Hydrologic Evidence for an Old Earth

Hey, that was a very commonsensical suggestion based on what I was told by evo practical jokers, that what needed explanation was why so many bird fossils are found with dinosaurs if position of burial had nothing to do with evolution but only with location of the animal at the time of the flood. It involved thoughts about animals seeking the highest possible ground. Nothing more commonsensical to my mind, given the circumstances posited, than that the dinosaurs themselves must have been the highest ground in their locale from the point of view of the birds.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, if you guys want to talk shop, I'll leave you to it.

I speculated that iridium may have floated -- I never said it did so -- based on raeding yesterday that radioactive tritium was carried on ocean currents. I was infiormed by you all that iridium is too heavy to float and I dropped it. Except to wonder if some sediment contents of flood currents might have supported it. If not then not. It's all quite commonsensical.But please, stop addressing me if all you guys want to do is play science on this thread, so I can leave you to it.Interesting that creationist scientists don't come around to debate you all. I guess they figure it's not worth the abuse. They'll just go on thinking about the problems involved in understanding the flood without you. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I haven't been going around reciting my Bible Credo. I've been trying to think about the problems posed on the thread.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't know. I haven't said one thing about the aquifers that I know of except that there's no way they could have escaped some effects of a worldwide flood, which is pretty obvious. I remember asking a question back near the beginning about the layer of the geo column involved and after that everything went black, so to speak. Most floodist thinking posits that all the geologic column was created by water current, tidal or wave action in the flood. If the aquifers exist in lower layers of the geo column, one has to assume the water accumulated there after the column was formed. But how any of it happened I don't know. I haven't even gotten into thinking about the aquifers as such because the thread has been going everywhere else and it's been hard to follow what you are saying. I don't even understand the question. AFTER? You add the notion of magic, no creationist does. Where did I say ALL of anything? These phenomena STARTED in the flood. And most of it occurred under the oceans. OH, I see finally what you are saying. The erosion started with the deluge, before the flood covered everything, and certainly the ground, already frequently "misted" and not hard as a rock, would have been thoroughly saturated quite rapidly by such an intense downpour. Also, a LOT of erosion goes on underwater, as the sides of the continents are constantly eroding away into the water. Picture this land mass, Pangaea, covered by water, probably not all that deeply over the higher areas. It's like an underwater mountain range at that point. Waves and currents are going to be moving across its surface constantly, very heavily sediment-laden waves and currents. I'm answering challenges and accusations, which is what usually happens. I'd love to leave the thread to you since you are not happy with my posting.And nobody has yet explained to me what a PRATT is. DID NOT SEE ADMIN NOTICE UNTIL NOW. EXITING THREAD. But you might have mentioned that the little recitation was out of order too, not just my calling him on it. Bye.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I simply do not get how the length of time you calculate it WOULD take to move this water from point A to point B says anything about a worldwide flood 4500 years ago. Simply see no relevance whatever. Can you spell this out better?{Edit: In other words, present conditions prove nothing about past conditions.}Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is exactly what I don't think it proves. As I go on to say and you even go on apparently to agree with. Just because under present conditions you calculate the water takes that long to move, is no proof that it HAS taken that long in the past. That is, you are operating on uniformitarian assumptions. But is it completely impossible that an upheaval of some kind, say an earthquake, within the last four or five millennia created the current situation of the underground rocks, in fact created the confined situation itself? Well, the evidence being considered in this thread is only the hydrologic evidence.

No, but conditions could have changed appreciably at some point quite a bit earlier than last Thursday, but within a few millennia. But since this is based on the uniformitarian assumption, you will miss possible changes in the past that might have affected water movement. Nobody argues that, or argues divine intervention either, merely that you can't know whether or not a cataclysmic event might have occurred within a few millennia that created this current constancy you are now measuring, before which things were quite different. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, you do not have to argue either of these things, and nobody is arguing this. The argument is strictly for a physical upheaval of some sort. And your point is fine that if you see no evidence for it, all you can do is assume what you assume. On the other hand, you can't very well call your assumption "evidence" for an old earth. An assumption is not evidence.

I'm thinking more along the lines of changing an unconfined area to a confined area, opening or closing caverns and spaces, allowing more or less water into an underground area.And the oceans are not presumed to have been salty at the time, salt being added by leaching off the continents, which would have been very minimal in a time when the earth was one great undivided mass that was watered by "mist" which would certainly minimize runoff. As for animals adapted to salt water, ever heard of natural selection? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't think you want to go there DB. I know this is in fact how you guys think but it is outlandishly fallacious.If lack of evidence is evidence, hoo boy: We have the Bible you know, it tells us there was a Flood, it has been regarded as revelation by the Creator God by many of the greats of Western Civilization, and if it says there was a flood but you guys can't see the evidence for it (we can, all around us), we can always answer that no evidence is evidence, and with a lot more credibility than the old earth assumption too, because we do have this written revelation which is a lot more than you have for your assumption.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Lack of evidence is not evidence no matter how you spin it.And our possession of a book of revelation is what makes our assumption evidence where yours isn't. I thought I made that clear.

Accumulated facts -- a few hundred recorded years of no snow -- are not a lack of evidence, but in fact evidence. There are no accumulated facts against the flood. It's pure conjecture. And again, we have a book of divine revelation, that IS evidence for OUR view.{Oh, and proving that it WILL NOT snow is not the same as proving that it NEVER snowed on July 4 in the midAtlantic.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I find it very odd that a written testimony to a physical event is not regarded as scientific evidence. I'm sure a written record that there was an earthquake in a remote part of the earth 300 years ago would be regarded as evidence that the event did in fact occur.

See Message 145