Donkeytron said:
I can't beleive I had to dig all the way back in the thread to address this monstrosity, but fine. I think showing one or two points to be complete bunk should be sufficient to show that the rest of the post is of similar quality.
Actually, it is. Try and find a "catastrophism" scientist who isn't also a fundamentalist christian.
So you are telling me that no scientist who is not a creationist believes in mass extinctions? meteorite impact? I think we both know that is not true.
Most surfaces on the earth were covered with water at one time or another. We can see mountains forming today via uplift.
Indeed, we also see faults, etc. However, what you are unable to account for is how the soft strata slope in places, not breaking, as a result of obvious uplift. Nor did you attempt to explain items being pushed through soft strata without breaking. Moreover, the point is not that there was water. The point is that they find marine and terestial fossils in the same area, in the same strata.
All these claims have been repeatedly debunked.
1. The Grand Canyon contains some major meanders. Upstream of the Grand Canyon, the San Juan River (around Gooseneck State Park, southeast Utah) has some of the most extreme meandering imaginable. The canyon is 1,000 feet high, with the river flowing five miles while progressing one mile as the crow flies (American Southwest n.d.). There is no way a single massive flood could carve this.
2. Recent flood sediments would be unconsolidated. If the Grand Canyon were carved in unconsolidated sediments, the sides of the canyon would show obvious slumping.
3. The inner canyon is carved into the strongly metamorphosed sediments of the Vishnu Group, which are separated by an angular unconformity from the overlying sedimentary rocks, and also in the Zoroaster Granite, which intrudes the Vishnu Group. These rocks, by all accounts, would have been quite hard before the Flood began.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html
owned.
Now a few questions about your own view, and some interesting evidence for ours:
A. There are several areas where strata are missing from the formations, representing millions upon millions of years. What happened to those ? Sounds a little odd doesn't it? Especially since no erosion occurred in most of the strata, and the contacts are completely flat, which is the same thing that happens in underwater deposition today. Within the Tapeats Sandstone formation there are huge boulders from other formations mixed in. How would gradual carving account for that?
Here is an article dealing with erosion, flat contacts, missing strata, etc.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/15075.htm
B. The river cuts directly through an uplifted area, the Kaibab Upwarp. How would this happen? Rivers don't flow OVER hills. At current erosion rates it would take 71,000 years to wash all of that sediment that is currently there out. That is a short time to account for some theories as to how this happened such as mountainous uplift etc. Some say that the current load was only born a couple of times, but their explanations for this are a bit convoluted.
C.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_floods_020621.html
lists an instance on Mars of a canyon cut in a very short time. It is incredibly steep and a mile deep. The main difference is the width of the plain at the bottom. But given the difference of materials being cut through that might be expected. In any case, it clearly does not take millions of years for it to happen. Moreover, if you notice their image map, there is some meandering there too. Of course, on Mars no one is all that worried about explaining it to be the result of millions of years.
D. Some of the more recent lava flow on the top layers test to be older than the bottom layers through radiometric dating.
E. A rather detailed look at the possible pre-flood rock formations:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/58007.pdf
F. megabreccia as evidence of catastraphism associated with the Grand Canyon:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/05039.htm
This is called ad hoc. A real theory of noahic flood requires you to take all evidence into account, like, say the fact that none of the other civilizations extant noticed this flood, or the fact that there isn't enough water on the planet, or the fact that no ice cores or tree rings from that time period record said flood. As of this moment, a flood theory is impossible, seeing how the evidence disproves said flood.
Modern civilazation is a recent phenomenon, starting at roughly the same time around river basis. Since I don't accept a literal 6,000 year date I am not overly worried about that evidence. The only evidence we have of 6k years are the geneologies which show obvious telescoping etc.
Dendrochronology uses overlapping to establish dates, and again, past a certain point does nothing for you.
Ice core presumptions are also based on uniform levels of glaciation etc. which some examples show are not true. In fact, glaciation itself is now known to occur rapidly. So the concept that current stable glaciers have always been so does not hold up.
As to ice breaking up during the flood
There are indications of temperature differences and irregularities in the two ice cores from the deepest selections of the Greenland ice sheet, indicative of possible cracks due to buoyancy.
First of all, this jumble you posted focuses on geology, biology, and genetics. I know its fun to lump these things into one big ball of evolution hate, but they are all separate. The only thing creationists can do is look at incredibly narrow (often fraudulent) "data" that fits their theological presuppositions. What does it tell you that it was christians who originally falsified the YEC model some 200 years ago?
First you said it was a cut and paste job,assuming I took it from some other source... . Now you say it is a jumble. I think you are dodging the arguments.
Who said anything about hate? Of course I addressed different areas because the question is a large one. Was it not you that said there are 150 years of accumulated evidence? And you want me to look at only one point?
The underlying theory of evolution involves one overarching necessitylong time periods. This is the key to the genetic changes, the key to the strata, the key to the fossils, etc. So it is not unrelated at all. Now if you truly wish to be scientific, stop your arrogant talking and simply give evidence.
And why not take a shot at the rest? You said you wanted the best argument, but you seem to have avoided the best arguments in my article. Why would you do that?
And I notice you still give no thought out comprehensive view of your own. Why not? Afraid I might poke some holes in that too? It is always easier to shoot down someone else's details than give your own.
The least you could do is summarize some talkorigins posts.
And might I mention, you seem overly stressed at all these Creationist sources...you don't consider talkorigins to be a biased site? Do they show evidence of any theory besides evolution? Of course not. They are a clearing house for debaters. That is biased by definition.
Ignore it S7 -
