Summations Only

On the contrary, I have, and about a great deal of relevant stuff you ignore!

Then you simply do not understand what this debate is about and why it has to be approached the way I do it.

We understand what the debate is about. We are in the science forum, so the debate is about evidence.And we understand why you approach it the way you do. You are a religious apologist, and you have to make the answers come out in a way that agrees with your beliefs, no matter what the evidence may be to the contrary.And we have understood both of these points from the beginning.

I think I do understand why you approach it the way you do, because once you started considering the other appropriate evidence it would blow your hypothesis out of the water, so it just HAS to be ignored.

Yeah, typical. You say you used to be a creationist? Caved in, eh? Caved in to the illusion of science. Not real science, an illusion.No, this idea that one is merely "ignoring" things is extremely unfair.I believe the Old Earth is actually defeated by the arguments I've already given here, you don't need to be able to answer everything to show that much. And since it is defeated already there is no point in pursuing other arguments. Those are to be dealt with after it is ACKNOWLEDGED that the OE has been defeated. I'm not holding my breath, and clearly you don't have a clue about the arguments I've so far given here.Second, I don't have the time or the motivation to become an expert in all the sciences, which is necessary in order to debate effectively on the hundreds of issues that can be raised here. The idea that I or anybody debating on an internet forum should have that degree of knowledge is ridiculous. Without that kind of knowledge of course I'd "lose" on those issues, but then it wouldn't be a fair debate, would it? Do you feel you have the knowledge necessary to debate all aspects of the creation-evolution argument? I'm sure you don't, or anywhere near it. You caved in as so many do, on the basis of inadequate knowledge, and now you are on a mission to get everybody else to cave in as you did.ABE: Before this becomes another excuse for the usual insults, I want to say No I am not claiming to be an expert on anything I've argued here either, I just think that there are a few facts that show the untenability of the Old Earth, it doesn't take expertise just the implications of certain facts. If those are grasped the OE has to be seen as untenable. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If I have indeed "caved in to the illusion of science", then it should be easy to show where dendrochronology and Suigetsu varves go wrong in giving the illusion of confirming C14 dating. The reported info is straightforward and needs no special expertise in understanding.Go to RAZD's thread, refute it, (which is different from reject it), then we repentant ex OE believers will come back to this thread to sit at your feet and learn.

First, you show that I'm wrong about my arguments on this thread.

