Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

I've started a thread for the off topic discussion HERE Please move posts addressed to me over there. Thanks.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

See, the problem is that when you get me to move off the thread you then continue the same discussion without allowing me to answer you. Is that fair? But I did answer you, and RAZD, at the new thread, HERE. And you have no call to consider your thoughts on the subject scientific and mine merely "speculative." You're guessing about the Flood yourself, because of course there is no way to ever prove any of it. I consider your guesses to be inept as antiFloodists' speculations always are because you won't take the time to think out how the Flood could reasonably explain something, it's always a kneejerk attempt to discredit the Flood -- bias, not thought.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

RAZD was responding to ME, TAD, not to you, and you CANNOT claim that your wild speculations about the Flood are any more "verifiable science" than mine. Just get off the discussion and go back to bashing creationists that I've never heard of. If a post impinges on my views, I'm answering, you have no right to decide who can comment on what.

The point about salt domes has to do with questioning the timing of the laying down of the strata. How the salt was laid down is a different question.

Tectonic movement didn't begin until after the Flood; it would have taken some time for the cooling effects to develop into the Ice Age.

What's the scientific evidence that erosion can render a hard spiky lumpy surface flat and horizontal?

No, all that would have happened is more than usual earthquakes.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Would someone be so kind as to remind this YEC of what exactly makes it eas6y to tell the strata were progressively deposited over long long periods of time? Is it the knife-edge straight tight contacts we see in so many places perhaps?And I suppose the weight of a few miles of sediment isn't really necessary for lithification; a few feet will do it over a million or so years or something like that?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

A video demonstration would be most helpful. Or just a series of pictures perhaps?

This one is pretty good of Tennessee, it zooms to a huge size; but haven't found other states yet.http://tennesseefossils.com/...es/TennGeoMap%20-%20Large.jpgYa know what's really interesting about the strata is how no matter what map or diagram you are looking at you see how, what with the principle of superposition and all, they all stack up so neatly one on top of another, flat as a pancake for the most part, and ONLY AFTER THE WHOLE STACK WAS IN PLACE, from Precambrian to quaternary, do we then see EROSION of the stack. In Tennessee the layers get exposed by erosion showing the order of deposition from east to west. It's very clear in the Grand Canyon, but it's clear on most maps. The point is it all got laid down one after another and ONLY when they were ALL there do we see erosion exposing lower layers. The whole geo column got laid down and THEN IT STOPPED. No more geo column where it always was. Not what hundreds of millions of years would be expected to produce.Oh, sorry, of course it's "continuing" in the oceans, ha ha. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Knife-edge-straight-flat contact lines could not be formed except VERY suddenly, like on the timing of a single catastrophic event, not a scenario of hundreds of millions of years. So, what, the history of the earth is made up of a series of suddenly deposited sediments followed by millions of years (during which such flatness is expected to endure?) until the next suddenly deposited sediment, and for some reason this awfully strange predictable sequence of things happened to keep occurring up through miles of layers over hundreds of millions of years? Geology believes some pretty weird stuff. They even describe it with a straight face.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

None of the internal erosion or unconformities are anywhere near the scale of things hundreds of millions of years should be expected to produce. But the main thing about my observation is that the pattern of erosion that is so visible on the map of Tennessee CLEARLY had to have occurred after all the strata were in place, certainly no long time as geological time is reckoned. If anything like that had occurred during the deposition of the strata you'd have all sorts of LARGE gaps filled in by sediments from above all over the place. There is nothing like that in the geo column.THE EVIDENCE shows the relatively rapid deposition of the entire geologic column, with occasional gaps and missing strata such as one would expect from deposition by water, but otherwise overwhelmingly consistently horizontal, flat, stacked like pancakes across huge areas of geography, with remarkably straight sharp contacts visible in a majority of places, all of it in place and only then massively eroded, tectonically buckled etc. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Funny, I just demonstrated that you are wrong.Here's another demonstration in case you missed it: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know denial serves well your touching belief in the false claims of Geology but flat assertion isn't really acceptable argument. The only argument possible is what's been given, the supposed internal erosion and unconformities, which are pathetically inadequate answers.

Good grief there is no problem explaining the erosion by small rivulets across the surface of a layer or between layers after deposition. On the scale of the erosion we see everywhere after all the layers were in place -- steppes, canyons, whole scoured landscapes, not to mention the tectonic twisting and buckling of whole sections of stacked layers -- that erosion is pathetically tiny.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.