The TRVE history of the Flood...

No it isn't. The viewer through the telescope becomes a direct witness.

So, science is off-topic here.

But the telescope gives us a direct witness in a way that dating methods don't.

It ought to be unarguable that a written document describing events in the past, that has lots of agreement from account to account, gives clues to how to date the events, mentions historical real-world kings and leaders that can be tracked extrabiblically, and so on, is a lot better witness than an error-prone atomic decay system.

I think they are cause and effect. The flood carved the Grand Canyon which then provided the route of least resistance for the river that formed later.

You don't think the river at the bottom of it is a clue?

But then again evolutionists in their mind numbing belief system that NOTHING EVER changes

Your fake might get a few nuts to follow it, but anybody who follows the Bible would know it was a fake.

The Bible is authentic history and that's why it is a good witness.

But it does not look like it was carved out by a river. the narrow parts maybe but not the wide parts.

Meanders have nothing in common with the widest parts of the canyon.

All that broken-up strata flowing downhill could be described as violent in its effects in some places, as huge amounts of debris-laden water flows back to its former sea level.

The prevailing idea that the strata represent time periods is truly absurd. Separated sediments for starters would be a very unlikely result of millions of years of life on earth. Then their lying horizontally one on top of another with no signs of anything similar to what is seen on the earth's surface today, just flatness, plus their containing an abundance of dead things, is NOT what the surface of the earth normally does, but exactly what the Flood would have done. That was its purpose, after all, to wipe out all living things on the land. A lot of sea life died too, of course.

Oh I see. It's your training as a psychoanalyst that tells you the fault is in my personality, we don't need to consider my actual arguments.

Apparently you, like too many other so-called Christians, don't care a fig whether the Bible is treated as a myth and Christians as delusional believers in a fake "sky wizard." I don't understand that attitude. Defending the faith as well s we can is our calling.

I'm not talking about the shape of the walls, I'm talking about the width of the canyon.

Why, because man in his arrogance when united, is dangerous ...

Let me see if I can make the point clearer. It's become a broken record that doesn't further the debate in the slightest. We've been exchanging the same opinions over and over but this can never go anywhere because they are basic premises that aren't going to be changed. They are just being asserted rather than used in the argument to any real purpose. It's just a huge waste of time to keep getting this same old same old stuff about the Bible being a myth and dating methods being the last word on the discussion. Or jar's endless carrying on about his ridiculous interpretations of the Bible. Or my statements about the absurdity of the OE/ToE assumptions or that the Bible's dates trump the dating methods. They can be stated as a conclusion from an argument but too often they are just stated over and over and over and over and over in the place of an argument.

You could at least spell his name correctly.

But that could be asked of your model too.

The topic is the Flood, not the validity of the Bible.