Beretta writes:
quote:
Yet this sedimentay deposit was formed rapidly by a single flood-like event.
But it looks nothing like typical sedimentary deposits. That's how you can tell that it was from a single flood event, not from long processes of multiple flood and dry periods.
Not to mention the fact that the rocks of Mt. St. Helens are volcanic ash and nothing like the mineral deposits of other areas. It is easily eroded.
Yellowstone National Park (U.S.) Fossil Forests
Like the modern environments around Mt. St. Helens, there is potential to bury stumps in-place *and* to transport them upright in a variety of sedimentary environments (although burial in-place is far more common). Distinguishing the two (or even recognizing the presence of both) is not difficult. To simply say, "tree stumps can be transported, so all occurrences can be dismissed", is incorrect. The vast majority of occurrences can not be explained by transport.
Is there a particular reason why you're misquoting the state of the science?
quote:
How about 1st and 2nd stage supernova remnants.
What about them? There is no deviation from astronomical theory.
Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young Earth Creationism FAQ
YECs claim that not as many SNRs are observed as would be expected in an old universe. Davies uses a value of one million years for the lower end of the typical visible lifetime of a SNR and assumes that all SNRs last this long. He gets this figure from Ilovaisky & Lequeux (1972b). However, on reading the original paper it is noticeable that this value is actually for the theoretical lifetime of the remnant, not the observable lifetime of the remnant. Why is there a difference? Quite simply, SNRs are actually hard to detect.
Is there a particular reason why you're misquoting the state of the science?
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2
