Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

There's no reason why silt would separate from sediment to be deposited separately is there? But asteroid powder would have a separate origin and be deposited separately. And as for stuff floating to its ultimate depositional resting place how about the uprooted plants that became coal seams?

Suggests that the Alps are not steeper and higher?

Then there should be evidence of their former height.

It would turn "the whole world" into mud NOW too, except for the rockiest mountain areas, which I'm sure did NOT exist before the Flood even if some rocky areas did, which I don't know and have never speculated about.

But creationists have a different task whether you approve of it or not. Our job IS to reconcile scientific fact with the Bible. You may be content to let science destroy the Bible, some of us aren't. I'm no scientist but I'm not willing to let unbelievers trash God's word. That doesn't mean we should ever tolerate misrepresentations of actual facts, it just means we have to discover how the actual facts work into the Biblical framework we are given. This is the position that science has put us in. If we aren't doing science according to Hoyle, who cares? Good for them. Apparently they found the most plausible explanation. For a creationist that means we have to make use of it in terms of what the Bible shows us, or rethink the whole thing. There are creationists who are scientists who may do this rethinking, but otherwise we have to look for ways to reconcile it with the time factor and other information the Bible gives us.I do this because I enjoy thinking about these things but also because other "Christians" don't seem to mind trashing God's word for the sake of "Science."ABE: Whatever its merits, science is "the world" and it's the product of fallen humanity."What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?"The world is against the gospel, to side with the world is dangerous. To trust your fallen intellect over the word of God is very dangerous.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If you have even a shred of evidence, which I doubt, it's your job to spell it out, not refer me to a lifetime of geological study.

In other words you don't have a shred of evidence that the Appalachians were once higher than the Alps.

That's less evidence than interpretation, jar. Give me some actual evidence please.

Theoretically that is quite true. The problem is that science is a bunch of theories concocted by fallen humanity who could not care less whether they agree with the Bible or not. That's why creationists do what they do.ABE: This is not a problem with the hard sciences, but only with the sciences of the past which are the ones that seriously impinge on the Bible. Old Earthism and Evolutionism. /ABE I have yet to see any reinterpretation of the Bible to accommodate science that is not just a trashing of the Bible. I cannot find the Old Earth in the Bible except by completely violating it.Do you avoid persecution by taking the stance you do? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Despite the information about the Appalachians coming from jar and edge it seems to me my original answer to the question about the difference in the appearance of age wasn't wrong: it's due to the different structure and the different rates of erosion. From all the diagrams I've seen the folds of the Alps ARE steeper than the Appalachians. And accordion type folds just are subject to more erosion than steeply upthrust mountains like the Rockies, granite or no granite.As for the "evidence" given by jar that the Appalachians were originally much higher than the Alps, as I already said most of it isn't evidence but interpretation: The 20,000 years is of course interpretation. I don't have a problem with the evidence for glaciers however, even though "markers" is pretty vague. And how this proves that the Appalachians used to be higher than the Alps is beyond me anyway. Sands FROM the Appalachians? How do you know they are FROM the Appalachians rather than simply the same sands in both places? And this proves what? What's a "stump" and how does it prove the Appalachians were once higher than the Alps? Interpretation, of what "evidence" I have no idea. You obviously don't know what evidence is. And how does it prove that the Appalachians were once higher than the Alps? Also not evidence but interpretation, of what evidence there is no hint, you just call the interpretation "fact" obviously without the slightest idea of what evidence would be. And again, no hint as to how this would prove that the Appalachians were ever higher than the Alps anyway. But of course you do not give the actual evidence of such collisions or separate events, just your interpretation of this supposed evidence which you aren't describing. You really don't know what evidence is, do you? And how any of this would show that the Appalachians were evder higher than the Alps is still a puzzle. But all that evidence which you haven't even bothered to describe is open to very different interpretations than yours and no doubt proves nothing of the sort.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And now more mystification from edge. Oh, and how does it suggest that? Properly speaking that's not a diagram, it's a chart and I have no idea what it purports to show with all its categories of rock types. An actual diagram of the mountain structures involved would possibly be more edifying but I know you aren't really interested in communicating anything anyway. You love to mystify and obfuscate and bully creationists.

Could you please boil down your voluminous posts to the essential point, whether silt could ride on the flood waters or not?

Well, it was really none of my business anyway but thanks for the answer. I have a bigger problem with the "Christians" who come here to argue with me rather than support me than with the antiChristians. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, I know. The development of science in the west could be attributed entirely to Bible-believing Christians, due to the Biblical presentation of a law-giving God and a lawful Nature, which wasn't the way the world was conceived by the pagans. The conception of law made it possible to expect to understand Nature. And that was a very productive idea for the most part, until Hutton and Darwin started making claims about the untestable past. Absolutely. But that's REAL science. Sorry, but evolution and old earth geology are NOT real science. If it contradicts the Bible, and it does, it's not science. It is far more dangerous to contradict God's word than it is to contradict science. Nature and the Bible must agree, as you said, but what human beings think about Nature is subject to error. And when you get into the sciences of the past you are relying mostly on mere interpretation, that is nothing but fallible human ponderings, not real science, not testable, not replicable, just mental constructs. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The only "sacred cow" here IS science. If people stop addressing me on this thread, I'll leave. I have no interest in being here except to answer the endless garbage that's thrown at me.To be "anti YEC" is to be anti Biblical which is to be anti Christian which is to be anti God which is to be anti Truth.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.