Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

Yes, ThinAir, you and others should stop answering me. It's the only reason I'm on the thread you know, answering all the blithering nonsense that's thrown at me,. Just ignore me, I'll go away. I said all I wanted to say in the first post.But that striated fossil is sure purty.

They are logical conclusions from accurate observations, to anyone who knows how to think.

Gosh, and you're logically challenged too.

If you had an ounce of scientific imagination you wouldn't have to ask such nonsensical questions.

No, I wish you had the basic scientific imagination, or basic intelligence, and the honesty, to grasp my simple objective point.

I'm making such a simple obvious point that to deny it and evade it as you do shows either inferior intelligence or stubborn animosity or both. And your silly accusatory generalizations in trying to deal with what I'm saying just compound the problem.

It doesn't need explanation. If you don't get it something is missing in your wiring.

The rim of the Grand Canyon is only the Permian, the KT boundary is higher. The question is whether the iridium shows up in the Grand Staircase to the north of the Grand Canyon, whose layers climb from the Permian to the Holocene.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

When you and RAZD and ThinAir continue to misrepresent my point of view you just keep me posting on this thread where I didn't want to be in the first place except to make a brief comment. I did not want to get into a discussion with edge because I didn't want to be on this thread at all, AND I know where those discussions go too. I've already been accused of "hijacking" this thread when I'm not the one prolonging the discussion. This has happened many times before and in the past I wasn't careful enough to cut off lines of discussion that others kept bringing up. I hoped to be more alert here, but I keep being required to defend myself from misrepresentations. ThinAir isn't even thinking clearly enough to know that the age of a canyon would have nothing to do with the deposition of the layers exposed in the walls of that canyon. I have never made any such insane claim. What I've said about the Flood is perfectly reasonable. You could say the same thing about establishment Geology, that it just invents whole scenarios to fit their ridiculous idea that a solid slab of rock that spans thousands of square feet miles of geography represents a whole time period with its own flora and fauna. This is a pernicious misrepresentation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Alrighty, I guess I'm on this thread like it or not. The only kind of unconformity YECs deny is the purported absence of particular strata that establishment theory says should have been there instead. And speaking of evidence, nice clean contact lines may even exist where this "missing layer" is supposed to have been.Otherwise we have other explanations for other kinds of unconformities. such as angular unconformities, but I have explained these not in terms of the Flood but in terms of the tectonic activity that must have followed the Flood. A purported absence is certainly very easy to explain by the Flood, since we wouldn't expect such a catastrophe always to supply the layer Geology expects to have been there. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Misrepresent my argument and I do feel required for the sake of preserving my point of view to post here. Since you are one of the offenders let's see you perform a headlock on yourself.

No, it's an example of you reading out of context as usual.

Well, I can't discover anything in the Bible that justifies any age determinations older than 6000 years from Creation or about 4300 years from a worldwide Flood that there is absolutely no doubt occurred. Just can't. All the efforts to make any of it older violate the Bible and are clearly just a giving-in to worldly thinking. As for "flood geology" there are different ways of putting it together and I don't see it as a finished theory but a work in progress, though I don't think anything I've said, or any creationists I'm aware of either, violates observed facts. Why is this a problem? Nobody's trying to EXPLAIN everything by the Flood, simply understand how it all works together so that there is no contradiction. There are lots of reasons creationists think asteroid or meteor activity would have been associated with the Flood. The only real disconnect with contemporary science is the timing, and all I can do with that is wait for it to be resolved. I really do seriously think that establishment science's explanation of the strata and the fossils is absurd on the face of it, no matter what difficulties we may encounter in trying to explain it all by the Flood.The big problem for a Christian is the scientific contradiction of God's word so casually accepted by modern science, and I really don't see how any Christian can just blithely ignore this and accept unbelievers' science over God's word. Sure, in the service of defending God's word we can run afoul of actual facts, but I'm trying not to do that and don't see that I have. I'm not arguing for NEEDING the Flood to explain it, just for its being explainable in the context of the Flood. If such an asteroid hit during the Flood period it would most likely have hit IN the flood waters which were carrying all the sediments and dead creatures washed off the land mass as well. It COULD have hit either while the water was rising or falling and not completely covering the land so that's another scenario to consider, depends on when the layers got laid down. But the task is to explain how the iridium got dispersed in the Flood context that sees the strata as built up during that event. So we have to find an explanation for that. I can't just dismiss it based on your ponderings you know, I can't see any other explanation for the strata than the Flood, the establishment explanations hitting me as extreme absurdity besides flying in the face of God's word, so I have to expect that there is yet to be found a good explanation for how the iridium got dispersed in a thin clay layer at the boundary of one of the layers.ABE: But you make a very common error here when you talk about what "floods" can do. THE Flood simply cannot be compared with any other "floods." It covered the earth, it would have involved ocean movements among other differences. /ABE So it's incomplete, so establishment geology has a head start. I can't see any other way to make sense of God's word and I'm already convinced of the basic facts about the strata and the fossils so for me it's just a matter of time before we have a good explanation for the details you think it can't account for. But you know what, I think you are most likely overlooking some good explanations that are already accepted by creationists. That's how I see establishment geology despite its greater plausibility in some areas.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But then I'd like to know exactly what the "iridium layer" is composed of. Not pure iridium but some iron, and what about the "clay" it's part of?

Maybe Creation Science can predict and explain a lot of things I'm not personally able to do since I'm not a scientist.