Summations Only

Then why do so many Christians disagree about the timing or the existence of a global flood? ("They aren't TROO™ Christians" is not an acceptable answer)Is your Biblical interpretation infallible?Do you think that God doe not want us to study and learn from His creation?

Yup. there they are, and no matter what you think of the mainstream explanation they contradict your fantasy.

.Edited by JonF, : Mistake

Then why do so many Christians disagree about the timing or the existence of a global flood? ("They aren't TROO Christians" is not an acceptable answer).Claiming infallibility in anything displays the sin of pride. There is only one infallible Being.When God's creation falsifies your fallible interpretation, don't question Him. Question yourself. Otherwise you are not worshiping Him, you are worshiping an a book as an idol.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

You missed the point. Since so many things you don't know about falsify your fantasy, there's no point in discussing what you think you know; your fantasy is not a viable hypothesis because it's been falsified.Now, if you want to learn about those falsifications and discuss them, that's fine. But claiming to have a viable hypothesis just doesn't fly, whether you understand the subject or not.

Another mouse-button-bounce double post. Percy, I think you can't double-click fast enough.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

His message is absolutely correct. Yours demonstrates the blind and unthinking manner in which you dismiss anything that challenges and/or falsifies your fantasy.

It appears that Faith is incapable on introspection on any subject.Certainly her many claims of certainty about what is possible or impossible while acknowledging she knows nothing about the subject calls her infallibility on any subject into question.

Not an assertion. A conclusion based on many decades of experiments and theory. We understand fluid mechanics pretty well, enough to calculate why only slow flow in a relatively flat area creates meanders. There have been loads of experiments, from high-school labs to MIT to field studies. But you are totally ignorant of all that (and proud of your ignorance), and you are incapable of comprehending the evidence and calculations, so you make up an "assertion" story to make yourself feel better. Total disdain for truth. And incredibly arrogant when you should be humble.

God wrote the rocks, Man wrote the Bible.I know which I worship and trust.

You've demonstrated many times that this is incorrect.

Dr. A was pointing out that the mainstream explanations are just as ad hoc as the claim that there was at least some rain in the past somewhere.To paraphrase Lincoln, calling a theory with almost unassailable evidential support ad hoc doesn't make it ad hoc. Your pathetic excuse for not looking at the evidence doesn't cut the mustard.I notice that you have also taken your sabbatical as an excuse to ignore all the problems that have been raised with your scenario and re-state your fantasy.

Matthew 7:3

Absolutely. It's the only way you will ever find any problems with it. Sitting in your rocking chair making ad hoc stuff up from your abysmal ignorance of the facts doesn't work.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

It's hard to find anything you know outside of the Bible. But I'll name just a fewThe fact that fluid mechanics analyses explain clearly why only slow flow on relatively flat surfaces forms meanders. The fact that field work and lab experiments have consistently shown the same result, meanders are only formed by slow flow on near-flat areas. The fact that there are lots of filled canyons and stream and river beds evident in the walls of the Grand Canyon. The fact that the GC was cut in lithified rock as demonstrated by the near-vertical walls. The fact that lithification takes a long rime because it's a chemical reaction that requires appropriate temperature,, pressure, time, and presence of reactants. The fact that animals don't leave tracks in sand underwatr. The fact that dry free-flowing sand dunes form different angles than underwater ripples. The fact that many, many independent lines of evidence show that the Earth and life are old.You claim to be interpreting the evidence differently. Your interpretation is "possible' because you know nothing of geology (although you have claimed to be ignorant and claimed to be be very knowledgeable, your posts reveal your ignorance), physics, chemistry, astronomy... the list is endless. You have examined so little of the evidence that we can safely say you haven't examined any. Your "interpretation" is just a series of ad hoc assertions without any support and obviously false to anyone with a passing knowledge of the relevant subjects.You've often said that you don't believe meanders are created only by slow flow on near-flat surfaces. List the evidence and theories and mathematics you examined and the logical progression from there to a conclusion, in detail, that you performed to question that claim. We know you won't, because all you did is decide that it can't be tue becaue it falsifies your predetermined belief.