Piasan: The problem is that a little force will create a canyon that meanders and has sharp bends... like the Grand Canyon. A lot of force will tend to push right thru making turns much wider .... like the Snake River Canyon.
Yes but you can't then say the reverse. It's not quite as simple as this, I don't quite mean that axiom as some kind of binary thing, obviously force has many levels, and with the flood there are many stages. It's not just a matter of *bang* a great big tsunami then it assuages. In fact the flood model has stages. The recessional stage has two phases, the abative phase (a lot of force) with sheet water flow off, this is what caused the 30 mile channel at grand canyon in which it sits. Then there is the dispersive phase, with less energy.
Of course it's begging the question to say a little force will create grand canyon over a long time because you don't know that any more than if there is a 40 foot gouge in the roadway and rain sits in it, that the rain caused the gouge. The St Helens canyon was cut in days, which has many striking similarities to grand canyon, which is something we do genuinely know and have witnessed. Focusing on dissimilarities between the two isn't logically sound if those differences are only there because of scale. What truly matters is we 100% know, that a canyon can be cut in days with many similar features and some similar topography. To expect the grand canyon to form at St Helens in days, on a miniature scale, would be highly unrealistic in my opinion since the cause of the two canyons wouldn't be the same. But for those features we would expect it to be able to create, it did create.
It's not a debate really, because they watched the canyon form in days, proving canyons can form in days. The size of the water flows at grand canyon and the "meandering", is easily explainable if the river is left there. According to my axiom the river could still act on soft rock, and shape it, a lot faster than the same effect on hard rock over millions of years. That meandering was likely cut quicker when the river was slightly larger, and the rock relatively fresh. So it may be a case of "not either, or, but a bit of both".
Wibble: I don't discard science Mike. What you do is compartmentalize ideas but don't look at the whole suite of facts. You may explain one aspect of a problem in isolation but then not realize/ignore the knock on impact on the rest of the argument
No this is actually what you do, and I have specifically shown you do this in your other thread, when if you are shown something goes against long ages on a point you thought favoured it, you will jump to another issue to change the goal hoop and then say, "now explain how youth explains this".
Your tactic is to forever focus on the portion of evidence which seemingly is consistent with long ages, and highlight the problems for youth.
As I have explained before in depth, to which you called a lot of "unnecessary" ranting, or some such thing - the issue of the age of the earth is a broad debate. Because both positions are based on inductive reasoning largely, and historical, and there is a vast array of diverse evidence, this is why in the past I used the telescope analogy, which you now have forgotten I used.
If we use a telescope to look into the distance to see what a sign on a board says, "5 miles to mikey town", that is fine - because the issue is specific. But with a broad issue, you can't use the same measure. For example you cannot say, "look through my telescope at this one portion of a mountain, look it is covered in snow, therefore your claim the mountain is generally snowless is a lot of baloney".
That doesn't work.
I find it highly ironic and amusing therefore, that you would accuse me of this type of reason when my position personally is that I can't know for sure what happened in the past but you insist on long ages. Furthermore it is even more amusing because each of these topics you create are an example of that telescope analogy. For why would some ammonites (specific) ever pertain to such a broad issue of the ages of the earth (broad).
That is why in these debates, I change the focus of the telescope on purpose as to see more of the mountain. I deliberately bring in other issues because those other issues also pertain to the age issue. But each topic you raise is an attempt to argue, "because of specific thing P therefore conclusion X pertaining to broader issue Z."
That is why I don't really take part in your topics, because this issue of uniformity versus youth/catastrophe, is a very broad issue. You can never pick out some evidence and ignore the rest of the evidence. You have to focus on the type of evidence which is the most consequential out of all of it, and I don't believe you will allow yourself to see the most consequential evidence. A lot of the types of evidence you pick aren't direct evidence of great age, and don't particularly "stop" a flood, they are usually just speculations and a conclusion that because you think a flood couldn't do it but only ages could, you jump to that conclusion.
Now I am not saying you can't debate these individual issues. I am just saying they aren't as important as you THINK they are.
Think how easy it would be for me, for example, to use your tactic. If I made a topic about planation, there would only be silence because how can softer rock erode at the same speed as much harder rock, evenly and flatly, like we find on planated surfaces? See - I could create that topic and constantly say, "how could it be anything other than flood since only water can provide such an erosive force to erode evenly." Now would it be incredibly clever if I just forever focused on that point and dismissed all the other issues that pertain to that broad debate? No, it wouldn't but Wibble seems to think it proves a great deal.
You won't be able to find one thing that can give you prove off evo and not creation. Those "minutia tactics" are often used by people that try to find an obscure science-reason why "it can only mean evo". In other words - obtuse people that think they can get that type of reasoning past the tactically astute.
Wibble: So you argue that a turbulent flow could have laid that sediment (presumably very rapidly during the flood).
No, I would say I don't. I would represent my argument this way; I am saying that it seems to me shale could form in tranquil conditions or turbulent conditions and it seems to me there is a possibility for those conditions with a flood.
That's all I have to say in this topic. Wibble will have his final word because of the ILLUSION that gives to the audience that the silent debater has no answers because he didn't respond. Another very common psychological tactic. Let's hope the readers are clever enough to see through it. I have noted how Wibble must, always have the final word, and it seems to me he thinks it proves a great deal. What it proves is I have spent sufficient energy already to the point it is unfair to ask more of me. It is futile to continue to debate if it goes in circles but the average man thinks that if you just carry on repeating the same things ad nauseam until your last breath, it will prove a great deal.