Summations Only

You can't "KNOW" in any scientific sense that there was a worldwide Flood because you have no evidence of such an event. As I noted in my previous message, you're not following scripture anyway. Actually it's about 0% certain, because we know without doubt that sediments fall out of suspension in water according to their size and density. Since the layers of the geologic column are not organized with the largest and densest material on the bottom and the lightest and least dense material on top, a single world-wide flood could not have created them. The stratification into layers of different types speaks to different depositional environments that persisted for tens of thousands of years. You have a proven ability to use words like "nuts" and "ridiculous" but have demonstrated no talent at all for explaining the evidence and reasoning behind such assessments. You repeatedly say that everywhere you look says "flood" to you but can never explain how the evidence supports that. You cite Berthault as if his name were a magic word, thereby telling us that you have no idea that he only demonstrated already known principles (apparently his knowledge of geology was no more recent than Steno, who died more than 300 years ago) that have no application to the flood anyway. And like all your other conclusions, this one about how good your points are was arrived at in the complete absence of positive evidence and amidst a flood of evidence to the contrary. The measure of the strength of ideas is their ability to convince, and so far all you've accomplished for your own ideas is convincing people of their naivet and infeasibility. What evidence did you use to reach this conclusion?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Minor wordsmithing in 4th para.Edited by Percy, : Fix typo in 5th para.

But Faith, you're just saying this because it's your standard knee-jerk reaction to what you perceive as an insult. Your reasoning for saying this seems to be, "They insulted me, so I'm going to insult them."But we didn't insult you. We assessed your arguments and gave evidence and explanations for the assessments.You *are* ignorant, as you've demonstrated numerous times about things like upstream cutting of waterfalls and slope retreat and how suspended material in water falls out of suspension.You *do* have an inability to reason, as demonstrated with the discussion about stream flows.You *do* lack visualization skills, as illustrated by your inability to grasp the significance of the bathtub example.You *do* lack math skills, as you showed with your inability to comprehend the simple equation "velocity = volume / area", and as you conceded anyway.You *do* lack interest in counter-evidence, as witness your attitude about radiometric dating.You *do* lack introspection, as you've demonstrated numerous times, for instance by calling our reasoning faulty because our intellects are fallen when this must, by definition, be just as true of yourself.You *do* put Biblical interpretations above all else, you've told us as much many times.You *do* employ primitive rhetorical techniques like name calling, declaring victory, ignoring arguments (and entire messages, the more details they contain the more likely it being that you'll ignore them).But if you wouldn't, in completely clueless fashion, make ridiculous statements like, "I've pretty much proved the Flood," people wouldn't feel compelled to point out the many reasons why that statement is so ludicrous.--PercyEdited by Percy, : You're => your.

So we have an incised meander, and the profile of its cut into the landscape looks like this: And then the walls collapsed and produced this: What are you imagining to cause increasing sidewall collapse with increasing elevation above the canyon floor? Why are the canyon walls collapsing at all? What evidence do you have from the modern world of vertical canyon walls in the process of becoming sloping due to collapsing walls? The answer is none, because once again you're making up a process that has never been observed and that has no mechanism.--Percy

No, Faith, it is not a lie. Shall I quote you saying that Bible takes precedence over everything else? Shall I quote you drawing conclusions in the total absence of evidence? Everything that actually happens leaves evidence behind, and everything we know or will know is an interpretation of evidence left behind by things that have happened.Evidence comes to us in many guises. Some of it was just created, some of it was created last week, some last month, some last year, some last century, some centuries ago, and some millennia ago. The age of evidence is not a factor, and a witness to the evidence as it was being created is not required.Certainly quality is an important factor for evidence. The passage of time can diminish the quality of evidence, even destroy the evidence altogether. A little rain might decrease the quality of a footprint, a lot of rain might make it disappear. On the other hand, a sandstorm depositing a foot of sand over the footprint might preserve it for an indeterminately long time. Practically everything you've proposed involves impossible processes that have never been observed. Whatever you need to have happened, "poof", it happened, with no explanation from you whatsoever of how it could possibly have happened. You've argued at odds with the physical facts. Your frequent declarations that the flood best explains the evidence have never been accompanied by anything that connects your scenarios to the facts. As we've sought answers, explanations about how things happened have been increasingly vague and confused and more remote from the facts (such as how cracks formed the canyon or how incised meanders formed suddenly) with requests for clarifications unanswered. I agree with you that that Morton webpage (Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism) is sparse on facts, particularly about the details of the buried canyon, and that we should provide them. Anyone? The webpage does give links to a couple articles that seem to have gone stale, but I was able to track one down. This article contains an example of a deeply buried karst, but unfortunately you have to be a member to get more than the abstract: I'm also uncertain of the significance of the deeply buried karst, so maybe someone could explain.About details of the canyon itself, Morton says the site where he found the image is now gone from the web. This isn't an example of evidence-based argument, not even close. You keep protesting strongly that you do argue from evidence, but this example is typical, and even in the best cases you're just arguing past the evidence which never suggests anything like what you propose. Can you see the irony of your protests about shabby treatment?--Percy

