Summations Only

Science picks up a lot of information that's "nice to know", just like you see a lot of things that are "nice to see" on your way to wherever you're going. Who knows when some of that information might be important?

Why is it that you're afraid to respond to even the stupidest evolutionist? (For the sake of this discussion, that would be me.)

That's poor logic. Nobody is saying that the Grand Canyon is as old as the earth. You might as well say that my house can't be any older than the tomato I bought yesterday.

That's true. That's how we know the Grand Canyon has nothing to do with "the Flood". Even if there had been a worldwide flood a few thousand years ago, the Grand Canyon would have been much the same before the flood as it is now.Added by edit in reply to your edit: Why would you make that assumption?Edited by ringo, : No reason given.

How? Isn't most of the eroded material in the Gulf of California?

The numbers that geologists actually use don't.

As I said, the "pile of eroded material" that you need to look at is the Colorado River delta in the Gulf of California.What you're doing is analogous to looking at the few loose crumbs that are left behind when a basement is dug and ignoring the tons of material that were hauled away.

You implied that your numbers falsified the old age of the earth. Obviously, geologists aren't using the same calculation as you are.But even if the hoodoos did erode at the rate you claim, that has nothing to do with the age of the earth.

What's wrong is your calculation. You can't use one back-of-the-envelope calculation to falsify millions of person-hours of work by thousands of geologists over two centuries.

And as I've pointed out, that has nothing to do with the age of the earth. We know the earth is older than the hoodoos. Your calculation tells us nothing about how much older. It doesn't, though, does it? Every "alternate" method that creationists have for finding the age of the earth gives a different result. The reason for that is that you're dating things in the earth, not the earth itself. It doesn't matter if the hoodoos are five minutes old or five thousand years old. The fact is that there are older things in the earth.

Of course there are ways to see into the past. Suppose you see a footprint. That's evidence of something that happened in the past.And there are many ways of estimating how far in the past. A footprint in mud was made after it rained. A footprint in mud with marks of raindrops in it was made before the last rain but after the second-last.And so on.

In fact, it was creationists who had the head start. They had all the time in the world to accumulate evidence but they never bothered to try until after they had been proven wrong.

Hint: You're not going to convince real geologists to abandon what they're learned and practiced throughout their entire lives. You're probably not going to convince interested laymen with a modicum of knowledge either. Your target audience is the ignorant, the religious fanatic, the conspiracy theorist, etc. In light of that, acting like an arrogant know-it-all may actually be your best strategy.

That makes no sense to me. In a worldwide flood, how can you distinguish land from sea? The layers under the (present) sea should be the same as the layers on the (present) land.

All of them should, if there was a global flood. Why do you make a distinction between them at all?