Replies

[Only a creationist would be so ignorant as to think that gullies in ash are comparable to the kinds of features found in the Grand Canyon]

Apparently you are as ignorant about Spirit lake as you are about Hovind.

Nope.

"gullies in ash.." You're either ignorant of your subject or a liar.

Look, son, even the creationist AnswersInGenesis clearly describes the composition of the material the gullies were carved into:

"For erosion, see the 100-foot-deep Engineer’s Canyon on the north fork of the Toutle River (diagram, left), like a model of Grand Canyon. It was carved very quickly by a catastrophic mud flow from a Mt St Helens eruption through earlier pyroclastic deposits."

Pyroclastic deposits are primarily ash and pumice, son.

The vast mudflows in the aftermath of the eruption may have included ash; but, they were hardly 'ashflows' as you would profer in ignorance.

Are you twisting what I actually wrote on purpose through dishonesty, or just because you're a moron who can't read?

I didn't say that the "canyon" was formed by "ashflow" (I never even used that word), I said that they were gullies formed "IN ASH", which indeed they are. Even AnswersInGenesis agrees.

The "canyon" was formed by carving INTO ASH deposits *by* a large mudflow passing over the ash. Try to get it straight before you spout off more ignorant belligerence like:

Go learn something and come back when you know what you're talking about. Don't waste our time pontificating from ignorance.

That advice applies far better to yourself, son.

[Is being an obnoxious know-nothing a *requirement* for being an anti-evolution creationist? It sure seems like it.]

Are you twisting what I actually wrote on purpose through dishonesty, or just because you're a moron who can't read?

Havoc does this often. For example look at post 1012, and then Havoc's response in 1016, deliberately completely missing the point. I question whether "bleeding" could be described as a scientific theory, so he assures me (apparently with a straight face) that bleeding was a common practice. When I pointed out in 1018 that he was responding to his own misunderstanding of my post and not what I'd actually posted he dropped the issue without any further clarification on his part (despite still being around in the thread). Weird, or what?

The river bed wasn't "gullies in ash". Sorry. The mudflows choked the river and damned it up until the water backed up overflowed the mudflow and cut through it. That is what I am referencing. If I'm comparing one river system with another, comparing "gullies in ashe" with a dammed river is not a proper comparison. So, again, it isn't about "gullies" in ash. It's about mud and debris damming up the river till the river overflows it and cuts through it in no time, leaving sedimentation layers behind in similar fashion to grand canyon. If you can find some gullies in grand canyon that we might wish to compare, I'll see a relevance. But, we are talking about what a river presumably did - in the case of Grand Canyon, the Colorado river. Given that the river enters the canyon well below the top line of the carved sediment, that would be a miracle in and of itself; but, that's another discussion.