Summations Only

I will give it a try, though the task is somewhat daunting given that I literally had to draw this guy a picture to illustrate the difference between a meander and a straight channel. And he still doesn't believe me.I hope some of EvC's resident creationists take a shot at your new thread. I suspect Faith might be a bit tuckered out at the moment though.

Haha. I'll let the scientists do the science debating. I won't pretend I'm knowledgeable enough to answer that question, don't think it's my role . Instead, I prefer to ask the bigger questions. Is it important? Does belief in something that cannot be proven using science require that I prove it using science? You did, yourself, say: This debate, in reality, starts at the wrong place. If scientists have to follow the evidence, and belief in a creator cannot be proven using evidence (the scientific method), I cannot give you what you want my friend.Hope I'm not too confusing! - Raph

Atheos, The canyon "meanders" gently, which is a different sense of the word from the kind of meander that started the discussion here, which is the hairpin turn created by rivers, which also occur in the GC, between some very high walls on both sides. The canyon does NOT meander in that sense and that's one reason I couldn't figure out what you were saying. Might be the same problem for this other person you are talking about. Why there should be any problem at all with the canyon's meandering course in the other sense completely escapes me.I am not back to debate, debate here is impossible, clearly against a stacked deck, wild distortions of the issues and worse,.

And I can't help but react to Dr. A's absolutely unfair Summary. Not in any detail, because that's a waste of energy here though I may try to do that at my blog, but just to say that he's persistently mischaracterized my argument, and since I give him credit for some brains I sometimes have to wonder if that's intentional.In any case he's persistently tried to palm off pictures that show tectonic and erosional disturbances that occurred AFTER the strata were all in place, which is what I've been arguing is the case over and over again, presenting them as if they disprove my point.Well, they don't, not one of them shows the kinds of disturbances I've been saying should have occurred to the stack WHILE THE STRATA WERE BEING FORMED, they all either show the disturbances that occurred afterward or they refer to the Supergroup and other rocks below the Tapeats which I pointedly left out of my descriptions, or they are too ambiguous to decipher.That couldn't have been more clear but five of you cheered his blatantly unfair post though if you'd been following the argument you should have known what he was saying was false.Oh and thanks Marc for your support but of course that's a lost cause too. The abuse level here is off the charts but they can't see it, to them it's just science and truth don't you know. Ha ha.I'm not here to debate, go ahead and heap on the abusive lies about that too.

Faith my friend, by your own admission you seem to be frustrated. You've fallen into the trap of many a Creationist: trying to prove Creation, and therefore a Creator, with science. I mean, if you think you have the knowledge required to argue such a thing against such "stacked" odds, go ahead haha.The reason debate here is impossible is because we fall into the trap of debating on the non-Creationists terms. Creationism is not the arguing of Origins using science and reason, it is the admonition that it all started with a Creator. You are exhausted and frustrated because you've been backed into a corner, trying to answer hard questions purely with knowledge. Instead, try starting with the bigger questions.Why do they require me to prove Creation, and therefore a Creator, using science when science cannot prove the supernatural?
Is science the standard for what is "real?"
If science is the standard, it cannot speak about the existence of a Creator, since it only covers what is observable.
If it is not, what is? Human reason? Logic? What your heart feels? The Constitution of the USA?Perhaps if you start there, you may be a little less frustrated my friend. Just trying to help! - Raph

From my point of view if you believe in creation then you believe in what was created, that it provides true evidence rather than falsehoods, and science is just a tool to help us understand what was created and how it was done, rather than try to prove god/s from creation.Enjoy

Perish the thought. Details are for evolutionists and suchlike reprobates. You'd rather reply to me behind my back? Well, if that makes you feel more comfortable. Personally I'm not afraid to debate you. But then we are two very different people. But in no way that you'd care to specify? Ah well. Yes, well, you keep saying this, but saying something over and over won't change the facts or the laws of nature. We've explained to you why what you claim is impossible. You, conversely, don't even seem to have tried to put up an argument showing that it's true. You said this sort of thing when we were discussing genetics, too. It reveals a deep methodological stupidity underlying your particular errors of reasoning.You may have chosen not to mention this stuff, but that doesn't make it "blatantly unfair" to bring it up. You are, as I've said, like someone who maintains that all birds are flightless, with much discussion of penguins and ostriches and kiwis. When someone says "What about hummingbirds and eagles and sparrows?" you say "I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THOSE!" Nor you are, but that doesn't mean they're not relevant to the claim. I guess we do need a whole new word for whatever it is you're doing.

No, it's not a different sense of the word. Meanders range from a slight curve to a large curve to a hairpin turn to an oxbow lake, and none are cut by rushing water. Most kinds of meanders are found in the GC. The GC meanders. There are also plenty of hairpin turns.E.g.: Well, if you stopped doing that, there wouldn't be a problem.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I don't think anyone is asking creationists to prove creationism scientifically. At least I'm not. Creationists attempt to do so on their own for whatever reasons. One obvious reason is to get creationism taught as science when it clearly is not. (Not making any claims about truth or falsity, just what is or is not science). Another obvious reason is to obtain the imprimatur of science which for good or bad is important in our society. There may be others.What we are asking is for creationists to support their freely offered scientific claims with scientific evidence and reasoning.

Just to help Faith identify which part of the Grand Canyon you're talking about for this image here: This image is from this part of the Grand Canyon as shown here in Google Maps: Here's a closeup: The principle that Faith needs to understand is that violent, energetic rapidly moving water cannot carve gentle meanders.Faith also needs to seriously question her entire strategy of trying to explain the Biblical flood naturally by making things up about what nature can do that are as unnatural as miracles.--Percy

You seem to be saying at the start of the post that the GC only meanders gently, then by the end you are akcknowledging it meanders strongly in places. Also, remember that high-velocity flows don't create meanders at all, as others here have pointed out, so I'm not sure what use making the distinction is for you. As for my interlocutor, he is insisting that the GC is actually straight
Look at this picture again: There are gentle meanders. There are two giant hairpin turns and several smaller ones and it is nowhere near straight. The meanders are there and continue to represent a problem for the Flood model because high-energy flows can't create them.Edited by Atheos canadensis, : changed sentence.

This is ridiculous. Your pictures of the CANYON's meandering are taken from high above, showing miles of the canyon. They do NOT show the tight HAIRPIN turns that the RIVER takes. A GIANT hairpin turn in the CANYON is NOT the same thing as a hairpin turn in the RIVER. The RIVER and the CANYON are two different things.

Have you seen Message 26 and replies on the February, 2013, and beyond - Post of the Month thread? A meander occurs when the banks of the river wiggle, wobble and sometimes turn back on themselves.Eddies in the river itself are not meanders, they are eddies.So you look at the canyon walls to see the meanders, both large scale with the rims of the canyon and small scale with the inner canyon walls (often they follow the same pattern). The picture Atheos canadensis posted shows those large scale meanders of the canyon rims.The pictures I have posted show the inner canyon meanders and their relation to the rims. the bunched up (topographic) lines near the river show the inner canyon cliffs, while the white/pink edge shows the canyon rims.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : piclinks

Oh fer cryin out loud. Good grief.

The river meanders and has always meandered. The canyon meanders because it has been cut by the meandering river.For the second time today, meanders are not solely hairpin turns. They range from slight curves to large curves to hairpin turns to oxbow lakes, and none of these are cut by rushing water, Please try to avoid lying at least until people have had tine to forget. Gee, sure looks like a tight hairpin turrn in the canyon to me