News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Just a few more points to add to this.

CTD, I've just explained to Jeanie why people use evidence to back their claims in a disagreement. It's also been explained a number of times that any scientific theory must explain all of the evidence, or it no longer stands as a theory. Creationists ironically seem to have an understanding of this, which is why they keep giving erroneous information to their flock which appears to invalidate an old earth and evolution. The problem is that they ignore the other side of the coin, which demands that they present evidence for their own theory, and show why it explains what we see better than the theories they wish to invalidate.

This doesn't happen by ignoring the evidence or waving your hands and saying "it's all lies, I don't believe it." Is this really how your "creation science" works? It is, however, a classic response pattern from someone who wants to hold onto a cherished belief despite the fact that there is ample evidence showing it is erroneous.

Let's have a look at some of these responses then.

You refuse to tell us where the global flood layer is in the geological record. I don't suppose you can, because I've never seen a creationist who will define it, even though defining your terms is a necessary foundation for any scientific investigation. Why is this? Because they know that as soon as they do, it will be pointed out to them why it is geologically impossible for it to be a global flood layer. Best for them to draw attention away from this and shift the goalposts whenever necessary. Thanks for confirming this here.

You also continually claim that "evodates are wrong," without explaining how. This is because you can't. You're simply in denial. Am I wrong? Prove it then.

The "imaginary geological column" isn't real now? How can this be? You're simply in denial. Am I wrong? Prove it then.

You also appear to have missed the point here:


This has got nothing to do with prints being covered quickly by sediment. It's got everything to do with your continuing refusal to elucidate your own position. I guess you must believe one of two things: that the rock from which the Grand Canyon was carved was deposited as sediment in the flood, or that the rock was already there before the flood and the flood carved it. Both cases are problematic.

In the latter case, you would have to explain why all that pre-flood rock has been dated as being so very old, and why it contains fossils layered in the same ways in whcih they are layered around the world, with trilobites near the bottom, dinosaurs above those, and humans above those. You would also need to explain where the sediment from the subsequent flood went.

In the former case, you would still have to explain the above, plus how we have layers of footprints. If sediment was being laid down in a flood, how did it dry out for long enough to be able to preserve a footprint or a raindrop? And the animals were supposedly being killed in the flood, so how could they have been walking around on different sediment layers? It would also be impossible to explain the existence of a single layer of paleosol, because these do not form underwater.

This is of course in addition to the plentiful evidence already supplied here that the Grand Canyon was not carved by a flood, regardless of what you believe about the age of the rocks therein.

Would you like to have a serious go at presenting some evidence to support your own position, whatever that may be? Or would you like to do what most creationists I've encountered do eventually, and go away and ignore all of this until you are ready to face the facts (if ever)?