Hi Faith,There seems to be some serious confusion on your part, beyond your normal confusion, that is. In Message 1083 you said: So I began pointing out the problems with this view, that if the region wasn't already uplifted when the catastophic flow occurred then it would have had to cut into the landscape around 8400 feet below sea level.But you then objected that the region had already uplifted before the end of the flood. You also asserted, in direct contradiction to your Message 1083, that you had never said anything different, but in conformance with my policy to just accept anything you claimed you meant I didn't say anything.But since you're now accusing me of abandoning my "absurd accusations" I have to bring your change of argument to your attention. You *did* say that the uplift had most likely begun after the flood. It's okay if that's no longer your view, or if you misspoke, but it certainly isn't something I made up.The problem with the uplift occurring before the catastrophic flow originating from a lake is that the water would have had to flow uphill. You're arguing that the water flowed into the cracks, not uphill, but massive amounts of water couldn't fit into narrow cracks and would have flowed around the uplifted region, as RAZD has indicated.I should mention that the reason I didn't address this topic in my previous post was because what you said was so confusing. In your Message 1181 you said: I wasn't sure whether you meant the lake was above the current canyon or someplace else, so assuming you'd mention it again at some point in I decided not pursue it.Now, about those cracks: No, Faith, they are not cracks. They are the results of flowing water eroding down into the landscape. When something cracks, the two sides of the crack once used to be joined to each other. The sides of the Grand Canyon and of Zion Canyon and of the other canyons were never in the same place and joined to one another. The material in the sides of these canyons were as far apart millions of years ago as they are today. They are not cracks.(Do keep in mind that slope retreat means that the sides of all canyons become increasing distant over time.)So tell us the specifics of your scenario concerning these cracks. There's certainly no evidence of any cracks today, so how could that possibly be if this cracking ever really happened? Surely you're not asking us to beieve that the cracking was confined to the specific path taken by the Colorado River and other rivers, and that the evidence of every single crack ever created is now gone.This is the proper time to quote your claim about evidence: "Lots of evidence," you say, yet not one of these cracks you say were created in solid rock a mere few thousand years ago can be found today. They all just disappeared, almost miraculously one might say. So without a single crack left, you have have no evidence. Because your cracks are made up. The most dense suspended material falls out of suspension first, the least dense last. The larger, denser material will be on the bottom, the lightest less dense material will be on top. There's no other type of sorting. Not even Berthault can violate the laws of physics. You're making up ridiculous things again. Rain and rising water would not cause miles of landscape to become suspended in water. Flowing water can cut into a landscape, but not rain and rising water.Do you claim that all the sedimentary layers of the Earth were deposited by the flood? That all antediluvian layers were removed by the flood and none are left?Equally important is where all the material of the antediluvian landscape came from. For example, where did the millions of years worth of limestone come from? Or the millions of years worth of sand or shale? Where did the oil from millions of years of ancient life come from, and how did the flood keep all the oil together to place into underground deposits? And I'm really wondering how the flood buried all the natural gas. Well, you did explain that you don't read much of what people write, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't seem to be aware that I explained this already. So one more time...Except when they collapse onto shore, the water part of wave motion is vertical, not horizontal. Water is the medium through which waves travel. The water itself only moves up and down.So since waves can only move and transport material after they collapse on the shore, there's no way for them to move material from anywhere that's not near the shore. Material out in the ocean, or the flood in your scenario, will stay where it is if you only have waves. If you want to move the material then you need currents. I explained this before, too. Sediments do not precipitate out. Sediments fall out of suspension. Things that are dissolved in solution in liquids precipitate out, things that are suspended in liquids fall out of suspension. I've already explained your misunderstanding in not realizing that I was only responding to what you said, but thank you for calling attention to your error once more.Also, I think your failure to actually read the posts you're responding to is a factor in this case, too. I wasn't raising these issues for the first time. It might be the first time you noticed them, but it certaintly wasn't the first time I raised them. Clearly you're still enamored of your imaginings of what should have happened, and you're still rejecting all the knowledge people keep providing to you of the way the world really works, but the evidence of the ancientness of the layers has been proved to everyone else's satisfaction. You're making things up again. You have no evidence that the world was once so fertile that millions of years of life living and dying and leaving their remains behind happened in a mere couple thousand years. Do any of these antediluvian layers still exist anywhere in the world, or did the flood somehow manage to wipe them all out without exception. Let me guess: none exist today, and so there's no evidence anywhere that they ever existed. Since most layers are marine, how did the flood take up miles deep sedimentary layers from beneath the antediluvian oceans? How did, for example, a sedimentary limestone layer buried deep beneath an antediluvian ocean get taken up by the flood and redeposited without mixing with any of the surrounding layers that might have been sandstone or shale? Yes, we know you believe this. Why? Does it have any rational basis? There's tons of evidence, but none of it supports your views. Your ignorance leaves you completely unable to draw any correct inferences from evidence. You're left insisting on impossible and unnatural processes.--Percy

Been there, done that.

People smarter than I am have been showing you where you are wrong since the thread started!
You have rejected, but not refuted, all the evidence for long age, in fact anything contrary to your views. And you still have not considered the consequences of the rapid tectonics your scenario produces.

