Summations Only

In outline form:speleothems
terrestrial layers between marine layers
surface erosion of layers in canyon wall
fossil evidence of mature life ecologies in layers
sloth skull and dung in cave
meandering of canyon walls
meandering within canyon walls
no floodplains
not like scablands
not like Palouse canyon
not like Mt St Helens ash canyon
hydrodynamics and energy gradients
lava dams (13)and finally: Message 1 of If Caused By Flood Drainage Why is the Grand Canyon Where It IS?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : updated link

Percy was simply making a suggestion as to how I could have explained the diagrams better. I thought it might help you understand what the author was indicating. No, you are missing the point. The deduction needs to be based on ALL available evidence. You only want to look at the cross section because that supports your point, but you ignore anything that contradicts your speculations. When you leave out important information, you are NOT basing your speculation on evidence. There is no feeling of moral superiority on my part. You want to do science and you want to provide support for the flood using science, but you're going about it in such an anti-science way. I know you feel this is, at its core, an issue of science verse faith and you are trying to do science the "faith" way rather than "compromise." But what I object to (and I think that most others here share this objection) is that this "faith" way of doing science has no resemblance to how science is really done. However, you continue to insist that you have a better idea of how science SHOULD be done than those who spend their lives studying in their respective fields. All because scientists are blinded by the evil of "old earth presuppositionalism." And who's sanctimonious??? LOL. Before you can say "this layer looks like it was laid down by a flood," you need to know what flood deposits look like. You don't seem to have any idea why a geologist who studies these processes would suggest that this deposit is shallow water marine, or deep water marine, of terrestrial, or fluvial or whatever, they just decide "hey, this layer has some plant fossils in it, it must be terrestrial"; or "this layer has a fish fossil in it, it must be marine." Come on. Its insulting. Have you even looked for such things happening? They actually are!! Yes water sorts sediment, but not the way you propose. Water sorts particles in very specific ways that can be studied and interpreted. How does water sort sediment fine, coarse, fine, coarse, fine? How does water sort all terrestrial fauna into distinct layers? And marine organisms into distinct layers? How does water sort forams into the order shown below? There is no known mechanism that can do what you propose. If you want to know what known mechanisms can do, then learn about them. Your false dichotomy is showing again What I reject is the notion that the Bible was written to inform us how to do science. That it was written to people with our scientific knowledge and should be used to correct that knowledge. I reject the notion that the creation is deceptive, that we cannot trust what the evidence tells us is real. But according to you anyone who is a compromiser cannot be a believer. Are there different levels of believers? Like a level A believer (you) and level B, C, D and E (compromisers)? A big step in preventing this is to address the issues in a honest and real way and quit this nonsense that if an absolutely literal interpretation of Genesis is not true then we need to throw the whole Bible out and with it our entire faith. That right there is a major reason why Christians are becoming atheists "because of this stuff." And I recommend for you to continue to believe in the flood if you must, but don't use misrepresentations and distortions of science to justify it.HBD

Good post dwise. I especially like the comparison chart between scientists and creationists. This was my experience when I spent some time over at evolution fairy tale. It didn't matter how stupid the argument was or how contradictory it was to evidence as long as it came to the "right" conclusion. While it was very frustrating to debate in that environment, I hadn't thought of it in the way you put it here that since the truth was already known, the process is irrelevant as long as the proper conclusion is reached.An analogy could be that if you knew that every time you shot an arrow it would hit the bull's eye, there is really no reason to aim. Just fire it out there - you can't miss. That's how they do "science." Any argument will work since the answer is the truth regardless.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : added additional quote

