Grand Canyon - Design in Ecology

More Grand Canyon by Gary Parker - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN5uAXLFO7I . The Channeled Scablands; Scientific Bias Against Catastrophism. "In the end, the truth of catastrophism did win, but it took more than 50 years to see the project through. And this was despite the fact that the event in question was relatively easy to document through field observations." E. K. Peters, No Stone Unturned: Reasoning About Rocks and Fossils, 1991, pp. 78 and 84. http://nwcreation.net/scablands.html.

Design in Ecology - http://www.icr.org/article/236 .

Grand Canyon Lava Flows: A Survey of Isotope Dating Methods - http://www.icr.org/article/282 .

Were Grand Canyon Limestones Deposited by Calm and Placid Seas? - http://www.icr.org/article/337 .

Excessively Old "Ages" For Grand Canyon Lava Flows - http://www.icr.org/article/353 .

Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology - http://www.icr.org/article/42 .

Quotes by Evolutionary Scientists Against Evolution - http://www.warneveryone.com/evolution_scientists_quotes.htm

Live broadcasting with instant message - http://www.justin.tv/warneveryone

KJV1611 Bible - http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=authorizedversion&search=Search

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• crxxxev
• creation
• evolution
• Dinosaur
• whales
• stars
• moon
• earth
• comets

[gregrutz]

The ‘Super Group’ of rocks in the Grand Canyon are below the level layers at the east end. These layers were laid down level, block faulted into mountains [they are tilted], worn flat, and then the Teapeats Sandstone was laid down over the basement layers. Then another 5000 feet of sediments was laid down, some wind blown desert sands, some corals. Then the whole area got raised to 8000 feet above sea level. Finally water flowing down hill cut the canyon. How long do you think this took?

[ktorch]

Well, please expain your method of dating such natural occurances? And about Noah and the ark. There would have had to have been over 6 million species on the ark, and there was ony 8 people aboard to keep them fed and alive. Hardly a story I could believe.

[MarkG45]

facepalm.jpg

you said you understood sarcasm. You lied.

[MarkG45]

God damnit, this is like discussing modern philosophy with Paris Hilton. Research the fundamentals before evolution before you spout such incredibly ill-informed bullshit. Whine all you want, creation COULD be right, but YOU don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.

[MarkG45]

...I can also predict the future when it comes to atomic theory. I predict that if you mix an acid and a base, a "reaction" will take place. I also predict that if you throw a ball up at less than 9.2 x 10^9 m/s, it will come back to the Earth. It's amazing what scientific theories can predict, and things that appear to be self evident to the educated must appear as voodoo magic to the ill-informed such as yourself.

[MarkG45]

Didn't you say sarcasm wasn't above your head, or was that another lie?

[MarkG45]

actually...that is evidence. It's a difference subspecies (It's actually Canis lupus familiaris to be factual). It would be a mixture of sympatric speciation, and artificial selection. Sometime in the near future, the subspecies will fully speciate, like Canis latrans, the coyote. (Some coyotes can still reproduce with dogs). It's all moot, you clearly don't even the basics of genetics if you think it supports creation.

[MarkG45]

I've also had trouble with people stating fundamental scientific truths as facts, who's to say that babies really come from sex? I heard a convincing tale that they came from storks.

[MarkG45]

Sarcasm must be above your level. Of course it's stupid, the theory of gravity is fact, anything else is laughable. And now, to connect the dots for you: "Of course it's stupid, the theory of ____ is fact, anything else is laughable (like hilarious bend-over-backwards claim about the grand canyon)". Fill in the blank.

[MarkG45]

yes, and like other scientific theories, learning is hard. But the Earth being sticky is so much easier to understand than the complex theory of gravity, so it must be true too, right? It just flies better than subatomic particles being attracted to one another. And that's not even going into how atoms are theory, not fact.