Summations Only

Yeah I'm sure the deluded evos here all agree with you but after the utterly insane straw man arguments you've made against me they should be ashamed of themselves.

Perhaps you've just provided the explanation: as the river formed the meanders and decreased in depth over time, the walls along the sides did collapse and that accounts for the slopes.

We have the same observations of the past and we see do the Flood there, everywhere as I've said, as you should too, but you are seeing through your Theory, not with open eyes. I haven't claimed that you should see God in nature.

Ok, it's quoted from Morton. The reference to your other posts was about the salt post. Like Morton? Who was a YEC?? Of evidence.
As opposed to Faith's interpretation.
Of scripture. As opposed to *creationist researchers* who bring absolutely nothing to the table, who provide no evidence of anything, who whine and demand to be spoon fed basic physics and chemistry so that they too can properly interpret evidence that is simple and very straight forward? Who is this we? Is it wee little you that is too lazy to look up references and investigate anything on her own? Poof, an earth, poof stars and sun, poof Adam complete with memories to walk and talk and get into trouble with Eve. Clearly you see NOTHING that requires time.
We DO see through this. More problems with cracks? You have attributed all tectonic activity to one small window of time.A couple of streets in the town of Pushover, North Dakota. I would continue this discussion but I've spied a homeless person rambling on incoherently into the air. Bye.

Of course you managed to add to the obscurity of the Morton assertions rather than clarifying anything I asked. It's becoming a pattern.The ex-YECs may be the worst since they caved in to the ridiculous excuse for science of the OE and ToE. That ought to be obvious. This is a lie. I've stuck to the physical facts for my arguments on this thread. As I've said before this whole argument is about interpretation on both sides, it can't be any other way with the unwitnessed past. Do wish you'd pay attention.I've "poofed" nothing here, that's your really inadequate imagination at work. I've argued from the physical facts. Nothing Morton said requires millions of years. There is no poofing involved, the actual physical events do not require millions of years.And the objection to Morton is not that he HAS interpretations but that he fails to give the facts from which he arrived at them and that is either unintelligent or underhanded of him, and of you not to have recognized it and acknowledged it. This should have been quite clear from what I said but you are too busy trying to find silly comebacks to bother trying to understand what I'm saying.It's typical of this kind of "science" that just about every article on every phenomenon starts with something like "Five hundred million years ago the blah blah did blah blah and the blah blah ate blah blah and blah blah happened." That's the evo fairytale, that is not science, but none of you seems to know the difference.As for your criticism that I don't follow up all your wearying challenges, sure, make me research every little hiccup from the evos, that'll keep me busy so you don't have to think about anything I've said. Which obviously you don't know HOW to do anyway. Why do I bother answering you? The thread wasn't stellar before you arrived but it's taken a dive since.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You may have the same observations, but you don't use them to reach your conclusions. In fact, you ignore the observations.We observe that slow moving rivers on flat plains produce meanders. You ignore this observation, and claim that rivers with incised meanders were formed by catastrophic, fast flows.We observe that rocks have ratios of isotopes consistent with millions of years of decay. You ignore these observations and claim that the Earth is young, despite these observations.It would be a refreshing moment if you actually did start with the same observations.

[qs] I NEVER SAID IT WAS A FAULT LINE. IF FAULT LINES DON'T RUN EAST-WEST THEN IT WASN'T A FAULT LINE AND I NEVER SAID IT WAS ANYWAY. THE IDEA IS THAT IT WAS CRACKS THAT FORMED EAST-WEST BECAUSE THAT PARALLELS THE MOUNDED PART OF THE UPLIFT,. The fantasy as usual is yours. As with most of you here you just make up stuff without bothering to think about what I'm saying. Science forbid the creationist might be right about something but we can garble it up so well nobody would ever know anyway.The MOUND determines the direction of the cracks I have in mind and its summit runs EAST-WEST. Go look at the canyons and cliffs in the GS on that cross section way back there. THEY RUN EAST-WEST, as did the stress cracks in the upper surface of the VERY SAME STRATA that were originally over the GC.You don't know what you're talking about. All through this thread I've been making very simple reasonable points that you either refuse to grasp or can't grasp. Couldn't let the Flood really be true, could we?

You've of course selected an observation about which I speculated at one point on the thread about meanders, and the radioisotope flimflam which I reject, ignoring all the other observations I've drawn my conclusions from. Just another cheat. I'm learning here that scientists lie and cheat and invent straw man arguments to make their case against creationists. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Then don't pretend that you are starting from the same observations. You aren't.

As I asked back in Message 1675:Why are salt beds so often associated with petroleum and to some extent also coal deposits? I understand the salt domes may become traps for oil but that doesn't explain why they occur together in the first place so that the petroleum could so frequently find its way into the domes. I've done some reading on the subject but haven't yet found that question answered.I'd really like to know what the usual idea is.I'd really rather not hear from shalamabobbi who hasn't said anything of value for some time.

Oh for crying out loud. The same information is available to everybody and you guys make use of it too for your own explanations. Use your head.

The point is that you don't use it, contrary to your claims. The information we have available is how rocks form with relation to inclusion and exclusion of specific isotopes. We also have observations of how radioactive isotopes decay, and what they decay into. Then we have the observations of the ratio of isotopes that rocks have in them.How do you use these observations to determine the age of a rock? You claim to be using the same observations, so show us.We observe that slow moving rivers form meanders. How do you use these obervations?We observe that fossil bearing limestone forms very slowly. How do you use these observations?The answer is that you ignore the observations. You don't use them. You don't have a different interpretation of the same facts. You have an interpretation devoid of facts.

Hi Faith,
You have said it is a matter of interpreting the evidence.
Several times I and others have presented evidence to you that seems to strongly refute a recent Flood. This includes the consilience between C14 dates and tree rings then Suigetsu varves, plus that between sea mount ages and distance travelled supporting other RM dating. All you have done is say you REJECT RM dating, but you have done nothing to REFUTE it, except to say it is not Biblical.

Geveram canyon is a buried canyon in Israel. It is at least 16km long, up to 7 wide and 1 deep. It is in Jurassic rocks and overlain by Cretaceous sediments.
So the Flood would have had to lay down deposits up to Jurassic, then stop to erode the canyon, then add the later layers.Glenn Morton has information on buried rivers and canyons which I have yet to look at.

I didn't say I try to interpret ALL THE EVIDENCE, I've clearly said I stick to the information I know I can answer. Good grief, PAY ATTENTION. I've also said that since I KNOW the Flood occurred I know some of the evidence has to be understood in a different way though I may not be up to doing it personally. I do not feel I have to deal with all the evidence, and I do feel I've made a good case on what evidence I do have. I DO NOT DEAL WITH RADIOMETRIC DATING AND DO NOT CONSIDER IT EVIDENCE ANYWAY, BECAUSE THE METHOD CANNOT BE VERIFIED. PAY ATTENTION.