News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

<table width="100%" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" bgcolor='#FFFFFF' >
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="center">

<table width="505" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">


<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle" style="background-color:#FFFFFF;"><center>
<IMG SRC="http://shopping.drdino.com/emails/022008/header.gif" alt="Creation Science Evangelism" width="505" height="64" BORDER="0" align="center" usemap="#Map">
</center></td>
</tr>
</table>
<table width="505" cellpadding="7" cellspacing="0" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" style="border-left:2px solid #00913E; border-right:2px solid #00913E; border-bottom:2px solid #00913E">

<tr>

<td valign="top" style="font-size:12px;color:#000000;line-height:120%;font-family:arial; padding: 7 7 7 7;"><table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" style="background-color:#e5f4eb;">

</table>
<div align="center">
<table width="485" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" style="background-color:#e5f4eb; ">
<tr>
<td style="padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 5px; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-top: 5px;"><div align="left"><strong>[color:"#046716" size="2" face="Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]<a href="#article">Article</a></font><font size="2" face="Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> | [color:"#046716"]<a href="#resources">Resources</a></font></font></strong> <strong><font size="2" face="Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">| [color:"#046716"]<a href="#events">Events</a></font> | <a href="http://www.drdino.com/articles.php">More Articles</a> </font></font></strong></div></td>
<td><div align="right"><strong><font size="2" face="Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> May 29, 2008 </font></strong></div></td>
</tr>
</table>
<img src="http://shopping.drdino.com/emails/052908/shadeline1.gif" width="485" height="20" border="0"></div>

<div align="left" style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:16px; color:#666666; padding-top:7px; padding-left:5px;">
<strong><a name="article"></a>Article          </strong></div>

<div style="padding-left:5px; padding-right:5px;" align="left"> <h1 style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:14px; color:#046716">Is the Grand Canyon Proof of Noah's Flood? </h1>
</div>
<div style="padding-left:5px; padding-right:5px;" align="left">

<p><a href="http://www.drdino.com/readNews.php?id=49"><img src="http://shopping.drdino.com/emails/052908/videobanner.jpg" alt="Watch the clip" width="152" height="139" border="0" align="left" style="padding-right:10px;"></a>Two people can often look at the same thing and come to opposite conclusions. The Grand Canyon is a perfect example. Evolutionists use it as proof that the earth is billions of years old, claiming that the Colorado River carved the canyon over millions of years. Bible-believing Christians interpret the canyon as a spillway from Noah's Flood. One believes it formed slowly, with a little water and a lot of time. The other believes it formed quickly, with a lot of water and a little time. What a stark difference.<br>
<br>
If the Bible is true, and the earth is only about six thousand years old, we should find evidence that debunks the evolutionist theory about the Grand Canyon. We do. For example, the top of Grand Canyon is over four thousand feet higher than where the Colorado River enters the canyon, meaning it would have had to flow uphill for millions of years. Additionally, in contrast to all other rivers, we do not find a delta (a place where washed-out mud is deposited). This alone makes the evolutionist interpretation impossible.<br>
<br>
The evidence does, however, point to Noah's Flood. Today, we see two beach lines from what used to be two large lakes near the Grand Canyon. Creationists believe that after Noah's Flood, the lakes got too full and spilled over the top. When water overflows a dam, the weakest point is instantly eroded. Thus, the Grand Caynon would have been formed quickly, supporting the creationist interpretation. <a href="http://www.drdino.com/readNews.php?id=49">Click here to view a more detailed explanation of the formation of the Grand Canyon.</a> <br>
<br>
So, which interpretation is right? Knowing that rivers don't flow uphill and no leftover sedimentary deposits are found, evolutionists have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to the Grand Canyon. The Bible, however, says that a flood covered the whole earth (see Genesis 7:18-20). This means we should find places where the water drained. The Grand Canyon is one of those places. It is a washed-out spillway and provides great evidence for Noah's Flood.<br>
</p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:16px; color:#666666; padding-top:7px; padding-left:5px; align="left">
<a href="http://shopping.drdino.com/category-exec/category_id/85/nm/New_Arrivals?utm_source=052908+CICS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FathersDay_Sale"><img src="http://shopping.drdino.com/emails/052908/fathersdaysale.gif" border="0"></a>
<p align="left"><strong><a name="resources"></a>Related Resources            </strong></p>
<table width="98%" border="0" align="center">
<tr>

<td width="108"><div align="center"><a href="http://shopping.drdino.com/product-exec/product_id/256/nm/In_the_Beginning/category_id/14?utm_source=052908+CICS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=In_the_Beginning"><img src="http://shopping.drdino.com/images/products/thumb/443.gif" alt="In the Beginning" border="0"></a></div></td>
<td width="104"><div align="center"><a href="http://shopping.drdino.com/product-exec/product_id/195/nm/Thousands_Not_Billions/category_id/9?utm_source=052908+CICS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Thousands_Not_Billions"><img src="http://shopping.drdino.com/images/products/thumb/4098.gif" alt="Thousand...Not Billions" border="0"></a></div></td>
<td width="104"><div align="center"><a href="http://shopping.drdino.com/product-exec/product_id/142/nm/The_Geology_Book/category_id/21?utm_source=052908+CICS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The_Geology_Book"><img src="http://shopping.drdino.com/images/products/thumb/4035.gif" alt="The Geology Book" border="0"></a></div></td>
<td width="124"><div align="center"><a href="http://shopping.drdino.com/product-exec/product_id/16/nm/Part_6_The_Hovind_Theory_DVD/category_id/39?utm_source=052908+CICS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The_Hovind_Theory"><img src="http://shopping.drdino.com/images/products/thumb/106DVD.gif" alt="The Hovind Theory" border="0"></a></div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><div align="center"><strong><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://shopping.drdino.com/product-exec/product_id/256/nm/In_the_Beginning/category_id/14?utm_source=052908+CICS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=In_the_Beginning"><em>In the Beginning</em><br>
- $26.25 </a></font></strong></div></td>

<td valign="top"><div align="center"><strong><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://shopping.drdino.com/product-exec/product_id/195/nm/Thousands_Not_Billions/category_id/9?utm_source=052908+CICS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Thousands_Not_Billions"><em>Thousands...<br>
Not Billions<br>
</em> - $11.95</a></font></strong></div></td>
<td valign="top"><div align="center"><strong><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://shopping.drdino.com/product-exec/product_id/142/nm/The_Geology_Book/category_id/21?utm_source=052908+CICS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The_Geology_Book"><em>The Geology Book<br>
</em> - $13.50 </a></font></strong></div></td>

<td valign="top"><div align="center"><strong><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://shopping.drdino.com/product-exec/product_id/16/nm/Part_6_The_Hovind_Theory_DVD/category_id/39?utm_source=052908+CICS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The_Hovind_Theory"><em>The Hovind Theory</em><br>
DVD
- $17.95</a> </font></strong></div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" valign="top"><div align="center"><strong><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
Order online or call 1-877-479-3466 to order by phone.</font></strong><br>
</div></td>
</tr>
</table>
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:16px; color:#666666; padding-top:7px; padding-left:5px; align="left">
<p align="left"><strong> <a name="events"></a>Upcoming Events            </strong></p>
<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="5">
<tr>

<td width="50%" height="59" valign="top"><p align="left"><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Missouri</strong></font></p>
<div align="left">
<ul>
[*]<font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.drdino.com/itinerary.php?id=374#entry374?utm_source=052908+CICS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Chillicothe">Chillicothe</a> (May 31)</font></li>
[/LIST]
</div>
</td>
<td width="50%" valign="top"><p align="left"><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Arizona</strong></font></p>

<div align="left">
<ul>
[*]<font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.drdino.com/itinerary.php?id=378#entry378?utm_source=052908+CICS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Benson_Meeting">Benson</a> (August 15)</font></li>
[/LIST]
</div></td>
</tr>
<tr>

<td height="60" valign="top"><p align="left"><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>California</strong></font></p>
<div align="left">
<ul>
[*]<font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.drdino.com/itinerary.php?id=372#entry372?utm_source=052908+CICS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Thousand_Oaks_Meeting">Thousand Oaks</a> (July 13)</font></li>
[/LIST]
</div>
</td>
<td valign="top"><p align="left"><strong><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Minnesota</font></strong></p>
<div align="left">
<ul>
[*]<font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.drdino.com/itinerary.php?id=376#entry376?utm_source=052908+CICS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Windom_Meeting">Windom</a> (August 23)</font></li>
[/LIST]
</div></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div></td>
</tr>
</table>
<br>
<strong>[color:"#333333" size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]Creation Science Evangelism<br>
29 Cummings Road  •  Pensacola, FL 32503 <br>

1-877-479-3466  •  www.drdino.com <br>
<br>
<a href="http://shopping.drdino.com/info-exec/display/email_signup?utm_source=052908+CICS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email_Signup">Get this as a forward? Sign up for our e-mail list.</a></font></strong><br>
<br>

</span></td>
</tr>

</table>
<map name="Map"><area shape="rect" coords="8,2,180,64" href="http://www.drdino.com?utm_source=052908+CICS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Homepage" alt="Creation Science Evangelism">
</map>

Hello Russ,

Simple answer: no.

More complete answer: the features of the Grand Canyon are not the features that are produced by a flood release, rather they are features that are produced by slow erosion and which are destroyed during flood release.

If you want to see what ancient evidence of massive flood release looks like google "channeled scablands"

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/projects/geoweb/participants/dutch/VTrips/Scablands0.HTM

Geologists (real ones) do know what flood erosion looks like, they do find evidence of it in various places, but they all come from different times in different places.

The features of the Grand Canyon, on the other hand, are evidence of slow erosion, leaving meandering channels, and pillars and other features that would be eroded by flood flows.

This: google maps arial view of the Grand Canyon is not flood released erosion: there are too many meanders, too many side branches contributing to the river from the sides (perpendicular to any flood flow) and too many spires and towers left behind that are total acharacteristic for flood release flows.

There are also other geological formation of the same age and in the same region as the Grand Canyon that could not have survived a flood release -- such as the "voodoos" in Bryce Canyon and this part of Goosenecks State Park.

For a longer answer, study geology. From geologists. You don't have to take my word for it.

Enjoy.

Do you think that fossils of 30 year old clams on top of Mt Everest are evidence of a flood?

What about layer after layer of sediment all containing fossils of shellfish that are many years old?

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1305156
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x7j4w42474307531/
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1502-3931.1977.tb00595.x
(for starters)

Brachiopods have shells that grow in size as the organism ages, like clams. They also have a larval stage where they are free swimming before becoming attached by a stalk to the substrates and growing their first shell. The fossil records show these brachiopod stalks growing on the shells of other dead brachiopods.

How does that happen during a flood of only several months duration eh?

Enjoy.

Topic Review. This seems like a better place to discuss flood mythology than History Rules thread.

CTD on History Rules message 37082 asserts:
This is similar to other claims made by CTD and other creationists, all based on the tacit assumption that if there is a myth about a flood that it must be about the biblical flood. The question is whether this assertion stands up to scrutiny.

