Summations Only

You are jumping to a lot of conclusions about that supposed underground canyon. What is needed is good factual description. Start there and I may try to pay attention.Where would you expect to see tunnels?Why should v shaped channels be a problem. Or tributaries.Again, the dimensions of this supposed canyon have never been given here. Do you have them? How deep, long, wide is it?And what sediment{?} is it carved into? And what sediment(s) filled it?No, I'm not lying, I know nothing about the other canyons so why should you assume I can't answer them too? The GC is of interest to creationists because of the great depth of exposed strata, as I said before you called me a liar.

No, you are blind as a bat.

Your post is nothing but the usual recitation of science lore. Why can't you just THINK about how evo science and OE science are a different kind of animal from REAL science? But you are talking about your own false belief of the early earth as millions of years old. How is that a challenge to me?You have to THINK some here. I'm not saying you can't know some things, simple things like that. I'm talking about the INTERPRETATIONS THAT ARE PALMED OFF AS FACT about events in the past that you CANNOT know with that much certainty and that are open to other interpretations. Why can't you just grasp, for instance, that to impute huge eras of time to flat slabs of rock, and make up how the dead creatures within that rock lived during that supposed time, is just plain ludicrous? That's so obvious you really should just acknowledge it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He's trying to argue that Geology is misunderstood, but his argument is crazy. The value of the article is that it shows that Geology is viewed as an interpretive and historical science, which it is. He's not questioning that, he's trying to make a virtue out of it.

Yeah I'm sure the deluded evos here all agree with you but after the utterly insane straw man arguments you've made against me they should be ashamed of themselves.

Perhaps you've just provided the explanation: as the river formed the meanders and decreased in depth over time, the walls along the sides did collapse and that accounts for the slopes.

We have the same observations of the past and we see do the Flood there, everywhere as I've said, as you should too, but you are seeing through your Theory, not with open eyes. I haven't claimed that you should see God in nature.

Of course you managed to add to the obscurity of the Morton assertions rather than clarifying anything I asked. It's becoming a pattern.The ex-YECs may be the worst since they caved in to the ridiculous excuse for science of the OE and ToE. That ought to be obvious. This is a lie. I've stuck to the physical facts for my arguments on this thread. As I've said before this whole argument is about interpretation on both sides, it can't be any other way with the unwitnessed past. Do wish you'd pay attention.I've "poofed" nothing here, that's your really inadequate imagination at work. I've argued from the physical facts. Nothing Morton said requires millions of years. There is no poofing involved, the actual physical events do not require millions of years.And the objection to Morton is not that he HAS interpretations but that he fails to give the facts from which he arrived at them and that is either unintelligent or underhanded of him, and of you not to have recognized it and acknowledged it. This should have been quite clear from what I said but you are too busy trying to find silly comebacks to bother trying to understand what I'm saying.It's typical of this kind of "science" that just about every article on every phenomenon starts with something like "Five hundred million years ago the blah blah did blah blah and the blah blah ate blah blah and blah blah happened." That's the evo fairytale, that is not science, but none of you seems to know the difference.As for your criticism that I don't follow up all your wearying challenges, sure, make me research every little hiccup from the evos, that'll keep me busy so you don't have to think about anything I've said. Which obviously you don't know HOW to do anyway. Why do I bother answering you? The thread wasn't stellar before you arrived but it's taken a dive since.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

[qs] I NEVER SAID IT WAS A FAULT LINE. IF FAULT LINES DON'T RUN EAST-WEST THEN IT WASN'T A FAULT LINE AND I NEVER SAID IT WAS ANYWAY. THE IDEA IS THAT IT WAS CRACKS THAT FORMED EAST-WEST BECAUSE THAT PARALLELS THE MOUNDED PART OF THE UPLIFT,. The fantasy as usual is yours. As with most of you here you just make up stuff without bothering to think about what I'm saying. Science forbid the creationist might be right about something but we can garble it up so well nobody would ever know anyway.The MOUND determines the direction of the cracks I have in mind and its summit runs EAST-WEST. Go look at the canyons and cliffs in the GS on that cross section way back there. THEY RUN EAST-WEST, as did the stress cracks in the upper surface of the VERY SAME STRATA that were originally over the GC.You don't know what you're talking about. All through this thread I've been making very simple reasonable points that you either refuse to grasp or can't grasp. Couldn't let the Flood really be true, could we?

You've of course selected an observation about which I speculated at one point on the thread about meanders, and the radioisotope flimflam which I reject, ignoring all the other observations I've drawn my conclusions from. Just another cheat. I'm learning here that scientists lie and cheat and invent straw man arguments to make their case against creationists. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I asked back in Message 1675: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.I'd really like to know what the usual idea is.I'd really rather not hear from shalamabobbi who hasn't said anything of value for some time.

Oh for crying out loud. The same information is available to everybody and you guys make use of it too for your own explanations. Use your head.

I didn't say I try to interpret ALL THE EVIDENCE, I've clearly said I stick to the information I know I can answer. Good grief, PAY ATTENTION. I've also said that since I KNOW the Flood occurred I know some of the evidence has to be understood in a different way though I may not be up to doing it personally. I do not feel I have to deal with all the evidence, and I do feel I've made a good case on what evidence I do have. I DO NOT DEAL WITH RADIOMETRIC DATING AND DO NOT CONSIDER IT EVIDENCE ANYWAY, BECAUSE THE METHOD CANNOT BE VERIFIED. PAY ATTENTION.

Oh nonsense. No wonder you converted from YEC, you never understood YEC and you don't know how to think like a YEC and you have NO ability to imagine the Flood.

I'd say I accept it on reliable witness testimony. But of course this is ridiculously out of scale. The number of fossils everywhere in the world found in stratified rock is so enormous the very idea of a "regular flood" being invoked to explain them is laughable. How many living things die in regular floods? Of those how many are buried in conditions conducive to fossil formation? How many such floods would be needed to account for the fossil record? You don't name the "various other ecological settings" but I assume you would have if any were of a magnitude to matter. Link doesn't work for me by the way.Sure sounds like a Flood deposit to me. Got any pictures? Are they all jumbled up together as in other places? Can't think of the name of that museum where there's a window onto the jumbled up bones in a hillside where they were actually buried, in Utah or Colorado or something like that. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.