Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it

You can say it as many times as you wish ... still won't make it true.Here is a perfect example of your conjecture and my evidence in response: Message 361Your conjecture: And the EVIDENCE which shows your conjecture to be nonsense:Due to people getting caught on the surface in summer thunderstorms, ruts abound by the end of the year. We rely on the wind and water of the winter to smooth out the surface for another year of high speed fun. What resets this surface from spiky and rough to smooth and flat? Erosion. Wind and rain do NOT continue to cut into a flat surface and unsettle it's flatness. Just the opposite is demonstrably true year after year.%%%%%%%%%%%%%So, against your conjecture, I demonstrated that the EXACT opposite is true and I gave you perfect evidence for that.You really need to just stop with the "there's no evidence" and just concede that when evidence goes against your own personal interpretation of your bronze age holy book, you go into full hands over our ears denial mode. JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Correct me if Im wrong but wouldnt plates having slowed down to current observable rate mean that 4300 years ago theyd have travelled even faster than that 30.000 times calculated by constant speed?If I have travelled 300 kms in four hours and for the last 50 kms Ive been averaging 25 km/h then would that not make it reasonable to assume that my speed for the first 250 kms had to have been at least 125 km/h?Edited by saab93f, : I mistakenly replied to HBD instead of Faith. The quotation is of Faiths post a bit earlier.

Yes, of course, but I used "Old Earth" math to come up with the ~30,000 X figure... and she doesn't trust "Old Earth" math The initial speed needs to be something like 20 feet per day, which then linearly decelerates over ~4,000 years to the current speed. I think it would be interesting to figure out how much energy it would take to accelerate the continental plates to the initial, maximum speed. I suspect it would take something like the energy of a collision with a moon sized object HBD

The only thing I objected to in your statement of the things you "know" is that you "KNOW tectonic movement had to occur since the Flood." Unless you mean that tectonic movement occurred after the flood at a normal, realistic rate... but I am pretty sure that is not what you mean. You mean that you KNOW that tectonic plates moved at speeds that allowed the Atlantic to open up after the flood. And you KNOW this to be true.I accept that you "know" everything you believe about what the Bible says to be absolutely true, but tectonic movement doesn't have the support of the Bible. Plate tectonics is not a Biblical teaching. You have NO business claiming that you KNOW anything about plate tectonics from the Bible.It's one thing to say you KNOW that there was a world-wide flood, because the Bible says so... to say you KNOW that Adam and Eve were real people, because the Bible says so... etc... But it's a completely different thing to make up stuff the Bible says nothing about and then claim to KNOW it when you can't support it with evidence.HBD

Not only for lack of evidence, but because of evidence that is contrary to your hypothesis. A million possible explanation could exist, that doesn't make them plausible. We go to great lengths to explain why the standard explanation makes sense in light of the evidence. We explain why your alternate hypothesis doesn't make sense in light of the evidence. We chase you down rabbit hole after rabbit hole, all the while you do nothing but simply deny anything we say simply because we are "Old Earthers." We entertain your nonsense far more than it deserves. "It doesn't look old," "Erosion could not make such a flattish surface," "I KNOW that "X" is true" ... these things are NOT evidence, they are personal incredulity.You say "The GU is so flat that erosion could not possibly do that."I say "But it's not flat...

• It has monadnocks up to 800 feet tall that extend beyond the layer above it into the next higher layer
• it has weathering that extends up to 50 feet below the surface (of the GU)
• it has clasts made up of material from the layer below that have been incorporated into the sediment above
• the Tapeats has sediment made up of material from layer below the GU
• there is no evidence of sliding contact between the layers"

Then you say "I am talking about this picture. It is too flat for erosion to have done it."Then I show you how erosion not only can, but must reduce a jagged landscape to a flat plain.And again you say "I'm talking about this picture, It is too flat for erosion to have done it."Then you say "Show me a modern example."So we do...And again "It is too flat for erosion to have done it."I will leave out the next stage where you begin typing in all caps.If there is any bias here Faith, it is yours.HBD

Good point. In fact, it's not just 'current' rates since, from all that we can glean from history, the plates have been at their current speeds for at least 2000 years.

