Unanswered Questions

[bluejatheist]

Waiting on your replies, Stripe, or are you afraid to address matters when you're clearly wrong?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Wait what?The photo Anachronous Rex linked to is a picture of the Grand Canyon.

No, it's not. It's from the San Juan. A few hundred kilometers upstream.

EDIT: Wait - sorry. I was thinking of the image posted on page 1. I'm guessing both images are from the San Juan, but Rex's is labelled "The Grand Canyon".
ANOTHER EDIT: Rex's image is from just north of the funnel.

How can that photo be of "what a large, slower moving body of water carves" when you are claiming that the Grand Canyon was formed by "removal of the top layers, the centre of the "funnel" buckled upwards under gravity creating a long crack"?

That was under a draining lake. The funnel was where the lake breached.

It seems you are claiming that part of the Grand Canyon was created by "removal of the top layers, the centre of the 'funnel' buckled upwards under gravity creating a long crack" and part of it was created by "what a large, slower moving body of water carves". It would be nice to get some clarification on this and answers to this post.

You can always admit your errors as well.

 

[Stripe]

]It seems you are claiming that part of the Grand Canyon was created by "removal of the top layers, the centre of the 'funnel' buckled upwards under gravity creating a long crack" and part of it was created by "what a large, slower moving body of water carves". It would be nice to get some clarification on this and answers to this post.

That's what happens when a lake breaches. Depending on where you are, you'll see dramatically different processes at work.

I already answered your questions.

You can always admit your errors as well.

Like when I misidentified Rex's photo and corrected myself? Like that, you mean?

 

[bluejatheist]

]It seems you are claiming that part of the Grand Canyon was created by "removal of the top layers, the centre of the 'funnel' buckled upwards under gravity creating a long crack" and part of it was created by "what a large, slower moving body of water carves". It would be nice to get some clarification on this and answers to this post.

That's what happens when a lake breaches. Depending on where you are, you'll see dramatically different processes at work.

I already answered your questions.

You can always admit your errors as well.

Like when I misidentified Rex's photo and corrected myself? Like that, you mean?

Still waiting.
You know what, times up. I win.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

That's what happens when a lake breaches. Depending on where you are, you'll see dramatically different processes at work.

You are claiming the Grand Canyon was both carves slowly and created by having a great lake drain away on top of it? Explain further, with citations.

I already answered your questions.

No, you did not. Have another look.

Like when I misidentified Rex's photo and corrected myself? Like that, you mean?

You have made many others.

 

[Dean]

Stripe

["¦]

["¦] You can always admit your errors as well. ["¦]

Like when I misidentified Rex's photo and corrected myself? Like that, you mean?

That is an obvious example but it is certainly not the only one. I also notice that you have yet to address several objections to your arguments, such as the (very) simple mathematical problems I raised pages ago.

Cherry-picking which replies are worthy of response seems to be a rather irritatingly noticeable habit of yours, as Hytegia pointed out (implicitly), also on page 2.

 

[Stripe]

you have yet to address several objections to your arguments, such as the (very) simple mathematical problems I raised pages ago.

I responded to that. :roll:

Exquisite, So, around 15,640 Cubic Km of water took two weeks to form a 300 mile canyon with a volume of 4170 Cubic Km, agree?

No. Much of the sediment that was removed started life saturated in water.

And some of the space in the GC today was not carved by water.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

you have yet to address several objections to your arguments, such as the (very) simple mathematical problems I raised pages ago.

I responded to that. :roll:

No. Much of the sediment that was removed started life saturated in water.

And some of the space in the GC today was not carved by water.

Which is not an answer because it doesn't say what it was supposedly carved away by.

 

[Stripe]

Which is not an answer because it doesn't say what it was supposedly carved away by.

It wasn't carved away. :roll:
I explained what happened.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Stripe, did you actually watch the three videos to which I - and scalyblue - linked?

If you had, you would not be persisting with these claims.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Stripe]

Greetings,Stripe, did you actually watch the three videos to which I - and scalyblue - linked?If you had, you would not be persisting with these claims.Kindest regards,James

I think I've seen them before. They obviously weren't very convincing. :lol:

Most critiques of Dr. Brown's work show compelling evidence that the assessor has not read the material. :roll:

 

[Frenger]

Greetings,Stripe, did you actually watch the three videos to which I - and scalyblue - linked?If you had, you would not be persisting with these claims.Kindest regards,James

I think I've seen them before. They obviously weren't very convincing. :lol:

Something tells me you didn't watch it very well.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,Stripe, did you actually watch the three videos to which I - and scalyblue - linked?If you had, you would not be persisting with these claims.Kindest regards,James

I think I've seen them before. They obviously weren't very convincing. :lol:

Most critiques of Dr. Brown's work show compelling evidence that the assessor has not read the material. :roll:

Perhaps you'd prefer a creationist rebuttal of his work, given that you don't seem to accept rebuttals from scientists'?

