Peanut Gallery for the Faith/Jazzns Great Debate

True, but you're addressing the analogy, not the point I was making. The Internet is a much richer environment (in some ways) than the live debate before an audience, and there any many more channels of feedback available. I think what you're saying is that you believe some of that feedback affects the debate in material ways. I agree. Viva la differance!--Percy

I have long struggled on where to use "effect" and where to use "affect". I think I long just used "effect" for all, and forgot about "affect". Recently it was pointed out to me that "effect" is a verb, and "affect" is a noun.So, I think feedback effects the debate. The change in the debate would be the affect. (I'm a bad) Moose

Let's ask Al Frankin! Both are both. An actor might try to effect an impression of heightened affect, and that might affect the audience with great effect.--Percy

I see that the GD is pretty much over with at this point. In my opinion, while the discussion was interesting, the topic was too general. Debating the entire Grand Canyon as a whole is impossible.Heck, you couldn't do a Ph.D. on the Grand Canyon!Maybe in the future, geologic topics should be much much narrower in scope - if possible. Perhaps discussing a single Formation or Group within the Grand Canyon. Or why a certain rock shows evidence for deposition/formation under specific conditions.YECism gets a hand in geology only when Creationists are able to generalize. When you get down to specifics, YECism loses.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 04-12-2005 11:57 PM

One suggestion I think you made recently to Faith was to take her time. Unless Faith says she's done, it might be too early to conclude she's done.--Percy

Didn't Faith pretty much say she was done when she said "goodbye?" But I understand, Faith has stated many times she was leaving and is still here. I'm not starting a discussion on the GD yet.Anyway, the problem is the scope of the topic. It's much too broad which results in long posts that are frustratingly time-consuming for Faith and jazz to write, read, reply to.Narrowing it way down will help them both. What about only duscussing the Temple Butte Limestone and associated contacts?This message has been edited by roxrkool, 04-13-2005 10:57 AM

From Faith's Message 106: Doesn't sound like finality to me.--Percy

okay. Apparently I did not read enough of the thread. My apologies.

Thread moved here from the Short Subjects forum.

Mountains are areas of erosion yes, but not necessarily 'net erosion'. In that case, there would never be any mountain ranges. Only when erosion exceeds uplift is there net erosion.

With super-volcanos being flavour of the month, it might be an idea to ask YECs where they fit into the scenario. Did God create them pre-Flood? Or did they arrive in the last few thousand years? Pre-Flood, they should be full of sediment from the Great Deluge, sorted bones and all. Post-Flood,they should have been noticed by some society (all that ash and nuclear winters).

Even during explosive uplift of mountain ranges, which occurs from beneath, there is net erosion at the peaks. Uplift, depression and subsidence are not independent of erosion and deposition, since excessive deposition causes depression while excessive erosion of sufficient overlying material causes rebounding uplift. But it seems like you're more thinking of net changes in elevation.--Percy

Now that Faith is on her way out maybe we could revive this topic. In particular, I would like to know everyone's opinion of how I did. I wish I could have found a better example of something like a buried river channel sooner but other than that what do you all think?Was there anything in particular that was factually incorrect about what I said.

---

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

Deposition and Erosion of SedimentsNote that it did not start as a one-on-one "Great Debate". Only at message 79 did the topic become such.Adminnemooseus

Hi, Jazzns, I thought you presented it well and far more patiently than I could have done. Rox is right in that we should have narrowed the focus to single points and built on that. But then, creos insist on the Grand Plan and wave away the details.Maybe when it surfaces in the future (and we know it will ), we could pin Floodists to a single point of THEIR evidence and refute that?