Hydrologic Evidence for an Old Earth

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.

Ok, that is good, Faith, this gives us something to address. I know a little about confined aquifers. Normally the confining layers are either a dense rock or some kind of clay layer. It is difficult for me to envision any kind of catyclysmic event that is going to producing a confining layer where one did not exist before without also having a drastic impact on the aquifer layer - essentially destroying it - at least at that particular location, which amounts to the same thing. The aquifer still might exist in other locations, but it would now be interrupted so it would not be one aquifer any more and it's ability to transport water from the original recharge area to the "end point" would be destroyed. Regardless, there should be plenty of evidence of the cataclysm. For example a magma intrusion is one thing that might create a confining layer from below but that certainly leaves evidence. Maybe someone else has some thoughts.

No, you took my quote WAY out of context. I was discussing evidence FOR a cataclysmic event. Lack of evidence FOR a cataclysmic event is evidence AGAINST that event. You can't parlay that logic into "Lack of evidence FOR a cataclysmic event IS evidence FOR a cataclysmic event." Talk about a lack of common sense! You know that leaping on my quote like that makes me wonder if deep down you know there is no evidence for the Flood. Sorry but that is how it looks to me.

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.

Off topic but you are clearly goading me so I will address it. There is no evidence that it has ever snowed in the MidAtlantic on July 4. That is pretty good evidence that it is safe to assume that it will not snow July 4, 2006 in the MidAtlantic.

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.

The first clarification concerns what conclusions can be drawn regarding the absence of evidence. The way this is usually stated is, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This is cute and even accurate in some contexts, but quite inappropriate for this discussion.The reason for this is most easily made clear by example. Consider an empty water glass that has been carefully analyzed for the presence of water, and none has been found. Could one reasonable state, "The absence of evidence of water cannot be construed as evidence of the absence of water." One sure as hell can't! The failure to find evidence of water is strong evidence that there's no water in the glass.The reason this oft quoted statement, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," fails so abysmally in contexts like this is that it is intended for a different context, one where you're considering whether or not something exists. In the creation/evolution debate you most often see it applied correctly when someone says, "Absence of evidence for God is not evidence of absence of God." In other words, just because there's no evidence for God doesn't mean that there is no such thing as God.The other clarification concerns using the Bible as evidence in a scientific discussion. The criteria I use for valid evidence is whether it would be acceptable in public school science classrooms. The reasoning behind this criteria is that creationism argues that it is science and not religion, and offering as evidence the holy book of Christianity clearly runs contrary to this position. Therefore, the Bible cannot be offered as evidence in the science forums.Traditionally, scientific evidence is gathered through observation and experiment.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

And again, we have a book of divine revelation, that IS evidence for OUR view.

---

that's great but this is the science forums - what scientific evidence do you have?Edited by CK, : No reason given.

This is a science forum so your book of revelation is irrelevant.On edit: I see CK has already addressed this.Edited by deerbreh, : To give credit to CK

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

So the salty underground reservoirs, like most petroleum reservoirs, got their seawater-like brines from where, exactly? I'm guessing that ten or fifty times as much subsurface water is salty than is fresh. How did it get there from a fresh-water ocean?

quote:

---

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.

---

It would be regarded as evidence that something might have had and taken in context with other sources from the time. In no way shape or form would it consist "scientific evidence".Why is the silliness and gameplaying allowed to continue? How long has faith being here? And she still pretends not to know the boundaries of science and scientific enquiry.How is it hard to understand that citing the bible to support the bible is not how things are done in the science forums? It has nothing at all to do with a discussion of the evidence either way.Edited by CK, : No reason given.Edited by CK, : No reason given.Edited by CK, : No reason given.

This is not the proper place to argue the scientific validity of the Bible.on Edit: Admin Percy has addressed all of this several posts up. Time to get back on topic.Edited by deerbreh, : Acknowledging Admin comments

In post 137 I discussed the question of what might constitute evidence for a cataclysmic event that would change the properties of a confined aquifer from what it had been in the past. This was in response to Faith's suggestion that we can't extrapolate today's flow rates to the past. Does anyone have any more insight on that?