If you're rejecting the radiometric data out of hand for reasons that you make up, then no, you're not using the same observations as everyone else.--Percy

This is just you once again declaring something so with no supporting evidence or argument whatsoever.--Percy

How is it that the Flood jumbled fossils all up, but neatly sorted sedimentary layers?How is it that the Flood only jumbled up fossils of a certain type in each sedimentary layer, but never jumbled them up between layers? For example, how come the jumbled up fossils in the Redwall Limestone are never found jumbled up in the Kaibab, being instead jumbled up within a layer but never between them?By the way, in reality fossils aren't generally found jumbled up, if by this you mean many fossils all mixed up together in a very small area. It does happen that we find fossil graveyards, but that's when we get lucky. Fossil graveyards are the exception, not the rule.--Percy

Once again you've made an argument without substance and even without any accuracy. You said Heathen had no clue what your arguments are, yet he quoted your argument that the flood was non-miraculous and gave a detailed rebuttal. You completely ignored it and instead attacked the person. Great job!The Bible itself says both the beginning and end of the flood were miraculous, you claim to be following the Bible, yet you reject that there was anything miraculous about the flood. As I said before, you're following neither God nor science.--Percy

This is a bald declaration with no evidence supporting it, and with all the ice core evidence that Frako did mention contradicting it. Another bald declaration with no supporting evidence. More bald declarations and still no evidence. Even your Biblical claims have no foundation because the Bible does not describe Noah as having "extraordinary health and vitality." All the Bible says is, "Noah was a righteous man, blameless..." The Bible also relates God telling Noah, "I have found you righteous..." There's nothing in the Bible about Noah's "extraordinary health and vitality." Apparently you not only make things up about science, you even make things up about the Bible. And you still haven't explained how the huge humber of human parasites could have ridden out the flood in the guts and skin of a small band of humans without killing them by their sheer numbers. Yet another bald declaration with no evidence, and the evidence we do have contradicts your claim, since human specific parasites have been found in ancient human feces that predate both your flood and your supposed creation.--Percy

That's because radiometric dating is one of the essential bodies of evidence about which you're ignorant. We're all just agog at your ability to convince yourself that your scenarios make sense while fully aware of your ignorance in many areas.--Percy

More dissembling from you. The coral data is consilient with all the other dating data. There is no puzzle.It would indeed be a puzzle if some dating data indicated a young earth and other an old earth, but all dating data indicates an old earth. The last ice age ended by around 10,000 years ago. There is no evidence of an ice age beginning 4300 years ago. You're making things up again. Given how wrong you've been about the Lord's word as recorded in the Bible, presuming to speak for God is a bit of a stretch for you, wouldn't you say? Again, it is not possible for you to know in any scientific sense that there was a worldwide Flood 4300 years ago, because there is no evidence that any such thing ever happened. The strata of the geologic column are as far as can possibly be from what a flood would deposit. First and foremost, the heaviest and densest material would be at the bottom and the lightest and least dense at the top, but that's not what we find. The layers would differ and be ordered by size and density, but that's not what we find. Fossils would appear in no particular layer or order, but that's not what we find. Radiometric materials would date the same from top to bottom, but that's not what we find.The strata we find in the geologic column are pretty much the same as those being deposited today beneath our lakes, seas and oceans all around the word. Sedimentary layers were formed by the same processes in the past as they are today. Certainly there are far more fossils than there could have been life in existence at the time of your supposed flood. There's even far more fossils than could have lived in the 2000 years before the flood. Just the amount of limestone alone is more than could have been deposited in a mere 2000 years, since the deposition rate is around 4 inches per year yielding a depth after 2000 years of about 700 feet. There's far, far more limestone than that in the geologic column. Leaving out what man has done to the planet, how could you have any criteria for what a wrecked planet looks like? Compared to the moon, Mars, Venus, Mercury and the other planets, the earth doesn't look wrecked at all. Far from it. You say this as if it hadn't been thoroughly rebutted. You've even been completely unable to describe why you think the region should have experienced more tectonic activity than it did. You just keep declaring, without any evidence, that it should have. This is just another bald declaration with no supporting evidence. Any region of net deposition, whether terrestrial or marine, will be flat. Just another bald declaration with no supporting evidence and literally megatons of evidence contradicting it. Now you're just making things up wholesale. There is no global genetic bottleneck from 4300 years ago, there is no evidence of any significant change in human heterozygosity over this period, and the evidence we do have rules it out. The amount of genetic variation between races rules it out all by itself since so much variation could not have occurred in so short a period of time. Species are already going extinct at increasing rates, but we're the cause of that. As for your predictions of increasing genetic diseases and increasing mutations, good luck with that. Unless the laws of physics, chemistry or biology change, these will remain largely unchanged for the foreseeable future.--Percy

