Acceptance, Evolutionists vs. Creationists

There's lot's more than two or three places. The Geologic Column and Its Implications to the Flood.The author is a former YEC who had several articles published in creationist journals. When he got a close look at the evidence, he realized how much he'd been deceived, and almost lost his faith ... but didn't. He did abandon YEC. You might want to browse his site. About the Author, DMD Publishing Co. Home Page.

mOf course the world has not been changing and eroding and upheaving at the same rate over the last couple of billion years, and nobody claims it has. (Some creationists claim that mainstream geologists think that, but that's false). The rates of the processes vary over time as the forces that drive or affect the proceses vary.The Grand Canyon is a particularly bad example of your ideas. The Grand Canyon does not consist of "uniform parallel layered strata and no evidence of upheaval or erosion between layers". We see lots of evidence of upheaval there; the entire Colorado Plateau has been lifted significantly during the formation of the canyon (that's why the top of the canyon is above the headwaters of the Colorado). And there's plenty of evidence of erosion between layers, such as the unconformity between the Muav limestone and the Temple Butte limestone, or between the Surprise Canyon formation and the Redwall limestone. Indeed, the Surprise Canyon formation is deposited in wide river valleys cut into the Redwall limestone, and the lower portions of the Surprise Canyon formation is cemented conglomerate including chunks of eroded Redwall rock ... that's certainly evidence of erosion!See Young-Earth Creationism and the Geology of the Grand Canyon: Part 1: The Geology of the Colorado Plateau.I suggest you refrain from making claims of what the geological evidence shows or does not show until you have some familiarity with what the geological evidence is.

Does not follow. Since 95 percent of all fossils are marine, that indicates that all parts of the Earth were under water at some time or times, but does not necessarily indicate that all parts of the Earth were under water at one time. Of course, other evidence indicates strongly (so strongly that it's as "proven" as anything is in science) that there has been no time when the entire Earth was under water. Different parts were under water at different times.BTW, the fact that 95% of all fossils are marine also indicates that conditions promoting fossilzation are much more likely in marine environments than in others.

Thre's all sorts of ways. They have used lasers,and maybe atomic clocks were used. Usually they use long travel distances to avoid the need for super precise time measurements.You can do it yourself, given a ruler and some chocolate and a microwave oven. http://physics.about.com/cs/opticsexperiments/a/290903.htm. (Actually, in this experiment you are measuring the speed of light in air, which differs slightly form the speed of light in a vacuum).Getting pedantic, nobody has measured the speed of light since 1983. In 1983 the speed of light was defined as 299,792,458 meters per second (as part of the redefiniiton of the meter). Since our units of length now are defined by that value of the speed of light, the speed of light is a base unit and cannot be meaningfully measured (that would be circular reasoning). International System of Units from NIST.

Lots and lots and lots of people have explored the idea of the constatns changing in all sorts of ways. The current state of research is that maybe the fine structure constant changed a very little bit about 13-14 billion years ago. Since the fine structure constant depends on the speed of light (and other things), maybe the speed of light changed with it. No. There are no quantized redshifts. No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data (and more comprehensive surveys since then, such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, confirm the conclusions). The 2dF redshift survey home page is at http://msowww.anu.edu.au/2dFGRS/. That one's still largely unexplained. Whatever the effect that's causing it, it's incredibly subtle and tiny, and understanding it is not likely to change our understanding of the Universe much. I suggest you get more of an education under your belt before you make any more claims. 1. "Hundreds of feet" is a bit of an overstatement. The average depth was 45 meters (150 feet) an the maximum was 180 meters (590 feet) (see USGS: Volcano Hazards Program Glossary). So in a few places the sediemtnh was hundreds of feet deep. Note that the mudslides deposited sediment, not sedimentary rock.2. Your memory serves you wrong. The Toutle River "canyon" was not huge, it was much much smaller than 1/3 the size of the Grand Canyon by any method of measuring. By linear measure, it's about 1/40 the size of the Grand Canyon; by volume measure it's about 0.000015 the size of the Grand Canyon (and volume measure, measuring the amount of material removed, probably makes more sense here). Its form was also significantly different from the Grand Canyon; it was easily seen as carved out of soft unconsolidated sediment (with 45 degree sloping walls) rather than out of hard rock (with vertical and near-vertical walls), as the Grand Canyon was. Finally, the Toutle flows significantly faster than the Colorado (all other things being equal, the Toutle removes material faster than the Colorado).3. Yes, there might have been footprints buried hundreds of feet deep, and it would be obvious to a scientific observer that those footprints hundreds of feet were deposited in one event. What's your point?