Let's begin with native american myths, particularly in the southwest, where the association with the Grand Canyon would be logical if the grand canyon were a relic of this flood event.

The first problem is that most other flood myths are creation myths:

Hopi Creation Myth
There is no myth of later floods in the Hopi legends.

Apache Creation Myth:
Again, there is no myth of later flood in Apache legends.

The second problem is that when there is a post-creation flood myth, that the story is different:

The Inca Flood Myth


We can continue with other myths from other places, but the essential evidence is that these myths are different, in how the floods occurred, what god/s were involve, and who survived and how, and for them all to be substantiation of the biblical flood, then the conclusion is that Noah and family were not the only humans to survive.

The fact is that water alone does not make these stories the same. Not one of these other myths supports the story of Noah and his family and his zoo-yacht.

Enjoy.

They are, however, poetic and instructive. I wish we talked more here about myths -- apart from the ongoing obvious.

So then choose a part of the myth of evolution to begin with!

Well, SoSick, that is difficult to do, because evolution did not begin with a myth but with reason and observation and evidence.

Creationists, you, Russ and CTD included, try to pretend that it is a myth, a form of belief, but the problem comes when you try to go beyond the bare assertions.

Reality is not a myth. Understanding reality is therefore not based on myth.

Enjoy.

Talk is cheap RAZD. If evolution is not a myth you should do something to prove it to the world. Prove it or eat your words which are too difficult to swallow for so many others.

Prove it then. Don't just say it, prove it. quit bouncing around with things you think are related somehow and..

Prove it!

till then, just another urban legend, sorry. Ted Haggard had more on the ball.

Well, SoSick, all you need to do is look around you: there are no organisms that do not change hereditary traits from generation to generation. This is evolution.

That evolution occurs is a fact, and it has been demonstrated any number of times.

We can also look at genes and see the same relationships of comparable genes that we do with closely related relatives and more distant relatives. Aunts and Uncles show fewer similarities than brothers and sisters but more similarities than strangers. The same pattern holds for species, with closer related species having more similarities than more distantly related species.

These genetic patterns can be used to make phylogenic trees showing those relationships. This genetic pattern can be done again and again and again by different groups of scientists in different parts of the world in different labs, and they end up with the same phylogenies. Thus these results are repeatable.

We can compare these phylogenies with the ones developed over the last 200 plus years by taxonomists and see - surprise - that they are by and large the same, over 90% consistent, but that there are some differences. Those differences become things to research in greater detail rather than avoid, as creationists would have you believe (especially those who think evolution is a conspiracy of falsehoods), rather they are cause for excitement.

We can look at these multiple methods and reach the same conclusions, not because there is a conspiracy, but because it is what the evidence shows, it is the truth.

Can I prove that the theory of evolution is true? No, but that is because no theory can be proven true, not one, not in any science.

Does that mean there is no standard of proof? No need to validate the theory? No, it is just that the standard of proof is that the theory is valid, rather than that it is absolutely true, and this standard of validation is the same as in any science: you need to test the theory, continually, and try to disprove it, try to show that it is invalid or results in contradictory predictions.

This is done, it is done by biologists every day. The test is that evolution explains all the evidence, not just the evidence that conveniently fits the theory.

So far, after over 150 years of trying to disprove Darwin's theory, descent with modification, it has not yet been falsified by a single piece of evidence. Newton's law of gravity was falsified, and replaced by relativity, but Darwin's descent with modification is still a valid theory.

We have added processes and increased our understanding of how variation occurs, we have found the basis for hereditary traits and determined how they can - and how some traits cannot - be inherited by offspring.

We have found thousands and thousands of fossils since Darwin's time, and in no case is there one that falsifies the theory or contradicts it, rather the fossils keep sorting themselves into phylogenic trees of relations, relationships that are valid in time and space, and that show a pattern of descent from common ancestors.

We have seen actual instances of speciation, where one population of interbreeding organisms becomes to daughter populations that no longer share genes, and begin accumulating different hereditary traits. We have seen breeding isolation occur from something as simple as a different mating song and some minor color changes.

Speciation is all that is necessary for a phylogenic tree to branch, to split into two or more different lines of descendant species.

I can show that the degree of variation that we see in dogs is sufficient to explain the morphological differences between species as one species supplants it's ancestral species and is in turn supplanted by it's descendant species: the morphological differences are less than that from wolf to dog.

I can show that in 60 years a line of dog-like foxes can be bred from an isolated group of russian silver foxes by the sole mechanisms of breeding isolation and the selection for a single trait: lower fear or anxiety. These dog-like foxes show the same kinds of morpological differences in size, and in proportions, that we see in fossil records between successive species.

I can show that an initial population of 50 to 100 starlings introduced in NY city has resulted in the millions of starlings that infest North America from coast to coast in as little as 50 years, thus demonstrating how a new species that is successful can quickly spread into new ecologies.

I can show intermediate fossils, some for birds, some for mammals, some for quadrapeds, that again all show a general pattern of (1) evolution within populations and (2) speciation and division between populations, and that this is sufficient to explain the natural history of life as we know it, from today, from history, from the natural history of fossils and geology and from genetics.

I can demonstrate that evolution can explain the natural history of this planet, and that is what theories do: they provide explanations, explanations that are tested by reality, and explanations that are the closest we know to the truth of what really happened, and I can show that they are feasible.

I am sorry that reality is hard for some people to swallow. Scientists are used to this, as many experiments end in failures when reality does not match hypothesis. But the difficulty in swallowing is not because of the validity of the concept: reality is true no matter what you believe.

That the evidence of reality keeps contradicting belief is not my fault.

The earth is at least 4.5 billion years, that is a fact, it is a fact because there is evidence that is 4.5 billion years old.

The universe is at least 13.7 billion years old, that is a fact, it is a fact because there is evidence that is 13.7 billion years old.

Life on earth is at least 3.5 billion years old, that is a fact, it is a fact because there is evidence that is 3.5 billion years old.

These ages are not determined by evolutionary biologists, but by geologists and physicists, people that could not care whether we are descended from apes or not, but in understanding their particular interest in objective reality

I can prove that the theory of evolution is valid by the simple fact that there is not one piece of evidence that contradicts evolution to date.

The standard for scientific theories is that they provide the best possible explanation for all the evidence, and that the theory be tested repeatedly for invalidation, that there is no contradictory evidence, and that there is no better explanation currently known.

Evolution meets this standard.
Creationism does not.

To discuss how evolution explains diversity I suggest this thread - Evolution Theory Explains Diversity

To discuss how the ages of certain things stack up in reality I suggest this thread - A Well Aged Earth


Enjoy.

wow

did it take you a longer to write that nonsense or make it up?

I will refrain from calling you a dingbat outright and assume there is a problem somewhere in your understanding of biology and genetics. But between hereditary traits and mating songs I simply sighed and gave up on bothering with the rest.

hope it was fun to write because probably you are the only one who will ever read it over and over again since it's a bunch of crap.

The changing characteristics of hereditary traits are not evolution, my dear. They are the numerous variations of possibilties that our genes carry, without any hint of us ever changing into apes or monkeys or vice versa and et al to any species.

I really don't desire to get involved in this dingbat discussion again anyway.

It's clearly evident that you will do whatever you feel you need to do to deny the existence of God, the creator God. Yet the one thing you will not do is seek God to know that he is real and tha he is our creator.

scardy cat. afraid to ever seek to know if God is real ha ha ha. poor thing wittle waz wit his big ideaz. as yeller as a dandelion.

poor wittle thing afwaid to seek God.

that be about it waz. that be the diagnosis.

Thanks for the intelligent discussion of the evidence provided here by RAZD. It's nice to see someone join this thread who really engages with what is being said and explains their own position using clear evidence. Someone who doesn't just ignore what people have posted so they can have a little shout about how it's all crap and we're just stupid heathen, because of course that will show us how wrong we really are. Just like the other creationist here, whose level of maturity speaks for itself in giving stars to creationists and taking them away from evolutionists. Gosh, I can see now how wrong I really am.

Whoops, sorry, must have nodded off there. I think I was dreaming.

Sorry, SoSick, I mistook your request for true interest.

Mockery does not change the facts of the argument, rather it is the last refuge of those with no other argument, and this shows is that your arguments are bankrupt when it comes to dealing with reality. Thus you resort to the level of argument seen on childhood playgrounds.

Contrasted with
Makes one wonder who is truly afraid of reality.

Let me know when you want to behave like an adult.

Enjoy.

Yeah me too. hope it wasnt too bad of a nightmare.

I think actually you offended a lot of people the past few weeks and they snipped away at your precious stars and added some elsewhere. that's the way the rocks tumble lindalou. all the false accusations in the world don't really mean that much... people forget the junk in a week or two because it is so meaningless. but blame everyone else as usual because it's the only way you seem to make yourself feel better.

crap is crap. baloney is pork. you eat too much of it. you even chew it up and want everyone else to swallow your chew.

the bible is much more factual than the myth of evolution you just haven't been able to accept that fact either maybe that's why your starts keep disappearing. no one is interested in your baloney. it stinks it's rancid it's moldy and rotten. I don't think you see how wrong you are at all, I think that is just one of your typical sour grapes fasicious statements.

poor little starstruck lindalou. our hearts go out to you.

and you are afraid to seek God to know the truth. and it is pretty funny. poor little lindalou cowering behind her comic books wit wittle waz pretending the world is not real. nooo. I will not seek God, noooo not me uh uh. I know everything all by myself...

hah ha so funny. that is the view from here Lindalou and I doubt it's only my own singular perspective.

no surprise the loss of your purty stars. I know you don't like to admit it but believers out number non-believers 2 to 1. just like in the bible, only 1/3 of God's angels rebelled. we seem to have a similar equation among people. but hey, at least we don't carry baseball bats like heathens do. which is the only reason you get away with your nonsense.

have fun entertaining yourself.

Another failure to face truth, SoSick.

... have to wonder why creationists have so much trouble finding any they can use in an argument.

How do those other myths support a biblical flood? They don't match the Noah storyline, so what do they show?

How do 20 year old clam shells on mountaintops support a biblical flood? They don't match the Noah storyline either, so what do they show?

Which -- true or false -- is irrelevant to whether they understand reality. This is the logical fallacy of popularity of an opinion.

If your previous post is indicative of the kind of intellectual level needed to get 5 stars, I don't want any.

If the failure of CTD, SoSick, and Russ, among others, to deal with the evidence that is presented in an argument is what is needed to get 5 stars, I don't want any.

If the failure of CTD, SoSick, Russ, and others, to provide any evidence to support their assertions, it the level of argument that is rewarded with 5 stars, then I don't want any.

If earning stars is dependent on the opinions of people that don't want to understand reality, then I don't want any.

If earning stars is dependent on the opinions of people that don't have the courage to engage in the debate themselves, and test their arguments against facts, then I don't want any.

I don't believe in / worship false idols.

Enjoy.

ps - I gave you 5 stars for your previous post. It demonstrates the full breadth and depth of the creationist argument in a way that nothing I post could match.

