Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

Faith's objections could be useful examples for you and I encourage her participation, but if discussions begin to develop around them then they should be taken to other threads.

Interpretations of the timing of events in the supposed ancient past are all imposed by theory, all assuming the ridiculous Geologic Time Scale. The actual physical work of Geology is something else entirely, but those who have bought into the Time Scale have no ability to tell the difference.

Okay, then, prove that the theory is wrong. Prove that there is another origin for arkose than erosion of a crystalline granitic basement rock. Maybe the origin is from space, for instance. Then prove to us that it doesn't work. Give us something better. At present, all we have is the YEC say-so that it's wrong, wrong, wrong...

I'm sure the origin of arkose is part of the actual work of Geology and not the Geologic Time Scale assumption. There is no evidence for the Geo Time Scale, it's all assumption based on theory, so it makes no sense to expect a YEC to challenge it on evidentiary grounds. We challenge it all the time on logical grounds but that you'll never accept. For instance it IS clear that the Time Scale has come to an end and I've given all sorts of good reasons why that is the case, that is even really evidence, that you'll never even understand let alone accept. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no geological time scale assumption. That is simply another false statement.What there is is a conclusion of great time based on two factors, the actual evidence and the presence of an honest observer.

Since this discussion has been given the go-ahead to continue for now, I'll ask you to state how you arrive at the conclusion the thrust belt "occurred in the mid-Paleozoic." Same question concerning this statement. Since the time periods are all fiction to me I expect your explanation of the timing of the above events to likewise be based on the assumption or fiction.Thank you.

What is the "obvious" evidence of the "erosion" you are referring to "before the Cambrian" and "prior to the Cretaceous" that you say is "in addition to the modern erosional surface on which we live?"This last phrase, however, inspires me to use it to generalize my argument. The "modern erosional surface on which we live" is indeed what I keep coming back to as the evidence for all kinds of things I've been saying. This erosional surface is MASSIVE and UNLIKE anything you all call erosion to be found within the Geologic Column. In the Grand Canyon arguments I keep trying to get someone to notice that the scale of the "modern erosional surface on which we live" includes the massive canyon itself, includes the massively scoured-off surface of the Kaibab Plateau, includes the massive cliffs that make up the Grand Staircase, and yet everybody keeps claiming there is "erosion" between the layers of the walls of the Grand Canyon itself. NONSENSE.Whatever is going on geologically with that thrust under the State of Tennessee it still remains true that the surface of the state, that is, the"modern erosional surface on which we live" is clearly indicated on the map to involve a series of terraces formed from the eroded remnants of the layers of the Geologic Column.The idea that this Geologic Column, and therefore the Geologic Time Scale, continues into the present, beyond the so-called Quaternary, or the Holocene or whatever the most recent time period is supposed to be, when all the previous "time periods" are represented by mere SLABS OF ROCK, is LUDICROUS. The "erosional surface on which we live now" is composed of MASSIVE MOUNTAINS, DEEP VALLEYS, RIVER GORGES, BUTTES, MASSIVE TEPUI, ENORMOUS RIVERS LIKE THE AMAZON AND THE MISSIPPI, and yet the claim is that whole eras of past time in chunks of hundreds of millions of years on this planet are collapsed into slabs of rock. Wny isn't the blatant absurdity of this OBVIOUS?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You have been shown the evidence of buried topography below the Ordovician (IIRC) with valleys and ridges and a typical drainage pattern in a previous thread and you simply denied it. What's obvious is that you have no answer but denial.

Evidence of water running deep underground in patterns typical of water, nothing hard to explain about that. And it's limited to areas here and there, also contained in a slab of rock so what could it possibly prove? The idea that a topographically varied surface like today's would end up buried under slabs of rock is absurd. Why isn't this obvious:? How do smart scientists go on accepting such nonsense?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So, you really think that groundwater flows in rivers and tributaries just as surface water does?Okaaaaay, and this is based on what kind of experience or training? To you? Nothing. Because it ... isn't ?Again, where do you get this idea? Probably because they are not as smart as you.