Answers In Creation

And here's a more in-depth exploration of his "hydroplate theory":

A Few Silly Flaws In Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory

And, just for completeness, Talk Origins' take on the matter.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Stripe]

Perhaps you'd prefer a creationist rebuttal of his work, given that you don't seem to accept rebuttals from scientists'?

Mate, I've read plenty concerning Dr. Brown's work. And I stand by my statement that critiques have generally not made investigation beyond the very superficial. TO's article, for example, is utterly laughable.

If you have issues you think are strong against Dr. Brown's work, feel free to ask them. I know the book better than any of those authors you mention.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Perhaps you'd prefer a creationist rebuttal of his work, given that you don't seem to accept rebuttals from scientists'?

Mate, I've read plenty concerning Dr. Brown's work. And I stand by my statement that critiques have generally not made investigation beyond the very superficial. TO's article, for example, is utterly laughable.

If you have issues you think are strong against Dr. Brown's work, feel free to ask them. I know the book better than any of those authors you mention.

Given the length of your sentences and your inability to actually hold a discussion at any intellectual level, I'm quite surprised you could sit down and read "The Cat in the Hat" by Dr. Seuss, let alone a book of such lengthy prose that you shrug off without any actual details beyond "it's wrong" with an implied (because I haven't actually read it).

:roll:

 

[Frenger]

Perhaps you'd prefer a creationist rebuttal of his work, given that you don't seem to accept rebuttals from scientists'?

Mate, I've read plenty concerning Dr. Brown's work. And I stand by my statement that critiques have generally not made investigation beyond the very superficial. TO's article, for example, is utterly laughable.

If you have issues you think are strong against Dr. Brown's work, feel free to ask them. I know the book better than any of those authors you mention.

Ooooooookay. Well, on his website "Dr" Brown says

For example, have you ever wondered how the Grand Canyon formed? Since the late 1800s, the standard answer has been that primarily the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon over millions of years. If that happened, wouldn't you expect to find a gigantic river delta where the Colorado River enters the Gulf of California? It's not there. Nor have geologists found it anywhere else.

Well, if you do a google image search (as Potholer54 did in his video that you "watched") you can see them.

Mr Brown says that later in his book he will explain where he "thinks" all the dirt and mud and layers of rock went, could you explain where he says it ended up please, along with citations or evidence to back up his claim.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Perhaps you'd prefer a creationist rebuttal of his work, given that you don't seem to accept rebuttals from scientists'?

Mate, I've read plenty concerning Dr. Brown's work. And I stand by my statement that critiques have generally not made investigation beyond the very superficial.

You have not addressed Morton's critique, which - despite his not being a creationist of any sort - was posted on the Old Earth Creationist site, Answers In Creation.

Apart from the mathematical issues, he mentions a number of Biblical/theological issues as well.

Would you kindly address all of these?

TO's article, for example, is utterly laughable.

Dismissing it as such does not prove what you're saying is true. Explain why it's "laughable" with counter-evidence.

If you have issues you think are strong against Dr. Brown's work, feel free to ask them. I know the book better than any of those authors you mention.

You do not refute another's mathematics by "knowing the book better than any of the authors you mention".

Kindly give a mathematical critique/refutation of the second author's (Arthur) response to Brown's presentation.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Stripe]

Mr Brown says that later in his book he will explain where he "thinks" all the dirt and mud and layers of rock went, could you explain where he says it ended up please, along with citations or evidence to back up his claim.

In the Gulf.

 

[Stripe]

Would you kindly address all of these?

Why don't you pick out one or two that you think are substantial challenges to Dr. Brown's ideas and I'll address those.

Dismissing it as such does not prove what you're saying is true. Explain why it's "laughable" with counter-evidence.

Counter evidence? TO didn't present any evidence to counter. It's authors simply did not investigate enough to have constructed a reasonable challenge. Had they looked, they would have found very simple explanations to all three of their challenges.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Would you kindly address all of these?

Why don't you pick out one or two that you think are substantial challenges to Dr. Brown's ideas and I'll address those.

All of them are.

Dismissing it as such does not prove what you're saying is true. Explain why it's "laughable" with counter-evidence.

Counter evidence? TO didn't present any evidence to counter. It's authors simply did not investigate enough to have constructed a reasonable challenge. Had they looked, they would have found very simple explanations to all three of their challenges.

And you haven't refuted theirs either.

Come up with your own refutations of the various points raised by all three authors.

Kindest regards,

James