Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

Very funny. Particularly after denying operating in exactly this way. Unfortunately none of the explanations you come up with can withstand the slightest scientific scrutiny. That why Creation Science is 10% assertion and 90% denial.

Feel free to quote someone who knows better. But the truth is that Creation Science is purely about explaining away real science. Real science dictates what creationists have to make up stories about.

As you know, I am both a scientist and a (old earth) creationist. I believe that God is the author of both nature and Scripture and that He reveals truth through both means (Ps. 19). Since God is the author of both, nature and Scripture must completely agree. I see no need to fear or oppose truth in either realm.When I see a disagreement between science and any particular interpretation of Scripture, at least one of the interpretations (of nature or Scripture) must be wrong, so I allow myself to question BOTH interpretations. Sometimes I allow science to change my interpretation of the Bible (but not to "destroy the Bible"). Sometimes I allow Scripture to change my interpretation of nature.

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

Probably the best tactic of all. In fact, it is the easily discernible lies that are the reason why many Christians despise lying ass Creation Science. There aren't any creationists here anymore who bother doing any substantial research, but many of the ones who have done so have no shame at being caught at quote mining. The more brazen insist that it is not their job to vet what they post.

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.

Faith, do you feel you are persecuted for your beliefs? Do you find the disagreement and ridicule your beliefs garner here to be persecution given your voluntary participation?

LOLDo you know what evidence is?Do the White Cliffs of Dover exist? Is there a Creationist or YEC method or model to explain their existence?Do the Green River varves exist? Is there a Creationist or YEC method or model to explain their existence?Since the composition of the Scottish Highlands, Appalachians and Little Atlas mountains is the same is there a Creationist or YEC method or model to explain those facts?If we find sands formed by weathering of the Appalachians is there a Creationist or YEC method or model to explain their existence?

Actually, there is from several lines of evidence.Metamorphic minerals suggest that something more than 2 km of rock have been eroded from the current level exposed in the Appalachians. This diagram shows several series of regional metamorphism in the continental setting, to which the Appalachians would have been subjected. Note the depth (pressure) values by the time one gets to granulite grades of metamorphism.Remember we are dealing with continental crust which is on the order of tens of kilometers thick, but we are also stacking two continental sequences, one over the other, so thicknesses can loom quite large. Another line of evidence is the immense quantity of eroded material that was transported west to form the great sandstone deposits of the western US.Here is a quote from Wiki: Alleghanian orogeny - Wikipedia

This is all good stuff and it can be backed up.One interesting find I had today is that there is some evidence that the Appalachians were so high and long as to have influenced global climate, possibly initiating an ice age and an extinction event. If there is interest, I'm sure we can track down the reference again.(ETA: I just saw your previous post to this effect. Sorry.)Another underrated feature is the amount of sand found in the Mezozoic of the Western US. Provenance studies show that much of it was derived from erosion of the Appalachians. That would mean over a thousand miles of transport by a transcontinental river system.Another thing to keep in mind is that we are being America-centric here. The Appalachians are part of a near-global series of mountain-building events stretching across northern Europe into the the Baltics and Eastern Europe. This was a major event in the history of the earth. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

So... creationists are not fallen?Their interpretation of the bible is infallible?

No, I don't avoid persecution, but I am persecuted for different reasons than you are.The "militant YECs" strongly disagree with me and accuse me of compromising Scripture. The "militant atheists" strongly disagree with my views on God, Jesus, Scripture, God's creation, etc. They oppose Christians of all varieties, of course. At least they oppose me for the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith, not for secondary issues such as the timing or mechanism of creation.I get very little, if any, persecution from scientific colleagues who know me, even though most of them are atheists or agnostics. They are more puzzled by my views than antagonistic to them. They respect me as a scientist but can't understand how I can be so firmly convinced of God's existence and can commit my life to Him.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

You do -- it is simple and it suggests things you can test in your back-yard or apartment.There is a vast range in settling velocities between gravel and silt/clays by several orders of magnitude -- seconds for gravel, days for silts.You need to understand this for your mechanisms to have a hope of explaining the objective empirical evidence, not just of the Grand Canyon but of the Green River Varves.You have a lot of different deposition processes that a single explanation does not cover. (1) Your source says IN water -- ie suspended in the water -- not ON the water.(2) Silt can be held by surface tension in CALM water. Once a wave rolls over it the silt is then in suspension IN the water.This is the trouble with giving you a small piece of information, you make a mountain out of it ... now it appears you envisage whole rafts of silt sailing over the ocean all around the world ... The curious thing is that above and below the iridium layer are rocks that are not in a world wide distribution pattern. Again, the size and density of things you envisage being carried means a fast turbulent current ... one that does NOT allow small particles to settle out in to layers of fine materials..You either carry the big particles OR you let the small particles settle, you cannot have both happening at once.If you wash over a fresh silt deposit with one full of rocks and gravel, the velocity necessary to carry those particles would mean that the silt would be picked back up and put back in suspension. Correction: you WON'T use it, you will avoid it like the plague as long as possible. Sadly, for you, the physics of particulate behavior in water won't change by being ignored, and the only one you fool is yourself.Enjoy.

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.