The TRVE history of the Flood...

Grand Canyon OBSERVATIONS, not suppositions. Yes, and that is because you can't prove anything one way or another for the distant past. That's the problem with the historical sciences which I've argued many times and CRR just mentioned as well. The dating methods are no exception. And the absurdity of the enormous time periods assigned to rocks and fossils in itself ought to call them into question. Microevolution can produce many new species within hundreds of years. Millions is overkill to the max. Not to mention that producing those new species or subspecies entails a loss of genetic information that is the opposite of what the ToE assumes. AND the neat flat surfaces of the strata certainly belie the long ages Time Periods interpretation. It's really quite laughable if you just open your eyes and wipe away the ToE bias. Yes of course Stonehenge and the pyramids post date the Flood. And all the dating methods you have can't be corroborated for the unwitnessed past.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes it's unfortunate that the first creationist geologists had some very wrong ideas. They couldn't see that ALL the strata would have been the result of the Flood for one big mistake they made. there were lots of silly ideas about what the fossils are too.There were similar silly creationist ideas in biology that Darwin did quite rightly undo -- what is not normally noticed in all this, however, is that those early creationist ideas are not biblical. The biological ideas included multiple creations for instance; the Bible says God created everything in the first six days of creation and then He rested.the leap from these errors to the errors that biology and geology now labor under was not warranted. Hutton brought the Old Earth idea to bear based only on his fallible imagination.And I'm getting AWFULLY tired of being called a liar based only on your different opinion of these things.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, the young earth has lots of evidence on its side. Lots. It's been shown here over and over and over. Your side has evidence TOO, but it's not evidence you can claim to be conclusive, sorry. The dating methods THEMSELVES cannot be corroborated. Referring to other kinds of evidence is not what is needed, because they too are subject to differing interpretations.

Yes it is opinion. Two biblical floods for instance is ...stupid...opinion. And all your dating methods are opinion too, because they cannot be verified for the past they purport to date. Sorry. You guys all call your opinions facts, but they aren't.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

CRR is in Australia and presumably asleep at the moment, so I'll give my opinion:Of course the river is a clue. It's what's left of the huge deluge that carved the canyon about 4200 years ago. But the idea that that little river itself could have done that is so absurd that you really ought to laugh at yourself for the thought.

Ah yes I do remember that you pointed out that some did think all the strata were caused by the Flood. Sorry. I keep remembering the ideas about one layer or another being the evidence, which I thought was generally accepted. Some DID and still do hold this false idea, however.

Bones, dear, bones.I think most of astronomy has been verified by space travel if nothing else. When there's a time machine that can travel to the past THEN we can talk verified -- or disproved -- dating methods.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sure you do, tons of it. All those strata piled miles deep for starters, most of them so neatly distinguished from one another by straight flat contacts. And the amazing size of the Grand Canyon for another.

I didn't say anything about violence. The strata have all the earmarks of following Walther's Law, the layering of different sediments by the rising of the oceans, which of course would describe the first phase of the Flood. Later when the Flood was at its height a different kind of deposition, precipitation out of standing water, would have taken over. There would have been some violence in the earliest phase no doubt, because of the forty days and nights of heavy rain and the consequent saturation of the land, but the layering would have occurred after that.Walther's Law also describes SIMULTANEOUS layering, so that the idea that one layer succeeded another is false, except for the phase where precipitation was the cause of deposition. This has interesting implications for the idea that the layers represent successive Time Periods.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All funneled through the canyon at the current size of the river?What about the enormous width of the canyon?But none of this is relevant since the canyon was cut all at once at the end of the Flood about 4200 years ago, by probably half the amount of the Mediterranean Sea rushing into cracks, carrying broken up strata with it. Over the sides, too.

True, and maybe we'll find out all that is an illusion?I don't claim I have to see living dinosaurs, the bones are good enough evidence for their existence in the past.But there is nothing IN the past to verify your theory of the isotopes.

No.

So the meanders were cut after most of the Flood had drained away, leaving flat plains in some areas, across which some streams continued to flow, such as the Kaibab Plateau. the meanders are all far to the East in the canyon, right?

I think a lot less than 4000, maybe even less than a hundred.

I don't think that river could have carved out the BREADTH of that canyon even in a million years. It might cut down fairly deep.