know, I'm just full of snide remarks today. What can I say? I have a lot of catching up to do with my numerous counterparts on the other side of the debate who, thus far, have been doing it in spades (such that, thanks to CTD, my legs are still verdant with a thick, luxurious swath of flaxen brown hairs).

Hey Pwcca, can you ever type a post without bitter sarcasm? I'm just curious to see if you can do it? I've read these threads for sometime and stayed from commenting for a long while, and at times bitten my tongue as I've seen your almost continual childish, bias nit pick/zero contribution posting, and then bizzare expectations of people to respond to your posts "kindly and maturely" in the process...and you wondering why you get a bit of what you deserve.....

Your legs will remain unshaved I assure you, until you start to apply your "expectations" of others onto yourself. You want me to pick out posts to you and show you what I consider unnecessary complexity? Try reading. And if you can understand each of them very well, hey congratulations! I admire that. CTD understands them well too, he's become much more fluent in evolutionese himself. I haven't mastered it as yet.

Linda's ongoing BS that all this is "distracting" methods, ought to check out Pwcca's ongoing interruptions of pointless nit picking posting herself and ask "why does he keep doing this?"....Linda knows full well that I haven't posted in a long time, but I have certainly read. It's interesting that she feels it ok for her "pals" to give ongoing character evaluations/assassination type interruptive posts, but not ok when the other side decide it's time to say something....

There now. And for added perspective:




Your pattern of whining when I clearly address an issue continues. Just to help you keep things straight now, you do the obfuscating. If you can't handle it by yourself, I'm sure there are others who will be glad to pitch in. But I won't be doing your bidding.

Congratulations are in order, BTW. LindaLou has things exactly backwards from what you intend.
RAZD says floods cut meanders & result in a straight river. LindaLou says it ain't so. I'd be disappointed in my failure to make things clear for her, but since she hardly pays any attention to what I post, I don't feel too bad.

Or maybe LindaLou's trying to avoid the special pleading that seems inevitable if floods cut meanders and there's been all that evotime for the meanders to all be cut out. Too tough to say for sure, but I'm giving credit to RAZD's efforts here. Never known LindaLou to take steps to avoid a logical fallacy.
No magic, just special pleading. No floods for 700,000 years or more, depending on which evocalendar one chooses. And how long ago did I predict this? Evidently so long you're hoping it's been forgotten.

It's a pleasure to disappoint you.

Further disappointment: I wasn't distracted enough to overlook this, either.
I suggest you take out your frustrations on this straw man before he retires & hits you up for a pension.

See what I mean?

Oh? I thought you didn't know where the flood layer was. Care to share?

So evolutionists can't recognize clear human footprints or bird footprints, but spiders & scorpions are no problem.

Ell - Oh so very - Ell!

Keep 'em comin' like that. It's moments like this that make evohype worth reading.

Bex:

So not explaining the following:



. . . is "BS" about distraction and avoiding issues? Nice one. Notice that CTD is again ignoring this list and is playing silly word games about river meanders (he has ignored, for example, the fact that I said catastrophic floods do not cut meanders). If he had clear evidence for his own position, it would not be difficult for him to directly answer the above questions. Would you like to address some of this evidence yourself while you are here, or simply continue to tell us that we are conspiratorial obfuscators?

Distracting again I see, CTD.

The point being there is no evidence for a flood layer in the Grand Canyon. Since when was a marine environment the same as a flood-? The deposits in those sedimentary layers show that they were formed in a calm environment. I can elucidate if you want.

There are invertebrate tracks in the Coconino sandstone and prints of reptiles and amphibians in the Hermit Shale, showing faunal succession. You are also sidestepping the issue of the CS being an aeolian deposit, though the convenient fact that you will not tell us where you believe the flood layer to be means that you can always shift the goalposts and say the CS is above or below that layer. Or more interesting still, as you have done, you can say there's no evidence at all for a flood layer, yet perversely still claim there was a catastrophic flood. I'm assuming you think it carved the Grand Canyon but you shout "strawman" whenever this is said, so I think you've having a little joke with us to be honest, by not telling us what you do think and then making silly remarks when we guess. Nice way to illustrate how "creation science" works.

Why not address just one of my questions above. Explain how cosmogenic or uranium dating for the erosion of the Grand Canyon is wrong. If the earth is young then it must be wrong. This is a problem for your position and it isn't going to go away. How about it? No comments about "I'm not wasting my time with this," "I've already explained," "can't you scroll up," "everyone knows evodates are nonsense" etc. Answer the question please.

OK, I'll say it again.

Lies.

Your incessant faith in the decreasing (false) evidence for evolution is amazing, especially considering that you hold so many contradicting ideas in your mind at once (I know your history here).

Catastrophic flood is the only reasonable explanation for the canyon.

Dr. Hovind does and excellent job of explaining the real evidence and the lies here:

Lies in the Textbooks

You have to remember this premise when examining "evidence" Linda. Don't forsake the fundamentals, even when people ask you too. History demonstrates that 99 times out of 100, the final explanation is the one containing common sense.

What's amazing to me is that lie after lie is exposed coming from evolution scientists, and yet, the devout disciples of the faith continue to trust whatever they are told.

What's even more amazing is that evolutionists like to call Christians gullible.

Amazing.

This is an information war, Linda.

You will have to face this reality eventually.

And your evidence for this is:



What's happened, Russ? You used to attempt a decent debate here. Now you're making the occasional comment to wave everything away, with the same old dull litany of video links.

Your own creation "scientists" know better than to simply claim it's all lies . . . well, those with a little more scientific knowledge than Hovind. Some of them know that their position will hold more weight if they can at least give the appearance of being scientific. Some of them have had a good go at trying to "prove" that various dating methods are erroneous, though it's pretty easy to spot the flaws in their methodologies. I'd give them some stars for trying at least; even they think that it isn't enough just to say "it's all lies."

Classic denial, Russ. You can use this argument to support whatever delusion you like, such as the earth being flat or Santa Claus being real.

--==--==--STRAWMAN ALERT--==--==--

Answer to first question... I've been really busy preparing.

Next...



You're at it again Linda.

Please find this in my quote

You're the one who wrote "lies" in a big, bold, black font Russ.

OK then, you tell us what specifically you think the "lies" are, and give evidence to support your position.

Honestly, are we playing guessing games with creationists here now? It seems to be a recent bit of fun for y'all to shout "straw man" without further explanation. Do you actually have one (an explanation), or is it a laugh to keep claiming that you didn't mean what it looks like you said? This is looking suspiciously like another distraction technique.

Speaking of which, remember what I said I'd do every time you posted a link to some Hovind vid by way of trying to present an argument here? In all fairness, you yourself should be willing to read Buddika's 300 Creationist Lies Index, which handily refutes most of Hovind's claims. Because I'm not sitting through another of his vids and painstakingly refuting all of his claims any more than you're going to read that entire series of web pages.

Evidence on the table: no creationist here has so far been able to explain . . .



Care to engage?

It is hard for me to believe that someone as obviously intelligent as you fails to see that more explanation is needed. I have asked several times that you provide at least some of the intermediate steps required to arrive at your conclusions.

I have assured you that I am not as intellectually gifted as you and need more information to understand.

What part of the dating process is being lied about?
What information shows these dates to be lies?

Looks like you are evaluating LindaLou rather than the information she provided. Is this an example of an ad hominem attack? Surely not!

What is your number one piece of evidence that convinces you of this? Keep the explanation simple so that we can follow the logic please.


What was the common sense that lead to the conclusion that angular momentum is conserved in the absence of a any exterior forces?

What common sense lead to the heliocentric solar system?

What common sense lead to the theory of relativity?

What common sense lead to the germ theory of disease?

What possible question could I ask that would get you to explain what you mean in your cryptic posts?


What's amazing to me is that you believe that the behavior of some evolutionists makes the theory untrue while claiming the behavior of some Christians has no effect on the truth of Christianity.
How is this valid logic?
A detailed explanation would be needed here for me to not see this as a contradiction.

Not all of them.

Then why are your posts so lacking in information?


And we can always remind those who don't believe as we do that God will punish them for it.

I've got so bored with these insubstantial remarks here about me that I gloss over them . . . well thanks for picking it up Linear, it would be nice to see Russ explain himself here.

I suppose he thinks that because I accept that putting mercury in one's mouth is not good, even though many so-called experts say it is harmless, I'm somehow contradicting myself by "believing in the evolution conspiracy" or somesuch.

Russ, you have solid evidence that says that mercury in a person's mouth is unhealthy. Surely, then, it is not difficult for you to also produce solid evidence that -- for the purposes of this thread -- the Grand Canyon was carved by a flood. Can we see some please? Or conversely, some evidence that the evolutionists' claims here are scientifically unsound?

'The Point' changes every time you post, if you're talking about "the point you'd like me to waste time discussing so you can ignore it and issue more spam."

Might be amusing. But until you make up your mind about whether or not there's a flood layer, I don't think your posts'll be very coherent.

I said there was no single worldwide layer that represented the flood. I made it clear that flood layers exist and need to be identified locally.

Tell me, how strong is the sensation of pleasure when you compose these? How long does it endure?

Haven't I heard that before? Yes I have. Yet the spam continues.

When has it ever done any good to answer one of your questions? Show me even one occasion if you can.

One has to wonder, CTD, how you can copy and paste (and reassemble) so much, and still fail to do the same for evidence you claim was already posted (all you have to do is scroll up ...).

No, CTD, you are the one that misunderstands. Let me see if I can be simple and clear:

(1) Floods do not carve meanders, they cut across them, and result in straightened flow patterns.

The river will bend around objects and follow the path of lowest energy gradient (usually downhill), but these bends are not meanders, they don't double back on themselves. Floods do not make meanders, they destroy them.

(2) Flow contained within the riverbanks (= a non-flood condition) cause more erosion along the outside of bend, and deposition of sediment along the inside of bends due to inertia, differential flow velocities, and fluid dynamics of laminar and turbulent flow.

Thus a river in a relatively flat floodplain will, over time, accent the bends in the river left after the last flood, making the bends more and more extreme until you end up with meanders ... or have another flood.

This is documented on many rivers, including the Mississippi, that flow in large flood plains subject to periodic floods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxbow_lake
What we see inside the Grand Canyon is the type of erosion characteristic of flow contained within the banks and occurring over long periods of time.

And we still have no evidence that the Grand Canyon was affected in any way by a biblical flood.

And we still have no evidence that a biblical flood occurred.

And we still have no answer for how creationism explains old clam fossils in complete and undamaged mature marine sedimentary deposits, layer upon layer, end up on mountaintops.

Enjoy.

What's amazing to me is how many times you've put words in other peoples' mouths.

Well try and imagine the explanation it would take for me to believe these aren't intentional lies.

Care to clarify?

1.) Meanders aren't cut by any floods.
2.) Meanders are cut by all floods.
3.) Catastrophic floods cut meanders but regular floods do not.
4.) Catastrophic floods do not cut meanders but regular floods do.
5.) Other (Please explain)

Yes, there is local evidence in different places for local floods.

Do you have evidence for a global flood? I've already identified the features we would need to look for. If they are not there, then we need to conclude there was no global flood, don't we? Well that's a neat and simple resolution to the issue.

Ah then you do believe that the dishonest actions by some people who claim adherence to a particular belief, invalidates that belief?

If so, then why are you still a Christian?

Now you are calling me a liar. Prove that the line you quoted from me is a lie.
Let me help you: First you must provide evidence that what I said is untrue. Then you have to provide evidence that I knew it to be untrue.

wwctdd: insult, demean, avoid answering, and insult again.

I like Bex, but I think he/she is making a mistake in choosing to admire the likes of you.

If the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years of river erosion. Then the top half of the canyon has been exposed to millions of years of rain erosion, correct? So rain erosion is vertical erosion because rain fall down, not sideways, correct?

So millions of years of this vertical rain erosion should have made the horizontal erosion from the river disappear, right?



So please explain how the the horizontal lines still exist all the way to the top, as well as the bottom? And are just as deep cut into the rock in the top as the bottom as if vertical erosion has been going on for a few thousand years instead of millions?

And just in case the answer is wind erosion:

Wind erosion is not the same as water erosion. It does not even look the same. So the horizontal lines are still there because it did not take millions of years to make them.

Unless someone would like to explain how the Grand Canyon is exempt from vertical rain erosion by rewriting erosion laws? Anyone?

Welcome to the fray ikester7579.

And yet one distinctive difference between the photo on the left (bottom of canyon) and the one on the right (middle of canyon) is deep vertical lines in the one on the right. Not one exists in the photo on the left. The upper rocks are weathered compared to the lower rocks, weathered in proportion to their distance from the bottom.

Can you explain the difference in weathering by water erosion alone?

Actually, rain falls in the direction of the wind, and the angle depends on the force of the wind. I was in a thunderstorm at Flagstaff AZ, and the rain was nearly horizontal.

Another factor that is known to make vertical cracks in rocks is freeze and thaw cycles where water gets into small cracks and expands as it freezes. This is much more likely to have caused the vertical lines in the rocks on the right than rain.

Yes wind erosion is also part of the answer, because the rock you are seeing on the right is not the rock carved by the water. You can also see the same patterns in areas where there is no water at all - from deserts to other areas of the canyon that are perpendicular to the main flow. This is known to occur, and to ignore it is to ignore part of reality.

You can also see this same pattern of banded erosion on the middle hill in this picture from inside the Grand Canyon - was the water running at a funny angle (uphill?)?:
. . .
(from http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/cp_megalandslides/grand_canyon.htm which has a full size version, click on the picture to see).

Wind erosion is not just gently breezes blowing through trees, it can be dust filled howling winds that act like sand-paper on all surfaces it comes into contact with. Wind and water are very similar in their effect on rocks, just with different viscosities, and both are augmented by carrying dust and silt and sand particles.

What causes the pattern of indented layers is not the water per se: it is the alternate layers of the rock, as different types have different hardness, even rocks of the same basic type have different densities.

This is why you can see this same pattern or differential wear in the vertical pattern on the rock in your lower picture, the pattern that is aligned with the layers in that rock.

You can also see that the pattern of rock layers in the Grand Canyon is horizontal by the bands of different colored (types) of rock. You can also see that some rock types are quite different in erodability.

Actually, trying to limit erosion to be only (a) from the river and (b) from vertical rain, would be trying to rewrite the "laws" of erosion. It is what is called a "straw man" argument, one that ignores a significant part of reality.

Let me draw your attention to the middle of the right side photo on the right side of that photo: you will see a gray slope below a cliff. This slope is scree, small stones and rocks that have fallen from the cliff as it erodes. The cliff has both vertical and horizontal patterns above the scree (as do other cliffs in the distance).

Now you have a problem: either (a) the river water carved the horizontal patterns (as you seem to claim) but somehow lacked the force to carry away the small rocks that it had the force to wear out of the big cliff, or (b) the rocks at the bottom are from vertical erosion caused by your rain straw man, however then it also carved horizontal bands in the rocks it was eroding. This contradiction shows that your simple straw man is not a complete picture of the erosion in the Grand Canyon.

This pattern of cliffs over scree is also common throughout the canyon, and the presence of these small rocks on the slopes below cliffs cannot be explained by water erosion due to a flooded river: notice the lack of scree at the bottom of the picture on the left: river erosion is characterised by the river removing material and depositing it downstream in low bars.

Weathering - wind, rain, ice - cause scree to fall from cliffs into the slopes below, which build up at angles so steep that they are dangerous to climb: if you dislodge one rock you may cause a rock slide of the whole slope. You also need long periods of time to accumulate scree to the extent that is visible in the Grand Canyon.

Enjoy.

Okay, Pwcca,

As a test of this hypothesis, I will refrain from posting on your new thread regarding tanned skin and muscular heredity and we can see if it makes a difference in the quality of Russ and CTD arguments.

{edited to add}

oops! Russ has just answered your post, and it seems he says that what he did was bait with an intentionally false statement in order to expose a lie ... curious approach .. and basically admits that he has no intention of substantiating his claim in any way. Note to self: Russ uses deception when posting, best to ignore anything he says. Have to give him 5 stars for that post.

He also left CTD hang out to dry (so much for loyalty eh CTD? seems he forgot to let you in on the joke.)

Enjoy.

Nice dodge of my questions, but it still does explain what I asked. You also try to switch the burden of guilt upon me, to avoid answering the questions. Sorry, the horizontal lines still exists after a supposed 100 million years. That is not my problem.



LOL, your attempt here is getting lamer.

1) Rain is not always wind driven now is it?
2) After rain hits the rock, the wind does not have the same effect as it did when it was free falling.
3) And because gravity pulls water down after wind can no longer affect it. The erosion will be in a downward motion.

Picture
This is a picture of another canyon. Notice the two types of erosion. Now why do you think the Grand Canyon does not have this why this Canyon does?

Picture

Then we have another Canyon with only verical wear.

So you are claiming that wind driven rain eroded horizontal lines in one Canyon, which means the wind blew 100% of the time. While in another Canyon, the wind never blows so we have vertical lines.



There is a big difference between horizontal cracks and horizontal wear.



Funny you should mention uphill. Because when the Grand Canyon was not a Canyon. The river claimed to have carved it would have had to run uphill because the elevation of the top of the Grand Canyon is higher then the other end of the river that supposetly did this.

So If uphill in one instance is a no go, it also applies to the other. Unless you want to explain how the same rule bends for only old earth? And that water runs up hill just because you say it will.



You can try to explain this away all you like. You can be irrational, stick your head in the sand, and ignore what is plainly in front of you. But as I said before, wind erosion looks nothing like water erosion. And that won't change regardless of how you try to dress it up.

How do you think they tell the difference anyway? If they cannot, then it could be claimed that a great wind created the canyon. But we both know that won't work. So your wind idea does not either.



Since you claim straw man arguement. Let's see you back it up:

1) Can you prove that "all" horizontal erosion at the top of the Grand Canyon is created by:
a) Wind erosion?
b) Wind driven water erosion?

2) Can you show us that wind erosion looks just like water erosion and that science cannot tell the difference?

3) Can you make the river that formed the Grand Canyon flow uphill without breaking any temporal laws?

4) Can you show us where all the setiments went for such a huge movement of particles? It just does not poof itself into nothing.

5) Could you prove that no vertical wear what so ever could ever form in the Grand Canyon like it has in other Canyons that have been around for the same amount of time. And for what reason would this be so?

Thanks ikester7579,

Thanks for acknowledging that the right side shows significantly more weathering than the left side of your photo.

Are you suggesting that only you can ask questions, and that your responses don't have to deal with the inherent contradictions of your position? I wouldn't call that debate.

Let me repeat this little item, as it seems to have been missed in your response:

Notice that in spite of all that scree having fallen off the cliff face it still has horizontal bands of rock with erosion patterns aligned with those bands.

Geologist explain this with rock layers weathering and eroding at different rates due to their densities and chemical bonds, the nature of the rocks in question.

Your explanation of erosion only consisting of horizontal river erosion and vertical rain erosion has problems with this one (among hundreds) cliff inside the Grand Canyon:

(1) If the horizontal bands are due to river erosion, then how do you explain the large pile of scree? Note that the scree in this picture is higher than the remaining cliff above it.

(2) If the scree is due to vertical rain erosion, then how do you explain the horizontal bands in the cliff after all this rock has fallen off the face? There is enough scree to cover the cliff several times, so the cliff face you are seeing is what's left after the scree has fallen off.

Oh? As soon as rain hits your windshield when you are driving on the freeway, does it go up or down? Does it behave the same as when your car is still, or is there a significant difference in force and direction?

While you are considering answers to the previous questions, then you can also add to it the fact that the vertical cracks -- the ones due to vertical rain erosion according to your explanation -- also exhibit horizontal erosion.

Again you see the rock eroding according to the density and chemical bonding of the rock, thus the tilted erosion pattern above the river (unless you think water runs uphill?). You also see the effect of a different type of rock that forms vertical cracks. Basalt does this as it cools (it comes from lava flows) and the shrinkage in the vertical direction is not impede the way it is in the horizontal direction. The cracking pattern is usually hexagonal due to the chemical bonding of this kind of rock. This is common throughout the west, and in fact does occur inside the Grand Canyon as well - you can see some of it in your first picture.

Your explanation of vertical erosion does not explain why the cliff is so vertical, shouldn't it be eroded more at the (older erosion) top than at the (younger erosion) bottom of the cliff?

Nor does your vertical erosion explain the tilted erosion lower down. Your explanation of horizontal erosion does not explain the tilted erosion pattern either. Thus once again you fail to explain all the evidence, even in your own pictures.

Again, what you have is typical of basalt formations, layer on layer. Again you see erosion patterns based on the type of rock, the density and chemical bonding that different types or rocks have means that they erode in different patterns. Again, there are sections of the Grand Canyon that look like this too.

No, that would be your position. What happens is that rock erodes according to the type of rock. This simple fact explains vertical cliffs with vertical cracks, horizontal bands of sedimentary rocks eroding at different rates, and it explains erosion of tilted rocks according to the types of rock.

Oh, it's even better than that: not only is the ridge that the Grand Canyon crosses higher than the upstream portion of the river, the point where it crosses the ridge is higher than the ridge both north and south of the crossing location, AND the ridge is sloped from north to south in that location:



The darker green shades are higher elevations.

Geology explains this with gradual uplift, that the ridge has become this high after the canyon was already established and where the river continued to carve out the bottom to maintain flow as the area rose.

So far I have not seen a single creationist explanation for the canyon being in the side slope of a high point along a ridge, where any flood erosion would occur at the low point of the ridge.

I fully agree that any valid explanation must account for all of the evidence, not just cherry picked talking points, and that any explanation that avoids evidence that contradicts it is not just invalid but can be delusional.



Asserting that "wind erosion looks nothing like water erosion" does not make it true.

Still a false representation of my position: what we see is weathering and erosion (including wind, rain, snow, ice) occurring on all exposed rock surfaces based on the types of rock involved. This can be - and has been - measured. The erosion pattern we see is due to the rock types and their different density and chemical bonding affecting how easy they are to erode compared to other rock types, resulting in different rates of erosion. The horizontal banding at the top is aligned with the rock layers.

But what we see is not that scientists cannot tell the difference, but that lay people cannot tell the difference. Whether geologists know the difference between weathering and different types of erosion doesn't mean that people looking at pictures can tell the difference. Pictures don't show the details that you see by picking up rocks and breaking them open. Weathering is a surface effect and this shows up as a layer on theouter portions of the rock that is different from the rock inside.

Curiously this has already been done by geologist, but creationists have not dealt with the issue yet.

Curiously this has been done by geologists, but creationists have not dealt with the issue yet, and they need to deal with much higher rates of deposition.

The river flows into the ocean at a geological rift that is seperating. The material eroded from the Grand Canyon today is not building a delta there because the deposition rate is not high enough.

Once again, this is not my position but your straw man version.

Which still is not my position.

Curiously I am capable of looking at the evidence (yes I've seen the Grand Canyon in person) and able to come to the conclusion that the Canyon is carved by a river at the bottom and by weathering and erosion by wind and rain and ice and snow on the upper sections. Curiously this is what geologists claim as well. Curiously this does work.

Curiously this explanation also includes scree at the bottom of cliffs, with banded erosion perfectly aligned with sedimentary layers (regardless of their orientation to mostly horizontal flow).

Curiously this explanation also includes vertical cracks in basaltic rocks and a vertical pattern on canyon walls where these rocks occur (inside and out of the Grand Canyon).

Curiously this explanation also shows how horizontal banding, perfectly aligned with sedimentary layers, also extends inside vertical cracks that have developed (long) after river erosion.

Curiously this explanation also shows how the Grand Canyon now crosses a ridge that is higher than the headwaters, and curiously it also explains why it crosses the ridge at a high point along the ridge.

Curiously geology explains all the evidence in the Grand Canyon, while creationists have yet to explain any with processes that are not contradicted by other evidence, even evidence in their own pictures.

Enjoy.

The reason for more wear at the top is because more flood water would wear the top as it passed to erode the rest of the Canyon. As far as cracks or broken places go. Being at the top of the Canyone and facing at an upward angle. The rock would heat and expand, cool and contract. Which means that one day it would crack and break off.

If that section were exposed to this for millions of years, I do believe that most of what was there would have already broken off. 1 million years times 365 days is 365 million times the rock would have expanded and contracted. So how did the rock face hold up to all this, super glue maybe?



Hundreds eh? List them. Or was this another lame attempt to make the flood evidence look totally stupid because you cannot totally debunk it?



When you drain your sink after doing dishes. Does all the food debri go into the drain all by itself?



Two wear patterns exist.




Bad comparison:

1) The rock facing is not as smooth as a car winsheild.
2) The Canyon facing does no move like a car can.



I see you ignored elevation of the Grand Canyon being higher at one end than the other. So I ignore this what you point out as well.



And if it wear to expand and contract 365 million times. Would much of it's rock face still exist? I don't think so.



Your explaination leaves a lot to be desired as well. Still waiting on you list of 100's of things that is wrong with what I claim.



Cracks are also from expanding and contracting. 365 million expansions and contractions would have done away with any evidence of water erosion from the river a long time ago. 4,400 years times 365 = 1,606,000 (1 million and 606 thousand). Which would seem a whole lot more likely to leave rock facing evidence for water erosion from water due to river or flood. And which do we see? Evidence of this at the higher levels points to less time passing than more time.

But let's go a step further as well. 365 million days of "wind erosion" would have:

1) Made the rock smoother.
2) Would have removed most of the evidence of water erosion.

Why would wind erosion remove most of the evidence of water erosion? The wind blows just about everyday. It does not rain everyday. And in the winter, hardley at all.



And why was not a Canyon formed at the other end as well? The same amount of water that eroded the Grand Canyon flowed through the whole river. Millions of years should have been enough time for the erosion to be about the same at one end as the other.



I see what you are doing here. You are claiming that the higher elevation was lower so that your model can work. Then rose later. So where did all the setiments go that were removed from the Grand Canyon?



Delusional? Let's see...

1) Where is that list of hundreds of things wrong with my claims? Or was that a delusional response barring all other evidence because you want old earth to be correct so badly?

2) Ignoring that 365 million expansions and contractions would destroy most if not all of any evidence of water erosion from a river.

3) Ignoring that wind erosion looks very different from water erosion.

4) Wind blows almost everyday. It rains a lot less. And in some seasons, not as all. So water erosion should be basically non-existant in the upper rock facings.

5) etc....



I never asserted that. I said that you were.



How does it feel to have it done to you as you do to me?

Where is the debri from the carved out canyon? Did time make it disappear?

Thanks again, ikester7579, for so clearly presenting the creationist logic and use of evidence.

Yet I quoted you. Here it is again:

I do hope you are not going to resort to equivocation on this, and I'll be happy to let you say it was due to just a cursory reading, rather than an attempt to understand what I said in detail.

Let me see if I can get this straight: the reason that the erosion at the top of the canyon is different from the erosion at the bottom is because the water was deeper, and the top sections were more eroded than the bottom sections. This results in distinctive different patterns of erosion as surface is removed from the top than from the bottom.

Forgive me if I don't see how it can result in the differences seen between the upper sections and the lower sections. I can see that it would have eroded away more top rock than bottom rock, but not that the exposed surfaces would be different. In fact I would expect the bottom layers to show more erosion as the flood waters receeded ... perhaps you can clear up this mystery for me.

This is a good beginning description of weathering and erosion by wind and snow and rain and ice. There are still some more elements that are missing from your presentation, including chemical changes to the rocks that show weathering.

As a result the rock face has continually eroded, cracked and fallen off, exposing new rock to the effects of weathering and erosion from wind and snow and rain and ice. This is the source of the scree that is all over the canyon sides and floors.

You can see them in the pictures.

National Park Service Photo Gallery of the Grand Canyon (100 photos)

Here is one picture of the many provided that shows vertical sections alternating with horizontal ones:



So you have your vertical rain erosion occuring below the horizontal river erosion? Also notice the scree covering all the ledges and filling them up as much as possible. Notice how the horizontal banding pattern of erosion follows the horizontal layers of rock, even around bends and into side canyons.