It's just amusing really. Someone who has no ability to engage with the discussion here on any level is getting some personal satisfaction from playing with stars. I've not even understood why the stars are there or why people use them, they seem pointless to me. But as RAZD said, if they are awarded in this area for support of creationism, give me zero.

Insults are the last resort of those who don't know what else to say. If you ever want to have a proper conversation SoSick, let us know.

Just out of curiosity Linda, you told bex and I that you were a teacher, that you worked with little kids. But it appears that when this woman named jeanne showed up a couple weeks ago and started talking about subbing for HS kids you then became a HS teacher.

So, which is the truth or are both lies?

I teach high school English and I've worked with my daughter's kindergarten-aged class. I don't see that it has any bearing on our discussion of evolution though.

Oh well that's kind of hard to believe considering the fact that you don't know how to do research and your comprehension isn't very noteworthy either. Spending a little time in your daughter's kindergarten class, something many of us have done as parents, doesn't make you an elementary teacher either.

I don't really think anyone gives a dang what you do for a living, it's your incessant stretching and fabricating and twisting that gets most people's attention. It's kind of hard to miss. Inserting fabricated comments where you feel it's convenient to somehow, somehow in your imagination anyway, make you look good, etc...

You guys were really rude to that woman. That's really hard to miss too. I kind of have difficulty with your complaints seeing as you take the liberty to bully other people whenever you get the chance. as a bully you should expect to get slugged back now and then. Especially as a wittle bully wit a wittle stick.

I don't care what you've got to say to me personally, it means nothing apart from the fact that you seem to want to defend your creationist position by using insults. If you'd like to engage with any of the evidence presented here, that would be nice. Otherwise I'll wait for someone else who is willing to do so.

I'm sorry that you seem to think it's bullying someone to ask them to explore the science, or lack thereof, behind their creationist beliefs, but that is what one should expect when they come here because there are people here with scientific knowledge. She was misinformed about a number of things. Pointing them out to her may be uncomfortable but it was her choice to talk here and it was also her choice whether or not to listen. I suggest you also either discuss science here or leave, as emotional arguments and insults aren't going to lend any credence to the creationist position nor are they going to disprove evolution.

It's really true I have sincere great difficulty imagining you surviving a week in a classroom full of thinking young adults.

I really do think you are making it up.

This is funny too btw...


considering the fact that you are the one who is having a temper tantrum because other people snipped your precious stars away. Hey, what goes around comes around Linda. Wake up.

tell ya what, I suggest you discuss science here or leave. Who here among your evo friends has scientific knowledge? I haven't seen much of it and I have been reading here off and on for months. Of course you will say it's because I know nothing about science. But I certainly know more about it than you do that's for sure. But since your fabricating takes so much time it's not possible to really discuss anything... you have no foundation of knowledge to work with, you just get soundbites at that evolution board you like to spend time at. And then in a pinch you direct attention to posts by that nutjob RAZD.

Back at ya again... I suggest you explore God and creation or else leave. you and your friends are way way off base with your inflammatory comments and attitudes towards anyone with a faith based approach.

So anyway, there ya are, a thinking adult speaking to ya. have your tantrum in your bathroom not in public please. It's very unbecoming and that is probably why you only have one star. If it were possible to rate you a zero you would have none.

I can sell ya a couple...

jealous jealous

We've been talking about evidence for a global flood. Do you have any? Do you have any comments to make about the evidence that has been presented against it?

I was talking on another thread about hominid evolution. Perhaps you missed it. You seem to have a habit of overlooking evidence people have presented here for evolution and then claiming there isn't any, but that's par for the course for the creationist position here.

Like I said, I'd like to talk about the actual issues with someone -- any takers?

What's wrong with the evidence that's already been presented? there sure is enough of it.

you are like a woman with 200 pairs of brand new shoes in the closet, never worn once, who still goes shopping for shoes.

that's called an obsession Linda, a mental problem.

This pesto is really yummy. I have egads of basil in the garden now, just picked this 30 minutes ago and eating it already.

m m m.

You keep overlooking my repeated requests to investigate the existence of God. I don't see how you hope to continue on with a discussion of evolution vs creation if you continually deny and scoff at the existence of God without ever trying to know anything about him.

maybe it's a comic book mental problem. do you think God is a comic book figure? he's not. and that is why your posts offend so many too btw. Lots of people have had experiences with God, with Jesus. and you laugh at them.

great, so no big deal if believers ignore your requests then, and laugh at you, is it?

your loss my dear. but spending the years laughing instead of actually investigating the matter leaves your argument, or attempt at it, only half an argument to begin with. you are completely utterly void of any knowledge of God and therefore your arguments are meaningless.

completely meaningless. you choose to look at only one side of coin with 2 sides.

you'll figure it out someday, if at any rate on your deathbed. everyone does.

mmm very yummy pesto. my tomatoes are starting to ripen too

mm mm mm mm mm.

I'm not going to thoroughly read all the griping here. I was asking for someone to discuss the flood with me, since that is what this thread is about. We started the discussion in the History Rules thread if anyone wants to look at what's already been said. Can either of you present evidence for a global flood, or are you going to continue to evade the question? Can any of you asnwer the questions I asked CTD about this, since nothing from him is forthcoming?

Are you obliged to present evidence for your views? Well yes, if you want to present creationism as scientifically legitimate and having a place in the curriculum outside of religious education. Ad hominem comments do not produce a viable argument for this.

This thread's purpose is to discuss the flood. I'm here to discuss it. I've said to Russ before that if he wants to blissfully ignore reality, he can make a creationists' corner and ban evolutionists from it. Otherwise, if there's a case for a reasoned argument to be made against what's being said here, this forum is open for people to do so. If you are rock-solid with your beliefs and can explain why you hold them, then there's no reason to take offense when someone questions them is there? Or maybe you'd prefer to try to explain why you are talking on this forum yet it's reasonable for you not to give any evidence for your views other than that you're narked at people here who question them using evidence from the real world, and wish we'd go away?

Hey LindaLou,

It's all just another excuse to avoid dealing with the issues. Remember how cognitive dissonance works - the path of least resistance.

Why am I here Bex?

Two reasons: (1) I find it mildly amusing the lengths creationists will go to avoid actually answering question and dealing with issues, and maybe see if they will actually consider the facts - like how a 20 year old clam shell can be evidence for a flood that only lasted a couple hundred days, tops. I also learn things in the process of putting together my arguments, by researching the answers. Like the fact that brachiopods (a kind of clam-like organism with fossils on Mt Everest) grow stalks and are thereby tethered to the bottom.

But more importantly, (2) to provide a rational alternative for those who do want to consider reality, an alternative from the falsehoods and hoopla of the creationists propaganda - like thinking that tanned skin can be hereditary when there is no path to the DNA of reproduction cells, like thinking that DNA can be "programmed" for future changes (which means that the 3/4's of zygotes that don't make it to being a healthy human baby are just programming errors?).

Funny that creationists, in their rabid desire to falsify evolution repeat concepts that science has already considered, tested, invalidated, and discarded as false, and just a little bit of study would show this to be the case.

Why are you here? To learn?

Enjoy.

Well, I see that nobody's addressed the issue of water flowing uphill for millions of years.

I see RAZD's comical attempt to discuss other flood stories in this thread rather than the one devoted to proper historical procedures. Guess he thinks since one of them mentions the Grand Canyon... but that's only a guess. Evolutionology can only tell us so much.

The canyon is evidence, and the presence of the great ghost lake makes the case pretty solid. I have not done so myself, but I'm told if you ask a canyon tour guide how the "box canyons" (the little side canyons which join the Grand Canyon at angles) came to be, you just get an angry stare for an answer.

I guess you don't agree with the USGS evidence that those areas, where Hovind says the river had to flow uphill to cut through them, are actually rising. Annual surveying shows them rising at a rate that would have put the land below the river's starting point millions of years ago.

It seems that you feel your snide remarks allow you to ignore RAZD's post #35985. It is the second one in this thread. It discusses what PHD Geologists have concluded from decades of studying the Grand Canyon geology. I am anxious to hear your erudite rebuttal to the evidence put forth in the links that he references.

I was also going to refer to that particular post. Selective memory is working on some people here again.

I don't see any reason to doubt that a flood actually happened in the middle east and was recorded in the Bible. I don't see any reason to doubt that floods occurred in other places as well, and that some of them were recorded in various ways too. The question here is: Can you prove that the Biblical flood was global? What's more, why is there a need to? I've been to a few web pages run by Christians, who go into the exact wording used in the original Hebrew texts and discuss how the meanings can be interpreted. It looks to me like there's no solid reason why the flood had to be global, not even from a Biblical literalist perspective. You're welcome to try to make a case otherwise if you can, giving evidence to substantiate your claims.

You are just so funny CTD.

And you were the one that introduced the subject of other flood myths as though they automatically validated the one you preferred of all the ones you can find that mention water. Now you say there is only one: I guess when confronted with the evidence you change your story instead of admit your mistake eh?

All I have done is show that there are other flood stories, but none of them conform to the biblical story, so they cannot be support for it (unless you employ that other creationist standby, the logical fallacy of special pleading). What other flood stories are evidence for are other floods, and other survivals (unless you go with the psychological theory that creation myths of land being separated from water are like birth). This is not surprising when you look at the numbers of human habitations on flood plains and the link between agriculture and water.

... of erosion, with wind erosion playing as much a part as erosion from rain. Water erosion per se is not evidence of flooding, just of water flowing, unless you call every little rainstorm a flood.

The clincher for the Grand Canyon though is that it has been formed by erosion as the rock it is carved through has been pushed up to the point where the rims are higher than the surrounding land: how do you carve through a high point CTD? Or do you think water flows uphill?

So a lake in Taiwan is evidence that the Grand Canyon was caused by a flood? Please. Next you'll be claiming that Crater Lake was formed by the flood.

Are those guides the ones that tell you it is formed by the flood? Or is this just another completely unfounded CTD myth? Either way, box canyons to the side of the main channel are not formed by any single flood outflow, nor do flood outflows form meandering stream courses.

What's humorous about this is that you still fail to answer the question of how 20 year old clam-like shells are on Mt Everest, and other mountains, brachiopods that grow on a stalk once they've passed their free swimming larval stage.

If you read my answer to how they got there again, you will note that it does not require water to flow up hill, as it is the ground that is lifted out of the water by normal known tectonic mechanisms.

Looks like you still can't answer the question of how the fossils of 20 year old shells are found on mountain tops. Science can.

All in all what do we have from your post CTD? A lack of evidence for the flood, still, and a lack of explanation for the evidence that says something else was responsible.

Enjoy.

No. That's not what the evidence shows.

I think I'll just post a link to a guy who's knowledge of the subject outshines anyone's here:

http://urlbam.com/ha/K

Learn and enjoy!

Hi Russ, nice diversionary attempt.

Yours anyway? So can you summarize one point that you think is his most telling argument?

Rather than hide behind someone else that is not here to debate in person.

