Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

Yes we've done it to death and I never agreed with you that science that interprets the past has the same explanatory power as science has that can be replicated in the present over and over and over.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So the layer of iridium was deposited during the receding of the water.Nobody claims the Flood has been adequately understood, we're just trying to put together the possibilities. Nothing is hard and fast, we're working on it. What are you so angry about? The science that is used to debunk the Flood is all speculation too, because it has to be because it's about the past which can't be replicated.

So now you know the iridium layer does exist. Happy?I said nothing about being "tied," the point is that science about one time events in the past can't be definitively proved as the hard sciences often can be. That means we're left with speculative methods.Since it is about the past, coming up with an experiment is an unfair request. There are experiments with water behavior and that sort of thing that can be used in the speculations I suppose, but you are still left with speculation about how they apply to one-time past events, but experiment is exactly what CAN'T be done with the sciences of the unreplicable past as they are done in the hard sciences etc. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no way I know of to come up with an experiment to demonstrate how the layers formed miles thick across whole continents on a spherical globe. If I come up with one or find one described on a creationist site or somewhere I'll let you know.As for participating on this thread, I'm not interested in participating on this thread, I'd like to get off it. My interest is wholly limited to the remark I made that the iridium layer can be explained in relation to the Flood. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've discussed all this stuff elsewhere. This is tiresome and your attitude is offensive. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Liar.

Point was it can't be used as evidence against the Flood.

Logical arguments are not wishful assertions.And my attitude has not been offensive, his has, and yours usually is too, just a matter of time.

Don't know anything about Price. The information Clark produced about the great extent of the rock sheets is consistent with the idea of the Flood.

I was answering a different post so if you want to know why I said what I said go back and read it in context.A HUGE amount of the observed facts fit the Flood explanation. The strata and the fossils both fit it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Whatever I conceded I didn't concede the whole general point.

Great. I'm sure ThinAir was working up to it though.

Sure isn't consistent with the idea of deposition over millions of years. Sheesh, is THAT idea nuts. Huge areas of flat horizontal rocks of one sediment? But it IS consistent with the idea of deposition by huge waves covering the land as the Flood receded.

Facts fit theory, theory fits facts. Flood and strata and fossils are a match however you say it. Layered discrete sediments certainly do NOT fit the millions of years scenario except by the most ridiculously ad hoc attempts at scenario-creation. Walther's Law very likely explanation of strata as laid down in rising and falling sea level. Bazillions of dead things exactly what the Flood did.

My you do seem to lack basic scientific imagination. Tsk tsk.