Hydrologic Evidence for an Old Earth

You can't be serious. Iridium and osmium are the two most dense elements. Iridium is 22.6 g/cc, more dense than gold (19.3)almost 2X the density of lead (11.4) By contrast, water is 1 g/cc and granite is 2.7 g/cc. So no, iridium is not going to "float nicely on the top of sediment-laden waters."Facts, pictures, stories about the element Iridium in the Periodic TableOn edit: Faith, this kind of howler on your part illustrates once again that you are lacking in a basic knowledge of geology that causes you to make fundamental mistakes. I don't fault you for not knowing that iridium is the most dense element but I do fault you for assuming that it is going to float on flood water all the way around the world without knowing anything about its physical properties. That just demonstrates that those who have been saying that you construct ad-hoc arguments to make the YEC model work are correct. Again I recommend a basic geology text if you want to hold your own in these discussions. You accuse the scientists here of being rude and arrogant. But it is neither rude nor arrogant to ask that you pay attention to basic physics, chemistry and geology. Edited by deerbreh, : Additional point.

There you go again. Ad hoc-ing along. Iridium is the MOST DENSE element, along with Osmium. Sediments are going to be closer to the density of granite - that was why I included granite. More likely, was deposited as fine dust from the atmosphere.

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.

Actually that is the only way that it could have happened and that is why it is strong evidence against a world wide flood being the source of different layers of sediment. Oh it can't. Iridium falling from the atmosphere or settling out in water is not going to stop until it falls/settles on something solid. And what does that do to the YEC hypothesis of a world wide flood?

grand canyon - Google SearchHere is a link to images of the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon is hydrological evidence of an old earth. First the rock was formed. Then it weathered and eroded and was deposited as sediment in layers (usually with the help of water). Each layer lithified into rock. Sometimes layers were eroded away before new layers were deposited and lithified. All this in and of itself is evidence for an old earth. It takes a long time to erode, deposit, lithify, erode some more, deposit some more, lithify some more. For water to do all that requires time, lots of it. If we had not a single fossil in all of the geologic layers we would know the earth was very much older than 10,000 years just based on what we know about how water borne sediment is formed and is deposited.

I would also argue that the presence of angular unconformaties is hydrological evidence for an old earth. By the way, this also explains why confined (artesian )aquifers have recharge areas sometimes hundreds of miles away. The recharge area is where the aquifer layer meets the angular unconformity.GEOLOGICAL TIME

No.
Many years are needed to form rock, erode rock, and deposit sediment to form successive ROCK layers.If you were somehow to get successive layers, you would not have features like angular unconformaties. Angular unconformaties can only be explained by deposition of one or more layers followed by tilting of the layers followed by erosion followed by another deposition sequence of one or more layers. One flood cannot do that. I excluded discussion of fossils because the OP was to provide hydrological evidence only. You are taking it off topic again by talking about fossilization times (I disagree anyway that this is a problem. Fossil formation is BASIC geology. Only YECs think it is a problem, not geologists.)

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.

No we are not going down that road again and it certainly takes us off topic. We went over this about a year ago and you made the same arguments based on pictures and ignored the evidence from in situ geological research of the various sites. I took the time to post lots of different links that explained the formations but you ignored real geological evidence of how formations developed if favor of your armchair postulating so there is no point in in doing that all over again.

Would this be an example of that? Iridium is one of the two most dense elements for those who need reminding.It is ok if you want to rely on your ability to "recognize practical possibilities" but you can hardly blame the the rest of us for not having the same level of confidence in your "common sense". Unfortunately for you, "common sense" is not a valid scientific argument, possibly because it very often is wrong. Common sense told the fifteenth and sixteenth century Europeans that the the earth was flat and that the sun rotates around the earth.

This is a science forum so deal with it. Geology is a science whether you like it or not. Genesis isn't.

Once again, it IS a science forum. In other words they would get their "creation science" hides handed to them. They would rather be in front of a friendly audience and throw out their "factoids" in a fast and furious way that makes it impossible for a careful scrutiny of their false premises and "commen sense" scenarios. As for the the flood part - whatever floats their ark is fine with me - just don't expect to use my tax dollars to teach it to school children in violation of the Constitution.

I would answer it to say, not true, because we can tell SOMETHING about past conditions. Otherwise we are into "Last Thursdayism". In this case we have the physical evidence of the aquifers. The rock or unlithified sediment that may be in the aquifer is there and we know it didn't just get there "Last Thursday". We can do the tracer tests on wells a certain distance apart and measure the speed of movement of water. We can also measure the pressure that the aquifer layer might be under and how much it is changing, so it is possible to measure the amount of lithification that would have occured over time and how that might affect water movement. It is true that we can extrapolate only so far back but certainly it will take us well beyond YEC calculations by at least several orders of magnitude - unless someone is going to argue that physical laws, such as gravity, have changed significantly. Then of course Faith might have more of a point. But I think we have agreed that in the science forums we are not going to allow that kind of argument as we have no evidence of changes in physical laws such as gravity.

Sorry, can't resist such a fat target. I take it you mean "dye" tests. Or do you mean to say you are looking for Jimmy Hoffa in a septic tank in New Jersey?

If so there would be physical evidence of that. If we have none, we have to assume none until someone comes up with some credible evidence. This is true only if one ignores any evidence for cataclysmic changes that might have occured. I am not proposing that any such evidence be ignored. But taking a non uniformitarian approach is also not justified if there is no evidence for a cataclysm. Edited by AdminFaith, : No reason given.