YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution

They use old earth calculations in their work, it is true, but these calculations are very small part of how they go about their work, and therefore don't mess it up too much. Mostly what is of importance is simply the underground configurations, the contents of the rocks, and the ancient age terminology is mostly windowdressing.

Those equations are based on assuming that the water in the aquifers has always been maintained by the same processes, no? The age of the aquifer water is assumed and unimportant is how I read this. You are talking about replenishing an existing system, the age of which you really do not know. The calculations no doubt are fine for predictions since they are about how long it takes to resaturate the existing system given the current conditions that feed the aquifers, and the old earth assumption is irrelevant. That is, it's going to take the same amount of time to resaturate it depending on rainfall and saturation rates, whether it actually took that amount of time in the first place or was already saturated 4500 years ago.Look, I'm sure I have various factors out of whack in my thinking about these things. Precision ought not to be the point though. I'm trying to deal with the overall picture that's being presented with general concepts.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again, there is no reason whatever to think the original ocean was salty.

They don't *know* what temperatures were in the past except by evo theory and their formulas are based on that. If pressures were greater in a big catastrophe, perhaps the adjustments would not matter a whole lot as far as outcomes go.

I don't argue from the idea of appearance of age. When it comes to anything on planet earth I don't see any appearance of great age at all -- it all appears to be about 6000 years old. Great age is nothing but a mental construct, all just based on the evo fantasy. I certainly see an appearance of great age in the stars, but that's why I leave astronomy out of this discussion.

Didn't you see my original comment on this? How did it get lost so soon? It's not that far back. The salt is leached from the continents. The salt water bodies on land are created by the same means, salt from the ground.Oh, it was Message 138Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

MY ADDED BOLDING.1) I registered a long time ago and then did not return for a number of years. I've only been posting regularly since the Spring of 2005.2) I don't read a lot of the creationist threads here because they have too much specific science as well as some oddball things I can't follow.3) I did read creationist books, such as those by Henry Morris however, so I will comment on that as follows: There is nothing in this quote to imply one type of sedimentary rock, but he's obviously talking about the EXISTING GEOLOGICAL COLUMN THAT WE ALL KNOW AND LOVE, that is, the "global continuity of sedimentary formations" -- and he next emphasizes its worldwide continuity -- and says it appears to have been formed by the "continuous rapid deposition of SEDIMENTS -- SEDIMENTS PLURAL."Continuous rapid deposition" does NOT mean "simultaneous" as you put it somewhere yesterday. It means RELATIVELY RAPID considering how much sheer volume of stuff is involved. Of course. And there was no need for arguing that "elsewhere," Arach, it's OBVIOUS he was talking about sequential deposition in the first quote. How on earth could he have been talking about anything else? He's talking about the EXISTING OBSERVABLE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN. Good grief. Absolutely not. He neither said AT ONCE, nor ONE LAYER. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's fine. I already said paleontology has to go in my first message on this thread.

That's a smarmy lie. The Flood is the well considered explanation for a great deal of phenomena. It isn't just thrown in.

That's been answered a million times over and it's off topic on this thread. And that thread is just a lot of stupid jokes.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I've said half a dozen times already, OF COURSE Paleontology is one of the sciences that is most at odds with YEC. What's strange about that? I nevertheless assume there's a lot of everyday science they do too that isn't a complete loss.From my Message 9 which was answering Message 1 in detail: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All this crap about creationist motivations is off topic and illegitimate argument in any case. Creationists ARE geared to answering evolutionism at this point. Nothing wrong with that, it's exactly what they should be doing. There aren't that many of them. We can hope that eventually we'll have some good independent creationist science too. It will come.

This thread is not for getting specific. I consider it a LOT to have been accomplished on this thread to get two scientific descriptions of everyday scientific work on the table where it is clear that one is fine with YEC and the other probably completely fine with YEC.If you are having a problem with definitions that's your problem.
Your mangling of what Henry Morris said doesn't bode well for your ability to understand a definition even if I provided one.

OFF TOPIC!!! You and jar are doing exactly what Moose said would happen to this thread, taking it into minutiae of scientific questions, WHICH IS NOT WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.

I DID NOT ANSWER YOU BECAUSE IT IS A COMPLETE TANGENT, WHICH I ALREADY EXPLAINED ONCE, and would get me off what I want to do on this thread. You are just wasting space on this thread with your questions, and so is Arach with his stupid remarks about creationist motivations.