Summations Only

I know you've really impressed yourself with the "Hallucinogenia" thing (by which I assume you mean Hallucigenia, the bizarre Cambiran orgnaism), but how about being more specific. What part of this is confusing you? Gradual uplift occurs, river continues to incise the channel. Because the river is incising the channel at least as quickly as uplift occurs, the walls of the canyon reach higher and higher. Imagine pushing a soft block of butter up into a knife; the sides rise up while the knife remains in place.Try explaining exactly what you don't understand about this simple concept instead of giving trite answers like the above example.

And yet you chose to respond to that post instead of the many other posts explaining the very simple concept you're doing your best not to understand. Why not respond to the posts that explain the concept with a clear explanation of what you don't understand? And are you ever going to explain how your Flood created a meandering canyon?

You complain of being misunderstood a lot, and maybe that's what's going on here. Because it sees like you're making the absurd claim that the GC is evidence for the Flood despite the fact that you can't come up with an explanation of how the Flood could have produced all the features of the GC. You're not being that ridiculous, are you?And you're still backing down at every opportunity from explaining how a high-energy, large-scale flow could produce a meandering canyon. You have skirted around the issue with vague statements but have so far lacked the courage to actually explain how your imaginary Flood could have produce the structure we see in the GC. Though I guess you've made it clear in the above quote that you are convinced that the Flood produced the GC regardless of the fact that you can't explain the structure of the GC in the context of the Flood. Soft sediment would indeed weather more easily than rock, but this is yet another problem for your model, not its salvation. A high-energy flow like you imagine would presumably be even more likely to produce a straight channel if it were cutting through soft sediment instead of rock. You seem to have convinced yourself that the scale of your imaginary Flood means that it would not obey the laws of physics as we know them, but this is nonsense. A flow of water on the scale you describe would, by virtue of its size and energy, be even more prone to cutting a straight channel than the more normal flood examples RAZD has posted.You excused yourself from addressing the various glaring logical inconsistencies and physical impossibilities I presented to you by claiming that they were irrelevant/too boring for you, but those excuses don't apply here. You claim the GC as powerful evidence for the Flood, so you can't pretend that this latest physical impossibility is irrelevant to your arguments.So gain, how did the Flood produce a meandering canyon? I encourage others here to really hammer Faith with this question because it completely destroys her position and she is clearly afraid to address it.

What a surprise, Faith. You have once again latched on to some new posts and steadfastly refused to explain how your imaginary Flood could have cut a meandering canyon. As others have said, if you want to call this obvious physical impossibility a miracle then go right ahead. But don't pretend the structure of the GC actually supports your fantasy. You keep telling us to look at the canyon from far away (the better to ignore those pesky details that also refute your model) and yet you wish to ignore the big-picture problem RAZD originally explained and which I have been trying to get you to respond to for some time.The canyon meanders. How do you reconcile this with your model, Faith? Your continued silence on the matter is proof that you know just as we do that such a reconciliation is impossible.

You may not say it, but that's what your model requires. You have said that you think this cascade carved out the canyon and then a river carved the meanders. But the whole canyon meanders, from river level to the top of the cliff. Do you see the issue? The cascade you propose cannot have created the canyon because the whole canyon meanders. What about this are you not getting? It is not a challenging concept so the only explanation I can think of is that you are shamelessly refusing to think about it. Funny. As others have pointed out, declaring something that cannot be explained by your fantasy to be supporting evidence for your fantasy is absurd. The meandering path of the GC is not explicable by your model, for instance, something you have yet to summon the courage to address. And the fossil record supports the Flood? Give me a break. I'm sure you will, as usual, refuse to address anything I post (very mature by the way) but the organization of the fossil record is utterly incompatible with your imaginary Flood. Are you clinging to the hydrodymaic sorting nonsense? Or is it the even more laughable differential escape absurdity? I'm sure you won't have the courage to address this post, but at least I will have highlighted your intellectual dishonesty yet again.

Oh hey Faith, just wondering how the Flood carved the meandering GC. You still haven't been able to answer this. Remember what I said about the validity of a model that fails again and again to explain the evidence? If your model can't explain the meanders then your model is worthless. Does this confuse you? Do you think if you ignore this issue every time I raise it that it will cease to refute your fantasy? Or does it just make it easier to deceive yourself if you don't think about it?

The Kaibab is not made of clay. Now how about them meanders? And the organization of the fossil record? Stop being a coward.

