Hydrologic Evidence for an Old Earth

Just a quick reminder that the title of this thread is "Hydrologic *Evidence* for an Old Earth", not "Hydrologic speculations about an Old Earth."

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Please, everyone, stop the off-topic back-and-forth.Let's see both sides discuss the evidence.If there are posts in this thread describing hydrologic evidence for an old earth, someone please post links to the most relevant two or three.If there are no such posts, then someone please post one.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I think there are some unrealistic expectations being exhibited in this thread.The important issue isn't whether either side can convince the other or force overt concessions from the other. The imporant issue is the relative extent to which either side can muster evidence for their position. If sedimentary layers are laid down slowly over millions of years, then all that can be done is to support the position with evidence. If sedimentary layers are laid down suddenly by floods, then all that can be done is to support the position with evidence. You can't force the other side to say, "Oh, you're right," if they don't want to.On the flip side, if slow deposition can only be argued with unsupported speculation, then it must be noted that the Forum Guidelines encourage supporting arguments with evidence, not speculation. And if rapid deposition can only be argued with unsupported speculation, then it also must be noted that the Forum Guidelines encourage supporting arguments with evidence, not speculation. I'll be stepping in again in this thread if I see too much speculation and not enough evidence.I thought the original point in the opening post and as elaborated upon in subsequent posts attracted only speculative rebuttal. Unless I'm mistaken about this, it might be a good idea to return to that topic. It was about aquifers and the rate at which their water is replaced.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Everyone!I really strongly suggest that participants either address the topic of this thread or stop posting.This thread is not about how creationists are being abused.This thread is not about what happened a year ago.This thread is not about how one side or the other has no evidence.This thread is not about past howlers.This thread is not about arguments from authority (paraphrasing, "geologists know what they're talking about").This thread is not about accusing others of tedious recitations and saluting flags.Statements like "I don't know how the aquifers were formed..." strongly suggest that the person making them has said about all they should say.This thread is not about how scientists devote their lives to learning the skills necessary to analyze that evidence.And Faith, sorry to call you out specifically, but when anglagard posted on topic your reply was, "Well, if you guys want to talk shop, I'll leave you to it." Talking shop is the purpose of this thread. It is the purpose of all threads in the science forums. If you're not interested in "talking shop," in other words, addressing the topic, then please stop posting.If anyone has posted a message after this one about something not directly relevant to the topic, then I suggest you edit your message before I see it.Edited by Admin, : Clearly phrasing in final paragraph.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

The first clarification concerns what conclusions can be drawn regarding the absence of evidence. The way this is usually stated is, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This is cute and even accurate in some contexts, but quite inappropriate for this discussion.The reason for this is most easily made clear by example. Consider an empty water glass that has been carefully analyzed for the presence of water, and none has been found. Could one reasonable state, "The absence of evidence of water cannot be construed as evidence of the absence of water." One sure as hell can't! The failure to find evidence of water is strong evidence that there's no water in the glass.The reason this oft quoted statement, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," fails so abysmally in contexts like this is that it is intended for a different context, one where you're considering whether or not something exists. In the creation/evolution debate you most often see it applied correctly when someone says, "Absence of evidence for God is not evidence of absence of God." In other words, just because there's no evidence for God doesn't mean that there is no such thing as God.The other clarification concerns using the Bible as evidence in a scientific discussion. The criteria I use for valid evidence is whether it would be acceptable in public school science classrooms. The reasoning behind this criteria is that creationism argues that it is science and not religion, and offering as evidence the holy book of Christianity clearly runs contrary to this position. Therefore, the Bible cannot be offered as evidence in the science forums.Traditionally, scientific evidence is gathered through observation and experiment.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director