That was an example of my having learned something from on-line discussions. I first started studying "creation science" in 1981 and first started engaging in on-line discussions around in 1987 on CompuServe. Then some time in the mid- to late-90's I spent some time on a Yahoo groups forum which went way south when the last non-creationist moderator left and draconian rule kicked in -- all it took to get suspended was to ask a creationist to support a claim.When I first got started, I assumed that they just didn't know that their claims were wrong, so I tried to explain the truth to them. I certainly was not prepared for the viciously hostile responses I got. It seemed that the best guarantee to get a creationist mad was to take his claim seriously and try to discuss it with him.Then I became enlightened in that Yahoo groups forum (pre-creationist take-over). A creationist regular there used that tired old sea-salt argument claiming that that showed that the earth wasn't any older than millions of years. I pointed out two things: 1) that claim is wrong and here are the reasons why, and 2) the time frame he wanted was about 10,000 years so claiming millions of years didn't make any sense. He had to concede the reason why his claim was wrong, but he held onto those millions of years firmly because "at least it's not BILLIONS of years like science says!" That told me that they don't have any actual model that they're developing, but rather all they want to do is to refute what science says. Science is trying to build a comprehensive model to explain the world and universe and so has to take all the evidence into account, whereas "creation science" just wants to negate what science has found and so it can get away with ignoring most of the evidence and even with using claims and arguments that conflict with each other. That got me thinking about the fundamental differences between scientists and creationists, which led to a forum post which I later converted to that table.I had also asked him why he had to resort to such lame and unconvincing arguments, to which he replied, "The only reason you don't find it convincing is because you're not convinced already." Another light bulb switched on. I could never understand how they could rely so freely on lies and deception, but now it had become clear to me. Their goal is to convince people, both the public (for political support), intended targets of proselytizing, and themselves (perhaps the most important for them). They couldn't care less whether a claim were true or not, just so long as it sounded convincing, the more convincing sounding the better.And as for that creationist having conceded that his claim was not true, a couple months later I spotted him feeding the same false claim to a new-comer. Since he knew that claim to be false and had even admitted that it was false, he was deliberately lying to that new-comer. I called him on it in the open forum and he skittered away faster than a cockroach when you turn the lights on. OK, I realize that I should not have made that comparison. It's too insulting to cockroaches.Though Faith seems to be a bit different from most of the creationists I have encountered over the years. She at least puts on some appearance of trying to discuss her claims. At least better than trying to chase us away with extreme nastiness which would be typical.

While I think Faith is not being intellectually honest when she declares all the various pieces of evidence that utterly contradict her model to be irrelevant (particularly when the declaration comes hot on the heals of being backed into a corner) I agree that she could be a lot worse. Why, I recently encountered a fellow over at Christian Forums who confidently asserts that there is no evidence of the Flood on Earth because it actually happened on and destroyed a small, flat world housed within a firmament within a lake in Turkey.Anyway, Faith, I will put to you the same question I asked several posts ago. If you were just joining this thread and tried to discuss your point only to be told it was irrelevant and would not be discussed, wouldn't you think we were being dishonest with ourselves and with you? It seems particularly dishonest now that you have reengaged on certain points only to lose interest in them again when it becomes clear that your position is untenable. I'm pleased you chose to come back to the points you ignored for so long, but it is disappointing that you chose to abandon them again when they became too difficult to deal with.On the other hand, I am gratified to have achieved victory (however insincere I am advised Faith's concessions are) on the points whose discussion was my primary motivation in starting this thread. Not bad for my second thread ever and the only one to have gained any traction. I hope it's not too gauche to pat myself on the back thusly, but perhaps my indiscretion will be excused in light of my neophyte status. Great thanks to all the people who posted all the excellent information on this thread (and thanks in advance to those who keep doing more if this thread continues despite Faith's insistence that this is once again the end of the line).

I see you are running away from the meanders again. Your "scenario" requires a gently flowing stream (starting out shallow) that is simultaneously a raging torrent beyond our capabilities to imagine. Your "scenario" is impossible and did not happen.