This feature is still no more than a couple meters deep. It is no more helpful to you than your last attempt.Hey, still have no answer for how those meanders formed? Or have you given yourself permission to ignore this question are too ashamed to try to justify it to us like you usually do?

Hey, I can rein it in if that's your only issue, though others here have been at least as vituperative and yet you respond to them regularly. Therefore it seems like it is the points I'm making that you wish to avoid, not the tone of my posts. How about I stop calling you a coward and you stop being so evasive? Then no one gets their feelings hurt and you can respond to the points I raise.So now the overall structure of the canyon is yet another unimportant detail? The shape of the entire canyon you're arguing evinces the Flood is insignificant? You started off by claiming that the meanders were accounted for by your model, but now that it has become obvious that they aren't they are insignificant. It's odd how these things become insignificant once it become obvious that they refute your model.

Good advice. I will try to contain my bile. If Faith continues to ignore me then it will be confirmation that it is the content and not the tone of my posts she wishes to avoid. Though containing my bile may be tricky now that she has just declared yet another glaring physical impossibility to be irrelevant. It's mind-boggling that she can simultaneously declare that the structure of the GC proves the Flood and yet is also irrelevant.

It is pretty outrageous. I'm just shocked at how many physical impossibilities Faith is willing to declare irrelevant. She points to the (according to her) undisturbed strata and says this proves OE wrong. And yet when point after point is made enumerating the various ways in which her model defies physics, she calls them irrelevant. I think the phrasing of her recent post is particularly tell, whether she realizes it or not: She wants to focus where she thinks (however misguidedly) that she can "make a case". Which implies that she is aware that she can't even hope to make a case when it comes to the meandering shape of the canyon or the various other points I've raised. No kidding. I've sent you a PM in which I've pasted a pretty wild interpretation of Genesis whose like I have never encountered. Blew my mind.

Hi Faith. I was hoping you could explain why the structure of the entire canyon that you say proves the Flood is irrelevant. It seems to me that if you think the contacts between the strata that comprise the canyon are sufficient to disprove an OE, then surely the structure of the canyon itself is sufficient to disprove the Flood. I can see no reason to declare the former significant and the latter irrelevant beyond a desire to avoid evidence you know refutes your model. So again, can you explain why it is irrelevant or is it really just the handwaving it appears to be?

I think you'll agree that my most recent post was perfectly courteous. As I will endeavor to make future posts. I'm promising to play nice with the hope that you will not use my past indiscretion as an excuse to avoid responding to the points I make.Now, you haven't actually given any explanation for why the strata that comprise the canyon are significant but the canyon itself is irrelevant, you've merely restated it. You say that looking at the big picture is sufficient to prove your model, but when I ask you to look at the big picture it is suddenly irrelevant. That seems like a double standard born of a desire to ignore evidence that disproves your theory. The fact that you are unable/unwilling to explain yourself only serves to reinforce this impression.

Feel free to point out how I have mischaracterized your argument. I'm pretty certain that it is not a misrepresentation to say that you have deemed the structure of the canyon itself to be irrelevant. You have tried to explain why it is irrelevant to you personally but have offered no explanation of why it is irrelevant to the issue of what the GC tells us about the validity of the Flood model.I think your approach of refusing to discuss anything besides one particular point is dishonest. Imagine the following:You came upon this thread already in progress and various points were being discussed like the angle of repose of sediment or in situ, terrestrial dinosaurs or the meandering path of the GC. You join the discussion by posting your favourite point about the strata. You consider it to be good evidence for your position but to your surprise you are told it is irrelevant and doesn't bear discussion or examination. Wouldn't you consider this a dishonest tactic? Wouldn't you think it was merely an attempt to avoid a difficult question? Wouldn't you feel that your point deserved to be addressed? If the answer to these questions is "yes", then how can you justify ignoring the various points I have made, including one that concerns the very canyon you say proves your point? If your answer is"no", then why should anyone give the points you raise any attention? This is why I accuse you of dishonesty. It seems pretty clear that you are operating under a double standard.Edited by Atheos canadensis, : formatting Edited by Atheos canadensis, : same dealEdited by Atheos canadensis, : No reason given.

This is still a blatant double standard, faith. You insist on the importance of this evidence (which, by the way, relies on your assertion that it disproves an OE) while denying the importance of other evidence that is even more straightforward than your point. The canyon meanders, your model can't account for this. Very simple. You didn't respond to my last post in which I asked you three questions. I'll repost it here for your convenience: