Lionz wrote: Tzor,
What are you meaning to argue against? What does Burlingame Canyon have to do with the Touchet beds regardless of whether or not the Missoula Floods are mythological floods called on to help explain stuff laid down by the Great Flood?
Burlingame Canyon formed in a different way.
Lionz wrote:Player,
Did Gould not say the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology regardless of whether or not he's gotten frustrated about a creationist using words of him to support creationism? He might have noticed that there was an apparent lack of transition fossils and helped come with a secular theory that went against mainstream evolution theories as a result of that as opposed to seeing it as evidence against universal common descent, but where am I being deceptive and what am I misusing?
I already answered this.
Lionz wrote:Can someone help me figure out what Player's said about the Grand Canyon? Not counting simply calling on water and time and shifting land if that occured? Can someone help me understand where each canyon here comes from if this shows just upstream from it and there's a canyon within a canyon shown?
Each canyon was formed through essentially the same proces, but in different time periods. I already gave you more than one link to the processes and traditional explanations in the "young earth again..." thread.
However, to give you several years education in geologic processes, hydrology, etc. is not possible here. If you refuse to accept what has been proven, what scientists say, then you need to go to your library and pick up a few books in geology or do some more searches on the internet until you at least understand how and why they come up with their ideas.
Again, this is the problem. Creationism, from the outset is a pretty basic idea. It formed from one single idea about what the word "day" must mean, etc. Evolution, by contrast was a theory only built up over a long period of time. One can say it almost began with Aristotle's discussion of fossils. It became more "solidified" and people became more aware of it and accepting of the idea with Darwin'g publications. However, He was only one step in the continuation of developing this set of theories. Amost Every paleontologist, geologist, many biologists, physicists, on Earth have, in a sense, been adding small pieces (some more, some less) to the theory. Understanding it FULLY, that is, understanding the proof and why it is so well accepted now, why so much of what young earth creationist sites put forward is NOT true takes time. I made a stab in that other thread, but roughly 50 hours on the thread was not enough to even get you beyond "but what about Noah"... and you still keep bringing some of the same pictures back (the test tube versus Bryce, for example, claiming that the layering looks the same -- it does only if you don't look closely). Again, if I did not answer your questions, fine. However, I also showed you were you can find the answers and the process you needed to follow to get them, to find where the proof truly lies and the true explanations. If you don't like the internet, then head for a nearby university. Most will allow you to read books in their libraries, even if you cannot check them out unless you are a student.