Note that this is an aerial view of the Grand Canyon (from google maps)

Features that are not consistent with flood outflow are

(1) meandering course cut deep into the rock, rather than a straight flow, in some places going in the opposite direction from other places,

(2) "V" shape canyon rather than "U" or wide flat bottom shape,

(3) tributaries from all directions rather than all from one source.

(4) absence, in the canyon and downstream, of the effect of flood outfloods -- as seen in the the scablands in Washington (state)

This is how a flood outflow canyon looks:


Zoom in closer on the Grand Canyon and you will see tributaries to the tributaries that also come from a variety of directions, and you are left with the contradictory evidence that if this was all cut by one flood outflow, that significant portions of this flow was going upstream.

All the tributaries and the main channel do not have the wide flat bottom channel of flood outflow canyons, but the narrow meandering V channel of gradual erosion.

And you still fail to deal with the rims being higher than the surrounding area. Do you have some magic way that floods cause the area being eroded to rise?

Enjoy.

I guess you also employ the term 'evidence' when you actually mean "conclusions of evolutionists".

Must be what it takes to sustain the vain dream of creationists "denying evidence".
Why should I pretend RAZD made even a dent in the case presented by the video? Even the lowliest peasants can see the evomythology about the Grand Canyon is a brazen insult to the intelligence of all who hear it.

Why should we pretend that any evolutionist here wants to waste thirty minutes of their time listening to the pseudoscientific nonsense that "doctor" Hovind spews? He thinks the sun burns by combustion. You can use that as a guide to how much he understands about science and the natural world.

As was said . . . if someone would like to put forward one or two of his, shall we say, more salient points, we can discuss them here.

Those pesky brachiopods, causing problems again. They're fossilised at the top of Mt. Everest and guess what, they are fossilised in layers of the Grand Canyon too (specifically the Tapeats, Bright Angel, and Muav formations). As has been pointed out, it is notable that they anchor to a selected spot when they are still larvae and thereafter grow in place.

The question being, how could a fixed, bottom-dwelling animal find the time and the food to grow to full size while it was under a steady stream of settling sediment? If it anchored itself at dawn, it would be under 15 feet of sediment by nightfall. In case you want to argue that they were washed there, you need to be aware that there are ways for scientists to tell whether this is the case -- see here and here for starters.

Speaking of fossils, other questions remain. There are no fossils of advanced organisms in the "pre-Flood rocks" of the Grand Canyon, just primitive life such as stromatolites. Weren't there supposed to be other life forms around that God had created? Also, there are no fossils of large Mesozoic or Cenozoic animals anywhere in the Grand Canyon. All of the rocks are Paleozoic, and all have only Paleozoic fossils in them. The fossils are also sorted in the same way that they are across the world.

Science can explain all of these things. Is there a creationist model that can do so? I'm assuming that the creationists here believe in the standard model that the flood deposited the sediment from which the Grand Canyon was supposedly carved as the waters receded. If this is the case, maybe you can also explain to me why the walls did not slump in the process, as the rock would not have solidified. If this is not what you believe, maybe you can clarify what you do believe actually happened.

Could you be a little more clear on how you can say that survey results showing the altitude of the area in question rising each decade can be considered "conclusions"? The land is rising and the only way you can conclude that the land was not ever low enough for the river to traverse it when the canyon was first being cut is to ignore all evidence that the earth is millions of years old. That would make the Hovind "evidence" merely a "creationist conclusion". By your own, and Hovind's, reasoning for scrapping the uplift as evidence of slow erosion of the Grand Canyon, you must also scrap your "evidence" of the land altitude being indicative of a flash flood erosion. Of course that leaves you with no support for your contention while other geologic evidence still supports the slow erosion consensus of geologists.

As erudite and on topic as usual, I see.
You don't have to pretend anything concerning RAZD's post #35985. However, you should consider this. Your refusal to properly address the points in his post lend credence to the accuracy of that information and also indicate a fear on your part to actually confront the "evidence". Even the lowliest peasants can see that.
If you really feel that your position is defensible and has the upper hand in so far as the evidence is concerned, then why do you not step up to the plate?
Russ has stated: "When people attempt to tell a lie that is so obviously a lie, the only intellectual tactic they can resort to is "distraction". If they are desperate, they will often resort to character assassination as well." That is all you have done since you have been on this forum. You have used insulting language regarding evolution and evolutionists without a shred of evidence to support those claims. You fail to address direct rebuttals to your evidence and conclusion. Instead you choose to either ignore the rebuttal, misrepresent the rebuttal, or insult the person providing the rebuttal.
This is why I find myself doubting your claim of belief in Young Earth Creationism. You don't even try to defend it in any coherent manner. Is that because you believe it to be a lie?

Hi LinearAq,

Another piece of evidence against the Grand Canyon being carved by flood outflow is that everyplace where you have a meandering river in a flat area -- say the Mississippi, for instance -- and you have a flood, the flood waters cut across the meanders during the flood, straightening the river course, plugging the ends of the old meanders with sediment and creating "oxbow" lakes" ... there are no such oxbow lakes or abandoned watercourses in the Grand Canyon, meaning that there was never water high enough to cut across a meander section, even though some of the peninsula's formed by the meanders are lower than the canyon rims.

This picture
http://www.nps.gov/archive/grca/photos/images/T441.jpg
shows a perpendicular tributary canyon and knife thin peninsula's also perpendicular to the main river.

These are features not made by flood outflows.

Enjoy.

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

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

I'm curious to see if he's the only one using this formula, or if it's some sort of new fad. It's really just a ploy to exploit short attention spans, & create an argument that nobody will bother to counter. Really, why would anyone bother? (But oh, don't the cheerleaders emerge when one doesn't!)

The clam issue is one example, and this Grand Canyon story is another. He mistakenly condensed this one into one post, so it's very simple to dissect.

One of the first things one should be expected to notice about the Grand Canyon is that it's not flat. Those who overlook this detail may happily nod in agreement with RAZD, while others are left to scratch their heads, wondering what he's talking about.

Of course, in the evostory, the River, way back in imaginary time, flowed (uphill) over fairly flat terrain. So if what RAZD says is true, any flooding would have cut some of the meanders. We have no evidence that it did so, according to RAZD. So in reality (you know, the realm avoided by evolutionists), this is actually just one more big problem for the evostory.

I suppose they could posit tens of millions of years passing with no flooding, and the faithful would buy into it, but those lacking the special predisposition are going to view this as a flaw. Evolutionism has had a long relationship with special pleading, so we shouldn't be surprised the marriage endure. (Actually, all logical fallacies are members of the harem.)

But compare the flips & twists one has to do to convince oneself the Grand Canyon is evoaged to the elegant explanations provided by creation science. The evogarbage can't compete; it isn't even in the same league. Research based upon trying to find the truth is so much better than fantasies invented to prop up disintegrating mythology.

You have not answered my question about what your "creation science" model is. I said that if it wasn't legitimate, you would dodge the question. So far that looks to be the case.

You have not explained why the Grand Canyon is different from the scablands in Washington state, which were carved by a flood. There is no evidence that you have even bothered to find out what these are or what features they exhibit which we expect to see in a flood-carved area.

I told you that brachiopods are found in layers in the Grand Canyon, as well as on the top of Mt. Everest. Again, we have layer after layer of 20-year-old clams which grew anchored to the river bottom. I also provided a link which explains how we know that they weren't just washed there, but grew in place.

Are you actually, EVER, going to address any of the evidence?

My hypothesis is: you can't. Because creation "science" is no such thing, and in order to believe in it you have to ignore reality. We're asking you not to ignore it, we're asking you to address it, and it simply isn't possible for you is it? All you are able to do here is insult people and claim that scientists are liars.

I have not yet claimed to be the author of any creation science model, have I?

What about if it didn't exist? What would I do in that case? You never said...

How do you people make up such things? What do you call this, the ghost straw man, or something? If you paid a little attention, you might not need to go about inventing new logical fallacies.

So? I haven't promised to explain this either. Maybe if someone would convince me they'd pay attention and try to understand... But that's almost impossible.

I'm not terribly concerned about what you expect, or what you'd cop to expecting. Contrary to uniformitarian philosophy, not all floods are identical, and not all floods produce identical results. We could look at pictures of the Nile and claim the Scablands can't be the result of flooding.

But we already have a pretty good idea what you 'expect': Whatever suits your purpose. Rivers form deltas; yet you cannot 'expect' a delta when to do so would jeopardize your evomyth, can you? You cannot expect erosion to chew away at layers containing sea fossils while they ever-so-slowly rise up to become the highest mountain range in the world, oh no!

Methinks your expectations are restricted and bounded by your desires.
Really? In RAZD's straw man the clams grew 20 years during the Great Flood. Please form a consensus about which straw man to use.

Are you EVER going to LOOK AT any of the evidence?

I can't read your mind, so until you decide which straw man you wish to discuss... Even then, I don't really care about any of your straw men. Suppose one of them was just super-vulnerable, and you utterly destroyed it. What difference would it make?

It's not very risky to hypothesize that the reason you have to attack straw men is because you find the truth far too difficult to attack.
Source?

So far, the best of the whole lot in this thread is Linear's idea that the high spot has just always been creeping its way higher and higher. One wonders how deep a chasm was present '4.5 billion years ago'. Or how long it will take this special spot to grow up and protrude out of the atmosphere. Extrapolations can be fun. Given time, it should be able to swat at the moon like a softball bat.

I think we're about due for someone to post something really, really funny. At least I hope so. I'm bored.

Still no substance here. I seem to be beginning every post to you in this way.

You said in a post to RAZD that he knew nothing about "creationist models." I asked you to present one. You continue not to do so. I said that if it were legitimate science, it would withstand scrutiny, but you obviously don't think it will stand up to that so you've obfuscated as usual. All you've done so far in this thread is say "I don't believe it" without giving any evidence as to why, and you have not presented an alternative model.

You've been asked to look at the links provided here to information about the scablands and see how they are different from the formations in the Grand Canyon. This is called geography. The links are quite accessible, with lots of photos. The scablands aren't some freak of nature, they are characteristic of what scientists have found when they have studied areas carved by floods. (Last time I looked, the Nile area had not been carved by a catastrophic flood, so your comment there seems rather bizarre. Though interestingly, there is an ancient "grand canyon" underneath the Nile, which was carved by a river at a time when the Mediterranean had evaporated and was a dry area far below sea level.) There are formations in the Grand Canyon that would have been washed away by a flood. You ignore every inconvenient point such as this. I've already asked someone else here today this question: are you interested in facing reality, or only when it suits?

That would include explaining why there are multiple layers of brachiopods ("clams") in the Grand Canyon which show all the signs of having grown there for their 20-year lifespans. According to creationist flood models, they had to have been washed there, but that is not consistent with the evidence.

Regarding LinearAQ telling you that the Himalayas are still being uplifted, check any geological website. He's not making it up. You also should try Googling plate tectonics.

I enjoy talking here with people who bring up interesting points for discussion and who attempt to back up their views in some way. It's getting to be tedious to address post after post which does nothing but blather. What are you actually doing here, if you don't want to engage with what people are saying?

