Summations Only

I gave you a list of names - did you look any of them up? They used scientific approaches to data gathering and analysis, and they used a variety of techniques. Dalrymple goes into it in great detail in his book The Age of the Earth. The chapter on pre-radiometric techniques is 67 pages long. The lowest scientific estimate was Kelvin's 20 million years. No scientific approach to establishing the Earth's age ever found anything close to 6500 years. That lowest estimate, and also one of the earliest, was 3000 times larger. Hutton was not himself one of the scientists who engaged in a scientific study of the age of the Earth, but Wikipedia says of him:

quote:

---

Rather than accepting that the earth was no more than a few thousand years old, he maintained that the Earth must be much older, with a history extending indefinitely into the distant past. His main line of argument was that the tremendous displacements and changes he was seeing did not happen in a short period of time by means of catastrophe, but that processes still happening on the Earth in the present day had caused them. As these processes were very gradual, the Earth needed to be ancient, to allow time for the changes.

---

Do Google and Wikipedia not work for you? Too white for you? You could look this stuff up yourself, you know. That might keep you from putting fingers in gear before typing stupid stuff like, "You did not HAVE any "data" before radiometric dating."By the way, it took radiometric dating a while to push the age of the Earth back into the billions of years. When they found a rock that was, say, one billion years old, that didn't mean the Earth was one billion years old. It only meant that was the oldest rock they'd found so far.--Percy

I don't know where you're starting the modern age, but data gathering has always been an important part of science. It was never just reasoning. The scientific process doesn't guarantee perfection. But the winnowing process of science casts on the scrap heap ideas that do not survive scientific scrutiny. Radiometric dating is consistent with all other dating techniques, with sedimentation rates, with solar system origin theories and cosmology.If you put away your Bible and do some science for just a bit, what evidence tells you the Earth is 6500 years old?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

What evidence is telling you this?A 6500 year old landscape is ancient and possible, right?Is a 7500 year old landscape possible?Is a million year old landscape possible?Where are you drawing the line, and what is the evidence you're using to put the line there? I can't recall you ever giving reasons for anything that weren't immediately rebutted. Do you have any reasons for rejecting ages of millions of years that survived scrutiny (which means you didn't ignore posts or abandon the thread but stuck around, saw discussion through, and prevailed)? If so, what were they?--Percy

Given that you still have no evidence that volcanos were the fountains of the deep, why are advancing yet another unevidenced claim about something restraining the effects of all the volcanos heat and gasses? How does being underwater have any restraining effect on a volcanos heat and gasses? Aren't you getting your story mixed up? Don't you need the volcanos to perform their role as fountains of the deep 4500 years ago and not spread out over the past 4500 years? We and you already know your reasons for believing in the flood are religious and Biblical. Why not just acknowledge that and give up on reconciling your views with science. It's a hopeless exercise for you because you know so little science, and because subordinating science to religion at every conflict guarantees failure at reconciliation.--Percy

You're supposed to be doing science in this thread. If the Bible contains an accurate account of Creation and the Flood then in this thread you must have the evidence showing this is so.--Percy

I'm talking about the idea that a layer of rock in the geo column represents a landscape. The rock itself is the evidence against the idea. As far as I know there is no rock that is purported to represent such a supposed landscape. I think you are completely missing the point.As for the rest I've given the evidence and am not going to repeat it because you didn't get it then and won't get it now either.Cheers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This would be my approach. The alternative is to claim that many if not most scientists are delusional. While it can be argued that many will believe the "lie" mentioned in Percy is correct in that this is a religious argument and attempting to reconcile "facts" to fit the puzzle is indeed an exercise in futility. I don't believe that everyone who disagrees with my belief is delusional.

If God really is "That which created all that is, seen and unseen" the the Lie would be believing the Bible which is written by Man when it conflicts with the Universe which was created by God.It is Young Earth Creationists that will perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved and that are deluded so that they believe the lie and will be condemned for not believing the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

I don't have the calculations, but I'm wondering what is the source of your skepticism that the heat released by millions of square miles of magma emerging into the oceans in just a year wouldn't be a problem. The magma of mid-oceanic ridges would transfer a huge amount of heat into the ocean if a couple hundred million years of plate tectonics were compressed into a single year, certainly enough to bake the planet.Attempting a calculation, I found this paper, Quantitative estimate of heat flow from a mid-ocean ridge axial valley, Raven field, Juan de Fuca Ridge: Observations and inferences that estimates a watt per square meter on average over the area of a mid-oceanic ridge. If the length of all ridges combined is 60,000 kilometers, and if the width of each ridge is about a kilometer, then the total area of the world's ridges is 60,000 square kilometers, and the heat given off is 60 billion watts.60 billions watts for a year is half a billion kilowatt-hours or 1.9 × 10¹⁸ joules. But if all the continental motion for the past 175 million years were to take place in a single year then it would be 3.3 × 10²⁶ joules (330 septillion joules - that's a lot of heat). This page already had the answer for how much heat it would take to boil the oceans, which is 3.6 × 10²⁶ joules, which is quite a coincidence. Just look at how close those numbers are:

• 175 million years of continental drift in one year: 3.3 × 10²⁶ joules
• How much hear to boil the oceans: 3.6 × 10²⁶ joules

