Summations Only

Yes, dear. Now go tidy your bedroom.

Torrential rain over 40 days may erode some soil off some hills, though it's unlikely that much damage would be done. But rain, no matter how heavy, will nor erode rock over 40 days. If it was the case that heavy rain could erode rock that quickly we'd have no mountains now.

wtf is a dissolvable sediment? Earth does not dissolve. The discussion should really end here. No mountains 4,500 years ago? Lunacy. Very sound advice, I suggest you take it. It does no such thing - except for some isolated examples, heavy rain does not cause mass mudslides. We know the effects of flooding because we have floods.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

You've been told that 70% of the earth is under the oceans and you've been told that a very large proportion of sedimentary rock formation is in the ocean and you've been shown that the floor of the ocean is mostly flat.Why don"t you address these points.

It has every relevance, that's why I bothered mentioning it. At least one reason you see large areas flat rock is because they're often formed under the oceans.

quote:

---

Sedimentary Rocks

​

Sedimentary rocks form when mud and sand are deposited in layers on the Earth’s surface. The layers are deposited in many environments including oceans, rivers and deserts. These layers of sand and mud are later buried. The weight of overlying layers compresses the mud and sand to form solid rock. Because sedimentary rocks begin to form at the Earth’s surface, they tell us about ancient landscapes.

​

Basic Information About Sedimentary Rocks

​

Sedimentary rocks are deposited in layers, usually underwater, with the oldest layers on the bottom and the youngest layers on the top.

---

That took 30 seconds to findhttps://www.nature.nps.gov/...s/DETO/HTML/ET_Sedimentary.htm Don't you do any research at all, do you just sit there making things up? The ocean floor is very varied with all sorts of structures in it but with huge expanses of 'prairies' - ie flatness. Escpesvially where sediments are being laid down.This took me well over a minute:

quote:

---

Each area of the seabed has typical features such as common soil composition, typical topography, salinity of water layers above it, marine life, magnetic direction of rocks, and sedimentation.

​

Seabed topography is flat where sedimentation is heavy and covers the tectonic features. Sediments comes from various sources:

​

Land erosion sediments, brought mainly by rivers
Underwater volcanic ash spreading, especially from hydrothermal vents
Microorganism activity
Sea currents eroding the seabed itself
Marine life: corals, fish, algae, crabs, marine plants and other biologically created sediment

---

Seabed - Wikipedia

So we know that it's sedimentary rock and we know it's marine and we know that marine sedimentary is laid down over flat surfaces. Like snow flattens a landscape.What IS the problem?

All of science says you're wrong. All of it. Moreover it can provide the evidence.Are we supposed to take the incredulity of an unqualified fundamental Christian as equal counter-evidence? Perhaps not.

No shit!!!I'll add law to the long list of scientific disciplines that you know are wrong. Only Faith is right, always.

And the force of the flood was strong enough to gouge out the pure rock of the Grand Canyon to a depth of thousands of feet yet left footprints in wet mud (and dinosaur nests complete with their eggs) in place. Almost like magic!

Well I'm surprised at least. The flood that carved through rock that doesn't remove muddy foorprints is pretty surprising don't you think?

You'll just have to help my pitiful thinking out. You see, I'm struggling to recognise this gentle rising of water you describe here with the storms, torrential downpours, and explosive 'fountains of the deep' that took only 40 days to cover the whole earth to a depth higher than the mountains. Then receded with such power and erosion that it cut through thousands of meters of rock, whilst leaving intact fragile muddy footprints (and dinosaur poop).And I compare this mental image with another one of leaving wet footprints in the mud of a tidal estuary I fish in and seeing a very low wave from the incoming tide remove my prints in an instant.Maybe you can think for me?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

That's not true is it Faith? You know that there are multiple different forms of dating from independent sources that all support the same conclusion about age. You don't address it because you know that you can't.But that's not even the beginning of it. We know there was no global flood because it's not there in the geological record. We also know that there are civilisations that existed before and after the dates you insist on that were amazingly undisturbed by it. If all the animals and plants on the planet were killed at the same time, we'd find evidence of it in every genome we sequenced.Then we have the fact of evolution and the fossil record supporting it, confirmed by molecular genetics.That's before we even consider the cosmological evidence.All these different and totally independent obsevations had led every branch of science in one direction for the last 200 years.But here you are with your ancient book that no-one knows who wrote telling us what a trilobite is one day and the next how complex sedimentation processes work. With no training in any of it. None. ICANT has been explaining big physics and quantum theory to us in a similar way having never studied physics and not getting beyond high school maths. You've never even seen a trilobite have you, let alone studied one? Yet you know better than the accumulated knowledge of hundreds of world experts.You sit there at your computer simply mking stuff up without the slightest concept of what's necessary to produce a real bit of science. You have no concept that your ad hoc ideas have to fit into all the other branches of evidence not just seem to make sense on their own. So you ignore the way fossils are sorted, you ignore dating methods, you ignore the hundreds of thousands of interlinked observations that make up the real story and substitute one primitive belief.It's a feat, Faith, I'll give you that; I certainly couldn't do it. I'd be schizoid in a week.

So you accept that the earth is at least 10,000 years old?

It's a statistical impossibility to have consilience between dating methods but different 'absolute' dates. For this to be true several independent variables would need to be in error in different ways and yet converge on the same conclusion. And in any case we know the error range within each method which makes the calculation irrelevant.Moreover, the range between science's billions of years and your 6,000 years is so far outside any possible error to render the calculation redundant.You are avoiding looking at this area because you know it sinks everything you believe in.