When I look at flood geology as a whole there is one observation that overpowers everything that flood geologists are saying: it is dogma. There is no potential evidence that would falsify flood geology. It really doesn't matter what the evidence is, so why do flood geologists argue about the evidence?
Be honest. There is no evidence we could ever show you that would change your mind. If you think I am wrong then I urge you to show me up. Describe for me the features a geologic formation would need to have in order for you to admit that flood geology is falsified.
Oh come on Tangle that's REALLY ridiculous. The earth isn't made of marble, and the earth would have been pummeled by rain for 40 days already., Whatever could dissolve would dissolve. If it rains for even three days off and on where I am I get a six inch deep muddy stream outside my door. Don't tell me it's all that different where the rest of you live.
The Carribean is under water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and yet limestone is accumulating at a rate of a few mm a year. Why do you think that is?
Oh we do adjust all the time to new understandings about how geology works. It always improves our knowledge of what the Flood would have done. But what you don't seem to notice is that establishment geology, same as evolutionist science, that is, the sciences that pertain to the PREHISTORIC PAST, are just as speculative and once established just as dogmatic and unfalsifiable.
Is this a tacit admission that flood geology is unfalsifiable? Are you saying that no matter what the evidence is you will still cling to flood geology?
What I think about the Grand Canyon is completely in accord with what creationist GEOLOGISTS think about it . . .
We are more interested in conclusions that are in accord with the evidence. Showing adherence to a theological dogma may play well in church, but it doesn't play well amongst scientists.
I haven't misunderstood the Grand Canyon at all, . . .
I am pretty sure you have.
1. Coconino sandstones: these are windblown sand dunes. They are not flood deposits.
2. Great unconformity: A great picture can be found here. In this case, we have sediments tipped at about a 30 degree angle to the rest of the formations. How does a flood make these deposits? One flood can't. It is completely inconsistent with a flood.
3. Incised meanders: Catastrophic flooding does not produce incised meanders like those found here. Catastrophic erosion by flooding produces wide, straight channels, often with braiding. Only a slower moving river produces those types of meanders, and a slow moving river will not excavate the Grand Canyon in the time needed.
Those are just 3 problems with your claims. There are many others. Again, don't tell us that your views are consistent with creationists. We want to see views that are consistent with the evidence.