So it looks like it just barely isn't enough to boil the oceans into steam, but they'd be heated pretty close to 100°C, say 99°C, which would kill off all ocean life. It would heat the atmosphere (which is much easier to heat than water, so I won't even take the heat required into account) to way above where life could survive, call it 80°C just to pick a number (176°F) and supersaturate it with water vapor. All land life would be par boiled and suffocated at the same time.Bottom line: End of all life as we know it.Simple test question: Did you follow the math? The answer better be yes after you asked for the calculations.--Percy

If you're following the Bible where it leads then you're doing religion.If you're following the evidence where it leads then you're doing science.Obviously you're doing religion and shouldn't be participating in this thread.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Most strata, especially since the pre-Cambrian, contains signs of life. The Kaibab contains fossils of sea floor life. When what is now the Kaibab was on the sea floor, what is it about slow sedimentation gradually burying the layer to great depths that you have a problem with. So you keep saying, and this is still a bald declaration. What is it about supporting your positions with evidence that is so difficult for you to understand? If there is some reason based upon fact that it seems impossible to you then you're going to have to describe what that is, otherwise we'll just have to assume you're objecting for religious reasons.--Percy

Actually, as you've been shown, pretty flat is flatter than many strata in the geologic column. You are again making the mistake of extrapolating a diagram to the entire world. Edge just showed you a stratigraphic diagram containing many non-flat strata. Oh, wait, that's right, you couldn't look at it, it was too white. Was the color version I provided too white also? I hope you mean hundreds of thousands of square miles.Your view of how strata form is fatally flawed. You've failed to take into account obvious consequences. You never answered my question from Message 2351, so let me ask again. I'm looking for two pieces of information:

• How far inland does each wave go?
• How deep a load of sediment does each wave deposit?

Then I can consider a region like that around Brian Head, which has a couple miles of sediment lying beneath it, and get a feel for how it might have happened in your scenario. For example, let's say you tell me that each wave went a mile, and that the depth of sediment deposited was 10 feet (If you don't like the mile of travel and 10 feet of sediment for each wave then just plug in your own numbers). I can then consider the scenario where the rising waters of the ocean are within a mile of where Brian Head is today, but haven't gotten there yet. This raises the question, "How will that next mile be deposited?"Will it be like this:

• First the first 10 feet of the Tapeats Sandstone will be deposited. Let's say the total thickness of the Tapeats will eventually be 200 feet, so it will take 20 waves. The first wave sweeps a mile across the landscape and deposits 10 feet of sand, then recedes. At the edge of that mile the sand is now 10 feet higher than the land beyond it.
• Now the next wave of Tapeats sand rolls a mile across the landscape and deposits another 10 feet of sand, then recedes. At the edge of that mile the sand will now be 20 feet higher than the land beyond.
• Successive waves roll inland a mile and each deposits 10 feet of Tapeats sand and then recedes. When the Tapeats is completely deposited the sand will be 200 feet higher than the land beyond.
• Now the first wave of mud/silt for the Bright Angel Shale layer rolls a mile across the landscape, deposits 10 feet of mud and silt, then recedes. This happens 30 more times for a total depth of Bright Angel Shale sediments of 300 feet. The total height of sediments at the edge of that mile is now 500 feet higher than the land beyond.
• Now the waves calcareous sediments for the Muav Limestone begin rolling across that mile of landscape, depositing their sediments to a depth of 10 feet, then receding. When all is done the thickness of the Muav Limestone sediments is 400 feet, and the total height of sediments at the edge of that mile is now 900 feet higher than the land beyond.
• Then the waves for the Temple Butte Limestone and the Redwall Limestone and the Supai Group and the Hermit Shale and all the rest up to the Claron roll across that mile of landscape, deposit their sediments, and recede. The total height of sediments at the edge of that mile of landscape is a couple miles higher than the land beyond. We have reached Brian Head and the ocean is lapping at its door.
• Now the next mile beyond Brian Head will be deposited, again beginning with the first 10 feet of the Tapeats. A wave containing a load of Tapeats Sand is just beginning to roll past Brian Head. But there's a problem. The land beyond Brian Head is now a couple miles lower than Brian Head. Instead of rolling across the landscape beyond Brian Head the wave instead pours over the edge of the 2 mile height of sediments like a giant waterfall.

Well, that can't be right. Even if you plug in much bigger numbers, like a hundred miles of travel across the landscape for each wave and 100 feet of sediment delivered, because at the end of that hundred miles after all the strata are deposited you'll still have a 2 mile waterfall. And such huge waves don't give your animals any chance to leave footprints and dig burrows on the mudflats.So how does this work?--Percy

What is your reasoning - or is this just your religion talking again? Well, I see Capt Stormfield beat me to the obvious retort, so I'll just say that the lack of content and the lapse into "bald declaration" mode in almost all your messages over the past few days indicates that your mind has already checked out of this discussion.--Percy

Faith was responding to what I said about crushing. I told her that a mile of sediments would exert a force of over 6000 pounds/in², crushing flat whatever was beneath it. Any surface irregularities would be flattened.I'm not sure what you're saying, so I'll just describe what I believe to be true. The contact between strata could be conformable or non-conformable. A conformable contact indicates a change in depositional environment. A non-conformable contact indicates a missing time period during which sedimentation was for some reason suspended, or material was eroded away, then sedimentation in a different depositional environment resumed.--Percy

You don't have to repeat it. Just point to it. Tell us which posts contain that evidence.