The TRVE history of the Flood...

As I say, it may have increased or decreased its rate of flow over time, but yeah, more or less. What about it? Rushing water wouldn't have caused meanders: these are only caused by leisurely water.

Why? What is there in the past to verify your dinosaurs theory?

So you're willing to claim that a meander that deep and wide could have been incised by ordinary non-magical water in a mere 4000 years?

Then you don't get to say that it's "absurd" to think that the Grand Canyon could have been carved in millions of years.

But the breadth is just a function of the depth, and of the physical properties of the rock.

"As you have no way of actually seeing into the past, your dinosaur theory is a guess about how we got all those fossils."

Great, so, now the existence of dinosaurs is mere cloudy speculation.When you guys, in order to deny specific knowledge about the past, have to deny that it can be known at all, it shows how weak your case is. We don't have to resort to that, we can say, hey, let's look at the evidence and learn about the past!Imagine two suspects for a crime. One says: "I want to be cleared, so please take my fingerprints, take my DNA, look under my fingernails, swab my hands and clothing for gunshot residue, use UV to look for blood spatter, by all means search my home and vehicle, I will cooperate fully." The other says: "There's no point in doing any of that, the past is fundamentally unknowable and looking at the evidence will never resolve what happened."We know, don't we Faith, which man is supported by the evidence, and which man has something to hide? Not at all, we have loads of documents describing events in the past. I could write one myself.

Show your working? Which sides? Have you tried to visualize what you're talking about? 7 times the volume of the Med, remember? That's a lot of water.

I was talking about your dinosaur theory. The theory that postulates, based on the present existence of a bunch of funny-shaped rocks, that the world was once inhabited by giant reptiles that no-one's ever seen.

Yes, I said it was a ballpark figure.

They're just ... very very very plausible interpretations. Wait, isn't that pretty much what a fact is?

It may be useful if you want to know who to stone to death, but it hasn't worked out that well as an underpinning for science, has it?

Whereas you used your equally fallen mind to decide to treat the Bible as a science textbook.You may never have used your mind after that, but you did use it to get to that point.In that respect, we're in the same boat. The difference is that I used my "fallen mind" to look at the evidence and you used your "fallen mind" to look at a book which contains stories about ghosts, giants, witches and talking animals.

But this is like saying "geology has the means to verify its theories: radiometric dating".Who verifies the telescope? No human has been further than the moon, but we use telescopes to look at the stars.

It was the bit where you said "no way" that requires some sort of supporting argument. Wouldn't the erosion from the mile of strata have filled in the canyon?But apart from that, what puzzled me is that, y'know, water is flat, it finds its own level. Nothing's going to pour over the edge in a great cataract while the land is covered in water. You must be equally sure that there are other places besides Arizona that have been subject to a universal flood.(The reason for the Grand Canyon in real geology is the uplift of the Colorado Plateau.)