Summations Only

Gosh, you're right. The seventeen million years are up. Whatever exists now HAS to have eroded within that time. Of course. I guess it's just too absurd for me to keep it in mind. It's obviously eroded faster than that but nobody's bothering to measure it, no doubt because it would prove there would be no canyon left at the current rate.

There is no massive erosion between formations. Here and there we see some erosion, but otherwise there is nothing but straight flat tight strata and the erosion seen is easily explained by runoff between layers or disturbance of the layers after they were all in place..Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Gosh, you're right. The seventeen million years are up. Whatever exists now HAS to have eroded within that time.

---

That is not what I said. It doesn’t matter to my point if the assumptions behind the calculation are correct or not. As a simple matter of logic the result of the calculation cannot contradict the assumptions used to produce it. (Unless you get the maths wrong).Thus your point was completely daft.

Sorry, you lost me.

quote:

---

There is no massive erosion between formations. Here and there we see some erosion, but otherwise there is nothing but straight flat tight strata and the erosion seen is easily explained by runoff between layers or disturbance of the layers after they were all in place..

---

That’s what you say. It isn’t what geologists have found. I’ll stick with the reports of people who have actually investigated the strata, instead of believing your inventions.

Of course you will, even though their reports are conditioned by their paradigm and not by the evidence. And I will stick with mine.

quote:

---

Of course you will, even though their reports are conditioned by their paradigm and not by the evidence

---

By which you mean that they report what is actually there rather than things you’ve made up. And that is a very good reason for believing them.

They report what is there as interpreted by their paradigm.

Correction to something I posted earlier. It could have taken hours to days to weeks to lay down a single layer or a formation, but the whole geologic column probably took most of the year of the Flood.

quote:

---

Sorry, you lost me.

---

I guess calculations of rate are too difficult for you to understand.But it really is simple.The calculation was based on the assumption that it took 17 million years to get to the present state. Therefore if that was the rate, after 17 million years we should have the present state. Anything greatly different than that and you have made a major mathematical blunder.Or to put it another way, multiplication is the opposite of division.If you assume that 5 miles of erosion occurred in 10 million years and use that to calculate the rate, then the rate should produce 5 miles of erosion in 10 million years.If you can do division and multiplication you can even prove it.

quote:

---

They report what is there as interpreted by their paradigm.

---

Which means reporting what is there.

So do creationists report what is there, only they interpret it by a different paradigm. The evidence is the same, the interpretation is what is different.

No, I simply took a guess at a rate and figured it for seventeen million years. That length of time doesn't dictate the conclusion, the rate dictates the conclusion. Of course I wanted to show that in seventeen million years even a very conservative rate would reduce the canyon to rubbish.Caffeine pointed out that the greatest width is ten miles which should presumably prove me wrong, at least it would prove the rate I guessed at wrong; but if my supposition is right that all the center formations would have been reduced to rubbish and the surfaces of the walls too, then I think what's being proved here is that the current width of the canyon was not formed by seventeen million years of slope retreat.ABE: Because if it was, it would have been at a much greater rate than I was assuming and that would definitely have reduced the center formations to rubbish.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, Creationists misrepresent what is there and then make shit up that they know the ignorant cultists would believe. Except that Creationists never honestly present the evidence that is actually there.

quote:

---

So do creationists report what is there, only they interpret it by a different paradigm.

---

YOU don’t because you don’t even know what is there which is the point.As for other creationists, they are quite capable of holding things back if they are inconvenient.

quote:

---

The evidence is the same, the interpretation is what is different.

---

That is a standard Creationist lie. The simplest example I know is the existence of transitional fossils. It would be one thing if creationists accepted the existence of anatomical intermediates, and accepted that they were evidence for evolution, even if they denied that the fossils really represented evolutionary transitions (to be fair Kurt Wise HAS admitted that much) - that would be reporting what was there. However the usual Creationist line is to claim that transitional fossils don’t exist and even use that assertion as evidence against evolution.