I suppose that this in some way addresses the issues that RAZD brought up. However, I don't see how.
I see that you are like Russ in that you are able to express these enormous logical leaps which make sense to you but seem to be over our heads. Since you obviously want to be understood, could you point out exactly how RAZD's explanation and examples match up with the logic (illogic?) twist-and-turn illustration you provided?

Could you be a little more specific here? I saw the clam fossils and the Grand Canyon evidence as 2 different issues that contradict the Flood story. Can you show me how RAZD misleads us by making them the same thing? Please be specific and remember you are writing to someone whom you believe is of low intelligence.


I think RAZD is saying that if there were a flood drainage that carried lots of mud, and the Grand Canyon did not already exist, then the carving out by the flood waters would look very different than the Grand Canyon looks now. Are you saying that the Canyon was already there when the flood waters were receding and that's why it was carved differently by those flood waters? This is getting confusing for me because it seems like you are saying that the Grand Canyon caused the flood waters to carve the Grand Canyon the way it was carved???
Please explain this in simple terms that I can understand.

Again, I don't see how what RAZD said is "special pleading". Maybe you could be more direct and point out exactly where RAZD's explanation becomes special pleading.



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

By the way, you came dangerously close to posting something that did not contain demeaning remarks or insults. I guess
Pwcca better start sharpening up his razor.

Hi CTD, still having trouble dealing with the issues eh?

What it means is that I look deeper than just the superficial appearances of things to see what they really mean. The best explanation is one that explains ALL the evidence, not just the bits and parts that fit certain conceptions. After all, if one is free to ignore evidence then one can believe the world is flat.

Only a simplistic view could consider that a 20 year old clam was evidence of an event measured in days. Such a simplistic view must ignore most of the evidence that it claims supports it, a curious position to take.

So, if you don't start with flat land, you must think there was an initial canyon before any flood occurred? You must also agree that the flow level inside this initial canyon never overtopped any of the pennisula formations formed by the meandering river carved deep into the rock? that the flow never exceeded the capacity of the canyon?

One has to wonder then, how anyone can think that this is evidence of the flood: a pre-existing canyon already confines the flow, and flows so low that they don't fill the canyon and that are indistinguishable from the erosion caused by known flow, including seasonal and climatological variations.

Just as we see with the 20 year old clam on top of a mountain, the ability of a flood to actually explain the evidence evaporates when you look at (all) the details in depth.

Nope, that is a creationist falsehood. You should try seeing what geologists actually say.

Of course, you also don't have any evidence to present to contradict this either: mockery is an empty argument, built on lack of substance.

The fact remains that the Grand Canyon meanders in a "V" shaped canyon. The fact remains that flood flows create wide flat canyons like the scablands. It seems we are agreed that the Grand Canyon does not - at any location - look like this:


Now we do have evidence that the scablands were caused by flood outflows that were massive, and that they were also repeated several times in the past. The curious thing, is that if you ran ONE of those repeated scabland flows through the Grand Canyon now it would destroy many of the existing features.

And yet, curiously, we still see no example of one of these "elegant explanations" nor any discussion of how it explains the actual evidence of the Grand Canyon, meanders, "V" shaped canyons, perpendicular tributary canyons that have perpendicular tributary canyons that flow in the opposite direction of the Colorado river.

One should not mistake "inadequate" or "incomplete" for "elegant" ...

Enjoy.

I don't think that's against the forum rules. Spend your credibility as you see fit.

You asked for my model. That's a pretty specific 'one', and I haven't written anything up.

Really? I thought I was pretty clear. I have not written up a creation science model. Which part is unclear?

Actually there was a video in the first post of the thread. Folks have said they don't believe it, and so far nobody's given any reasoning or evidence that's worth 2 cents.

The flaws are pretty obvious, without exception. For the benefit of those who aren't in the habit of thinking too much about this stuff, and for laughs, I point out some of these flaws. Mostly for laughs.

Well, one might say the same for the Mississippi, yet RAZD thinks we should look at it to see what flooding does. I'm guessing he'd prefer that we don't follow the Father of Waters all the way down to the Gulf - you know what's there.

There isn't much that a flood won't wash away if it lasts long enough. It's mostly a question of duration. This point seems exceedingly obvious to me, but if you're going to claim not to understand I think I can be excused for pointing it out.

How about bringing up a point that is both inconvenient and valid? This business of searching the world for flood results & rivers that differ from the Grand Canyon just doesn't cut it. Neither does the rest of the nonsense.

I'm guessing the 'someone else' wasn't yourself.

Didn't see anything about them in your links. I wonder whether this is because you could find no links supporting your claim, or you misinterpreted what they say.

Which models? If you have one you'd like to discuss...

Why do you pretend I said it wasn't so? Someone's making something up. For the record, I fully expect to see residual tectonic activity.

Yeah Right...

Your whole problem is that I actually do read what people are saying. You take the polarized approach of just figuring out who's side someone is on & letting it go at that. You don't care if it makes any sense at all if you like the conclusion, and you don't care how sound the reasoning and how solid the evidence is if you oppose the conclusion.

And you don't allow anyone to even doubt that this is the case. Diverting discussions is your whole game. You always sling mud at sources & resort to false accusations rather than sticking to any topic. Ever consider learning some of the alternative approaches?

While googling to find out just exactly what kinds of fossils are found in the Grand Canyon area, I found a little more evidence.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/09067.htm
So it would be an out-of-place fossil, but only if one is (is this the term?)'unsophisticated' enough to take it at face value. Or maybe 'unimaginative' might be preferred? After all, the workaround in this case is to imagine a non-bird leaving a bird's footprint.

It is observation & analysis. Like any other science, evolutionology relies upon these.

I thought I had done so. RAZD takes evidence which is commonly used to demonstrate the truth of the historic record, and attempts to make folks believe just the opposite - that it somehow is a problem and cannot be reconciled.

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

Well, that's how they were presented, right? But there's no real rhyme or reason behind the conclusion that they are in conflict at all. Saying it doesn't make it so. And throwing in a few dozen nonsensical sentences won't make it so either.

As you have missed the point, it will be easy to remember.

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

You are mixing the stories. Imagine your way back in time to the start of the evostory, back when there was no canyon at all; and apply what RAZD was talking about. The land was fairly flat, right? So why didn't the river straighten itself out? It'd have several million years to do so.

I agreed that there are plate tectonics - not that it solves your problem. Generally plate tectonics doesn't result in one special spot being chosen to rise, rise, rise eternally.

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

That your scheme requires just one part of the plate to gradually elevate & not the rest - that part just doesn't work.
Well, they're just not a problem. When the water subsided, the bottom of the canyon wouldn't likely be perfectly flat. So the relative trickle that followed would follow the path of least resistance and flow through the lowest part. Why should anyone expect this to be a straight line?

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

In order for rivers to straighten, repetitive flooding is generally required. One model doesn't have much potential for repetitive flooding, and the other cannot escape it without special pleading.

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

That's really enough I think.

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

CTD, to repeat, you said that RAZD knows nothing about "creationist models". I asked you to present one. What were you referring to exactly? Your continual failure to do so is telling.

Referring to rivers that periodically flood, such as the Nile and the Mississippi, is evidence for a global flood, or that said flood carved the Grand Canyon . . . how exactly?

Brachiopods in the Grand Canyon: http://www.naturescience.org/nathist/fossils.html

How we can tell whether or not brachiopod fossils grew in place:
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/ff.htm
http://www.theallineed.com/paleontology/06010501.htm

Please define "residual tectonic activity". The uplift of the Himalayas as two plates collide IS tectonic activity.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/himalaya.html

As for your link about the "bird tracks," I've had a look around and the only references to these that I can find are a couple of creationist sites, and the only proof that they are bird tracks is creationists saying "they look like bird tracks." What's more, I'm surprised that creationists actually refer to this, because what are fossilised animal prints of any kind doing in so-called flood sediments? This formation also contains ripple marks. Can you explain how footprints and ripple marks can get fossilised in the middle of sediment that was supposed to have been created by a catastrophic flood?

I suggest anyone with a serious interest in the Grand Canyon may
visit
http://creationsafaris.com/crev0702.htm
and scroll down to "Grand Canyon Young, Carved Quickly 07/22/2002"
There are a number of articles & I haven't time to follow up properly. Looks like (don them goggles!) at least one USGS scientist is concluding the Grand Canyon is a lot younger than the old evomyth says.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=726&st=0&#entry19261
Post #17 put me on to this. rbarclay has IMO shown himself knowledgeable and reliable, so when I read I decided it's worth looking into the story. I hope to find more details, eventually.

It may turn out not everybody's into flips & twists. Or maybe the evopriests will decide they can give up this loser of a lie. They accommodate Jurassic mammals these days, you know.

Editing: I screwed up & left out the best link.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020722074554.htm

I'd like to you address the questions that have been put to you here, CTD. They go along the lines of, "If the Grand Canyon was carved by a global flood which only lasted months, then how do you explain . . ." Presenting more links to creationist sites which also do not address these questions is not moving the situation forward. One of your sources is full of scientific inaccuracies, and the other makes bare assertions such as "creationist scientists" have revised radiometric dates of rocks. Quite convenient for them. You'll pardon me if I don't accept this on trust alone.

I'll wait for answers to the questions that have been presented to you here. We haven't even touched on other difficulties for creationists yet, such as angular unconformities, but let's see where we can get first with the information that's already here.

A few issues about your new link. There's a link on that very same page which links to a story about the eastern part of the Grand Canyon being older than previously thought (dating it to 55 million years plus). Yours discussed the western part. The picture here is clearly a complicated one, and it looks like parts of the canyon probably formed at different times. The methods of dating used, such as cosmogenic (in the story you linked to) and radiometric (in the other story) are well established and indicate that one simple blanket explanation for the formation of the canyon is incorrect.

There's a bit of a problem here for YECs though. The first story says that "geological infant" means 700,000 years. Are you willing to take this on board? It also talks about an increased volume for the Colorado River -- not evidence of a flood that covered the entire area. Are you also willing to take this on board?

Yes, CTD, creationists have all kinds of evidence that they misrepresent.

your link http://creationsafaris.com/crev0702.htm is typical.

Which can only happen once the canyon has already formed, and later volcanic activity causes the lava flow. You will note that they mention "several times," not once, and you will also note that none of these flows were high enough to fill the canyon.

Dating of the lava does not mean that the canyon is only 1300 years old, just the lava. The rocks in the canyon still date substantially older.

Compare this to the flood flow from the scablands:
Let's see, 275 meters (average) x 20 meters per second (average) x 1 meter slice = 5500 cubic meters per second per meter width = 5500x3.28x3.28x3.28 = 194,081.536 cubic feet per second, and to get to 1 million cubic feet per second we need 1,000,000/194,081.536 = 5.15 meters width to the flow.

The canyon cut by this water flow is a bit more than 5 meters wide.

Simple math shows the largest recorded flows in the Grand Canyon are much less than flood flows recorded in other places, and all these flows, whether in the Grand Canyon or elsewhere, occurred in multiple instances and at different times in the geological past.