Here is one that shows the formations of dry peninsulas perpedicular to the flow line, and that also shows the same patterns of vertical (basaltic) cliffs alternating with horizontal (sedimentary) layers, each showing the erosion typical for that type of rock, based on density and chemical bonds. In the distance you can see a while layer that extends from one end of the picture to the other.



In the middle of this picture you can see a wall perpendicular to the flow line down inside the canyon. Can you explain how this was not eroded away if flood waters covered this area?



In fact it is hard to find a picture of the Grand Canyon that does not show several alternating layers of vertical cliffs with basaltic fracture formations with horizontal sedimentary layers that show erosion parallel to the sedimentary layers.

Curiously your sink does not represent floods flowing in canyons with sufficient force to tear bits and pieces of rock from the banks. I'm sure you've seen riverbanks erode and watched the sediment carried off downstream.

Curiously the scree slopes are at what geologists call the angle of repose, and this angle is different in water (the rock is less dense relative to the water), so even if they did fall and magically remained behind during the flood flow, then they would not have formed such steep slopes.

Good, you've grasped that point.

Now take the next step and apply those patterns to the pictures and see how your explanations for the two different wear patterns can explain the evidence seen in the canyon. How do you get your rain erosion patterns below your river erosion patterns? How do you get either at tilted angles?

Or is there another explanation that does show how the different patterns occur? One that includes mechanisms for more than two processes of erosion, one that includes weathering processes? Processes that are known to exist and whose effects can be measured?

Curiously this does not address the issue of rain hitting the surface with the force of the apparent wind (whether your car moves 50 mph, the wind blows 50 mph or both travel at 25 mph towards each other), that this force is substantial.

Curiosly this does not address the issue of raindrops hitting rock at 50 mph dislodge particles from different rock types dependent on the density and chemical bonding of the rock.

This would be a childish approach to debate if it did not also ignore the fact that the higher elevation was addressed. I see you addressed part of that answer later. Again, I'll be happy to let you say it was due to just a cursory reading, and that you didn't go back and correct the earlier part of your post. Here it is again, just in case you don't want to scroll up to see it:

Note that the "A" balloon marks where the canyon crosses the ridge. Note further that the uplift of this area is still going on and can be measured. Curiously the rate measured today is sufficient to explain the rise of the canyon walls to their current elevation in the time that the canyon has existed.

Curiously I am still waiting for a creationist explanation of the canyon cutting the ridge at a high point along the ridge when there are locations both north and south that are at lower elevations: why is the Grand Canyon where it is rather than at one of these locations?

I agree, and this is why you have a problem with upper layers showing horizontal erosion patterns perfectly matching sedimentary layers when those surfaces have been exposed by the scree falling off the previous cliff face: the face you see was not exposed to river water, and the pattern of erosion you see is dictated by the type of rock involved.

Curiously I don't need to list 100 things wrong with it: all I need is evidence that contradicts it to show that it is a false idea (this is how falsification works). Your concept fails to explain alternating layers of horizontal erosion (perfectly in line with sedimentary layers) and vertical erosion (looking like typical basaltic vertical patterns), and it fails to explain any tilted examples. These examples contradict your explanation.

Congratulations, you have shown that the horizontal pattern seen at the tops of the canyon are not due to river erosion, now you just need to take the next step and explain why the pattern of erosion looks the way it does, with horizontal banding perfectly matching the sedimentary layers that are being eroded.

The rocks on the right side of the picture are more weathered, each layer is worn away with rounded edges, even the vertical lines from cracks are rounded. Wind erosion, however, will not erode hard rock at the same rate as it will erode soft rock, so when there is a difference in rock densities this will show up in wear patterns following the rock layers - no matter how those layers are oriented. We see this pattern throughout the Grand Canyon.

Wind and rain and ice and snow erosion and weathering have removed most of the evidence of river water erosion. Now take the next step: how are the patterns that exist made? (waits for shoe to drop ...)

Indeed. Perhaps river erosion is not the whole picture. Perhaps there is something to that concept of uplift ...

Meanwhile, when we look at the creationist claim of flood waters being involved then there should be evidence of an alluvial fan where the river exits the canyon onto the flatter land after the ridge. The total absence of this formation shows that there was never a flow out of the canyon large enough to fan out and deposit sediment in this pattern:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alluvial_fan
CTD may appreciate the technical points of energy rather that simple water spreading out when it leaves the canyon, and depositing sediment in a cone shape in the process.

The conclusion that follows is that either the flow stayed in the banks of the river down to the sea, or that something magical removed it.

Next we look at where the river enters the Sea of Cortez. When we observe this today we do not see delta formation, nor is there any history of delta formation.

Again we do not see evidence of any sudden large deposition in the past, nor of anything different from what we see today: sediment is carried out into the Sea of Cortez.

We also see that continued tectonic activity is spreading the Baja peninsula from the mainland of Mexico, so this area is being stretched.

Carried out into the Sea of Cortez, just like all the sediment removed from the canyon today is carried.

The fact that there is no remarkable evidence of the huge amounts of rock and other particles is evidence that past erosion patterns were not significantly different from patterns we see today.


I agree that this applies to anyone who holds on to strongly held beliefs in spite of being provided with evidence that contradicts that belief. Doesn't matter whether that belief is that the earth is flat or that elvis still lives. You don't need to take it personally, you don't need to see if the shoe fits, all we are doing is discussing the evidence and how various concepts can or cannot explain the evidence. If we apply the scientific method and discard concepts that are invalidated, then this should not be a problem.

Again, I don't need hundreds when one example contradicts the concept that only rain and river erosion are responsible for the Grand Canyon. The simple existence of multiple alternating layers throughout the canyon make this simple explanation inadequate. It cannot explain a single layer of parallel sedimentary layer erosion above a single layer of vertical column like erosion.

Except that they are not ignored: this is part of the ongoing weathering and erosion from wind and snow and rain and ice. What you see in those pictures of the canyon is almost completely due to those factors.

Except that your continued assertion that this is so, curiously does not make it fact. The effect of wind with rain and dust and dirt can be just as erosive as water containing dust and dirt, just with a different (longer) time frame. You can think of it as a river done as time lapse photography.

You are also ignoring the fact that the erosion pattern involved is not due to the force causing the erosion, but to the types of rock being eroded, and this is why the pattern follows precisely the layers of sediment where those are eroded and is vertical whenever it involves basaltic rock formations, whether one is on top or not.

Agreed. Now take the next step: explain the evidence that looks like water erosion.

That's the tough one. Dealing with all the evidence, not just the cherry picked bits that fit a cherished concept.

So far I have not seen any creationist explanations that come close to explaining all the evidence and what explanations I have seen have all been contradicted by other evidence in the Grand Canyon.

So far the geological science explanation is the only one that covers all the evidence, and all the patterns of erosion seen in the Grand Canyon, and it says that the formation of the Grand Canyon is not consistent with any known flood flow patterns.

Enjoy.

RAZD,

I can see that debating you is a waste of time. You are basically here to try and evangelize others for evolution and cause havok. You ignore other people points, but get mad if they ignore yours.

So from this point forward, I will be ignoring you totally. And I hope other creationists here will do the same. You might think that is unfair. When you start debating more rational that hateful. Maybe that would change. But until you do, I certainly will not debate you.

And no, I'm not listing all the stuff you ignored or twisted to your favor. If you cannot see it, it's because your hatefulness blinds you to it.

But I will leave you an example:



You see, you are the one who makes the personal comment, and when they react to it you then pull the reverse of guilt and make it look like it was their fault for reacting when it was your fault for even bringing it up.

Then in the process, you make the comment about flat earth and Elvis lives. That is like a double stab. Like saying it's not only your fault, but I'm going to do it again.

So if this is the best you can do to defend evolution is to take it beyond science and use tactics that are not even scientific. I'm not wasting my time reading your posts, or answering them. And by the way, I went to your homepage. There is no need to try and apologize. Your hate for creation and Christians just oozes from your site and is the reason it also oozes from every post.

If you have already made your decision that there is no God. Then why waste your time fighting what you do not even believe exists? If I believed there was no God, I would not waste two minutes of my time fighting it. Why? We only go around life once, correct? So why waste it. Ponder how much time you waste everyday fighting what you do not believe exists. Then ponder how long you have been doing it. Then ask yourself if there is a better way to spend your time?

Example: Let's say you had a bank account that every morning it started out with 86,400 dollars. And by the end of the day, it would zero out. So what you did not use, you lost. You might think that is weird. But ponder this: There is 86,400 seconds in a day. Every second that goes by is lost forever. You can never get it back. So between 86,400 dollars, and 86,400 seconds. Which would you deem more valuable?

Seeing as how RAZD is the person here with the most extensive geographical knowledge, that's convenient for you isn't it. So now you're not listening and will just ignore it all. It's taken you all of what, 2 days or so to give it up?

Apparently when you've moderated other boards, you've wiped entire swathes of posts from evolutionists when you've decided you didn't want to listen anymore either. I'm not sure what you think this says about your confidence and certainty in creation "science."

Seeing as how you repeatedly refer to RAZD as an expert on essentially all topics, it isn't surprising that you assert he has the most extensive geographical knowledge of everyone here.

Of course the more knowledge a person has, the more dishonest they have to be with themselves in order to accept, let alone promote, evolutionism.