What, you've run out of ideas for new mistakes to make so you're repeating old ones?As you well know, man wrote the Bible and God wrote the rocks. God's true testament is in the rocks.As you also well know, even if your babbling about "fallen human minds" were true, it is as true of you as it is of everyone else. In fact, the evidence strongly suggests that your mind is far more fallen than anyone else here since you're claiming to follow the Bible while misrepresenting what it says.You go on to say that you don't have to listen to fallen human minds, but that makes even less sense. According to you Christians, there isn't a human mind on the planet that isn't fallen, so I guess you're not listening to anyone, including yourself. Makes no sense, but it does explain a lot about you. These are just more bald declarations with no supporting evidence, plus since you keep making claims about what the Bible says that are patently false it would seem to indicate that your "darkened fallen mind" is a bit more darkened and fallen than the rest of us.--Percy

Let me repeat that last part, but without the shouting: "There is no longer any evidence of them to be found."Yes, Faith, that's exactly right, there is no evidence for your claims. Tell us, please, how you magically tell the difference between something that never happened and something that happened but left no evidence behind. But there's no evidence that the Grand Canyon is the result of cracks in the earth.What's more, the Grand Canyon is only running east/west at this particular cross section. As you can tell from this image that I presented before, in the Grand Canyon region the Colorado River flows first south, then west, then north (the yellow outlined area is the meander we were discussing at the time I prepared this image): I agree there is no point in comparing existing faults, for which we have evidence, to your fictional cracks for which there is no evidence.AbE: And just to mention once again, I'm pretty sure we're all completely lost when it comes to understanding how the water got up into those elevated cracks. If someone actually understands your scenario then I hope they explain it, but if not then it's up to you. I've posted questions to you about it in several messages, but you haven't replied to those messages.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix misplaced markup. AbE.

I've given Faith the same feedback and explained that's why I'm only focusing on the lake scenario. I'm trying to understand how the water from the burst lake flowed uphill into the cracks, and where is there evidence for a lake higher than the rim of the canyon anyway. I'm just looking for a description clear enough to allow me to understand how Faith thinks it happened. So far all her explanations have been either too ambiguous or they contain internal contradictions or both.--Percy

This isn't complicated to understand, Faith. That cross section is of a point in the Grand Canyon that happens to be running east/west, but the Grand Canyon is pretty long. The eastern part of the Canyon runs mostly north/south, and so does the western part. Here's the image showing the path of the canyon and the Colorado again: You're dissembling again. We understand what you're trying to get across, and you're pretty obviously just ignoring why you're wrong. These cracks that you keep talking about had to run north to south in the eastern canyon, then east to west in the central canyon, then east south east to west north west for a while, and then finally in a number of directions but predominately south to north in the western part of the canyon.But more importantly, there's no evidence of any cracks. You're just making it up. There is no cracking in that cross section. What you keep referring to as cracking is just the Grand Canyon, which was carved by the Colorado River eroding downward through the landscape, just like all rivers do today according to their specific circumstances. The definition of "irrelevancy" is not "things I don't have answers or evidence for." Everything we're bringing up is very relevant, and playing the evasion game doesn't change that.--Percy