It isn't that you haven't been able to answer everything. It's that you haven't been able to answer anything. The arguments you've made here don't make any sense, many violate physical laws, none have any evidence, and none of the processes you claim happened have ever been observed. Your arguments convince no one. Not creationists, not evolutionists. That you think you've defeated "Old Earth" theories is a measure of your disconnect from reality.You creationists are a very strange lot. Here you are anyway boasting that you've defeated the evolutionists, Mindspawn's probably off bragging that he defeated the evolutionists, Buzsaw probably bragged that he defeated the evolutionists, but your ideas are all different and you all think each other's ideas are wrong. Even more strange, this reality has no impact on your thinking.The reason creationist ideas wander all over the map is because they aren't based on evidence. For creationists evidence is just something they can claim to have examined, and only because that's what science is supposed to do. Obviously. You're not only not an expert, you're one of the least knowledgeable people most here have ever come across, determined as you are to declare what happened in the real world based on ancient myths while ignoring all evidence and knowledge that contradicts your imaginings.The measure of one's ideas is their ability to persuade others. That you're not convincing anyone should give you pause and encourage you to reflect, perhaps to consider that you're not God and that you might make mistakes and that perhaps the reason that you're not convincing anyone is because your evidence doesn't lead to the inferences you keep insisting it does, and that maybe you need to reconsider some of your ideas to bring them into better agreement with the evidence.For example, I'm sure everyone agrees, creationists and evolutionists alike, that the Grand Canyon region uplifted. Why couldn't it uplift gradually after the flood while the Colorado with its heavy sediment load that normally acts like heavy sandpaper but is like a buzzsaw in the spring floods cuts down through the gradually uplifting landscape. You'd still disagree with evolutionists about the age, but at least the idea could attract creationists because it isn't burdened down with silly arguments about retreating flood waters or post-diluvial lakes or catastrophic flows or soft rock that hardens by drying. Adobe bricks harden by drying, sedimentary rock requires great pressure.--Percy