Speaking of ignoring things, my post # 38481 seems to have escaped your attention.

Now even if you didn't have a clue what you actually believe, this amounts to an "open book test". So one could assume you just overlooked it. Yes they could...

Is this your way of saying you support copy & paste jobs from atheist hate sites? If people want to read that junk, they should be able to find it. If they want to read it but cannot find it, they've probably read enough already.

So CTD, you are defending Ikester's decision to simply ignore what RAZD says, yes? I've learned quite a few things from reading RAZD's posts and not just on this forum. If you think he is instead just lying, it's up to you to show how the information he is presenting is erroneous. There's a big list of issues in this thread to which you have not responded, while you seem to want to play games with meanders. Meanders are not created by catastrophic floods, they are destroyed by them. I fail to see the ambiguity here.

What's more, in attempting to find some information about an obscure picture that was posted in another thread, I came across a few people who knew Ikester and one of them said that his posts had been deleted by him. Presumably you are simply assuming that this was deserved. Presumably you also feel that every post on this forum from an evolutionist also deserves to be wiped. All credit to Russ for allowing all opinions to be posted here. I thought at one point that he'd wiped one of my own posts but he hadn't, and I wouldn't expect him to do so now.

Why don't we get back to you explaining why the Grand Canyon was carved by the flood. Seems we're getting distracted again from the subject. Why don't you start by explaining how cosmogenic and uranium dating are erroneous, or how it's possible that there was a flood at all when there is no global flood layer in the geological record.

Knowledge does not mean that you cannot twist truth to your favor. Knowledge does not mean that you will automatically tell the truth either. Unless you would like to show me proof of every knowledgeable person never lying.



So you believe that one sided debates is the way to go when evolution is the one side that ignores the other?
And so you also believe that snide remarks, personal attacks, and as you demonstrate with your post, categorizations of people you don't know are in order to win a "scientific" debate?

You are no different from the rest, and it's why you defend your peers. So let me give you a better example so that you can understand.

Example of categorization: Since you are an evolutionist who basically is anti-creation and anti-God. Have you been to the Blasphemy Challenge page to pay homage to you ant-God beliefs? Have you been to the Rational Response Squad and given your donation to the cause yet?

Did you like being categorized with those people, or are you already a member?

See how it feels? So maybe since you guys think that flat earth and elvis lives is okay to use in the middle of every debate. That I will use this plus other past history, people, and event that are connected to evolution that will have the same effect. Sound fair? Or would you rather it stop here?

I can connect Hitler to evolution. I can connect Haeckel to Hitler and fraud. I can connect evolution to several communist leaders from the past who murdered millions. I can connect columbine shootings to evolution. As shown on this forum, Jeffery Domner (spelling) can also be connected to evolution for his actions as admitted by him. But should I use all this to win a debate? I don't think you would like it now would you?

And remember, I did not start it. I just refuse to put up with it.

5 stars again for outdoing the other creationists here with angry remarks and ignoring what this thread is actually about.



I have never once called a creationist a liar on any forum, yet it seems to be standard practice for creationists to do this to evolutionists here. As I said, if you're going to call anyone a liar, you ought to be prepared to back up the accusation with some evidence. "You're all the same" doesn't count I'm afraid.



I believe that everyone should be allowed to state their positions within the rules of debate. Personally I believe this should include fair-minded moderation which gives warnings to people for insults and endless posts lacking substance or evidence for anything, but the only rules here appear to be against trolling. I certainly do not support censorship of anyone.



So you deny that you have ever deleted anyone's posts? Your moniker is an uncommon one but I guess it's possible that there's another creationist Ikester posting on forums.



I'm not here to "win" anything. I do find it strange, though, that our two most recent creationist contributors here are so full of anger and venom. This is what I'm seeing, and not statements of your position backed up with evidence which is what would move this discussion on.



I'm sorry if you feel a need to make these assumptions about me. But I'm also not the one who is refusing to engage with evidence presented and saying that I will instead completely ignore posts from any one person. If you want to do that it is of course your choice, but then I wonder what you will be posting in this forum if not evidence for creationism. Lots of insulting remarks about evolutionists maybe?

You're taking RAZD's comments very personally. Maybe you should consider having some time to cool off so that we can all have a rational discussion here. Tirades like this aren't pleasant for anyone. I don't know what got you so worked up before you came here but it doesn't look to me like talking here is going to help you with this.

And you get 5 stars for taking your peers side and blinded by the fact that I did not start this.

So was RADZ saying things about flat earth have to do anything with any thread? Does Radz saying that Elvis lives and creationists believe stuff like that have anything to do with any subject of any thread here?

You get another 5 stars for being blinded by your dislike for all creationists.



There is not much difference in implying it and saying it. One just means you are bold, the other means you are polite. But they both point to the same conclusion.

Plus I don't say it myself unless someone strongly implies it, or comes out and calls me one. Which was done on the coal post. You won't give benefit of the doubt to what you "choose" not to believe. But you will when it comes to what you "want" to believe.



I categorized you with your peers as you did with me in another thread where you said that I remove post from forums I moderate because I don't agree like all other creationist do.

How did it feel?



So I guess from now on I should match snide remarks with snide remarks. Personal attacks with perosnal attacks. And categorizations with categorization. Because no one should be censored, right?

If a person cannot act like an adult, then they should be treated like a child. Not my problem that some here choose to be childish and play one up games in every subject they cannot totally debunk.



So I see you did research on me. At least I don't change my name from forum to forum like evolutionist do to hide that actions and tactics.

Yes I do delete posts. I never said that I don't.



Amd a evolutionist poster did not bring this on. My, you are blind.



Shall I post all the places where you made assumptions about me? And categorized me as well? Pot and kettle.



So here again you believe that Radz acting childish for evolution is okay? I can match that and treat all your posts like RADZ treat mine and everyone elses. Do you think you would like that? You sound like you would since you approve of it from one side.



Reverse of guilt is not going to work here. I'm not the one who started it.

Like I said, I don't know who got you angry before you came here, or why you've got such a chip on your shoulder. But I want to focus on the topic of this thread, which yet again is suffering from distraction. How is the Grand Canyon proof of Noah's flood?

Continued failure to address the actual issues here will be taken as lack of evidence for the claim that the Grand Canyon is proof of Noah's flood. Calling evolutionists God-hating liars or whatever other creative insults you have in mind doesn't count as evidence.

I guess if you think stuff like this is okay when it basically has nothing to do with the debate. Then I will respond in kind. And I will do it in every post. You act blind now but you will soon see why I got mad as what I will say will make you mad. Fair enough?

Oh get a little backbone.

I've debated with scientists on other issues and they've said things like this to me. The flying spaghetti monster, purple unicorns and Santa Claus are favourites.

The key to this is that they are asking you to back up your position with evidence. It is, after all, what scientists have to do all the time. If you can't do it, then logically how is your particular claim or belief any more tenable than than any other claim or belief?

Also, please keep in mind that none of the posters here mean the Christian religion or God. It's the specific position some Christians happen to have, which claims that the earth is 6000 years old and that all life was created as it is today. There is a lot of evidence contrary to this belief, which is why you are being asked to explain what your own evidence is for your views. If you are claiming that creationism is scientific, then this is what you need to do. Is this what you are claiming?

How about some evidence for the Grand Canyon being less than 6000 years old, or carved by a flood?

Classic denial, CTD:

OR ...

Or there is some truth to this evolution science ...

Or there is some truth to this geology science (that has nothing to do with evolution) ...

Or there is some truth to the physics science and dating systems (that have nothing to do with evolution) ...

Perhaps there is something to all these independent areas of scientific experimentation and testing that keep coming up with similar results from different evidence ...

Enjoy.

And why would they say that to you? You are not a creationist.



O really. So everytime you guys cannot back up your claims with an observable process I should mock you? Interesting.



I've been around that corner enough to know what is being implied.



And from now on when you guys try and prove evolution but cannot show the millions of years observable process, I shall mock you. And when someone asks, I'll tell them that you said that this was the way all scientists do it and it's okay according to you.



What would you believe? Nothing right? So what's the point you implied there is not any evidence that you would accept for a flood or creation. But yet you keep asking?

Thanks, ikester7579, for telling me part of what got you so upset. If it makes any difference, I'll apologize for any insult you felt I used, as this was not, is not, my intent.

The problem is, that this is your reading, and NOT what the words say. Here is the actual quote (bold and italic added for emphasis):

There is no implication that this necessarily applies to creationists or that evolutionists would be excluded. There is not even any need for it to be delusional rather than just based on incomplete information (hence the "can be" rather that "is")

And when you responded with what you felt qualified, I did not scream in outrage, I said (bold and italic added for emphasis):

Do you think that creationists are the only ones holding strong beliefs? Of course not.

Are you saying that you cannot apply the scientific method and discard falsified concepts? Somehow I don't think that is the problem.

Note that these are two places (among several) where I was agreeing with you. I see no need to respond in kind to your ad hominem replies, btw. You don't know me, I don't know you.

I just note that, for the record, such personal attacks are no reply to the evidence that shows:

(a) that the erosion of the walls of the Grand Canyon cannot be explained by (1) biblical flood flows carving the canyon plus (2) later vertical only erosion caused by rain water, as there are too many places where they occur in multiple alternate layers.

(b) that the canyon cuts across the ridge at a point on the ridge higher than areas north and south along the ridge.

(c) that the erosion of sedimentary layers perfectly aligned with the layers will be caused by any agent that removes material from the rock, due to the different density and chemical bonds of the different layers.

