Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest?

I believe the American Southwest is a direct result of the worldwide flood.Water covered the entire world, so everyplace in the world was subjected to the same treatment.That's why all those "old" features you talk about are spread so widely across the world rather than being clustered in one small corner of one country.I mean, come on, maybe... MAYBE... if the Monument Valley, the Grand Canyon and Arches National Monument were close together you'd have an argument that they represented some sort of regional erosion pattern.

But, if the flood was worldwide, why are these formation ONLY in the southwest?

So, if I'm reading you right, every example of stratified sedament is defacto proof that there was a world wide flood.It doesn't matter what the layers consist of, where they are located, their depth, their fossils (or lack of fossils). Every layer, everywhere in the world, examples of the great flood.Therefore no layer is older than 6000 years old. "Young" mountains like the Rockies or the Himalayas are just as old as "old" mountains like the Appelacians, despite the obvious differences in erosion.I accept that your religion requires you to believe what you believe, but let's not use words like "evidence". After all, we don't use the existance of bread as "evidence" of Hansel and Grettle

I understand Faith is taking a break, so if some other Creationist would like to pick up the banner and run with it... Is this "magic" water? Why does it behave differently than ordinary water? So, erosion is not a process which takes place over time. Since age has nothing to do with it. Therefore, if one mountain range contained granite and the other mountain range also contained granite, and they were both laid down at the same time and exposed to the same forces (World wide flood), then we'd expect all mountain ranges which consist of the same materials to have the same amount of erosion.If I'm drawing the wrong conclusion from your data, please let me know how. You're right. Unfair of me to assume that your religion had anything to do with your literal intreptation of the Bible's old testament.You could just as easily be Hindu and cling to the YEC model. Though, I don't know why anyone would.

You keep saying this defensively, but you are getting all of your "facts" from the Bible. To say you haven't relied on religion to form this theory is simply a bald faced lie.If you accept Creationism, then you must accept Norse Creationism, as there is an abundance of evidence to support it. Same with Navajo, Babylonian, Greek, etc. Each of these Creation stories adequately accounts for everything around us within the same standards of Christian Creationism.If you discredit these, please explain why

Well, what you've said is that you've never seen the material we're talking about, but think that it's proof of a worldwide flood.As far as irrelevancies are concerned, you need to grasp the formation and presentation of ideas.If you want to present an idea here (there was a great flood, or there is no number seven), then expect people to question where you get the basis for this idea (have you studied geology, or have you studied math).You certainly didn't look at the Grand Canyon and spontaneously come up with the idea for a Great Flood.If you don't want to discuss source material, that's fine. But, make that clear to people from the get go.(ie: I know nothing about geology, therefore I believe in a Great Flood. or I know nothing about math, therefore I don't believe in the number 7.)I doubt anyone would argue with that statement.This message has been edited by Nuggin, 09-07-2005 09:00 PM

Why are the mesas and pillars slopes?Simple, the water of the great flood evaporated from the bottom up.Since it's "magic water" it can do that. The tops of the mesas were therefore subject to more erosion.Remember, anything goes when fact and observation play NO role in the theory

Meaning, with evidence that countradicts my belief. Yes, I don't have to face that challenge, because my belief is based on the evidence.For the record, I lived in Arizona for 5 years.As for your repeated points that you've "been here longer than I have", I don't really see how that's relavent. I would suggest that I could give you another couple of years headstart, it still wouldn't change the facts or you belief system.And, as for your insistance that all of this is not religious based. Okay, I believe you. It's just remarkable that your theory is so much like the Great Flood story.

The ONLY differences between my theory and the theory your YECs are spouting are that 1) My theory actually accounts for what we see and 2) I'm not asking for money / selling a book based on my theory.And, I don't think you're in any position to judge who's sounding "foolish".

Let me address everything you've written here-Just because something "seems" a certain way to you, even though you have NEVER seen the source material and have not studied the field of geology, and are going exactly opposite of what professional geologists will tell you, and are contradicting numerous other sciences, doesn't mean we have to take you seriously.You want a serious discussion about geology, start by disproving my upside-down evaporation theory.

You know, for someone who gripes as much as you do about not being treated nicely...

Here's what I see when I read this quote:"I don't understand what you are talking about, so therefore you much be attacking me, and that's not fair."Faith, you will never understand what we are talking about. You've stated as much yourself. You hold the Flood as a literal truth, and therefore discount everything that conflicts your world view.You are complaining that mathematicians are being aggressive to you because they keep using Calc and Trig, but you're saying up front that you only accept the numbers 3, 6 and 7.

I just did. On the far left hand side of the diagram I see a layer of sedament labeled "V", likewise on the right hand side. However, between the two there is a fault line. The layers to the left of the fault are tilted, the layers to the right are not.However, the V layer has been laid down flat across the top of them.How is that possible in your Flood theory? If the angled layers changed after the flood, when did the V layer get laid down?If you successfully answer that question (by your own standards), then how do you explain the angled strata on the far right hand side of the diagram. They are clearly under ALL the other layers.This is a great diagram, but one you shouldn't have offered up as support of your theory.

Just read 77.You're a plant. You're a very good plant, you tricked me, that's for sure. Clearly, you are a geologist or a biologist playing the role of a Creationist just for us to have a bad guy.It's the only explaination that makes sense.If you weren't a plant, then your post would actually be suggesting that the Flood set down layers, then some of those layers were upended without disturbing the above layers. Which, is ofcourse, so completely absurd.The same Faith that has a problem with my upside down evaporation theory wants us to accept her "magic moving rocks" and "hovering layers" theory? Not likely.You're cover is blown. But, good show nonetheless

Don't get snippy just because I don't buy into your fantasy. If you want a point by point refutation, I'll give you one. Yup, because it WAS. So, exactly what force of nature "cubed" this particular area of land? How was it sliced both horizontally and vertically at the same time? How did it happen without disturbing the "V" layer?Your answer to this is simple. It's the same answer you give for what happened to all the missing material that was sheared away -- Exactly, YOU DON'T KNOW. Here's an idea, if you don't know what you're talking about stop talking about it.You keep saying that I'm making up ridiculous theories, but at least I can explain how they work. And those are just jokes.You're pretending like your theory is true, and you can't even explain the mechanics behind it. When faced with evidence that YOU PRESENTED which counters your argument, your answer is "I don't know but I'm still right."Laughably arrogent, willfully ignorant.But, like I said above, all this is predicated on you being a Creationist. As you clearly are faking it just for laughs, I commend your commitment to character.