.Edited by JonF, : Duplicate

I am reminded of my interaction with Australian Creationist, Jonathon Safarti, on the TheologyWeb forum. He was eventually banned for his nastiness. That's also why ICR, AIG, and other Creationist organizations like to hire degreed geologists/scientists, they are more "convincing." A degree provides them with increased "credibility," as Faith illustrated perfectly when she cited, "GEOLOGIST Steve Austin." Just because you have a degree in science (or anything else, really), doesn't automatically make you a scientist worth citing or reading.I work with a geologist who has 7 years experience as a mine geologist and this person knows less than both my junior geologists with 2 years experience. The junior geos want to learn and are passionate about what they do. The other one is there for the money and nothing more. In fact, there are people on this forum who are probably better geologists than this guy.So for me, degrees don't mean a damned thing. I want to see what kind of time you put in to increasing your knowledge and improving your skills. I want to see how hard you work, the thought processes you go through to find the answers, and how you put those answers together to get a final (albeit revisable) conclusion. If 2+2 doesn't equal 4, then you're not much of a scientist. Although you could be a geologist... kidding!As far as I've seen, the Creationist geologist has gone into the science for the sole purpose of committing intellectual dishonesty. He is there to win the battle over the mind of the religious layperson. And, of course, the cards are stacked in his favor because his target audience have been trained to have complete faith and never to question their religious leaders.The Creationist geologist doesn't care about science or truth. They are liars.No geologist can get a Ph.D. in geology and fuck up meanders.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Excellent post! Kudos.

My understanding of Dr. Steven A. Austin is that he was hired by the ICR to earn a PhD Geology from an accredited university. As they paid his way through school, he wrote articles for them under his pseudonym, Stuart E. Nevins, who was identified as a graduate student in geology. He claimed that he used a pseudonym to avoid prejudicial treatment. Certainly, he would have attracted some very long discussions, but then Dr. Kurt Wise, PhD Geology, studied openly as a YEC and even studied under Steven J. Gould, so playing the prejudice card seems unwarranted.Now, there isn't anything wrong that the ICR paid Austin to earn his degree and that Austin published under a pseudonym. The first thing wrong was the ICR's motivation, which was to be able to use that degree to push their nonsense. They had had their noses bloodied too many times over their repeated use of paper mill degrees and I guess that they just couldn't find any real practicing geologists who would work with them -- indeed, when Glenn R. Morton and several other ICR-trained geologists went to work in the field for oil exploration companies, they all suffered sever crises of faith when they had to face and work with rock-hard geological evidence that the ICR had told them did not exist and could not exist if Scripture were to have any meaning; Morton himself was driven to the verge of atheism.From the start, Austin as Nevins displayed his willingness to lie for his masters. As a graduate he wrote things in his articles that any first-year undergraduate would have known to be false. And since he graduated, he has used his knowledge to collect just the right samples that would yield bad dates so that he can "prove" the entire method to be wrong.

Wow! I'm starting to feel bad for being so shocked at Faith's willingness to ignore certain evidence. I tried out the point about the meandering GC over at Christian Forums and am now surprised and fascinated to find myself in an argument about whether the GC meanders at all. I posted this picture to help clarify things for my interlocutor, yet he insists the the GC doesn't meander: I included that yellow line in case he needed some help with the concept of straight vs meandering.Say what you like about Faith, but she never tried to deny that the GC meanders!

Scientists, regardless of their training and education, must follow the scientific method.Creationists, regardless of their training and education, must follow scripture and dogma.Scientists have to follow the evidence where it leads, as there are thousands of other scientists who will point out any errors. And errors are not rewarded in science.Creationists have have to follow scripture and dogma, as there are thousands of other creationists to correct them on those matters. And deviants are banned for heresy. (Evidence does not enter into the picture.)

Nice picture, take it back a notch and you can show the lower passes over the ridge while the canyon goes through at a point of rising slope, and then climbs over another high point at the left ... as I show on If Caused By Flood Drainage Why is the Grand Canyon Where It IS?try that out on them

Glad you pointed this out, Coyote. This is basically the cause of things getting so jumbled so often within the debate. Creationism relies on the existence of a Creator, and science cannot prove or disprove such things. Creationists get lost when we try to do that.As for me, I'm no scientist, though there are creationists who are. Instead, I choose to believe in a Creator. Sure we can point out observable things in the natural world to affirm our belief in a Creator, but at the end of the day, it's faith in a Creator that anchors me to Creation, not the other way around.Regards yall!- Raph

And things are fine until belief is contradicted by evidence.Young earth vs. old earth is one example.A global flood ca. 4,350 years ago is another.Then what do you do?