In other words the flows in Grand Canyon, while large, are not large enough to be due to biblical flood flows. They are however, large enough to erode the land faster than it has, has been and is rising. Sufficient to account for the canyon being cut through a - now - high point, one of those issues that the biblical flood cut concept fails to explain.

Try again?

Enjoy.

A typical "misrepresentation", eh? Well then why don't we take a look?

The portion you've chosen says "On the western end, a series of volcanic lava flows dammed the canyon several times..." I don't see you disputing this or presenting evidence that it didn't happen.

It says this happened "...forming lakes that filled quickly and broke catastrophically, “'almost instantaneously.'” Again, you offer no evidence or argument. You do not point out any mistakes.

Finally, it says "Using the cosmogenic radionuclide method, they dated one of the lava flows at only 1300 years old." If there were no mistakes in the previous parts, this looks like the last chance. Yet you still do not even attempt to demonstrate a mistake.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that in RAZDese a straightforward report containing nothing to be disputed constitutes a "typical creationist misrepresentation". I cannot say for certain without further review, but I have a strong hunch this is precisely the same meaning the term has in Standardized Evolutionese.
As nobody has stated or implied that dating the lava = dating the canyon, you're either playing straw man games or spelling things out to a degree that borders on absurdity for your slow-witted fellows. I'd have to toss a coin on that one.

Lots of words, but meaningless. Rate x duration = volume. Comparing rates alone, while omitting durations, tells one nothing about total volume.

And all for what? Just another straw man! Just another member of the straw army marauding about the forum these days. Yes, some of them are slain, but a good number remain in outstanding condition like this one - not a scratch on him! It's got to be depressing when you can't even whup your own straw men.

And this one's pretty lacking in the quality department. There's been no suggestion whatsoever that all the waters of the Great Flood flowed through the Grand Canyon. You were grasping at straws just to create this.

L-evo's please PM RAZD and ask him to take a break. It'll save you a lot of embarrassment.

Why should I? Mine is not the philosophy of 'accept anything but the truth'.

It's obvious they're going to try to take the correct model and slap on some evodates. The Grand Canyon is famous, and a large number of tourists visit it. To have so many people exposed to it when the standard lie is so inadequate is highly undesirable, is it not? I cannot doubt you breathe a sigh of relief yourself to see it replaced with something much closer to the truth.

People are capable of breaking patterns, but it's a safe bet no credit will be given to any of the creation scientists; this will "just be another case of science correcting itself". But that's fine. It'll be just one more lie waiting to be discovered by the inquisitive.

Now if I read you correctly, you're already prepared to abandon the gradualist story. Why not choose the model that reconciles with history, matches the evidence, and gives no indication that it will need to change significantly?

Your continued attempts to sidetrack the discussion are telling. You have already indicated that you are familiar with creation science models. Either you know where & how to find them yourself, or reading a handful of talkdeceptions' slanders constitutes 'familiarity'.

Why don't you answer that one yourself? Or is your reading comprehension so poor that you think I ever said this?

Okay.

You seem much more certain about this "in place growth" than the author of the one article. His article is really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the difficulties a flood geologist will face if he tries to employ the shortcut of using evodates in his research. All any of those designations mean is that certain fossils were found in the rock - they don't indicate the composition, relative position, or depth of the stone. That the shortcut doesn't work well has been known for quite some time. I would urge anyone not to employ it.

The author of the other, well, his idea is interesting if it can be confirmed. From what I can tell, that soft tissue "stalk" he claims to have discovered might just as easily be a parasite.

I see no mention of any of these indicators in connection with the fossils found in the Grand Canyon. Your sources are lacking in detail, and I suspect you're putting a lot of effort into erecting a straw man which has nothing to do with what is thought to have taken place.

The major tectonic activity that took place was probably similar to that discussed in this pdf:
http://www.icr.org/pdf/imp/imp-381.pdf
The small-scale events which follow, I have called 'residual'. I believe this to be the best term; but you may suggest alternatives.

If you googled for "bird tracks" that was probably why. One cannot expect evolutionists to refer to them as such. "Unidentified tracks" or something might work better, but I wouldn't expect much. What? Maybe on some board someone asked "can you help me imagine a critter that could have lived at the right evotime & made these tracks?" Shoot, even HUMAN footprints, unique among all known lifeforms, are disputed when evolutionism finds them inconvenient.

I expect it might take some work. One would have to know some details. For someone seeking truth, I should hope to tackle the task. For someone who has convinced me she fully intends to shut her eyes and stop her ears... barkin' up the wrong tree.

These could be pre-flood, post-flood, or tracks made before the waters got too high. In some locations there was also some substantial flooding after the waters subsided, which is technically post-flood, but fairly close temporally. (The Grand Canyon is one of those areas, for those who still somehow haven't noticed.)

Having looked into dozens of similar evoclaims, and found every last one of them utterly meritless, my only real doubt on the issue involves my own intellectual capacity, which I know to have limits. Still, if an evolutionist composed a creation science riddle, it can usually be solved by a 10-year-old.

That gives me an idea. Some summer vacation, it'd be interesting to see how many kids it'd take to debunk talkdeceptions thoroughly - with creationwiki blocked, of course. You know, starting fresh.

No scientist follows the creationist straw man notion that all of geology must be uniformitarian. For example, we know that catastrophic flooding happens. There's just no evidence that it has ever happened on a global scale. It also is nonsensical to claim that because parts of the Grand Canyon may have been formed relatively quickly, and at different times, that therefore science has it completely wrong. There may be some hypotheses in both of the papers we discussed which may eventually be falsified, but there will be follow-up research which aims to further investigate. That's how science works. But do scientists believe in some uniformitarian ideal? Of course not; this is an outdated ideology which enjoyed some popularity at one point in time, but it is not modern science.

I'm still wondering why you seem to think that the Nile and Mississippi Rivers, which periodically flood, are evidence of anything under discussion here. Please enlighten me.

Can we clarify something before we proceed any further here? Can you please inform me where in the geological column the flood layer begins, and where it ends? Otherwise we are dealing in vagaries and shifting goalposts. Since "creation scientists" have been studying the flood for a couple hundred years at least, these boundaries should be well established. Thanks.

You will also be aware that science works by proposing hypotheses, testing them, and throwing out the ones that have been falsified. Part of falsifying a hypothesis is presenting an alternative model which explains the evidence more adequately. By asking you to present an alternative model here, I am asking you to participate in this process, which should presumably not be a problem since you present creationism here as science. Please present your own model and explain why it fits the evidence better than that of mainstream science, thanks.

Brachiopods are used as index fossils in some Grand Canyon marine layers. They would not be used as index fossils if they showed signs of having been washed there from elsewhere. I gave you two links which show how scientists determine whether or not brachiopod fossils have grown in place. Composition, relative position, and depth of stone are simple geological measurements which are done along with fossil finds. In the Grand Canyon, brachiopods are found in early layers dating from the Cambrian.

As for the brachiopod fossil stalk which was examined under the microscope, and the accompanying paper which was published in a peer reviewed journal . . . maybe you should write to them and tell them they're all wrong because when you look at the picture on the internet with your own expert eyes, you think the stalk looks like a parasite. I'm sure the thought never occurred to them.

Baumgardner, in your link, is misrepresenting the geological processes involved in uplift of the Himalayas. His simplistic position is that uplift and erosion should offset each other. In studying the uplift of mountains, tectonics, erosion, and climate are all interrelated and need to be taken into account. What's more, he fails to mention a phenomenon called isostatic readjustment, which occurs when a great mass such as rock or ice is removed from the earth's crust and the crust "springs back." This happens when a mountain erodes. You can read some real science about mountain-building here.

Baumgardner likes to try to explain how geological events could have happened really, really quickly and really, really recently. He is behind the idea of runaway subduction, which has some major scientific flaws. The thing is, the uplift of the Himalayas is not problematic at all, which will be confirmed by any Google on the subject, as well as posts on EvC. There are lots of posts at EvC about the subjects we've been discussing here actually. You could talk to geologists there, if you were wanting to learn something. Are you wanting to learn? Why exactly are you talking here and not there?

A final comment about mountains forming in the space of a few thousand years. That sort of stress, over so short a time, would cause the rocks to fracture (called brittle deformation). What we see instead is that rock layers inside mountains have been plastically deformed -- a process which necessarily occurs over a much longer period of time. You can read more about the results of time and pressure on rocks here.

Moving on, maybe you can specifically define what you are calling "residual" tectonic events? The mainstream scientific view is that the Indian plate has been colliding with the Asian plate for millions of years, and that the pressure from this is uplifting mountains and causing earthquakes. This is tectonic activity which has occurred in the past and which continues to occur now. We can also tell where the plates have been in the past, and where they are going, by studying the paleomagnetism of the rocks they contain. This is a fundamental part of the study of plate tectonics.



No, I Googled Grand Canyon Hermit Shale. Can you explain why your idea that scientists must be lying about the alleged bird tracks is more legitimate that the idea that these could be tracks of another creature, that the tracks may not be from the Permian period (depending on who made the identification and how), and some creationists are simply labelling them as bird tracks? Do you, for example, have access to any of the science they have performed in order to make such a positive identification?



If you want to bring up a specific example, we can discuss it. Scientists use things called dating methods which creationists seem to find inconvenient enough to ignore.



Details: ripple marks appear in the Hermit Shale, the Hakatai Shale, and the Bass Limestone. Quadruped footprints have been found in the Supai Group from the Pennsylvanian period, and the Hermit Shale. Paleosols (fossilised soils) are also found between various layers. I await your explanation of how a global flood explains the existence of these better than the model of an old earth with climate and evolutionary changes evident in the geological record.

One more question: if the global flood carved the Grand Canyon, why did it not carve similar grand canyons in all of the continents? Weren't the waters receding all over the world?

LindaLou, here's a prediction ...

You win that bet, according to Grand Canyon Dating Undercuts Creationism an accessible article that refers to a recent study published in Science (Age and Evolution of the Grand Canyon Revealed by U-Pb Dating of Water Table-Type Speleothems)
Note in particular that the rate of erosion - even in the "accelerated" section - is too slow for any flood model, but fits the normal geological model just fine.

Probably not, as the typical creationist misrepresentation is to throw up all kind of different dates so that the readers get the impression that geologists are just making it up as they go along. The more different dates they can quote from geologists the better (just don't include where they explain the differences eh?) Some reasons that creationists are always mentioning volcanic rock (lava) dates are (1) because then they can get a bunch of different dates from them and the surrounding rocks, and (2) fresh lava can pick up and carry chunks of old rock, which are called inclusions, and dating these shows the lava to be too old (except they are not dating the lava).

Enjoy.

Still trying those straws, CTD, but you still fall short.

Did I say that it was in the section quoted?

http://creationsafaris.com/crev0702.htm#dating55
The fact remains that the predominant portions of the canyon was, and is, being carved by slow gradual erosion. This is confirmed by a study of the actual rates of erosion:

Grand Canyon Dating Undercuts Creationism is an accessible article that refers to a recent study published in Science (Age and Evolution of the Grand Canyon Revealed by U-Pb Dating of Water Table-Type Speleothems)
Note in particular that the rate of erosion - even in the "accelerated" section - is way too slow for any flood model, but fits the normal geological model just fine.