So, let me translate: "I'm going to pretend that something geologists actually do in their work all the time is not part of the 'actual work of geology'." "There is lots of evidence for the geological time scale, which I choose to ignore." "As with any interpretation of any data, scientists studying the geological record take the known laws of nature into account, and I wish to make this sound like a bad thing rather than the hallmark of the scientific method and the essence of sanity." "So it makes no sense to expect a YEC to challenge it on evidentiary grounds. Heck, if we went around presenting evidence we'd be like scientists. Ew!" "However, even though you've beaten us on the evidence, we can still misunderstand, reject, or ignore the scientific method. You are not impressed by these antics." "I have talked nonsense about geology before, and although it didn't fool you I still found the experience oddly satisfying."

Do you really expect to find mountains buried in the geological column? You know mountains are quite big, yes? They're famous for it. And mountains are erosional and not depositional environments.One would, however, expect to find buried canyons, some of which I have pointed out to you.Let's look at a really big one. The Nile Canyon was just as wide as the Grand Canyon, but 400 meters deeper and four times as long. Is this the sort of erosion you claim we don't find in the geological record? 'Cos we do. You'd know about this if you'd ever taken an interest in geology.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix first para: "depositional and not erosional" => "erosional and not depositional"

Quite so. What we actually expect is that the low-lying features would be buried under sediment and/or sedimentary rock, and the prominent features would be eroded. Which is what we actually see evidence for.You alone are responsible for the absurdity of your ideas.Edited by Admin, : Fix first para: "buried and sediment and/or sedimentary rock" => "buried under sediment and/or sedimentary rock"

Actually you don't SEE evidence for that at all. Here and there you find something that sort of reminds you of such a thing and it fits with the theory so you baptize it Truth although the vast preponderance of evidence doesn't fit at all, but then you go find something else that sort of fits with the theory until you have all this "evidence" (ha ha) to keep convincing you the whole thing makes sense.Meanwhile we're talking a deep (miles deep) stack of different kinds of sediments that spans entire continents. How DO you maintain your fantasy of different time periods nicely tucked away in those slabs of different kinds of rock? Really, the amazing thing here is how intelligent people can believe such stuff.Right, all this varied topography with its extreme highs and lows and different kinds of rock composition can simply be EXPECTED to scrunch into a slab of rock of one particular kind of sediment or perhaps a few layered together, with quite level surfaces top and bottom in most cases too, spanning an entire continent for the ages to come, just as did all the other dozens of earth scenarios over hundreds of millions of years, they just neatly fill up the low spots and erode down the high spots like they were packing a bag for the trip. All into one particular kind of sediment, how amazing is that? Or like those books for little children with their cutout scenes that fold up when you turn the page. Science says so, it's predictable, it's happened over hundreds of millions of years and it will therefore happen again and you all think this makes sense. Welll, you have enough common sense to know it isn't going to continue on top of the existing Geologic Column though, don't you. No, it's now continuing at the bottom of the ocean where we can be sure it will collect all the fossils of this current time period so as not to badly confuse future geologists.You all think the walls of the Grand Canyon with their differently colored straight flat slabs of rock represent former similarly topographically lumpy earth surfaces, or ocean scenes, whichever the slab represents. You think the dead things contained in many of them are what populated that landscape, those and only those contained therein. The absurdities go on multiplying as the facts are tallied.And then we have to believe that those rocks only began to get unpacked in OUR time, massively eroded as the Grand Canyon area, or the State of Tennessee for that matter. But they'll pack up neatly when the time comes, when the Evolution genie says Go.The emperor really doesn't look very attractive naked.The scientific imagination is a marvel. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, not getting your problem.Are you really saying that it's all wrong because Faith disagrees? All I see from you is assertions based on you hiding behind the Bible.