Summations Only

Hi Faith,Yes, I'm sure all your problems are everyone else's fault, like here where you claim you never said the cracks ran the length of the canyon: And yet here you are back in Message 1212 saying it was the length of the canyon: Or here where you claim you never described antediluvian layers being transported by the flood: Where did I get such an idea? I got it from you, Faith, because you wrote it back in Message 1192: You also have reading comprehension problems: I described what would have happened in your scenario that you hadn't seemed to have figured out. I didn't attribute it to you.It's high time you stopped blaming everyone else for your problems and began focusing all that arrogance and chutzpah inward to find the real source. You came here armed only with ignorance and you're well on your way to leaving here having learned nothing while at the same time convincing many of the dangers of religious zealotry.People have posted many messages full of information to you throughout this thread, but you've ignored or disregarded or ridiculed or misunderstood or failed to comprehend most of it. It's time to turn over a new leaf and begin honestly addressing the facts, which come from studying the real world and not from the echo chamber inside your head.--Percy

Found a better reply to this:

I'm winning!

Stop with the absurd posturing and begin discussing in good Faith.--Percy

A fault is a crack that relieves stress in the earths crust. Your crack is described as relieving the stress from uplift, ergo it is a fault by definition.The fact remains that cracks that relieve the stress of uplift are observed in the north-south orientation not in an east-west orientation.The fact remains that the evidence is counter to your fantasy in this as in so many other ways.

Yikes, what a rant. In order to do that the cracks would have to meander.

Hi Faith. Your claim to have proven the Flood is not consistent with the evidence I have provided that shows terrestrial deposition occurring when the Flood was supposedly in effect. You have conceded that the brooding dinosaur was deposited in a terrestrial environment (or at least that all the available evidence says it was) and its position high in the rock record means your Flood model is wrong unless you can disprove the law of superposition. You maintain that, despite evidence to the contrary, you are actually right and the Flood "HAD" to have deposited that dinosaur. You don't seem to understand the weakness of such a position. You say there is only one possible explanation that fits your model, but that explanation has been ruled out. That means your model doesn't fit the evidence. But instead of rethinking your model to fit the evidence, you are insisting that the evidence must fit your model even if it doesn't appear to. Again, if you want to use the Bible as the authority on Earth's past then do so, but don't try to argue that the observable evidence supports you.

Hey, remember my reply to you from 7 weeks ago: Message 34:

quote:

---

you writes:

​

Am I the only one who is curious to hear the answers to the questions I've posed to Faith?

Ah, to be a new member again...

​

No, I lost my curiosity through experience.

​

Plainly, she's just not an honest person.

---

Was I right, or what?

Now that we've covered the grand Canyon in detail can we have a repetition of this thread for each of these other canyons as well? *ducks*12 Most Beautiful Canyons of the World (with Map) - Touropia
Database Error
greatest canyons of the world Archives - DoYouKnowTurkey
http://www.travels.tl/the-deepest-canyons-in-the-world/
The largest Canyon in the world - Design SwanAnd I'm particularly interested in this canyon:(JonF posted this in the biology area but it needs to be in this thread. I saw this before but lost the reference, so I'm glad to have it back. I'm including just the snippets that made the strongest impressions in hopes the post is short enough not to lose Faith.)

quote:

---

...as a young Christian, when I was presented with the view that Christians must believe in a young-earth and global flood, I went along willingly. I knew there were problems but I thought I was going to solve them.

---

quote:

---

I finally found work as a geophysicist working for a seismic company. Within a year, I was processing seismic data for Atlantic Richfield.

​

This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood.
...
One also finds erosional canyons buried in the earth. These canyons would require time to excavate, just like the time it takes to erode the Grand Canyon.

---

quote:

---

Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

​

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

​

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!'

---

Old Earth Creation Science Testimony - Why I Left Young Earth Creationism, by Glenn Morton

Heh, you definitely seem to have called that one. But perhaps if I do my best to remain kind she will be convinced to either support her assertion that the Flood is responsible for evidence like the brooding dinosaur or admit that she really is just adhering to that belief in spite of the evidence. You never know. It only took a few weeks to get her to concede that the evidence presented by the brooding dinosaur was not consistent with it having been deposited in the Flood (despite maintaining that it must somehow have been deposited by the Flood).Edited by Atheos canadensis, : added the last bit.

Oh! Thanks for posting that. I had been looking for something like that image for quite some time, but they are not easily found on the web. And that one is such a spectacular example. I think that's one of Morton's...Of course, it's all for naught in the case of Faith, but perhaps others will digest this discussion and come to more logical and rational conclusions.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Why are salt beds so often associated with petroleum and to some extent also coal deposits? I understand the salt domes may become traps for oil but that doesn't explain why they occur together in the first place so that the petroleum could so frequently find its way into the domes. I've done some reading on the subject but haven't yet found that question answered.

Buried canyons are no more of a problem for the Flood than buried rivers. I don't know why you all have such trouble with these things. Just exercise a little scientific imagination. I know some here don't have much of that, but others must. You have to get a reasonable idea of the magnitude of the Flood first of course, which seems to be stumbling block for a lot of you. A lot more water than you seem willing to consider.If water can flow underground, canyons can be cut underground. I'd expect it to have occurred in the last stages of the Flood myself.ABE: As for discussing other canyons, you haven't shown that there would be any point. The Grand Canyon as far as I know exposes the strata to a greater depth than any other location on earth, and that's why creationists are interested in it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Just to be clear, I concede the point on the known evidence, I can't explain it myself. But it had to be buried in the Flood, there's no other possibility even if I can't say how that occurred. Possibly if I studied it for some time I'd come up with a better idea but I'm not likely to do that any time soon if ever. Sorry to disappoint you. But it would be nice if you'd remain easy to get along with anyway.

I really don't know why you bother taking part in these discussions, and I no longer understand why anyone engages with you on these matters when you show such astounding, blinkered, willful ignorance.
You have been shown what the other possibilities are,
You have been shown how the evidence points to these possibilities.
You have been shown how the evidence does NOT support your irrational nonsense beliefs.
and yet you claim victory in the debate, and then come out with this gem.
unbelieveable(ABE) As has been suggested before, it would be a far more honest position if you just said "Goddidit" and stopped trying to make false claims that the geological record supports your story.Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.

Yea sometimes i think creationists are just trolls or poe's, but thats mainly because i have faith in human intelligence.

Fascinating: how do they make the filled v-shaped channels with all the tributaries but no tunnels?Why is there no erosion of the overlying strata? Even when it is softer rock? No Faith, it is because they know that if they cannot make up some fantasy to explain it that their YEC concept is falsified.That is why you spend so much time on making up fantasies to explain the evidence (to yourself -- it doesn't fool us).