This "normal geological model" btw, is not based on uniformitarianism and includes periodic floods as a matter of course: these volcanic dams are old news to geologists.

Another of your sources was even more blatant:

The wholecanyon? in a matter of hours? No, just a portion of it just downstream from one of the volcanic dams.

And yet curiously, what you quoted mentioned rate of flow and not duration or volume either. This is called moving the goal posts, where the creationist changes what they are talking about. It also shows that you are still avoiding the issue of the flows over the scablands being several orders of magnitude greater than any flow in the grand canyon.

One wonders why such issues are so hard to deal with ... unless you don't have any answers.

Ah, yes, the usual content free, mockery and ad hominem laced commentary that betrays the total lack of substance to back up your argument.

And we still have no evidence that the biblical flood carved the Grand Canyon, just a lot of little distractions, the usual misrepresentations, and insults and moving goalposts. It must be truly embarrassing to have such a lack of evidence to use for your argument, such as it is, eh?

Even the data you cite means you need to use geological ages (700,000 years ago), and anything older means you need to misrepresent it or ignore it.

Enjoy.

This thread contains how many posts? And you're still in straw man mode? You can't name a single creation scientist who has claimed the Grand Canyon was carved during the Great Flood, yet you continue to pretend... Not worth wasting another second. It's funny, but it's a whole lot more boring than funny.

What could demonstrate more clearly your fear of the truth? What!

No, CTD, you have it backwards again.

Whether I can name a creation scientist or not is totally irrelevant to the question of whether you can provide actual real objective evidence that the Grand Canyon was carved by a biblical flood.

You (and Russ, and anyone else who wants to play) are the ones that need to provide evidence.

What's hilarious is that you keep trying to use this same old (boring?) dodge every time it comes around to you substantiating a claim with evidence. We saw it with tanned skin, we saw it with 20 year old clams, we saw it with the Cliffs of Dover, we saw it with Darwin's theory and we saw it with the foraminifera.

I'm aware of several creationists that make bogus claims about the Grand Canyon, but not of any real evidence to support their - or your - or Russ's - claim.

The best you can come up with is a little flood here and there that had rather insignificant impact on carving the whole canyon from one end to the other.

What's hilarious is that I can - and have - presented evidence that demonstrates that the canyon was carved over long time periods by slow erosion, just as real geologist have been saying for many years.

What's hilarious is that I can - and have - presented evidence of what real flood outflows of a massive scale look like, and that they are nothing like the Grand Canyon.

What's hilarious is that I can - and have - pointed out features of the Grand Canyon that are contraindicative of the concept that the canyon was carved by a biblical flood.

What's hilarious is that you cannot deal with these issues but fall back - again - on avoiding the issues

Yes, and the second post of the thread is the first time I responded with evidence that contradicts the claim, evidence that has not been refuted.

And we haven't even discussed the issue of The Principle of Faunal Succession demonstrated in layer after layer in the walls of the Grand Canyon:
For those that are paying attention, this is more evidence of geological processes that do not include a biblical flood.

It's hilarious that you don't have evidence. And the more you try to make a joke out of the issues the more you show a complete lack of evidence for any of your assertions. It's like somebody that keeps trying to tell jokes, but they forget the punchlines.

Enjoy.

Baumgardner is one creationist who believes that a worldwide flood carved the Grand Canyon and I've shown you why he is wrong about mountains. I can explain to you why his runaway subduction idea is impossible as well. Are you going to address a single point that RAZD and I have made here or are you going to go the way of other recent creationist posters here and simply ignore it all? In which case, future arguments from you will not have a leg to stand on.



And looking at your short post which refuses to engage with any evidence presented here, this ironically speaks for itself.

RAZD wrote:



Ah yes, that's right. I nearly forgot.

CTD, I understand you may be terribly busy but when you find the time (this goes for Russ as well since the two of you are supporting this claim) would you mind expounding on how tanned skin is passed from parent to offspring? I'm still very confused about this and need clarification.

I know things often get overlooked in debates and that's fair enough, I do it myself some times. I also know that you're not doing it intentionally, that there's simply a lot on the table to be discussed. That being said, I'd still very much appreciate some supporting evidence so I can come to the same conclusion as you both. This means Youtube videos, Kent Hovind essays, etc. Anything indicating that a person who is tan passes their tan onto their children.

Thanks so much!

I expect that'd be news to him as much as it'd be news to me, if there were any reason to believe you.

I forget, and I'm at least temporarily too lazy to scroll (unlike those for whom this is a permanent condition). Was it evodates, or that the mainstream disagrees?

I'm sure talkdeceptions or one of your Glens can supply some more inaccuracies, so what?

I thought I'd let you all slay your straw men, if you're up to it. For a while it was amusing, but by now everyone's seen that you can't even bear to discuss the real creation science theory of how the Grand Canyon was formed.

Talk about refusing to engage! Still demanding that I defend your straw man? Why should I?

How old is this topic, huh? How many posts are in this thread? If I do decide to scroll up, it'll be to count them. But I expect it'll continue. You people are a brazen bunch. You really don't care how obvious you make it. You have zero to say about actual creation science - and thousands of words to expend building & getting whupped by your own straw men.

It's also noteworthy how readily you abandon your own myths. Wasn't the old myth super-scientific & certain? If I was as confident in my tires as you are in your myths, I wouldn't drive over 20 M.P.H.

Perhaps this topic has gotten too muddled with all the strawman presentations by the evolutionists because I haven't found any theory that you have endorsed in any of the previous posts.
Please present it or show us where in this topic you (or someone else) has presented the real creation science theory of how the Grand Canyon was formed. If it hasn't been presented in this topic then please provide a link to a web page that discusses the theory in depth.

Then please put things in order by providing this actual creation science regarding the Grand Canyon.

I doubt this is the case. The video explained simply and quickly that there were two dammed lakes, and the destruction of these dams resulted in rapid erosion.

I don't think anyone has attention span issues severe enough to confuse flood waters with waters released subsequently due to bursting dams, but you're welcome to prove me wrong.

I am just a little curious where you're going to weigh it on the competing evostories. The perpetually rising spot may need to pick up the pace if it's going to meet the new schedule.

Nope, all I did was Google him. You could too, rather than intimating that I'm lying to you. But as RAZD aptly put it, we've been asking you to give evidence here for the Grand Canyon being less than 6,000 years old and having been carved by the flood. What people like Baumgardner believe is immaterial to this discussion, unless you believe he has presented some good science for his ideas that you can in turn present here. So far you have neither refuted the science that evolutionists have given in this thread, nor have you presented a scrap of your own.

The information and links to mountain-building and stresses on rocks were in my last long post here, which it seems clear you did not read in any detail.



No, all I need is some basic knowledge of plate tectonics. Baumgardner accepts paleomagnetism evidence and uses it in his runaway subduction model; he claims that God created Pangaea (all the continents joined together) and that it broke apart and the plates rapidly migrated to their current positions during catastrophic events in the flood.

The problem for him is that he and other creationists claim that the Biblical flood began in the Cambrian period. But paleomagnetism shows that Pangaea formed in the Permian period, halfway through the geological column. It would appear that Baumgardner only uses paleomag dates as far as they suit him, which is not good science. There are other problems with his model but that's a pretty glaring one.



Like your comment about refusing to face the truth, the shoe would appear to be on the other foot here. You're consistently refusing to even tell us what you think the "real creationist theory" actually is.

I'll ask you again, though I'm not holding my breath: will you discuss any of the pieces of evidence in this thread for an old Grand Canyon NOT carved by the flood, and explain why these are wrong? Will you show us how creation "science" can make any claim whatsoever to being scientific?

You can start by putting us all in the picture about what you think the geological column really shows. Tell us where the flood layer begins and where it ends. Then we can talk about the evidence contained therein. Like I said, creationists have had a few hundred years to work out where it is in the geological record, so it shouldn't be a problem for you to tell us, and it really would be a fundamental part of any flood model.

Hint: a post full of more ad hominem remarks doesn't count as evidence.

I had viewed the video previously and it seemed rather implausible just on its face.
First Hovind says that the two lakes (left behind after the Flood?) were behind the Kaibab uplift and a breach in the uplift (dam) caused rapid erosion of the Grand Canyon. However, the Kaibab uplift is 4000 ft high and 270 MILES thick. So, what caused a breach in something that tall and thick? Typically, a dam is only a few meters thick at best and the force against the sides of a rift will be concentrated by that relatively thin cross-section. The "dam" in Hovind's theory is 270 miles thick...there would not be the same concentration of force against the sides of the rift.

Secondly, the Kaibab uplift is not made of just dirt like a farmer's dam would be. It contains hard stone from volcanic activity and deposits that have been hardened from extreme pressure that could not occur due simply being dumped there from a flood. Besides it is called an uplift for a reason...a cross-sectional view of it shows signs of the entire ridge having been pushed up from below. This hard substance is not rapidly worn away by water in the same way that a dirt dam would be.

RAZD already addressed that fact that the downstream portions of the canyon don't show the telltale signs of having been rapidly eroded. This is confirmed by real geologists who have studied the forensics of catastrophic events.

Additionally, if all that rock was washed away by a catastrophic breaching of the Kaibab uplift, where is it? Shouldn't there be a massive pile of mud, rock, and dead animal's fossils piled high in the Gulf of California? Shouldn't this huge amount of dirt moved rapidly down the river course and suddenly slowed down by reaching the Gulf, just create a gigantic deposit at the river's mouth? Where is it?

No one said that you were saying the Flood directly caused the Grand Canyon. Hovind says the lakes were left over Flood waters from drainage of the Northwestern state areas (See, I actually have viewed more of Hovind's videos than you might think.) So, indirectly, your creationist theory for rapid carving of the Grand Canyon does say that it was caused by the Flood.

BTW...thanks for the insult. At least we can be assured that Pwcca's legs are safe from the razor.

The Kaibab uplift is still rising...can you show me evidence that it is not?

Yes, LinearAq, but you're talking about natural catastrophic events. The flood which carved the Grand Canyon into what it is today, as is thoroughly evidenced by posters Russ Tanner and CTD, was the very same flood described in biblical scripture. Obviously! This makes it a catastrophic event of miraculous and divine nature. Consequently the laws of physics, geology, etc. don't always enter into the picture, which is precisely why Kent Hovind has proven beyond a resonable doubt that dinosaurs and humans coexisted at the same time: dinosaurs are embedded in deeper layers of sediment but it's God's work, so it doesn't have to make sense. You just have to believe and stop questioning matters.

You blaspheming ****ing ****! *** ****!

[/tourette syndrome]

On a completely different note, my sincerest and most heartfelt thanks to CTD for keeping me from the humility of shaving my legs. You get a five star vote from me for this one. I owe you, pal.

Creationists could, of course, make this claim: that the creation, the flood, etc, were miraculous events. In fact, creation "science" of the Henry Morris flavour has only existed for several decades.

