Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

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.

I just explained it. Water running across the layers before deposition of the next or between layers after. No problem whatever.

Silly me. I forgot you would assume that all the internal erosion I was talking about was water erosion. There are plenty of examples of internal, SUB-AERIAL, erosion.Of course, it was something easy to forget, since sub-aerial erosion must have been what you were talking about in the first place, when you claimed that it only occurred after the stack was built. Edited by 46&2, : No reason given.

At the end of this month, midnight of 30 June, we have a leap second event scheduled in which we will add a second to the day.Does your intended audience hold to the "earth's slowing rotation as indicated by the adding of leap seconds" claim that was created circa 1979 apparently by Walter Brown and is still quite popular in the creationist community with Kent Hovind apparently being the current most popular vector:By Kent Hovind, transcript of one of his seminar tapes:

quote:

---

Slowing Earth

​

Another factor. The earth is spinningwe are turning around. How many knew that already? We are turning around. You know the earth is going a little over 1,000 miles an hour at the equator, but the earth is slowing down. It is actually slowing down 1000th of a second everyday. Pensacola News Journal, 1990, said on December 6, "Earth’s rotation is slowing down, June will be one second longer than normal. The earth is slowing down 1000th of a second every day." Astronomy magazine announced, 1992 in the June edition, "Earth’s rotation is slowing down, June is going to be one second longer than normal." We will have to have a "leap second." A leap second? Most people have heard of leap year, but lots of folks have never heard of leap second. Did you know we have a leap second about every year and a half now because the earth is slowing down? Now kids this is going to be kind of complicated so listen carefully. The earth is spinning but it is slowing down. So that means that it used to be going faster. How many can figure that out with no help? Okay several. Well, now if the earth is only 6,000 years old that is not a problem. It was probably spinning a little faster when Adam was here. Maybe they had 23 and 1/2 hours in a day. They would not notice, they did not have a watch anyway. Some of these folks want you to believe that the earth is billions of years old. Now that would make a problem. If you go back a few billion years, the earth was spinning real fast. Your days and nights would be pretty quick! Get up, go to bed! Get up, go to bed! Get up, go to bed! You would never get anything done. And a centrifugal force would have been enormous, would have flattened the earth like a pancake. The winds would have been 5,000 miles an hour from the Coriolis effect. You think the dinosaurs lived 70 million years ago? I know what happened to them? I know what happened to them... they got blown off! No they did not live 70 million years ago, folks; it simply cannot possibly be true.

---

By Scott Huse, one of Hovind's sources, 1983:

quote:

---

The Rotation of the Earth

​

The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing due to the gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon and other factors. If the earth is billions of years old, as uniformitarian geologists insist, and it has been slowing down uniformly, then its present rotation should be zero! Furthermore, if we extrapolate backward for several billion years, the centrifugal force would have been so great that the continents would have been sent to the equatorial regions and the overall shape of the earth would have been more like a flat pancake. But, as is commonly known, the shape of the earth is spherical; its continents are not confined to the equatorial regions, and it continues to rotate on its axis at approximately 1,000 mph at the equator. The obvious conclusion is that the earth is not billions of years old.

---

By Wysong, Huse's source, 1981:

quote:

---

12 -- EARTH SPIN

​

The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing -- losing time. A recent edition of Popular Science alluded to this in an article entitled, "The Riddle of the Leap Second." ⁴¹ The causes for this slowing are many, including gravitational drag forces exerted on the earth by the moon and sun. If the earth is billions of years old, and it has been slowing down uniformly through that time, the earth's present spin should be zero! Extrapolating backwards, the earth's spin billions of years ago would have been so great that the centrifugal force would pull the land masses to the equatorial regions and draw them out to a present day height of over 40 miles. The oceans would have been pushed to the poles and the overall shape of the earth changed from a sphere to a flat pancake. ⁴² But the earth is still spinning, its shape is spherical, its continents are not crowded to the equitorial regions and the oceans are not centered at the poles. What do we conclude? The earth is not billions of years old.

​

41. A. FISHER: "THE RIDDLE OF THE LEAP SECOND," IN POPULAR SCIENCE, 202(1973):110; SEE ALSO "TOWARDS A LONGER DAY," IN TIME, 87(FEB. 25, 1966):102.

​

42. THIS INFORMATION,IN PART, WAS TAKEN FROM T. BARNES' SUMMARY OF LORD KELVIN'S ARGUMENTS AGAINST A VAST AGE OF THE EARTH IN T. G. BARNES: "PHYSICS: A CHALLENGE TO 'GEOLOGIC TIME'," IN ACTS AND FACTS, 3(JULY-AUGUST 1974).

