Hydrologic Evidence for an Old Earth

There was certainly no point in your wasting a whole post on this piece of substanceless abuse.My speculations rely a lot on the ability to recognize practical possibilities, or common sense. Too bad that's in such short supply on the evo side of the discussion.

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.

In a certain sense you are quite right. All I have to go on is plausible explanations to counter your explanations. All that makes your explanations "evidence," and mine not, however, is acceptance by the establishment, because most of the explanations offered by evos for, say, each individual stratum of the geo column, are sheer imaginative fantasy.Now, there ARE creationists who are scientists with whom you can argue instead, and abuse them in a different way, but I'm all you have here. If you insult me enough I may go away, if that's what you want. There's a strategy.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have to smile everytime I see you make a claim like this.I wonder if anyone else remembers the 'birds resting on the heads of the dinosaurs during the flood' horseshit you came up with last year?

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Thanks, was hoping people would open my link concerning hydrogeology, but placing the example where everyone can see it sure works better.My example in the OP, if I remember properly, was through the Abo Formation (remember that one well from field camp in the Zuni Mountains), a combination of clay and sand, so its transmissivity was far slower than an average sandstone (which transmits faster than almost all rocks short of gravelly conglomerates). Thats why it took water over 800,000 years to travel some 200 miles in my example.

we don't take a vote to decide what is and what is not evidence or fact. geology is a vast area of study based on rigorous scientific procedures and evidence, and experimentation. and you know nothing about it, so all can you do is sit back and claim that it's just our imaginations.when clearly, it is you who is just making stuff up as you need to. i'll believe that when i see some evidence of it.

---

Who said anything about erosion but you? You are a one-man speculation machine about this flood you claim didn't happen, but your speculations don't bear the slightest resemblance to anything any creationist has ever claimed. Talk about ad hoc. But really, I can't even follow what you are trying to say.All I said was that since there was a worldwide flood SOMEHOW the aquifers were affected by it. Seems reasonable to me. You can forget the divine intervention. Nobody has suggested such a thing and it's now functioning as a particularly irritating straw man. Creationists assume normal physical and chemical conditions throughout the event. The difference is that we *know* it occurred and our job then is to try to understand *how* as well as we can, while all you guys are doing is tossing out any old objection that occurs to you. Ad hoc.I don't know how the aquifers were formed, but in a worldwide flood that displaced unimaginable quantities of sediments, created volcanism and earthquakes, the idea that aquifers existed quietly unaffected is simply not possible. Again, I don't get this bit about erosion of preexisting rock. Why are you going on and on about this? I don't recall saying anything about it. I love your freedom to suppose all sorts of couldawouldashouldas, which I bolded in the above, about the flood scenario, as if you understood exactly what a worldwide flood would have done. I have the impression that you haven't done any real examination of what creationist scientists actually have to say about it. Have you? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Another tedious recitation of the Science Uber Alles Credo and a saluting of the Science Flag. Ho hum.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

ok. so let's take stock for a second.should we take the word of scientists who study the evidence in the field, and devote their lives to learning the skills neccessary to analyze that evidence?or should we take your word, regarding how you think a three thousand year old book should be read, and what you think are valid explanations of the evidence, when you evidently have no understanding whatsoever of any geological processes?

---

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.