(d) that some areas in the canyon do have tilted erosion patterns, also perfectly aligned with the sedimentary layers of those rocks.

(e) that slow erosion would carry the sedimentary debris away slowly, just as it does today, and would make no more impact on the surrounding areas downstream that the river does today.

(f) that there are many formations in the canyon that are not consistent with flood flow.

(g) that almost all characteristics of flood flow are absent from the Grand Canyon.

(h) that the geological explanation of the Grand Canyon can, and does, explain all the evidence for all the different formations we see throughout the Grand Canyon.

Reality is unimpressed by opinion and emotion. Reality is what it is, and this is a hard lesson for scientists and anyone else that wants to understand what reality is.

The best tool is an open mind, not one that shuts off debate about inconvenient truths.

Enjoy.

This is another great place for Hovind to shed some like on a rather dark subject.

There are a number of points that he brings out concerning Grand Canyon that I rarely see dealt with otherwise. He does a good job.

Whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist, I do recommend watching this video to see the deception that is promoted in the public school system:

Lies In the Textbooks


Of course, this deception fits the Christian conspiratorialist view perfectly.

I didn't think it needed defending. Do you?

You could've just looked up logical fallacies. Granted, they don't give quite so many examples, and they don't generally show how to combine several at once, but it might have saved some time.

No it isn't. Only if I communicate such thoughts do I undertake the burden of demonstrating. So long as I keep my opinions to myself, I have no obligation to expose all lies.

But your position remains ambiguous. Do you invoke the special pleading that only the floods posited by the creationist model are expected to cut the meanders; or do you invoke the special pleading that there was no flooding during evotime? You have not made this clear.

It is a conclusion based upon observation of patterns. It's not 100% firm, but unlike some beliefs, it's not based upon imagination & wishful thinking.

Your attempt to smear Ikester7579, on the other hand, assumes the deleted posts did not deserve to be removed.
See, here is how our reasoning differs. Your presumption has no basis. It's common for folks to project their own patterns of thinking onto others; maybe that's your source?

From your perspective, this must seem very generous indeed.

I wasn't distracted - I was waiting for an answer to my question.

Because evodates aren't the topic of the thread, and I prefer not to do as RAZD suggests and discuss multiple topics in the same paragraph (or sentence, if that's what he was getting at - from the context he could've meant either).

Again, this isn't the topic - it's just a lame attempt to trick creationists into adopting the ancient, long-falsified onion coat theory. Any takers out there?

Really? You've made a habit of making false accusations (a practice I consider cowardly in the extreme), but you claim there's a line you haven't crossed?

First of all, you ABSOLUTELY MUST be applying a double standard. In practically every thread you equate any disagreement with evolutionism with "calling all scientists liars". As you disagree with all creationists, this would amount to calling them all liars unless there's a double standard involved.

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=34059#Post34059 is the start of a few of posts where the evolutionists take turns trying to justify the accusation that creationists "call all scientists liars". Note the obvious flaws in these arguments.

Perhaps an evolutionist would like to try to improve on these? I'm always up for easy laughs.

You have a long history of putting words in creationists' mouths. But I guess you don't consider putting a lie in someone's mouth the same as "calling them a liar", huh? That's just pretending and implying that they lied...

And the links you've posted to slander pages, they must not count either. I wonder if you'd care to back up the assertion that misspelling a word is lying. Would you?

I seem to recall you were also keen on Kuban's easily-debunked slanders against Woodmorappe (or was it Glen Morton's slanders?), which failed to withstand scrutiny. Your clown who slandered Fred Williams was easily exposed too. No, you haven't had much to celebrate on any of the occasions I've caught you attempting your smear tactics.

Didn't even manage to sidetrack the discussions very long. Perhaps you need to learn more about this technique?

Speaking of lies & false accusations, I found this typical post inaccurate.But if it were accurate, I might not be able to apply the adjective 'typical'.

And finally, LindaLou has written In this context, it'll be funny to see her equivocate on 'fraud', if she chooses to claim it doesn't mean 'liar'.

Huh? Does anyone think there's a correspondence between Ikester7579's words and LindaLou's response. If you're going to succeed at all with this sort of ruse, you need to work harder than that.

Don't have enough time to compile a list of things LindaLou completely ignores just now.

But one wonders what sort of double standard is involved. Found this: Okay, one doesn't really wonder. That was just a figure of speech.

CTD, I promised Russ that every time he links us to a Hovind vid, I'd link him to a website which responds to many of Hovind's claims.

You've done it again Russ, so here goes:
Buddika's 300 Creationist Lies Index

As long as you are unwilling to summarise any points yourself and seem to think that your link is the only argument you need, then I'll say the same for this one. We can decline to watch/read each other's links and close this forum down.

CTD you'll note that I said some insulting things about Hovind at one point. I would not speak in this way to another poster, and in hindsight I should not have said them about Hovind, though if you'd like me to provide evidence for why he's said some idiotic things I can find it in spades for you -- especially seeing as how he claims to have taught physics (and the basic scientific errors he's made have filled me with horror and pity for his students). I have avoided talking about anyone like that since then. Do you claim that my comments about your own ad hominem remarks are inaccurate? Do I write threads with titles like "Creationism: The Big Joke"? Do I make comments about Bible Blinders(TM) like your "evogoggles"? I could think up all sorts of jokey things to say which I'm sure you'd be amused by, just like we're all amused by your and Ikester's continual comments about evolutionists. On second thought, maybe not.

The last of my comments you quoted from was in response to another creationist poster, currently absent from discussions here, who had fun with calling me bad at my job, uneducated, a bad mother, dumb, and a yokel. I don't believe those kinds of comments are acceptible on any forum and I was frankly frustrated that Russ allows people to behave that way here without issuing warnings.

Moving on to the pertinent issue here, I notice that in your entire post CTD, you have not addressed one single point about the Grand Canyon. How else to do you think you are going to demonstrate the scientific nature of creationism? Complaining about posters doesn't constitute evidence.

Hey Russ,

Are you still providing "controversial" positions, or ones you think are true?

Does Hovind deal with the evidence that the Grand Canyon crosses the ridge near the top of a high point on the ridge, where the ridge crest slopes to the south? Wouldn't his scenario for causing the Grand Canyon mean it is in the wrong place?



The darker green are higher elevations, the "A" balloon is where the canyon crosses the ridge.

Or does he just present more half-truths while hiding the rest of the information (cutting his picture off to just show the high point)? Does he tell you that there are parts of the ridge both north and south of the Grand Canyon that are lower than where the canyon crosses the ridge?

I'm still waiting for one flood creationist to explain this feature.

Enjoy.

The challenge has been accepted!
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=38753#Post38753

Should I respond here, or there? Don't worry - I'll figure it out. Would've been simpler if the challenge was accepted right here, but then it'd be easy to follow & everyone could clearly see the outcome, you see.

Sounds like a win-win for Russ. Folks get to see some good vids, and see this "response". That slander is a common response among the truth-averse is well-known, and it's just handy when the truth-averse positively identify themselves.

Spoke too soon. A little review revealed this is just a repeat.

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=33507#Post33507 is where I responded last time.

So? I'm still waiting for an evolutionist to account for the meanders without special pleading, or other logical fallacies. I don't really expect it to happen in this lifetime, or even thereafter. What a boomerang that one was!

Still at it CTD?

Yes, and geoplogists have done that explaining, all you need to do is follow the links provided or look it up yourself. So far all the evidence presented shows meanders form during non-flood flows over time due to the inertia and hydrodynamics of water.

Conversely not one piece of evidence shows that flood flows create meanders. The evidence shows that flood flows cut across meanders and destroy them.

Curiously there are meanders in the Grand Canyon. More curiously no meanders in the Grand Canyon have be cut across and turned into ox-bows.

Curiously you still fail to present any evidence of a position that a biblical flood contributed in any way to the formation of the Grand Canyon - the best you have done is misrepresent what other people said about meanders.

Enjoy

I feel so stupid. I really thought the guy who came on a while back talking like Elvis was a fan of his.... : ) I get it now!!!! : )

Don't have time to provide highlights, but RAZD's own link is inconsistent with his story. Folks can play Spot-the-Discrepancies or wait 'til I have more time.

Awesome. I'm just brimming with anticipation.

I'll wait because I'm not sure I'll find the discrepancies as easily as you have.

1st discrepancy: RAZD saysSource uses terms bend and meander interchangeably.

Of course RAZD would like to be considered the Meanderczar. In another context he'd have a fair shot at getting my vote. But here the motive's important. Should evidence come up that this or that meander formed when he said it shouldn't, or didn't form when he said it should... "oh, that's not a meander it's a bend".

I'll waste no time on such predictable nonsense, just so everyone knows. I'll not acknowledge RAZD as Meanderczar no matter who howls, be it student, cheerleader, or Flock-of-One.

Typical CTD.

So you are equivocating all uses of bends and meanders into one process. What a surprise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meander
As you can see they are talking about a specific kind of bend that develops in a specific way due to normal stream erosion when they talk about meanders: all meanders are bends, but not all bends are meanders.

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:



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.

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.

The fact remains that nit-picking over the terminology used does not change the reality of how the Grand Canyon was made.

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.

Enjoy.

So, you misstate the situation. I took steps to prevent equivocation. Thanks for expressing your displeasure.

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?

You said it - not me.

In how many evoyears' worth of floods? If you pulled peoples' legs as hard literally as you do figuratively, we'd all be amputees.

