YECxy Rexy wrote:
: Have you ever looked at the carved up mountains, hills and valleys?????
Many times. Have you?
: Have examined
I see you're having trouble with English again. Perhaps you should take a remedial course.
: the remarkable similarity to the Mount St. Helen's canyon that was carved our very quickly?
There's no similarity in detail at all. Your claim is taken directly from the silly notions of Steve Austin and company of the YEC Institute for Creation Research. No real geologists take their claims seriously, because they're demonstrably wrong.
Obviously you haven't trekked around in the mountains, hills and valleys, and seen any of this for yourself. Have you even been to the Mt. St. Helens devastated area? I have. It's comprised of thick layers of volcanic ash that were observably deposited very quickly, whereas sediments in places like the Grand Canyon were deposited over many tens of millions of years. And of course, there are many older ash layers from St. Helens and other Cascades volcanos all around the Pacific Northwest.
For example, walking a trail in a little monument near Mt. Rainier called The Grove of the Patriarchs reveals a thick ash layer from a big eruption of Mt. Rainier from about 6,000 years ago, overlain by dirt, overlain by a thick ash layer from St. Helens from about 2,000 years ago, overlain by more dirt, etc. The Cascade volcanos have been erupting for millions of years, as can be seen by simply looking at the eroded state of some of them. Some, like Mt. Bachelor, and St. Helens until 1980, are fresh. Others, like Mt. Hood and Mt. Adams, have a significant amount of erosion, which takes a long time. Mt. Rainier is at least million years old, as can be seen by the severely eroded state of the mountains that partially ring it. Still others, like Mt. Washington in central Oregon, are eroded down to tall spires. The Cascade Mountains are clearly the result of many millions of years of volcanos popping up, spewing lava and ash for awhile, and then eroding down to nubs, whereupon new volcanos appear on top of the old remnants. Obviously, this demonstrably long sequence doesn't fit with YECism.
A week ago I spent a day "digging dinosaurs" near Glen Rock, Wyoming, in the company of some staff of the little fossil museum called Paleon, which was started by paleontologist Robert Bakker a decade ago. I found a small handful of fossil bits of ancient animals, such as garfish scales, pieces of fish skulls, bits of crocodile and ceratopsian teeth (like Triceratops), and even a couple of raptor teeth. I dug through a matrix of soft and semi-hard rock to get at them. The matrix was clearly from a river environment, and the entire area contains a number pockets of fossils like this, which shows that they accumulated in calm river pools, and were later buried under layers of river flood deposits. The entire ensemble of deposits in the general region, including much of Wyoming, Montana and Colorado, was once nearly ten miles thick. The lowest layers are Jurassic (early dinosaur period) in age, with late Cretaceous (later and last dinosaur period) deposits exposed in Glen Rock. Exposures of every age can be found in the region.
A few miles west of Denver is a little park where one can see ancient strata tipped up at about a 45 degree angle. Many of the layers contain dinosaur footprints. One can see that the strata containing these footprints are quite thick, so that there was a very long time period when dinosaurs walked through soft muck, which then dried and was buried, and the process repeated many times. This is perfectly understandable by normal geological principles, but impossible according to the self-styled Flood Geologists who claim there was a global flood a few thousand years ago. Why? Because the animals that left the footprints would have already been drowned, and there simply wasn't time for the dozens of observable layers containing footprints to dry up, be buried again, and for the process to repeat and repeat. Finally, it's not possible for such soft layers to turn to hard rock in just a few thousand years, then be tilted up at a steep angle, and finally for so much sediment to be removed from the Rocky Mountains as they rose up through the thick sedimentary layers.
More on the YEC claim that the Grand Canyon of Arizona and Colorado formed during Noah's Flood: This is abject nonsense. One of many disproofs of their claim is that most of the unconformities between rock layers contain all sorts of land features, such as stream beds with their associated cobbles. These cobbles are just rounded boulders from the rock layers the stream flowed through. Now, it's obvious that rounded boulders are made of hard rock, and they can't form from soft sediments, because they first have to be yanked away from the larger matrix of rock (such as by weathering) and then have to be worn down as they tumble downstream. There's no way that they can form under a huge flood from the soft sediments being deposited. It's evidence like this, and massive amounts of it, that disprove a global Noah's flood.
The point of all this is that it demonstrates conclusively that there was no global flood a few thousand years ago. Anyone who knows this evidence and ignores it is by definition braindead.
: Catastrophism at it's finest.
Fake science and quackery, you mean.
: You are right about the uselessness of arguing, so why do you do it?
Because there are lurkers who haven't yet had much exposure to real science, having been braindead JWs much of their lives. They need a dose of reality.
: If I am so 'braindead' and 'foolish' then you don't have to say a thing, do you?
Not for my sake.
: Or, is the idea that the Great Intellectual Alan might just be wrongheaded and on the road to oblivion too much for you to stomach?
LOL! The usual Fundy threat. You don't really think that scares most people on this board, do you?
: Here is an example of your standard tactics when you meet someone that doesn't believe your world-view:
That's among the most stupid things you've said. My comments have nothing to do with my "world-view" -- they have only to do with the demonstable fact that I presented actual evidence, whereas you presented nothing but nonsensical claptrap containing no evidence at all. I gave you a couple of prods to present evidence, but as usual with YECs, all you can manage is complaints about being called a spade. You simply ignored the evidence presented, and as I said, that's the definition of braindeadness.
Readers who want to see the extent of Rexy's, um, mental handicap can look here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/95902/1.ashx
: >Of course, being a braindead YEC, you don't recognize evidence when it goes against your presuppositions -- namely, that there was a global flood cuz the Bible sez so.
Have you given any evidence that my characterization is wrong?
: >The point is that I can either present a hell of a lot more evidence against a recent global flood, or I can refer any reader to massive tomes on the subject. But why waste bandwidth on morons?
Have you given any evidence that you're not a moron, by actually given some real, live evidence for you claims?
Let's note my challenge to you, which you also ignored, and for obvious reasons left out of this bit you pulled from my post:
:: But since you seem to want to challenge knowledgeable people, you go right ahead and present any evidence your little heart desires, and let's see what happens?
Note clearly the challenge to present evidence. I then said, with regard to this challenge:
: >But I'm fairly sure that you're going to run away at this point.
: Still here, bro!
Physically, but not mentally. And as I said, since you failed to reply to that post, and have failed to give any evidence at all for your claims, my prediction was right. You've run away from presenting any evidence.
Such is the brain damage that YECism produces.
AlanF