I can't answer all this post right now but I do have to point out what I thought I had already pointed out in the previous post, that you are confusing the Flood with the "catastrophic flow.""Right after the Flood" was intended to refer to the Flood's having reached its full depth, while the "catastrophic flow" is intended to refer to what happened when the Flood receded and eroded away the huge quantity of strata carving the forms of the Grand Staircase and down to the Kaibab in the GC area, also cutting the canyon.The uplifting began "right after the Flood," that is, right as the Flood stopped rising and building strata, but before the catastrophic flow as the Flood waters receded (OR the lake dam burst, the other theory). The uplifting began at the end of the rising of the Flood and CAUSED the catastrophic flow into the cracks.I did already explain this. The only confused person here is you. The end of the Flood and the catastrophic flow are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. I hope that clarifies. And this is just as insane as it always was, and I still can't figure out how on earth you got such an idea.First, the land WAS uplifted when the "catastrophic flow" occurred, though it wasn't yet uplifted right at the end of the Flood, meaning the rising of the Flood, which was BEFORE the "catastrophic flow" that eroded the area. The uplift was a CAUSE of the catastrophic flow. It occurred at the END of the Flood, that is, after the Flood had finished rising, after it had laid down all the strata, but before it catastrophically eroded the upper strata. I guess you read it to mean the Flood was all over and done with, drained away. But there should have been other clues I couldn't possibly have meant that. And I'd said it so many times already, in so many different ways. This is exhausting.Second, even if the land wasn't uplifted your notion that "it would have had to cut into the landscape around 8400 feet below sea level" makes no sense no matter how I try to sort it out. I said "right after the Flood the uplifting would just have begun" and you wrongly equated the Flood with the catastrophic flow so you're thinking the uplift was beginning right after the catastrophic flow. But no matter how I sort this out I can't get it cutting the landscape below sea level. You thought I was saying the Flood was all over, so there wouldn't have been any cutting going on anyway, let alone cutting below sea level. Percy, even with some kind of grasp on how you misread me I can't make the slightest sense out of any of this.The strata were in place to a depth of two or more miles from the base of what became the canyon, all above sea level except the lowest few strata, and THAT's what would have been cut into, that depth of strata, so I can't begin to imagine where you are getting this notion that landscape below sea level would have been cut into. Before all the Flood had drained away OF COURSE it was uplifted, it was a major effect of all the tectonic activity that accompanied its draining away, or that occurred later if it was the lake that was the catastrophic flow. But hundreds of times I'd described the end of the Flood in the sense of its having reached its zenith before draining. I can see there could be some confusion about that but I'd said it so many times already in so many different ways one would think you'd have sought clarification instead of jumping to your insane conclusion about cutting below sea level, which I still can't make any sense of no matter how I try to grasp the sort of confusion you had. There was no contradiction, I HADN'T said anything different, I've been describing exactly the same scenario for days, weeks, months, years. If you have been misreading me all that time I'm sorry but you should have realized that's what was happening instead of jumping to your absolutely insane conclusions.I remember all the times you've "assured" me you know what I'm talking about. Boy did you NOT know. I don't even care whose fault it is though I'll have to reread my posts to see if I was always that confusing, but you DID NOT KNOW what I was talking about although you insisted you did.Again, the scenario is1) THE FLOOD: The Flood waters rise, they've scoured off the land mass and are depositing it in layers on the continents (or one continent since this is before continental drift).2) THE FLOOD STOPS RISING: After all the strata are in place, stacked to the very top, that's what I was calling "the end of the Flood" meaning the end of its rising, all the water it was going to bring over the earth had been brought over the earth, all the strata its going to deposit it has deposited. It's now STANDING, it's just before it recedes.3) NOW WE GET THE UPLIFT: At that point, at the end of the rising of the Flood or soon after, THAT is when all the tectonic activity begins and the uplift is caused by the tectonic movement. The tectonic activity is also the cause of the erosion of the upper strata that carved the GS begins, the erosion that broke up and washed away all the strata in the GC area down to the Kaibab, the magma dike, the faultings, all that, begins AT THE END OF THE RISING OF THE FLOOD WATERS, after all the strata are in place. I think the uplift caused the uppermost strata to crack, and that became the channel for either the receding Flood waters or the big lake that was undammed by the tectonic movement.This order of things: STRATA ALL IN PLACE, THEN UPLIFT AND CUTTING OF CANYON AND EROSION OF OTHER FORMS -- is apparent on the cross sections. Good grief I hope it's clearer now because of what I've written above. THE UPLIFT BEGAN RIGHT AT THE END OF THE FLOOD'S RISING, AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE STACKED UP. Not if the uplift also uplifted the lake and the tectonic movement that caused the uplift broke its dam. I am the one who first pointed out the problem with the RIVER'S being redirected because of the uplift, way back in this miserable mess of a conversation, so I am WELL AWARE of the topographical situation, thanks anyway.WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THE IDEA OF NARROW CRACKS? You refuse to call those cracks in the surface of the Grand Staircase, but THAT is what I have in mind for the cracks over the GC, HUGE SPLITS in the still-damp strata, huge yawning gaps into which the strata on either side collapse. And these cracks travel the distance of the canyon, they aren't just little cracks in one place. They open up UNDER the standing water. OR the lake pours into them.But I need to stop this post here and will try to be more specific about how I see this in the next post.I just hope the bizarre misreading has been cleared up.

Right, you don't know a thing about my arguments, you haven't been following any of it, you just have faith in those smarter people and in your bias against creationism and that's all you think you need to denounce me.By the way, can you show how the varves and tree rings arguments are false? Nope, you can't can you? You've merely bought the party line about them, that's how easily you cave in.You don't say what kind of creationist you were. Were you a Bible believing Christian or what? If that's what you claim you were, then you should KNOW that the varves and tree rings arguments are wrong because they contradict God's word. That's where we have to start. If you don't know that much then your faith was very weak and you'll never be able to come up with scientific answers to such claims. You merely caved in to the uniformitarian assumption, but it's false and you should have known it's false. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But your arguments were wrong.

Piranha.