Not much more evidence is needed. The pictures you've chosen are a good start, perhaps enough that nothing further will be required.

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.

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?


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?

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?

wow, CTD, you've outdone yourself this time!

Yes, and we are talking about how the canyon was formed, before it was carved to the depth it is today. Using the existing canyon to say that it cause the canyon to form that way is a circular argument and a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Fill that canyon to just barely over the brim, to envisage how it would look before any canyon was carved, and then show me where there is an obstruction.

What is there along the rock left in the flat topped middle area that is different from where the river flowed? Run a straight edge from the far left edge to the far right edge: is the peninsula above or below this line? Note that the picture was taken at eye level on the edge of the canyon, so you can mentally adjust all edges up 5ft for greater accuracy if so inclined.

You continue to post this rather bizarre statement, one that is totally irrelevant to any argument I have made, and the only thing it shows is that you have misunderstood something.

geologist: meanders are formed by slow flow eroding the outside banks of rivers and depositing material along the inside, making bends become more sinuous as this erosion process continues.

CTD: "how many evoyears' worth of floods" does that take?

Can you explain how your comment is related to the geological explanation of meander formation?

Except that you have totally failed to demonstrate that they are caused by floods. All you have shown is that the current canyon is an obstacle for the river being in a different place today, a logically trite (tautological) and rather meaningless as an observation about how the canyon formed.

Hint: start with flood flows, and look at what they do. Find a formation similar to the picture above that was formed by the flood flow. The scablands is a good example of flood erosion.

Enjoy.

The insightful and thoughtful already know how your boomerang has whomped you up 'side the skull. I'm just providing the equivalent of a slow-mo replay for those who haven't focused their attention sufficiently, or are having trouble seeing through the smokescreen.

If that's how you feel, I hope we'll see no more of it from you.

PLEASE DO THIS, people, if you haven't already done so. Please envision the river flowing on flat ground at the level of the top of the canyon.

Got it? Now apply the meander-cutting abilities of even a small, small flood to this river. Wouldn't take much, would it? All that evotime, all 700,000 years, or 3 million, or 10 million, or whatever... To be sure, all that imagined time is not involved - only a percentage. I want to be clear about that. But we're still talking several tenthousands of years with the meanders failing to be cut by any floods.


Does that qualify as special pleading? Well you ain't seen nothin' yet. Actually, if you read RAZD's source, or even the bit he snipped, you've seen this, but it'd be easy to overlook. This is extra-special pleading becauseEven without a single flood in all those tenthousands of years, the river would still be able to cut through the narrow neck of land and straighten this meander, possibly leaving an "oxbow lake" or fossil "oxbow lake".

Catch that Linear? That's twice RAZD's story differs from his own source.

So what's next from our evocrew? More closed eyes? More pretending to be too stupid to understand? More pretending I haven't posted anything? Perhaps some ad homs against the wiki author? If you guys're so intent on repeating history, why not dig back into the past & try something that hasn't been done recently? You know, just to keep it interesting...

Floods don't create meanders CTD, they cut through them. As you yourself have just been saying in your previous post. The point being that if the Grand Canyon had been carved by a flood, the meander in the picture cannot exist. What exacly are you trying to say?

Thanks CTD for basically admitting that there is no obstruction there to force the river to take this shape, by failing to provide any argument for an obstacle existing.

Correct: at no time in all that past did the river flood over the banks and flow across the shortest route downhill.

The fact that this meander has not been cut into an oxbow does not mean that it is not a meander, just that it hasn't reached this final stage yet.

Instead the land began to rise before this occurred, and the river cut deeper and deeper as the land rose. When this uplift happens the conditions change for the way the river erodes. This slows down the side to side erosion as (a) the flow is more downstream (the energy gradient is sloped downstream) and (b) there is more bank to be eroded. According to the source this is called an "incised meander" (yes, this occurs in other places in the world, shocking I know):

Note that the meandering river does not normally erode down because it's path (energy gradient) is so flat, so it erodes the sides, but when the gradient is altered by the land rising then it resumes downward erosion. It's that energy gradient issue again.

And we have evidence of this uplift: the canyon now passes through a high point on a ridge, a place where it would have to flow uphill and along the side of a hill -- if it was cut through the current topography. The only explanation presented to date that explains this objective fact of reality is that uplift has occurred. In fact you have said you do not want to discuss this issue. Curious how it keeps coming back as evidence that uplift occurred.

Rather than any obstacle, the actual topography looks like the land was fairly level and gently sloping from left to right -- the very conditions for formation of meanders in the river noted in the link\source. If there was an obstacle then where has it gone? Certainly it would not have eroded away it (a) it was an obstacle and (b) the top of the peninsula (where the obstacle to the flow would be) is still there.

No, because the logical fallacy of special pleading means that you apply different standards to evidence for and argument than you do for evidence against it, usually that your argument doesn't have to pass the same test as other evidence.



The "argument for" is that there was a meander in the river when the land began to rise, and this meander became embedded in the rock as it eroded down to it's current elevation. This can be tested by looking at the pictures to see if it looks like a meander (it has the characteristic sinuous double-back shape of mature meanders). This can be tested by seeing if there is evidence for uplift (the picture of the ridge shows uplift has occurred at some time in the past, modern measurements show that uplift is occurring now). This can be tested by seeing if this same pattern of erosion occurs in other places in the world (they are common enough that there is a term to describe them).

The "argument against" is that there was some obstacle that forced the river to take this shape when the canyon began to form. This can be tested by looking at the pictures to see if there is any visible obstacle that would force the flow to go around rather than the most direct path downhill along the energy gradient (there is no visible obstacle) or evidence that it has been removed (the top of the peninsula is still flat, all rock layers in the area are horizontal and flat). This can also be tested by seeing if any known obstacle diversion erosion patterns match this meander pattern (no such evidence has been presented).

The same standard of objective evidence applies to both positions, therefore there is no speacial pleading. Saying that there is a logical fallacy in an argument doesn't make it so - you have to show the actual fallacy exists, and to claim there is a fallacy when none exists is a falsehood.

Thank you for agreeing that no flood has risen above the river banks and cut across the peninsula at any time since the land began to uplift. I also note that this has not occurred elsewhere in the canyon: there has been no significant straightening of the canyon by flood erosion.

Not only does the source go on to talk about incised meanders (so there is no contradiction) but it is a logical fallacy to claim that because something has not happened that it won't.

Nope, just more evidence that long term geology, standard river erosion and uplift provide all the explanations for what is seen in the Grand Canyon. Evidence that similar incised river erosion patterns exist in other places in the world that are also associated with uplift.

More noting that, in fact, CTD has not posted any evidence that any of the formations in the Grand Canyon are formed by flood flow, no evidence of an obstacle to water flow on top of the Horse Shoe peninsula, no evidence that flow around obstacles developes a sinuous meander pattern, no evidence that rivers flow uphill and along the sides of hills after the hill exists. More evidence that CTD still avoids the issues, such as the facts that none of the patterns in the Grand Canyon are characteristic of flood flow.

I don't need new arguments when the standard geological argument based on objective reality is sufficient. Nor do I need to indulge in ad hominems if someone disagrees with me.

Enjoy.

I shall not argue that any solid obstacle existed in that location prior to the formation of the Grand Canyon.

It is convenient, to say the least, that your story requires one. Thanks for choosing such excellent pics. They make it much easier for me to clarify things.


See that ridge the river's flowing around? That's an obstacle. Don't get distracted with the Meanderczar's claim that meanders don't form around obstacles - it's not the first time he's been wrong. Just look at the picture, and hopefully you won't have to try too hard to understand why this river's flowing on this course and doesn't have much chance of cutting the meander out any time soon, barring some big event.


Here, when we imagine the pre-canyon river, we have no obstacle to keep the meander from being removed, either by a simple flood event, or just the gradual erosion that occurs when rivers flow. There isn't hide nor hair of any ridgeline - just flat, flat land. Yet for tenthousands of years, neither gradual erosion nor flooding removed this meander, according to RAZD's extra-special pleading.

More trickery. RAZD needs a ridge to rise. If the whole area rises together, the relative elevations remain the same. The flatness remains. No obstacle is created. Why isn't the meander cut?

But if the rise is too rapid, the river can't flow uphill. And there's no part that can rise alone. Where could the rise occur that would preserve the meander and yet fail to result in uphill flow for this river? Look at the picture. Rise on the far side will let the water down into the bend, but not back out. Raising any of the land in that picture without raising the rest is going to prevent the river from flowing at one point or another.

If any of this is hard to understand, please take another look at the pics and read what I said a little more slowly.
I never denied uplift. I've satisfied my own curiosity about the Grand Canyon, and it's rather boring reviewing what I already know. Were I convinced anyone cared, it'd be interesting to see how well I could teach what I've learned. So far, the evidence indicates nobody is interested in learning more about the Grand Canyon.

Sure 'nuff! There's no obstacle, and there's nowhere to put one without stopping the river from flowing.

No obstacle = no reason the meander should remain. 300 years would be stretching it. Evotime is totally out of the question, if floods or normal river erosion cut off meanders.

Claiming no floods occured; claiming normal everyday erosion didn't take place - both are special pleading, and folks can look it up. I just got done providing links what? Was it a week ago?

Incised meanders occur where there are hills, ridges, stuff like that there. But who wouldn't guess the Meanderczar'd be claiming a meander's "incised" where the land is just plain flat, if it's convenient.

