Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

Very interesting. If you look at the pictures of the iridium layer at GOOGLE IMAGE it stands out quite dramatically from the surrounding rock and often has a very regular look to it, like a neat ribbon of material. It also seems to look shiny or metallic, but if it's such a small part of the layer it must be something else that's giving it that look.Its density might not have all that much to do with how it could have been dispersed in the Flood then, there being so little of it. The clay that carries it may be the bigger factor in how it got dispersed.what does the iridium layer look like - Google SearchEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't see why. The sediments were deposited in separate layers after all, implying successive depositions with time gaps between them, and they can be pretty precise too, with extremely sharp contact lines. For asteroid particles to be dispersed on top of one of the layers would be mostly a matter of timing.You also say in Message 363 you think it would behave like silt in water, and silt floats so I'd say we have some definite possibilities for explaining its dispersal during the Flood period.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why don't they all look the same age? Oh good grief. There are different kinds of mountains, now, aren't there edgey wedgey? There are the kind that were thrust up in blocks of strata like the Rockies, which are highly compacted rock and less subject to erosion than others, and there are the kind that were more gently compressed accordion-style like the Appalachians, which are more easily eroded where the softer sediments are exposed, and there are mountains produced by volcanoes. Of course there's a difference in erosion and therefore in how old they look.

I've presented plenty of cogent arguments elsewhere. Believe it or not I'm trying NOT to stay on this thread. I'm simply being forced to answer some of the more egregious accusations and misrepresentations. I don't regard this as a thread for discussing the Flood and really don't want to be here. I just have to answer some of the craziness you are all throwing at me. If you would just back off and let the thread resume its original purpose of bashing creationists and trying to develop some kind of anti-creationist curriculum, as long as it didn't impinge on my own favorite issues I would be very happy to stay off it.

I don't know if there were rocks before the Flood or how many or where, and I never made any claims about that. I assume there was "bedrock" beneath the land mass. Beyond that I've never speculated about pre-Flood rocks.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

RAZD, I can't use all that information. I simply wanted to find out if silt could be carried on water to a place of deposition, and whether it is suspended or floats apparently it can be. Ocean water isn't "running" water but it is moving water and it would have been saturated with sediments and dead things as well.

They do look the same on cross section as far as their accordion structure goes, and Lyell has diagrams of the Alps that show valleys that formed where exposed layers eroded away. But the overall difference in their appearance of age I suppose would be related to the fact that the Alps were pushed into much steeper and higher folds than the Appalachians.

Do I really have to say it would saturate the land and collapse it very speedily "except where there are rocks?"