Hydrologic Evidence for an Old Earth

what? how?

---

well, let's see what she says.

---

is it off topic?well, then stop bringing up offtopic garbage in an attempt to derail the thread, especially if you can't even explain your position.

---

the question was which creationist canard faith would resort to. incredulity? last-thursdayism? evasion? hand-waving? arguments from ignorance? logical fallacies? looks like she picked "evasion."seem to be the standard one these days. they can make their points all over the place -- but ask them to explain what they mean, and it's off-topic. if they explain themselves, we might be able to point how their position is illogical, or that it's based on a complete misunderstanding or ignorance of the science it's related to, etc. keep it vague, and avoid being proven wrong.i guess that leaves us with only one choice: laugh at the ridiculous ad-hoc claims, and the foolish arrogance of someone pretending to know more about something than they evidently do.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

aren't many types of sedimentary rock formed in water to begin with?

---

go fill your bathtub with water. pour something in it, milk, or sand, food coloring. anything really. now put your hand in it, and push the surface in one direction. put your hand deeper, and push the lower parts.what happens? this may be a bit of a suprise to you, but it's not "one kind of sediment" in a layer. sediments (plural) are combined, nicely mixed in each layer. the distinctions are not different kinds of sediments, but different mixtures of sediments. you get sharp demarcations when something suddenly changes -- for instance, there's one particular band that runs all the way around the world, and contains a high degree of iridium. it's called "the k/t boundary" and is evidence of cataclysm. try making a sharp demarcation in water. you deposit something in water, you get the same effect as if you deposit something from a vapor in the air -- a nice, even, homogenous deposition. as pointed out above, nearly ALL sedimentary rocks are formed in water. that's why the compositions are so homogenous in and of themselves.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

yes, faith, it is. i can't believe i have to explain how water works. it's not MAGIC, i promise. one set of sediments, constantly and slowly deposited under one set of conditions. another set of sediments constantly and slowly deposited under another set of conditions. makes a nice line -- all you need is a chift in climate or environment.the homogenity of layers, but dissimilarity to other layers shows that they had to have been formed independently of the other layers. you don't form two different kinds of sedimentary rock in the same water. two different suspension, one on top of the other, would not do this. the only way would incredibly rapid lithification, under high amounts of pressure. but that would utterly destroy the possibility for any fossils contained therein.

quote:

---

Tapeats Sandstone (averages 545 million years old) - his formation is made of cliff-derived medium- to coarse-grained sand and conglomerate that was deposited on an ancient shore (see 3a in figure 1). Ripple marks are common in the upper members of this dark brown thin-bedded layer. Fossils and imprint trials of trilobites and brachiopods have also been found in the Tapeats. Today it is a cliff-former, 250 to 300 feet (75 to 90 m) thick.

​

Geology of the Grand Canyon area - Wikipedia

---

coconino, admitted, seems to be only one sediment, pure quartz sand. but we're talking about water suspensions, not wind suspensions. there are sedimentary rocks that contain only kind of sediment, but most are multiple sediments. i am sorry to imply that they do not exist -- they do. ad hoc. the k/t layer demands world-wide circulation of particles. that would have to be a world-wide current that did not mix at all with any other flood water.

---

you have three choices for formation of sedimentary rock in water:

1. either the pressure forms the rock, and squeezes the water out in the process, or
2. the rock is formed by evaporation
3. the rock forms chemically

in the first two, the rock forms dry by definition. in the third, well. don't worry about the third, because fortunately the entire geologic column is not chemically deposited. tech support!

---

don't be silly percy. one side has evidence, the other side has ad-hoc speculation to try to explain away the evidence. that's what this debate is, and always has been.

---

there's another major fault in this logic that nobody has pointed out yet.the evidence is part of the scientific method. you can't overturn the scientific method with evidence. you can overturn particular hypotheses, but that is also part of the scientific method.rather, it's the creationists who feel they have the high ground. they know the truth, and no amount of evidence to the contrary can convince them otherwise.

---

anti-semantics. that's a new one, iano.why are creationists suddenly afraid to define terms?

---

welcome to the debate. one side has evidence, and contructs theories. the other side has a book, and creates ad-hoc explanations to try to explain the evidence.creationists don't have evidence. they don't even understand evidence to mean the same thing we do. it's a bit unreasonable to demand that they present something that doesn't exist. after all, there is no debate in the scientific community, where people actually have access to, and study the evidence. this isn't "which is right, based on the evidence." it's a battle of the points-of-view, and methodologies.abe: looks like not a lot. just more frantic ad-hoc fantasies, and sometimes ruder behaviour.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

no percy, that's the unreasonable expectation. creationists don't have evidence. they have ad-hoc fantasies, and explanations stemming from misunderstandings of science.

---

we don't take a vote to decide what is and what is not evidence or fact. geology is a vast area of study based on rigorous scientific procedures and evidence, and experimentation. and you know nothing about it, so all can you do is sit back and claim that it's just our imaginations.when clearly, it is you who is just making stuff up as you need to. i'll believe that when i see some evidence of it.

---

ok. so let's take stock for a second.should we take the word of scientists who study the evidence in the field, and devote their lives to learning the skills neccessary to analyze that evidence?or should we take your word, regarding how you think a three thousand year old book should be read, and what you think are valid explanations of the evidence, when you evidently have no understanding whatsoever of any geological processes?

---