Dating Methods Controversy Discussion

I must be getting tired, because its getting hard to think. Im trying to make a model in a simple paint program with this information. Do you know how deep the Green River is? Tomorrow I will try and get this simple model done so I can think clearly. I find this link you gave me interesting, I was unaware of why there are these differences though it is so simple. I will make my model and tell you what I can conclude with the information I have so far. If you can try to find some information on the Green river and aspects of it.

I see what you mean by "the densest/largest particle one not get sorted just at the bottom". Have you ever played around with one of those things, I forgot what they are called, you find them in spencers. Its that thing with 2 peices of glass side by side with water inside it and different types of sediments, dark and white. When you tip it over and watch it as it piles about on the bottom you will notice that it isn't how you would think it would be seeing that it sorts by density and particle size. It creates layers of the different sediments, not just all the dark on the bottom and all the white on the top or vice versa (you can notice that the darker sediment is much heavier than the white sediment as it falls to the bottom). This is the same mechenism that would create varves such as in the green river formation and can be tested by sanding off the various varve sediments and conducting this experiment.

"What event are we talking about? I'm lost."I was straying toward the feasibility of the Flood I guess, that would be a more valid discussion to take place in my other topic."You haven't discussed much evidence at all, you know."Have I not? I would say I have given ralatively much more than you have proposed, I would invite you to participate and answer questions, respond to refutations, etc."You have engaged in a great deal of vague, wild speculation with no basis in evidence."I make vague responses sure, but im not going to answer questions that havent been asked of me. Just about all of my 'wild speculations' have basis in evidence. Again I would invite you to participate, it is unwize to make these speculations on me without doing so much as critisizing my person."You are mostly making things up to fit your story, not explaining, in detail, any specific points of evidence that have been observed."Am I making things up? Technically, I am, what does that mean? Well it means that if what I am doing (making things up) then you should look at the story of evolution and they make up many things. Do I have a problem with it? No as long as it is logical and is supported by evidence, though I may have my own interperetation of this evidence meaning that it can't 'have to mean this'. If you would like more detail, then ask 'detailed' questions, if you ask a vague question, you will most likely get a vague answer."Yes, and many current Creationists want to ignore all of it and want to set science back 300 years."Sure some do, however, this is an argument from athority which doesn't have any basis in feasibility, logicality, or reasonability in creationist theories. Directing this speculation toward me is not very wise without reason or explination."Are you telling me that you have, with an open, willing mind, studied Evolutionary Biology, Geology, Paleontology, and Physics, as well as the Bible, and then come to the conclusion that science is all bunk?"To the extent of my studies in evolutionary theories in different professions as well as the bible yes I have come to the conclusion that 'the theory of uniformitarian evolution' is not a good explination. But to say that I would ever come to any conclusion about science being anything less is simply wrong. I am in favor of science, not the 'uniformitarian interperetation' of 'scientific evidence'.No, you believe what you believe because of your faith, regardless of the evidence. I doubt that you have done much study of any science at all. (The non peer-reviewed stuff that the ICR and AIG puts out doesn't count.)To say that I believe what I believe because of blind faith regardless of the evidence is simply ignorant without reason or explination on your part, I would infite you to participate in the discussion and not refutation of me in my person. Also the same to your speculation that I don't know or study science at all. Any information counts as long as it is valid, untill I have another reason otherwize, I will say that you are trying so hard not to say that you are simply prejudice towards Creationism based on science, evidence, theories, etc. or not.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-31-2001]

"When you make claims about how natural events happened in the past, or happen now, you (almost without exception) simply state them as true without including any supporting peer-reviewed scientific evidence."--What would you consider 'peer-reviewd scientific evidence'? What claims would these be that I am making? Address them individually and I am open to discussion, I love discussion and get in depth on a subject, to tell you the truth though the only thing I don't like getting in-depth with is some attributes of scientific history, its just boring to research such as people using Darwins book "Origin of species" (shrugs)."By contrast, I often include references to the scientific literature in my posts, or sometimes a link for more information which lists credible references."--When I use source information I'll post references along with. Sorry about some