This is absurd and unfair. IF tectonic movement occurred, what I KNOW is that it had to occur within the Biblical time frame. And excuse me but the Bible, not being a scientific treatise, doesn't mention a lot of things that we have good reason to say we know about nature and the world through science or any other source of knowledge.And I didn't even say that I know tectonic movement occurred, what I said was that it had to occur since the Flood. It's the Biblical timing I KNOW for sure.From my Message 863: Tectonic movement HAD to occur since the Flood, there is no other possible time frame for it for anyone who knows that the Bible is God's true revelation to us. Pure sophistry that puts your own mind above God. See above. I didn't make up continental drift, science did. If there is one thing that does have good solid evidence for it, it's continental drift. You can see it on maps, the comparisons between geological and biological facts on formerly connected land masses are easily verified in observable reality. Most "evidence" for Old Earth science is speculative, such as your claims about how much heat would have been released in 4300 years of tectonic movement, but not continental drift itself.Therefore it has to have occurred since the Flood.I'm sick of making perfectly reasonable statements and having them challenged by ridiculous objections by people whose only claim to have a right to say anything on this subject is that they believe status-quo "science." I'm sick of making good points about a subject, giving good arguments and good evidence for my arguments over and over and over only to get back irrelevant answers and sophistries galore. By a dozen or more opponents yet, and never a single acknowledgement. It does wear on me to be in this position. Nobody here will ever give an inch on what you all think YOU know, no matter how ridiculous your arguments. Some of the arguments against mine are SO indefensible it's a crime that you all leave them to me to argue against them.YOU don't have a problem contradicting the Biblical time frame or using any of the absurd arguments to make false science fit into it. YOU don't mind abandoning the clear reading of scripture in favor of sophistries that allow you to rationalize putting science above God, but I do. "Let every man be a liar, but God be true. That's what the YEC position is all about, that's what we're trying to defend, that's what Creation Science was invented for. Some creationist arguments don't work and it's sad that people brought up in the church are so often not taught anything from the point of view of old earth or evolutionism and are therefore left in the position of having to choose between what seems logical and rational and the inferior conclusions they've been taught. They are defenseless against antiGod sophistries, they either try to hold on to God by rationalizing Genesis to accommodate science or they give up on Chrisitianity altogether. Occasionally someone like Kurt Wise will just say the evidence seems to support an old earth but he's trusting God over the scientific evidence. Because God is true no matter what science says. That's really the only sensible approach a Bible believer can take. But we don't give up trying to bring God's word into alignment with what does seem to be unarguable evidence, and to my mind tectonic movement is one of the unarguable facts.ideally it would only be trained scientists who put their minds to this work, but anybody who understands any part of the problems may do it, and we do it FOR THE SAKE OF THOSE CHRISTIANS WHO ARE EASILY BOWLED OVER BY A SOPHISTIC PRETENSE TO SCIENCE. It's really sad when Christians themselves put their energy on the side of so-called science against other Christians based on their own inability to defend the truth of ALL the Bible.Science is a gift from God that has benefitted humanity in countless ways. But Old Earth "science" is pure speculation and is absolutely useless for any practical purposes, and yet it is used to undermine faith in the true God.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And yet billions upon billions of dollars are spent year after year following OE science all the way to the bank. That is the ULTIMATE evidence.Evidence wins, Faith loses.JB

As usual you don't think, just spout the party line. There is no nonspeculative evidence or practical value to evolution or old earth "science" except destroying people's faith so if money supports it that's the purpose of the money.

The energy sector doesn't give three shits about destroying anyone's faith and the fact that you believe such merely emphasizes your thought process. They merely want to find the most energy for the least money. The do this through the predictions of the OE model.Evidence wins, Faith loses.JB

But if there is a practical purpose then it's real science and not Old Earth science. Of course you don't know the difference because most people don't. There are many practical purposes of Geology and Biology but not the Old Earth crap which can only be speculative.

You really should get off a science forum with your bible crap. You have your own definition of science and by your own admission it's based on the bible.You don't get to define science - it's a mature technology.JB

Hmmmm, sounds pretty speculative to me. So why do you pit yourself against so many other Christians?Please keep up the good work, Faith. you are single handedly dismantling Christianity with your personal dogma.

Yes, the liars have won, getting their propaganda believed against true Christianity so that you'll defend the Compromising Christians instead, which of course is what you WANT to do anyway. I'm giving up though, so enjoy the lies for now.

I think you have wandered off topic again. I understand your anger, but this is not the place to air grievances.