Summations Only

No, Jon, I calculated it as the STARTING speed, 11 feet per day is the average speed, which would have been attained around 100 BC.And by the way, let's get the history of this information right: I was correcting Pollux's wild estimate of "miles per day" as the supposed creationist idea of the speed. Since I had calculated it a few years ago I informed him that the speed I had come up with was 20 miles per day as the STARTING speed, continually slowing down from there to today's 2 to 4 inches per year. 11 feet per day works out as the average and that would have occurred around 100 BC. The point was not to defend any of it, merely report it, and I'm not interested in defending it now either.But you are welcome to refigure it if you like. It's very simple. I'm not dealing with all the other plates, just the Atlantic ridge, the others may be slower or faster. (I did figure the Mediterranean Sea was probably narrower though and widened at a much slower rate than the Atlantic). Anyway the calculations are simple: it would have taken 4300 years since the Flood to move North America and Europe 3000 miles from each other. See if you come up with a different number than I did.ABE: Funny, I'm now coming up with an AVERAGE speed of about four and a half feet per day. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

• a single Bristlecone pine is 5,063 years old
• Bristlecone pine, Irish oak and German oak dendrochronologies extending over 8,000 years into the past
• continuous age measurements that extend well past any YEC model known
• layers of sedimentation that cannot occur by single event floods -- alternating coarse and fine layer for example, alternating terrestrial and marine deposits for another
• Lake Suigetsu varves
• Green River varves
• distribution of fossils by depths found, not jumbled
• foraminifera evolution over 65 million years
• existence of salt beds mixed in with layers of sediment
• evidence of old age in Uranium halos
• evidence of old age in speleothems in the Grand Canyon walls
• lack of matching DNA species bottlenecks in all species
• lack of any short lived radioactive elements that don't occur by decay
• the natural fission reactor at Oklo
• thousands of years of undisturbed marine life deposits in single locations including delicate formations
• many layers of marine deposits on mountaintops, including Everest -- spanning thousands of years
• evolution of fossils shown by progression in later layers
• multiple ice ages
• formation of sand
• formation of organic soil
• plate tectonics and vulcanism compressed into a few thousand years would create an inferno like Venus
• evaporite beds (evaporative, arid environment; prolonged surface exposure
• lava dams (13) in Grand Canyon at different times
• air-fall tephra (surface exposure)
• orbits of the moon around earth, planets etc
• age of the universe

etc etc etc with more to be added as whim strikesin essence ∑{ALL OF SCIENCE}Virtually everywhere you look there is evidence of great age.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : +Edited by RAZD, : .

The argument for the Flood and against Old Earth interpretations that I've been pursuing in this thread is based on the observation that sedimentary rock strata as shown in the Grand Canyon area were deposited miles deep without any tectonic or volcanic or earthquake-faulting disturbance to them, including the cutting of the canyon itself, until after they were all in place.ABE: (with the single exception of the Great Unconformity, those tilted layers beneath the horizontal Tapeats layer at the bottom of the horizontal stack, but there's even an argument that the tilting also didn't happen until all the other disturbances happened).Plus the objection to the idea that a rock layer = a time period of millions of years, completely on the basis of the sediments and fossil contents of that rock. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

While ignoring the information of grain size distribution in the layers that show they were not deposited in a single flood event, the information that shows slow meandering erosion instead of large catastrophic cascading erosion (like the scablands and Palouse canyon exhibit), the information from the speleothems that show long time erosion at different levels during the development of the canyon, the development of the canyon from west to east instead of east to west, the evidence of surface erosion on many of the layers that show time between deposition, depositions that were terrestrial alternating with marine, and many other facts.Science doesn't cherry pick among the facts but develops explanations that include all evidence as best as possible. Which is just your undereducated opinion based on belief rather than science. Unfortunately opinions have shown an extremely poor record of being able to alter reality in any way shape or form.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrty

So it's based on an obvious outright lie? OK.

Please justify the following statement, "And I don't think all your detailed work REALLY supports this conclusion either."I have seen no evidence that suggests you know the names of the rocks or understand the significance of the minerals that compose them, or even that you understand the very basics of geology, so why should anyone take anything you say regarding geology seriously?If you can provide a well-reasoned and cogent argument to support the above quote, then you have the right to post in this forum. If you can't or won't, then I suggest you move onto topics and fora more suited to your limited capabilities.You are correct, however, that you do not need an in-depth knowledge of geology to have a discussion here. You, though, have failed miserably not because of simple ignorance, but due to an incurious mind-set and a ginormous ego that prevents you from learning a damned thing. To date, your assertions in this forum are silly and indefensible, and come from a place of utter ignorance and fantasy.

Double post.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Hi roxrcool,
You testiness is understandable. To have someone tell you that what you do for a living is virtually a fraud is insulting. In the last couple of years I have been reading some Geology and am developing an understanding of how much can be learned from a detailed study of the minerals in a rock. Faith is like someone telling a doctor that you can know from looking at a patient across the room more than with a detailed history, examination, and investigations.
I have to disagree with you on one thing. You said she has an incurious mindset. I think the set of her mind is indeed very curious!

Agreed. While it's rare for YE Creationists to accept OE science, it happens. We've seen it here a few times, so it's theoretically possible for it to happen to Faith as well. I think a realistic goal with Faith would be to get her to admit she doesn't know everything. That her knowledge and understanding of geology is less than what a first year geology student learns in the first quarter of the year. That she doesn't know what she doesn't know, but that this is easily remedied if she would just take the time to actually read and learn. Agreed. Sadly, that's why I no longer participate. I kick myself every time I let her ridiculous posts tempt me back. But I love what I do and I just can't stand seeing my science being lied about incessantly by Creationists.I have so much respect for people like yourself, RAZD, Moose, Jar, Dr A, and so many more here who have the patience and the passion to continuously argue with people like Faith. It does make a difference, because others are reading these posts, throwing off the shackles of ignorance, and recognizing the quackery that is YECism. But damn! It's hard to sit here day in and day out, refuting the same ol' crap.

A curious mind seeks knowledge, experience, and honest answers to honest questions. Faith wants to mock, lie, and aggrandize her own ego.I stand by my words.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

IF what I said is true, about the strata being all in place before any major disturbances occurred to them, all the specifics you are talking about have to be irrelevant. The Flood was NOT just any flood.

And I stand by MY words. It doesn't take a big ego to argue for a very limited range of observations that I'm convinced is the truth, none of which impinge in the slightest on the detailed work of a geologist EXCEPT where you claim it supports OE theory. It doesn't have to.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

... then monkeys would fly out of your butt.Perhaps instead of indulging in fruitless speculation about imaginary geological conditions and hypothetical butt-monkeys, we should turn our attention to the actual rocks.

Nothing you've offered in this thread proves anything I've said is a lie. Only the Great Unconformity can be interpreted as occurring before the strata were all in place, which is how angular unconformities are conventionally interpreted, and I happen to believe it occurred afterward, but I've put aside that argument for now. The cross sections posted support my argument. All your other pictures show that the disturbances occurred after the strata were already there as I've been claiming. Erosion between the layers is not of a magnitude to support the idea that the layer was on the surface. There is such a thing as a different interpretation which has nothing to do with lying.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is not true.