Sticking to the Grand Canyon at least for starters, because it is easy to visualize, it appears obvious to me that the individual strata are not eroded as roxrcool and others claim they are
You may have noticed, perhaps, that there's a Grand F'ing Canyon running down through the layers? With a river down at the bottom?
Where do you suppose that came from, exactly? Aliens? I don't see how a claim that erosion never occured could be in the least bit coherent with the existence of the canyon itself.
Now if you're talking about non-river erosion, and you're certain that erosional rates exceed depositional rates, it would be nice if you could prove it with the numbers.
AbE: Sorry, that came off as totally abrasive. Let me restate in the form of a question. When you say that you don't see any signs of erosion, are you talking about the erosional origin of the canyon itself, or erosion events prior to that, acting on the in situ sediment masses prior/post lithification?
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-16-2005 01:15 PM
They actually think they've refuted something when they bring in this or that interpretation from their own theory to answer a creationist. They wonder why creationists continue to repeat themselves. They really think that informing us of evolutionist deductions, inferences, guesses refutes anything.
Tell me how an evolutionist could present any information, evidence, models, inferences, etc. that you wouldn't immediately reject because it came from an evolutionist.
I hear this all the time. When I read the Bible and tell people what it says, I'm discounted because it's my "atheist" or "evolutionist" interpretation. (Even though I'm just cut-n-pasting.) When I present evidence it doesn't matter because its "evolutionist" evidence.
I imagine you're pretty proud of the fact that no matter what we show you, you won't change your mind. That you'll resist the devil, or whatever. I imagine you're pretty proud of the fact that you've found an airtight way to dismiss any evidence put before you - no need to actually research it or construct a legitimate rebuttal; it suffices to know that its from an evolutionist, and therefore can be ignored.
I imagine you're pretty proud of that. I wonder if you can imagine how it appears to the rest of us. Probably not.