Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

Anyone can think up debunkery. My job is to think up ways to make it work. I don't see a problem with sedimentation rates and I don't see the Niagara Falls problem. Suspended versus floating, OK thanks for the correction.ABE: Correction corrected: Go read the link again. It says "Silt floats" in so many words, "Silt floats in running water." /ABESo much for our discussion, as usual. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, you've failed so far. I didn't think you would. If you understood, you would see how completely wrong your analysis is. This is pretty common sense and the analogy is accurate. First of all, you didn't say 'in running water' in your first post. Second, silt is not relatively buoyant in water and silt particles do not 'float' on the surface of water.And really... a book from 1883? I knew that YECs are behind the times, but this is ridiculous. Care to join us in this century?

All you are doing is tossing out absurd ideas that have nothing to do with how I or creationists I'm aware of think about how the Flood happened. In other words you're always setting up a ridiculous straw man to shoot down and pretending you've proved creationism wrong. And of course whatever wild notion you have about it has to be right, isn't open to correction, and you don't even bother to argue why it's right. Basic bullying really. There's no point in talking to you, never has been, don't know why I let myself fall into it again.I think I'll just let this thread go back to bashing all those creationists I've never heard of. At least until the next ridiculous misrepresentation of a creationist idea comes up.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And that is why Creation science can never be more than lies and conjobs Faith.Yes, you can think up ideas but Creationists never take the next step to see if those ideas are likely or even possible.There is over 200 years of such basic tests, tens of thousands of tests, that show the Creation science ideas about what happened in the flood are simply lies.A great example is the Green River varves. Folks have studied the actual composition of the materials in each layer, the size and density of the particles, and they have tested to see how such materials settle out in different conditions of water speeds. Every test shows that the smaller, finer particles only settle during periods where there is little water movement, still waters. The larger particles settle out when the water is moving faster.There are over six million such alternating light and dark layers in the Green River varves. If you claim that the flood produced that formation then there had to be over five cycles every single day for the last 4300 years.Every day,Not just during the flood but continuing right up until today.Now if you want to continue asserting that the flood did it you need to show how it is possible to build each alternating layer over 16,000 times a day during every day of the flood.You need to demonstrate how the flood can create that cycle, the alternating layers that are there and then go away without destroying them.And that is simply one really small example Faith.You need to explain how the flood could wear down a mountain.It's all well and good to claim "Well the flood was different than today" but there is absolutely no evidence or reason that would be true. Rain is Rain. Rain can only fall so fast. The stories say it rained no more than 40 days and 40 nights so we can look at places where water falls on rock and see just what does happen.Here is a great example of falling water not just for 40 days and 40 nights but thousands of day/night cycles. Doesn't look at all like the varves and certainly did not wear down mountains.You need to take that next step Faith. Imagining how it could happen is just that, fantasy. Test to see if your imagining is even possible.

Forty days and nights of continuous rain would saturate the land and collapse it very speedily, unlike rain that starts and stops and allows the land to dry out. Just a few days of continuous local rain causes dangerous mudslides so continuous worldwide rain would turn the whole world into mud. I don't claim the Flood caused varves.

I knew I could count on you to show that Creationism and YEC is just stupid. Thanks.We see places that get 40 days and 40 nights of rain every year yet rocks and mountains are still there.If the flood did not cause the varves then something else did and no one has ever been able to explain a method to create the Green River Varves even in 6000 or 10,000 years.Young Earth, like the Biblical floods, is simply DeadOnArrival.

If the entire earth were nothing but rocks and rocky mountains at the time of the Flood then you'd have a point, but of course you don't. The rest of the earth these days is subject to mudslides in short order and would have turned to mud under the onslaught of the heavy rain that inaugurated the Flood.

LOL.And so you try yet again to avoid reality and palm the pea.What is the YEC model and explanation for worn down mountains, 1000 foot thick salt beds, the Green River varves, the White Cliffs of Dover ...Trying to misdirect the audiences attention or do a Gish Gallop has never worked here Faith anymore than you denying two and seven are different numbers.

I've never claimed to be able to explain everything, jar, I focus on what I can understand and what makes sense to me, and I think I've made a good case for the Flood based on the few issues I'm up on. Mountains were built by tectonic action after the Flood. I've grappled with the white cliffs of Dover and the salt beds in many another thread and don't claim to have worked it all out but I'm certainly not ignoring those issues. I'm not palming any pea and you are obnoxiously irrelevant as usual.

Faith, please understand that all it takes is one example that cannot be explained by YECs or Creationists but that can be explained by Old Earth and science to totally disprove YEC and the Biblical Floods.The fact is though that no one, no Creationist, no person claiming to be a "Creation Scientist" has ever been able to explain what is seen in the world today.YEC, the Biblical floods and Creationism are DeadOnArrival.It really is that simple.

Not really. You really don't know anything about your flood nor explained any mechanisms for how all of the features you attribute to the flood formed. All you can say is something like 'the fludde did it, and if you disagree with me, you are probably insane.'No, Faith, all we are doing is trying to show you what the consequences of your flood would be with respect to the geological record.

So, there were no rocks before the flood?What are you saying?

Yeah, sure, but to do that you totally misunderstand and misrepresent the arguments I've been making so your opinion is irrelevant. If you can't visualize it the way I visualize it, and other creationists visualize it, your opinion is worthless.

So, then why do they not all look the same age? How come we see so much erosion of mountain ranges in the last few thousand years when it's hardly noticeable in the human time frame? And you have failed on all accounts. Is this an argument or a complaint?

My saying the earth was not "nothing but" rocks gets heard by you as saying "there were no rocks" before the Flood? What absolute nonsense I'm always having to answer here.