RAZD shouldn't have provided those pics. I feel like my words are all just redundant.
I kinda like that vague "associated with uplift". Your France pic showed what kind of uplift would preserve a meander, and your other pic shows that this isn't going to save your bacon. Got any more evidence like that?

And you claim special pleading, CTD.

Yet your previous explanation was that water flows around an obstacle and forms bends like the meander pictured. So now we start with a meander ... curiously the argument that geologists have made?

The ridge carved by the river is the obstacle that made the river go around the ridge carved by the river that is the obstacle that made the river go ... into circular reasoning:

The result of the erosion pattern cannot be the cause of the erosion pattern: it is formed by the erosion pattern.

So again we start with a meander ... still curiously the argument that geologists have made? The only argument is that it had not been cut into an oxbow before the canyon was carved deeper. This is just an argument from incredulity, as meanders could form and be cut and form and be cut many times before the uplift started, and thus the existence of one (1) meander at that time is not an incredible thing. In other words, any meander that existed when the land started to uplift would be affected by the uplift, and curiously it would not have had time to be eradicated.

Therefore the uplift must be gradual or the rising would have formed a dam at some point. Curiously the geologists say the evidence shows gradual uplift occurred.

If the whole area lifted gradually it would not change the behavior of the river ... meander formation and all ... except that at some point the river travels to a location that has not lifted, creating a change in the hydraulic energy gradient, speeding up flow, increasing erosion, and cutting back along the river bed.

Do we need to lift the whole river to get this result? No, all you need is that the uplift be less than the depth of the river. Any filling of the bottom of a river (which happens frequently when banks collapse in the normal course of erosion events) causes a flatter energy gradient upstream and a steeper energy gradient downstream, speeding up the water at this point and again increasing erosion at the lower end of the filled section. Again this erosion moves upstream and removes the material that filled in part of the bottom of the river. The effect of slow uplift would be the same, even if it was localized. Again this process is readily observed in rivers around the world: erosion and other events cause temporary filling in of the bottoms of rivers, and the river erodes the material away to resume it's flow.

The difference between uplift and other events that partially fill the bottom of a river is that the banks are also lifted where the uplift occurs, and when the erosion has restored the flow of the river these banks will be higher above the river than before: the river pattern in the area of the uplift will be increasingly constrained by the higher and higher banks.

Please do, and then consider the rest of the story, the part that starts with the alternative to "if the rise is too rapid" ... the one that, curiously, is consistent with the explanations that geologists have given.

Curiously this is also evidence that the uplift was slow, and therefore occurred over long periods of time, that the earth is - in fact - old.

So we start with a meander ... and now we add uplift ... curiously the very argument that geologists have made for the formation of the Grand Canyon?

In spite of being asked several times by several people? Or do you need a special audience?

Correct, we agree that there was no obstacle, so your previous argument about an obstacle being involved is a red herring.

Glad we got that out of the way.

As noted already this is a false assumption, as all that is needed is for a river to be making meanders while the uplift is occurring, and then when the erosion through the uplift reaches the place where a meander exists that it would become incised.

Note that the partial obstruction of the bottom creates a flatter energy gradient upstream of the initial uplift area, ideal river topology and energy gradient for the formation of meanders.

But the argument was that "normal everyday erosion" does take place and that once the uplift started that no flood overtopped the banks of the now incised meander. Again, claiming that you have shown something to be true doesn't make it so, nor does calling it a logical fallacy when you have not demonstrated that.

The products of uplift. Astounding eh?

Again the source says:

You do know what plateaus are don't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plateau


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Plateau
A large relatively flat area lifted above other land.

Given that you now appear to agree that we start with a meander, that an obstacle was not involved in the initial formation, that uplift is included, plus your rational that the uplift could not have been large or sudden (thus showing it had to be slow and gradual), it would appear that I don't need much help in demonstrating the the explanation of geologists is still the only explanation that covers all the evidence, including the incised Horse Shoe Bend meander.

Enjoy.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080409-grand-canyon.html

Evolutionists are a hoot. They're never gonna sort their story out at this rate. Anything-but-the-truth-ism is alive & kicking.

Compare their junk to what real science has to say.

1. Global Flood. Sediments laid down. Monster lakes left over.
1a. Sediments partially harden. Weaker and stronger parts are present in the mud & young rocks. With that much mud, the water's not going to stay put too well. Beneath the surface there'll be water moving.

2. Catastrophic flood when natural dam breaks. Water follows path of least resistance. Catastrophic erosion takes place. Any cave-type formations or under-the-surface weaknesses will be natural targets, since their elevation is lower & pressure is higher.

3. Another catastrophic flood when another dam breaks. Water again follows path of least resistance. More catastrophic erosion takes place.

4. In the aftermath, water trickles through pathway at lowest elevation available, like water always does.

Now I've forgotten exactly when the uplift took place. We have a window from the end of 1 to the start of 3 (actually up until the crest of 3, but that's so close...).

Note that we're not talking about normal floods here that raise the level of a river. There may not even have been a river prior to 2, particularly above ground. These floods aren't interested in following a channel. Where there's soft rock or mud, they erode a new channel. Where there's hard rock, they erode it more slowly. The only time it's relevant to talk about river behaviour is at 4, after the final canyon is formed.

Should about wrap things up. According to the Meanderczar's original story, meanders are removed by flooding. A 4500 year old river should have no meanders left due to this. 4500 years is a drop in the evotime bucket, so from the very start this was destined to backfire. The argument was only presented because it was assumed nobody'd be able to figure out the real deal. Had I presented this argument first, it would have been labeled "creationist Pratt". Had I presented it as an evoargument, it would have been tagged as a straw man, and rightly so.

For the record, there's no absolute requirement for meanders to all be cut out of rivers. There's a very strong tendency, and that's the basis of this strong creationist argument, which RAZD has disastrously attempted to pirate. The evolutionist has to bail out with the ultra-slim odds of multiple meanders somehow surviving all those evoyears. But the evogods are all about overcoming ultra-slim odds, so... nothing new.

About the only part of RAZD's latest attempt to confuse things that might reasonably succeed is the part about plateaus. That's because the term is a tad misleading. It is applied to areas that are flat, or appear to have been flat in the past. Check out the Ozark Plateau. There's nothing flat about it at all. I've been there more'n once, and calling the Ozarks flat is only good for laughs. Up to try it, RAZD?

Doesn't really matter much for purposes of discussing the Grand Canyon, but one likes to set records straight.

And we could bump the special pleading up a notch higher to Super Extra-Special Pleading if we include the evomythology about the climate of the region having been much wetter in the past. Not worth the trouble. It's not a full consensus view among experts, although it's what you'll find in most of the propaganda.

Unless I've missed something, that should about conclude my input in this thread. I see no outstanding questions from parties who have not clearly indicated a strong desire to ignore evidence and sound reasoning. I have better things to do than post information that I have been assured will be ignored.

Forgot one thing I've been meaning to point out, so here's another post.

We could look at the Scablands and say this is what catastrophic flooding always does, and then look at the Grand Canyon and say "Oh it's different, so it must not have been caused by catastrophic flooding".

We could instead look at the Grand Canyon first, figure out that it was the result of catastrophic flooding, and then turn around and look at the Scablands and say "they must not be the result of catastrophic flooding".

Either would be a gross mistake. (And the differences are actually a matter of perspective anyhow.)

Finally something (not much, but a beginning). Thanks CTD.

So we're talking perched lakes everywhere, every basin filled to the brim as water retreats into wherever it goes (where does it go?).

So how do we end up with (a) Crater Lake, and (b) Death Valley, just for starters. Why don't we see evidence of this catastrophic flood out of every perched basin in the world?

Is this staged timing in different places or are these repeated floods in the same place? If the latter then where do the new dams and water come from? If the former, then are 2 and 3 really different?

So after all that (nice picturesque language) we end up with Hovind's (falsified) scenario for the Grand Canyon?

Or does uplift occur later and we have trickle flow "through pathway at lowest elevation available," plus uplift raising the sides of the canyon in exactly the pattern that geologists claim?

Which would then look like the scablands in all those places where you had your catastrophic flows.

Yes, for the record there is still absolutely no evidence presented by CTD that shows meanders form during catastrophic flood flows.

Yes, of course this is also why it is so difficult to find any pictures of rivers with active meanders ... the chances are so ultra slim that none should be visible on any given day eh?

google images for "river meand...,000 for river meanders. (0.10 seconds)

Curiously all those pictures show rivers with multiple meanders ... gosh those odds are slim.

Correct, and setting the record straight includes the fact that the Colorado plateau is remarkable for it's flatness among plateaus, and that IS the one we are talking about eh? Showing that some plateaus are not flat is a red herring, nor does it affect the argument about incised meanders existing in many places in the world.

Google image results for "inci...r incised river meanders. (0.16 seconds)

Which still does not address the issue of the Grand Canyon crossing the ridge at a point higher than parts of the ridge to the north or south, NOR does it address the formation of meanders in the Colorado River inside the Grand Canyon. It doesn't deal with the evidence of tributary flow into the Colorado River inside the canyon often being perpendicular or at a reverse angle to the river. It doesn't address how perpendicular ridges are formed within the canyon. It doesn't deal with the lack of catastrophic flood flow evidence either in the Grand Canyon or downstream from it. It doesn't address how this is different from Hovind's (falsified) concept for the Grand Canyon.

All in all, I would say you have missed just about every point made that shows the Grand Canyon was not formed by catastrophic flood flows.

Enjoy.