---

By Walter Brown, the apparent ultimate origin of the claim, c. 1979:

quote:

---

1. Atomic clocks, which have for the last 2 years measured the earth’s spin rate to the nearest billionth of a second, have consistently found that the earth is slowing down at the rate of almost one second a year. (a- c) If the earth were billions of years old, its initial spin rate would have been fantastically rapid— so rapid that major distortions in the shape of the earth would have occurred.

​

...

​

March 1981

​

REFERENCES
1. a) Arthur Fisher, The Riddle of the Leap Second, Popular Science, Vol. 202, March, 1973, pp. 110- 113, 164- 166.

​

b) Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory, Earth motions and Their Effect on Air Force Systems, November 1975, p. 6.

​

c) Jack Fincher, And Now, Atomic Clocks, Readers’ Digest, Vol. III, November 1977, p. 34.

---

In another version of the same claim, Brown wrote "twenty-two years" instead of "2 years". I believe the latter to be a typo and that it should have read "22 years".Have you dealt with this PRATT yet? Because of the upcoming leap second event, I would assume that this PRATT will yet again rear its ugly head.Edited by dwise1, : Added more citations

Oh yeah, all that minuscule "sub-aerial" erosion. Compare it to the massive erosion that we can see occurred after all the strata were laid down, the cutting of canyons, the scouring of huge flat surfaces of particular layers, such as the Kaibab plateau, the cutting of steppes, the tilting and folding of whole depths of layers, and so on. Claims of internal erosion are ridiculous by comparison. Where are the huge canyons in the internal layers, filled in by the upper layers, and so on. You are simply not seeing the actual evidence.ABE: No, the erosion after the stack was built wasn't necessarily sub-aerial, a lot of it was probably created in the receding phase of the FLood. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You're missing the forest for the trees. Even if what you say is true (it's not) that there hasn't been massive sub-aerial erosion in lower layers, your flood cannot explain ANY sub-aerial erosion, even "minuscule."

Sure it can. Some layers would have been deposited as the waters receded, sub aerially.However what you call subaerial erosion isn't, it's a delusion.This is all a rabbit trail though, making mountains iout of molehills because the original observation I made is a killer for geo time.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This statement doesn't even make any sense. Layers can't be deposited by water, even receding water, AND be sub-aerial at the same time. It's either sub-aerial, or it's covered by water.

Neither is a demonstration. You still haven't figured out that your unsupported opinions are not evidence.How 'bout you explain exactly what known facts or referenced material makes that map a demonstration of your claim?Never happen.

Faith's water is magic water. It did whatever she wants it to do at the moment. Even if it contradicts something she said in the preceding message.

Faith #1 Me in response:
"Of course if that were true, there wouldn't be unconformities throughout the stack."Faith #2 Faith, this is why exchanges with you are essentially pointless. First you say that erosion only happened after the stack was in place and then when called on that you change your position to "well yes, but that doesn't matter because they aren't big enough". You aren't even consistent among your own positions.No thanks.JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Appreciate that link. Had already found that link and have been totally unable to get anything remotely like what I'm looking for. I'm a reasonably smart guy, but that interface is just unusable for someone like me. I have drilled down on that site for more than an hour and several hundred click. Nothing.Thanks again.JB

Have you ever read any of my posts? I've pointed out exactly such features to you about a jillion times.

What's too funny is Faith saying there are no examples of "massive erosion" after all the discussion about the missing billion years or so that is the Great Unconformity. I might consider several miles of material and billions of years of deposition and erosion as "massive" but maybe I simply don't understand what qualifies as "massive".

Demonstrated:See map Note colored areas that designate "time periods." Physically they are steppes or terraces that ascend from right/East to left/West, with the exception of the pink Ordovician which is a low butte in the middle of the blue. Those are all surfaces of layers that were exposed by the erosion of the layer above. The surfaces are quite extensive. Of course they are no longer flat and horizontal since the whole area has been tectonically warped, but the principle is there nevertheless. This is erosion that obviously occurred after the entire stack was in place. This extensive erosion can be seen everywhere the geologic column exists. There is nothing even remotely like the extent of this erosion within the strata. This is clear evidence against hundreds of millions of years.ABE: The tectonic movement of course also occurred only after all the strata were in place, which is also evident wherever the geo column exists, with the supposed exception of the "great unconformity" that can be seen between the basement/Precambrian rocks and the strata above. This tectonic movement is no doubt the cause of the massive erosion that occurred after all layers were in place, and I've argued also the cause of the "great unconformity" but we don't have to argue that here. I've clearly argued that this massive erosion occurred in the Grand Canyon area after all strata had been laid down, and that claims of so-called erosion within the stack are ridiculously out of scale, so those who think this is something new haven't been paying attention.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.