The problem with this is the "science" part. If creationists want schools to teach their ideas, they need to push them from a non-religious standpoint, which means trying to conceal God's signature. How do you try to convince people of their legitimacy? By claiming that they are science; and religious fundamentalists with little or no scientific education will accept it without question. Thus we get people like Baumgardner and Woodmorappe who spend their time writing astoundingly complicated accounts of how these things really did happen (when the usual scientific explanations actually turn out to be simpler, and fit the observable evidence rather better -- witness CTD's struggles to address any of the evidence presented by evolutionists here).

So will a creationist give it up and admit that it all had to have been a miracle in order to have been possible at all? No, for the above reasons. You can't scientifically study a miracle, it's in the realm of what Dawkins-types call magic. Though you never know, one or two of them here might admit it eventually, if they're honest with themselves. None of them have been able to make much headway here by presenting creationism as science.

If you go more deeply into the implications of this, you have to reconcile the idea that even if the world is 6,000 years old, and there was a Biblical flood which carved the Grand Canyon, and the Noah story is true, etc, then for some mysterious reason God made the earth appear to be old, and sorted fossils around the world in order to make it appear that they evolved, right down to things like his decision to make claws, fingernails, horns, and hooves all out of the same material (keratin) even though he could have chosen any material to use for each creature . . . and genetics, well that's a whole can of worms in itself. The "miracle" idea does not explain any of these things. Though it would be fun to talk to a creationist who wanted to argue from this standpoint. I've never encountered one.

Hey, CTD, still having trouble grasping reality here eh?

As pointed out by Hovind himself, when he says there is no delta - no pile of debris left by the dam bursting, which should be spread out downstream in the same pattern seen in the scablands below the flood flow area, the area between the Pacific Ocean and the Grand Canyon. We don't see any evidence of this. Curiously, there are many rivers that do not form deltas, and the reason for this is that the seabed where the river enters the sea is sinking. The Colorado is just such a river, as it ends up in the fault line that has made the Sea of Cortez ... of course it is sinking at geological rates, and a rapid deposit such as a flood outflow would not be washed away or have sunk out of sight. Thus geology explains both ends of the river - how the river cut the canyon through what is now a high point, and how the results of that erosion are carried away.

We also do NOT see any formations that look like Horse Shoe Bend (yes it's part of the Grand Canyon) made by flood outflows when they break dams or levees:



Because to make it water would have to flow uphill AND ignore the inertia of the mass of all that flowing water at the same time. This one simple picture of one single meander among the many along the course of the river proves the concept of flood carving of the Grand Canyon to be a false concept.

But the biggest problem with Hovind's argument is that it is false by it's own argument:

IF what he said were true, then the Grand Canyon is in the WRONG PLACE. There is land both north and south of the Grand Canyon that is lower than the rim where it cuts the ridge. Thus if we ignore uplift then the "dam breaking" flow should have been at these lower points -- north and south of the Grand Canyon -- and if we don't ignore uplift then his argument is all washed up anyway.

Google maps showing terrain north and south of GC with lighter green being lower elevations


Conclusion:

(1) Water does indeed flow uphill, or,

(2) Uplift has raised the rims of the canyon as the river has carved out the base.

Either way you cut the plateau cake, Hovind's claim is false.

Even aside from that, there is no reason to assume a biblical flood in order to have the lakes he claims, and by that reason alone his argument is not evidence of a biblical flood.

So we are still left with an absolute absence of evidence of the Grand Canyon being in any way even partly due to a biblical flood.

While the evidence against this concept is batting 1000.

Enjoy.

What have we here? Another individual not scrolling.


And LindaLou must hope nobody bothers with verification, when she tries to justify this folly.
Actual Google Results reveal the truth.
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_platetectonicsl/ ,
http://library.thinkquest.org/29178/noahand.htm ,
and http://www.globalflood.org/papers/geophysicsofgod.html
quickly demonstrate Baumgardner supports the proper creation science theory - not the fantasy version of RAZD & herself.

http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html has a good supply of links to reality-based articles. It came up in the search, but doesn't directly discuss the canyon.

My guess is that she may intend to create confusion by referencing something like
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/ISD/baumgardner.asp , which
talks about the sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon, a result of the flood. In the past she claimed evodates for a hole in a glacier could be obtained by dating the ice, so it would be consistent with her previous reasoning.

Of course if I dig a hole in my yard we all understand the age of the hole is not the same as the age of my yard. It'd be kind of hard to dig a hole before the yard existed, but anytime thereafter it's no problem. Evohype is full of such gross insults to the intellect of the target audience.

Must be a real downer, LinearAQ, to witness even more manifestations of stupification. Had you followed my advice and PM'd RAZD to take a break... just maybe you could have avoided some of this suffering. You may want to take a break yourself, for their failure to defeat even this weak straw man could be even more distressing. Better not watch.
Undecided, eh? But still dedicated to anything-but-the-truth-ism.

Hi CTD,

Still no replies to any of the questions above?

You still have not explained what you believe the "proper creation science theory" to be. It shouldn't be hard. Are you a disciple of Henry Morris? Or do you believe in your own version, or what? And where does the flood layer appear in the geological record?

One of your links about Baumgardner said this:


Looks to me like he's claiming that the flood carved the Grand Canyon. I'm not sure how the flood would carve the Grand Canyon at the same time as it was creating the layers from which it was carved though.

You also appear to have missed the bit in my last post where I explained the major flaw in his runaway subduction model. I think CTD's m.o. has become plain to see here: ignore everything that's inconvenient.

For example, you appear to have ignored all the evidence presented here for when the Grand Canyon actually was formed. Did you read about cosmogenic dating? It's a way we can tell how long rock or ice has been exposed to the sun's rays. It's one way we know that most parts of the Grand Canyon were eroded millions of years ago. You might want to go back and re-read some of the posts here so that you do not continue to indicate a lack of awareness of the evidence that's been put forward.

Still stalling CTD?

And still no theory or concept from CTD. No explanation of what this "proper creation science theory" involves OR ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.

What we have here is just another attempt to have people refute every single creationist concept CTD can find while he sits and says, "nope, not my theory" ... Gish would be proud.

So it should be easy to pick one you think is valid and provide evidence to support it.

So you therefore accept the age of the rocks at the bottom of the canyon as valid? Interesting argument for a young earth.

You will note that not one real geologist claims that the age of the canyon is the same as the ages of the rocks at the bottom -- while a number of creationists DO propose this -- this is just more distraction from CTD while he avoids the evidence.

And when you actually have evidence to support an assertion it is easy to repeat it. Pretending it exists elsewhere in the thread is just another example of typical creationist self-delusion caused by cognitive dissonance (they convince themselves that they already answered the question).

Conversely, I've read the whole thread and watched the silly video, and I know that there is no evidence for a biblical flood in any post or video on this thread. I also know that there is evidence that contradicts the canyon being carved by biblical flood flows, evidence that is easy to comprehend.

The Horse Shoe Bend in the Grand Canyon is NOT a flood flow formation - the water would have to flow uphill against it's own flow in order to make it during flood conditions:

Flood flow does NOT cut through a high point on a ridge/dam/levee, rather it cuts through at the lowest point. There are lower points north or south of the Grand Canyon:


(the darker green is higher land)

This evidence shows that uplift has indeed occurred, in spite of CTD's denial.

Uranium deposits on rocks made while they were submersed in shallow water all agree with the geological age of the canyon and show the slow erosion rates that are consistent with other evidence.

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/columnists/hc-thorson0605.artjun05,0,5552522.column
The formations that are dated here are only made while in relatively shallow still water inside caves, while the uranium bearing coating forms on the original rocks in the caves. This dates their formation independently of when the rocks themselves were formed.

And we still have no evidence that the Grand Canyon was not formed by natural processes over millions of years, we still have no CTD explanation for how the Grand Canyon formed. All we have from CTD is hand waving and ignoring of the evidence, coupled with the usual insults. It's like a broken record.

Enjoy.

Wow! Intentional misinterpretation. It would be deceitful for me to pretend you've bamboozled me with this, so I won't.

Someone probably will. But for the honest folk, do you care to have another try at naming a creation scientist who believes in your straw man? Your track record's pretty dismal; shouldn't be too hard for you to improve on it.

There are several methods of generating evodates. They do what they were intended to do: they generate a range of evodates. What's so impressive about that?

You forget that things need to be verified and reconciled. One can do neither with evodates, so they're of no practical use when investigating history.

Just how long are you going to evade the questions that have been asked of you?

The quote I gave from Baumgardner shows that he thinks the flood both deposited a large amount of sediment, and carved the Grand Canyon. In a week. Would you like to explain how you read it differently?

Would you also like to explain how cosmogenic and uranium dating methods used in the Grand Canyon are erroneous?

Anyone can simply wave their hand at something and say, "I don't believe it," or "that's wrong." Anyone can say whatever they like, regardless of factual accuracy. Should we start keeping a tally of how many of your posts here a) do not address the questions we've asked you, and b) do not offer a single bit of evidence for your own position (whatever that may be, as you have not even stated it)?

I name Hovind. He states (as I have said before) that the 2 lakes shown in the video were formed as a result of the Flood.
No Flood = no lakes (according to Hovind) = no Grand Canyon (also according to Hovind).
Frankly, it is not a great logical leap to say that Hovind supports the conjecture that the Grand Canyon was a result of the Flood.

I'd like to see you respond to RAZD's statement concerning the location of the Grand Canyon being through a point higher than other places on the Kaibab uplift that were also part of the shoreline for those lakes.
Regarding the quality of your responses, let me quote an esteemed alumnus from this board..."Your track record's pretty dismal; shouldn't be too hard for you to improve on it."

You failed to support this opinion of yours in the "A Well Aged Earth" thread. In fact, it looks like you didn't even try to support it. What makes you think you can just blurt it out here as if it were true?

I would stand corrected, but for one detail. Linear's newfound inability to distinguish straw man from creation science model was not extant at the time I wrote this.

Now we get

But not so long ago we got
Bad timing. Had your attention span issues kicked in just a few posts earlier, you could've proven me wrong.

I have two hypotheses: someone forgot to take their medication today, or someone's trying to be deceptive, and doing a poor job. Wonder which one RAZD would insist must be true...

As long as they continue to be stupid.

Really, I don't care to waste time answering questions about a straw man who's apparently quite capable of defending himself.

I don't think 'evade' is the best term. I decline to play. Get it?

One way I read it differently is that it isn't a quote from Baumgardner. Care to explain how you came to think it is?

No kidding. Hence Darwinism.

I must admit your post got me to smile. Linear made me chuckle. RAZD isn't pulling his weight. He really needs a break. Either that, or maybe you have to be French to see the humour...

I have another suggestion: why not warm up on an even easier straw man? Claim the Grand Canyon was formed on day 2 or something. Of course, if that one beats you up, well I shan't speculate. It'd be funny either way.

You know there have been cataclysmic events that occurred in quite a short period of time...such as in after the crucifixion of Christ. I don't have any website for you on that, though. Sorry.

What is a straw man?