Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

As you well know, this is all consistent with the history of "Flood Geology". It was invented by George McCready Price, a teacher with only very basic training in science. To someone with no or little science background (like Ellen G. White) it sounds plausible. But if one thinks a bit more deeply, they realize that, as a scientific theory, flood geology does not hold water.

Intellectual dishonesty. You better hope your defense attorney isn't of that mind if you are ever falsely accused of a witnessless crime. The ability to show through evidence that you could not possibly be the killer (in the past) will be your salvation.Geology is both observable and replicated daily in labs. We can watch how sediments are sorted in lakes, rivers, oceans and catastrophic events. We can subject materials to great heat and pressure and replicate the natural process of nature (kick ass man made diamonds anyone?). We can measure mountains getting higher and continents drifting apart. We can witness faults displace. We can and do learn from all of this. To say we can't understand one time events in the past is to say we can't determine if a large boulder at the base of a cliff was from the cliff above or hauled in by earth movers. No one saw it happen and the past can't be replicated so we'll just call everything speculation. Hogwash is what that is. So I give the kids that line and one smartly asks: "If as Faith asserts, the iridium layer was placed during the relatively calm receding of the waters and this iridium layer is many layers down and the flood placed all the layers and all the fossils and carved all the features ABOVE that layer, how could relatively calm receding waters have done all that, one layer at a time?" what should my answer be.Never mind. Really, never mind - I would never subject kids to that sort of silliness (other than to demonstrate, well ... silliness) so your answer would be pointless.JB

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

And if only you had been able to explain it in relation to the flood it would have been an interesting contribution. Sadly you could only present poorly thought out speculation that doesn't remotely fit the evidence. Now we know.Back on track with verifiable knowledge. Much appreciation to those who are generously contributing to that.JB

Liar.

What I love about this post is the depth of research and reasoning that backs it up.

Then it should be no problem for you to actaually provide links to anywhere that you discussed all this stuff Faith.Any links Faith?Any model Faith?Any process Faith?

And you were wrong. Hey, we've gotten used to that.And I got you to admit that you were wrong, which is more unusual.But I'm sure we have a thread about this subject.

Yeah, one of my favorite stories relating to Price (the ultimate armchair scientist) was when one of his prized pupils (Harold Clark) actually went to the field and reported back:

quote:

---

The rocks do lie in a much more definite sequence than we have ever allowed. The statements made in your book, The New Geology, do not harmonize with the conditions in the field. All over the Midwest the rocks lie in great sheets extending over hundreds of miles, in regular order. Thousands of well cores prove this. In East Texas alone are 25,000 deep wells. Probably well over 100,000 wells in the Midwest give data that has been studied and correlated. The science has become a very exact one. Millions of dollars are spent in drilling, with the paleontological findings of the company geologists taken as the basis for the work. The sequence of the microscopic fossils in the strata is remarkably uniform. The same sequence is found in America, Europe, and anywhere that detailed studies have been made. This oil geology has opened up the depths of the earth in a way that we never dreamed of twenty years ago.

---

It was reported that "Price could hardly contain is fury."(The Creationists: Ronald Numbers page 125, 126)It's often hilarious and instructive the reactions when people find out what they know to be true isn't actually true.JBEDIT: Just realized that I posted that story earlier in the thread. Well, I did say it was a favorite of mine. Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Not sure what leads you to this position. Please explain. Why is such a flood possible? What is your evidence? I seriously doubt that. Please support this statement. Who is working on this and what are they doing? It is about processes that happened and produced effects in the past.

But it isn't explained by the flood is it?All you are really saying is that it, 'could'a happened at the same time'.A completely meaningless statement.

Actually, no, you have not 'discussed' anything. You have preached and made a bunch of unsupported, wishful assertions.And speaking of offensive...

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.