Hydrologic Evidence for an Old Earth

Oh. You mean magic.Because without magic everything you said pretty much is impossible. It is nothing more than a totally uninformed fantasy scenario constructed to shoe horn reality into a preconcieved, and IMHO incorrect, interpretation of ancient mythology.Or maybe you would want to take your scenario into the appropriate thread and defend it? A daunting task I know so I won't hold my breath.

---

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

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.

---

I've got to add to this - it's a bit disingenious to an extent to make such a demand. I could understand it if we were dealing with new members of the forum but with a poster like Faith (I've singled out faith because who the hell else is posting for the other side in this thread?) with a long long established track record of ad-hoc reasoning (and you only have to look at the irdium stuff here for a current example), what do you expect to change? What purpose is making such a demand to someone who quite freely admits that no evidence is going to alter or impact a literal belief in the bible?Faith was banned from the science forums wasn't she? What's changed in her behaviour since then?

Do you honestly expect anyone to believe you would forsake a belief in science (read: scientific method) no matter what the evidence? You're assuming the higher ground here CK. A higher ground which supports itself on... wait for it... yup...science.*Sigh*

Naturally I disagree. The alleged flood could not have eroded miles of rock down in such a limited time period according to the way things work on Earth unless there was some form of magical divine intervention. Therefore aquifers do not contain flood water due to exposure to flood water because of erosion. Conversly, the alleged flood could not have deposited all aquifers after the flood because such waters would have to carry huge amounts of physically and/or chemically suspended solids that would have then created water bearing formations to the depth of several miles, unless such suspended solids were magically introduced through divine intervention. In other words the suspended solids could not have come from flood erosion of preexisting rock, therefore many if not most aquifers both predate and postdate any alleged flood. Thus, any alleged flood had no effect upon existing aquifers under any flood scenario using the principles of physics as currently are easily demonstrable.To put it plainly, there is either the science of hydrology as understood today or there is the positing of divine intervention outside of the laws of physics, which is a form of Last Thursdayism.Hydrology, by using the physical properties of aquifers, invalidates a young Earth.

I for one certainly would. Bring it on. Throughout this whole thread we have been asking for the YEC model that would explain the evidence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That's a bogus argument for two reasons:1) because there is no incompability with being a believer in say the christian God and Science. Jar and may of the others do it all the time. However Faith starts from a position that whatever the scientific evidence is, it's has to be wrong if it does not match 100% with the bible2)This is more of a technical answer. This topic is in Science forums therefore any arguments here have to be based around science as we currently know it. What you are suggesting is a matter for the "faith and belief" forums or "is it science?"What Percy said herealso applies to what's happening here: Just sub in the words Hydrologic evidence for an old earth for "stars".If Faith doesn't want to believe that's her business but means that in reality she's unable to argue in good faith here in the science forums. Edited by CK, : No reason given.Edited by CK, : Copy-edit.

Patently this is bogus. It relies on a defintion of Christianity (which doesn't exist) and a definition of science (which doesn't exist) Percy is a poster. He states an opinion. He is entitled to it. As are you

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?

---

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

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.

---

Abandon the scientific method, no. Why should we? It works and even creationists admit it works, they just don't want to accept the results when it contradicts a literal reading of Genesis. But they don't mind accepting the scientific method when it gives them a miracle drug. Now as for abandoning a scientific theory if someone can show the data don't support the theory? In a heart beat. That is how science works.

OK. We got yer Darcy's Law, but I don't know if I can remember the sucker.....but thanks to this Intarweb, I need not:
Q = KA (h1-h2)/L
and
example : from Darcy's law10.5 meters a year is a mile every 150 years. And it's a ways from Colorado Springs to Lubbock.