Hydrologic Evidence for an Old Earth

I guess I just don't understand this whole thing. I don't get why my answer that a worldwide Flood would have saturated and filled what became the aquifers, indeed created them, doesn't deal with what you are talking about. No ridiculous Last Thursdayism is implied. The formula for how the water gets replenished when depleted since then is something else. I assume the rate calculated applies NOW.{Edit: P.S.
1) I can't follow all the math of course, but can you answer whether the math depends upon the old earth ASSUMPTION? That is, is it built from that as a premise, rather than even considering a more recent beginning?2) Your answer on the other thread assumed salty ocean water in the Flood. That is not assumed by YECs (based on some Biblical hints), so that should be taken out of any consideration of the Flood answer.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What do you mean by "push through rock?" You mean water absorbed BY rock?

So we're talking about water contained within rock, not just surrounded and contained by rock, and the time to replenish it has to do with the rate of permeation of various rocks.

Are the rocks that contain the water part of the geologic column, that is rocks laid down in the presumed time frame of a particular portion of that column?

So the idea is that as far as the aquifers are concerned the rock was already there, just as it is now, and water seeped into it over time? Without challenging that view of the Flood at this point, I have to remark that the very sharply defined differences between sediments that make up the geological column defy a long-term (millions of years) buildup explanation at least as much as a Flood explanation.

This is off topic here I believe, and I've discussed many other places before anyway.

That's the idea, a LOT of mud in that flood. Took a loo-o-o-o-ong time to dry out.A worldwide flood would involve multiple currents at multiple levels going multiple directions, as well as tides and waves, just as the oceans today do. It's not exactly your "homogeneous body of water." I don't know about wind deposits, but a worldwide flood could certainly leave limestone deposits in one place and in another place create streambeds from the prodigious amount of runoff that would have occurred in the drying-out phase, which would have lasted a loo-o-o-o-ong time, and probably laid down layers of sediment too while the flood had not yet completely receded.But my point was that whatever you can say about how ridiculous the flood scenario is, can be said back about the ridiculous idea of thick worldwide layers of homogeneous sediments with predictable fossil contents that don't spill over into the layers above and below, but just stay right there in their own peculiar sediment bed, sharply demarcated from the different sediments above and below, very sharply and neatly. Millions of years of only one kind of sediment-plus-particular fossil contents maybe, followed by millions of years of only another completely different kind of sediment. I know I've said this a million times and it's called an argument from incredulity, but some things just don't make sense on the face of them if you actually think about it.{Edit: But instead of contemplating the just plain nonsense of such an idea, what is done instead is to set about figuring out complicated ad hoc explanations for each particular layer and locality based on the old earth assumption.{Edit: About windswept sands, I know some rocks have patterns that are normally created by such conditions, so that is how they are explained. I'm incredulous about that too, of course, that this deep dune would take millions of years to create and then ...sharply, suddenly just come to an end while all this limestone-in-the-making (or clay/shale or whatever) starts building up on top of it and finally compresses it to sandstone in a nice neat layer over millions of years.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Comparing bathtub water with a worldwide flood is beyond comment. So it's one MIX, who cares? It's one THING separated out from another completely different kind of MIX-thing, and in any case the obvious difference from one to another and the sharp division between the layers makes no sense on a millions-of-years scenario. And as a matter of fact MOST of it IS one pecular kind of sediment. That's how they got their name, you know, the Coconino Sandstone and the Tapeats Limestone and all that.The iridium is evidence of a meteor hit some time during the flood,the iridium from which was carried along on the surface of a sediment-laden current or wave until the whole shebang finally settled down and dried out. The KT boundary cataclysm is nonsense.{Edit: Not that you care but you obviously haven't read one thing I ever wrote on past threads about this subject, which got pretty involved. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Really it would be mostly sediment-saturated water, sediments carried along in currents and waves. And there's nothing "magic" about the destructive power of forty days of steady deluge plus turbulent seas encroaching on land with tidal waves and currents carrying all kinds of stuff. What's an aquifer? An underground area of porous rock and spaces that contain water, rock that could have started out wet sediment that then hardened under the enormous pressure from above.However, again, the idea of the millions of years scenario for all those neat layers with their neat contents does not compute

There was no significant erosion at the bottom of the ocean in any creationist scenario I'm aware of.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So funny people can say such things with a straight face. There are these millions-of-years-long periods of slow accumulation of just one kind of sediment, or mix of sediments -- usually called by the name of one only and pretty uniform at that despite your claim -- and then ALL OF A SUDDEN CRASH BANG the climate on the whole planet just up and changes and NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT for another long slow period of Sl-o-o-o-o-w accumulation. And this pattern of long calm accumulation punctuated by total alteration repeats itself dozens of times, hundreds of times. Weird. But of course you don't see it, right? You've got to believe that's the way it happened.{edit: And at the rate of a foot every two thousand years, there's no way sediments are going to bury organic things fast enough to allow them to fossilize. The whole scenario is wacko.}I would suppose that iridium is very light and floats nicely on the top of sediment-laden waters. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, my my my, when does Faith EVER get it right, ya know? You guys are a joke. There is nothing wrong with my descriptions of the layers. I've seen them myself and read countless descriptions of them.

I'll take your word for it. Perhaps it floated on top of some very dense material in the waters. The way it is thinly distributed looks like it floated in, that's all.Curious, is tritium also very heavy?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nobody said the flood wore down granite mountains.Nobody said everything had to occur all over the world in a flood.

Can, but that isn't the theory about the formation of the majority of the layers. Just so funny that the planet will go for multiplied millions of years just quietly collecting sediment at the rate of a foot in two thousand years, and then decide to have a total change of garment overnight as it were -- a few thousand years is overnight, so what? It's the fact that the layers are so TOTALLY discrete that makes it certain it can't have happened that way. For this to happen once or twice, sure, but over and over again. Too silly for words. I know, it's totally ludicrous of me to look at the things and have my own assessment of whether it could have happened that way or not. That's OK. I'm used to the accusation. I don't debunk the whole science, but I know you all like to say so. If the other thread on that subject hadn't been hijacked I'm sure it could have been demonstrated that the daily work of geology is no problem whatever for YECs. I just figure the basic configuration of the layers is so taken for granted, so totally accounted for in old earth theory that the ridiculousness of it can't even be seen. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.