Hydrologic Evidence for an Old Earth

White dwarf star matter, perhaps. Or neutron star matter. Though it does need to be pointed out that the iridium in meteorites isn't at all pure - probably alloyed with nickel-iron or in the form of chemical compounds. But still heavy.You're still digging yourself a mighty deep hole here, Faith.

Can, but that isn't the theory about the formation of the majority of the layers. Just so funny that the planet will go for multiplied millions of years just quietly collecting sediment at the rate of a foot in two thousand years, and then decide to have a total change of garment overnight as it were -- a few thousand years is overnight, so what? It's the fact that the layers are so TOTALLY discrete that makes it certain it can't have happened that way. For this to happen once or twice, sure, but over and over again. Too silly for words. I know, it's totally ludicrous of me to look at the things and have my own assessment of whether it could have happened that way or not. That's OK. I'm used to the accusation. I don't debunk the whole science, but I know you all like to say so. If the other thread on that subject hadn't been hijacked I'm sure it could have been demonstrated that the daily work of geology is no problem whatever for YECs. I just figure the basic configuration of the layers is so taken for granted, so totally accounted for in old earth theory that the ridiculousness of it can't even be seen. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So its being annoyed makes it lighter. Annoyed, funny. Meant alloyed.You didn't answer about the heaviness of tritium.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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

Well, the FLOOD has to occur all over the world in the flood, of course. Duh. Just not every particular local effect.But you guys pouncing on me about the flood is probably off topic?As usual.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's possible the iridium was laid down from the atmosphere between the laying down of sediments, but apparently it is a layer between different sediments, which is what suggests it floated on the layer beneath. If it can't it can't.

No flood geologist, arm-chair or otherwise, has ever come up with a mechanism for the flood to deposit limestone. The mere existance of limestone refutes the flood without resorting to some "the rules were WAAAY different back then. Up was down, down was up. It was total craziness" kind of argument. Since it is OT for this thread, if you have discovered how a global flood could deposit limestone then please start a thread to inform all of us. I would LOVE to know how that would be possible.But my point was that whatever you can say about how ridiculous the flood scenario is, can be said back about the ridiculous idea of thick worldwide layers of homogeneous sediments with predictable fossil contents that don't spill over into the layers above and below, but just stay right there in their own peculiar sediment bed, sharply demarcated from the different sediments above and below, very sharply and neatly. Millions of years of only one kind of sediment-plus-particular fossil contents maybe, followed by millions of years of only another completely different kind of sediment. I know I've said this a million times and it's called an argument from incredulity, but some things just don't make sense on the face of them if you actually think about it.[/qs]Except for all those examples of geologic strata in the real world that refute your over simplification. When choosing between an unformed fantasy of some online poster and the actual rocks that I can go outside and look at, I'll take reality any day. Since this is off topic, how about you go start a thread to back this up. Something more than you just pointing at pictures of the GC and saying, "see look how neat they are!" Somehow I don't think you will but one can always hope.Back to your regularly scheduled topic.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Thank you for that commercial, jazz. Nice of you to check in and give your spiel.Limestone starts out a sediment like all the rest, right. Nobody said rocks float in water. But calcium carbonate can be carried in water. And often is. Found some discussions of it only yesterday. Maybe I can find them again. Didn't realize I'd need them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Tritium is a gas at STP. It would be a liquid only at extremely low temperatures.If you mean tritiated water, it would be more dense than standard water but not that much. Oxygen makes up most of the weight of water, having an atomic weight of 16, compared to 1 for hydrogen, (2 for deuterium, 3 for tritium) Furthermore the percentage of tritiated water compared to standard water would be very small in a flood - unless you can postulate a source of a whole lot of tritiated water. Good luck with that. It is radioactive so that wouldn't have been too good for Noah and his friends if the flood waters were pure tritiated water.

The topic, Faith is Hydrolic Evidence for an Old Earth. If you wish to challenge that evidence then you need to present a model based on your Magical Mythical Biggie-sized Flood that explains Aquifers and in particular Artesian Aquifers.Here is a link to a line drawing of just one such Artesian Aquifer, the the Floridian Aquifer that underlies most of Georgia and Florida.Questions about the Magical Mythical Biggie-sized Flood model are certainly on topic if you with to use the Magical Mythical Biggie-sized Flood as the origin for that Artesian Aquifer, Aquifers in general or any specific Aquifer.You need to present a model that explains the evidence seen.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Just wondering because I know tritium is carried by water, so I wondered how it compares with iridium. Apparently not at all. Thanks. The question had nothing to do with tritium in the flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Tritium is a gas - a very light gas (heavier than Helium, but lighter than most of the rest). It's a heavier isotope of hydrogen. What is the relevance ?

If you will review the thread you'll see I'm not the one who brought up the flood. I was just asking questions about anglagard's points. But now, as usual, I'm in the position of trying to answer the usual challenges as others brought them up.I was asking questions about the aquifers as anglagard was describing them. Since I know there was this worldwide flood it had to affect the aquifers too. How is still open for speculation though.

Not according to Geologists. You are not a Geologist. But you can't make an informed assessment because don't know what you ARE looking at! Furthermore, anything you do see has to fit with the Bible! You won't listen to the views of those who ARE informed because you reject their findings on religious grounds.In this instance "making your own assessment" amounts to nothing more than the maintenance of ignorance.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Why don't you just think about what I'm saying instead of arguing geological authority against me? Makes you sound like a toady. Blind authoritarian.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.