greeneto <tgreene@...> wrote:

Hi, Gary.

I mentioned the *generation* of sediment from rock, such as by rock
weathering, or by the pounding of the ocean surf against the rock
cliffs. All I pointed out was the empirical fact that even if, just
for the sake of argument, a global flood really did occur about 4,200
years ago, it would not have generated tens of thousands of feet of
sediment. If a global flood really did occur, all it would have done
is *rearrange sediment that had already been generated*.

In the context of discussing the subject of earth's antiquity, the
sedimentary strata that exists proves that the earth has been in
existence far, far longer than just 6,000 years. This is a
qualitative argument, not a quantitative one. Before radioactive
dating of rocks ever came along (i.e., before radioactivity was even
discovered) by which geologist could put some sort of quantitative
measure on the absolute age of strata, geologists already knew from
their study of geological strata and the processes that produce them
that the earth has been around for at least hundreds of millions of
years.

In the context of discussing the idea of a global flood itself, the
sedimentary strata that exists is not what we would observe if a
global flood had taken place about 4,200 years ago. Massive,
catastrophic floods have taken place in the relatively recent past (a
little over 10,000 years ago, in what is now the northwest U.S.).
Geologists know exactly what this looks like because we directly
observe the effects of such massive floods. Floods leave definite
signs of their occurrence. Now, the thing is, if it had really taken
place, a global flood would have left even *more definite* signs of
its occurrence than those of the massive Lake Missoula floods, since
*such a flood would have been that much more massive and
correspondingly catastrophic*. Yet there is no evidence of such a
flood.

Regarding YEC inconsistencies, you have creationists arguing
everything under the sun from ice rings around the earth, to massive
vapor canopies, to some form of Velikovskyism, to water chambers
under the lithosphere (Walter Brown), to "runaway subduction" of the
lithospheric plates (John Baumgardner). Of course, none of these YEC
speculations have a shred of evidence, either astronomical or
geological, and they all have scientific evidence against them. (The
ICR, for example, has been pushing alternatives to its earlier
support of vapor canopy speculations since ICR's own Larry Vardiman
realized that it was physically impossible for a vapor canopy to
contribute significant amounts of water for a global flood without
parboiling everything on the planet (inside or outside of the ark).
(Of course, if you're arguing that God cast a magic spell around the
ark ["Shields up, Sulu!"], then the ark's inhabitants would have been
fine, I'm sure, but then you're talking religious fantasy, not
science -- which is what you are arguing against, except that YECs
are inconsistent on this as well! However, *all* life on the planet
outside of the ark would have been destroyed by the heat, and then
YECs get themselves into more inconsistencies about plant life and
sea life not being substantially adversely affected by the flood.)

And all of these inconsistent YEC speculations trying to come up with
a mechanism for an event in the relatively recent past (about 4,200
years ago) for which there is no evidence. I would draw your
attention to this post by Brian:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/4988

Gee, what a merry circus YECs have created!

Where are the YEC-based oil companies out-competing the oil companies
that use "conventional" geology? There aren't any. Where are the YEC-
based astronomical observatories? There aren't any. Where the YEC-
based astrophysical studies of the fine-strucure constant based on
spectral analyses of astronomical objects surveyed from various
distances across the universe? There aren't any.

Again, the work of YECs is making religious propaganda for the
purpose of trying to prop up faith in the religious doctrine called
young earth creationism. If science disappeared tomorrow, YECs
wouldn't care in the least, because science is not their concern.
Their concern is their literalistic interpretation of Genesis and
associated religious doctrines. Science has nothing to do with it.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/


###### Gary Smith ######
>> "Todd S. Greene" <tgreene@a...> wrote:
>> Hi, BFS.
>>
>> You contradict yourself. In another post (right after this one,
>> in fact) you wrote, "It's your problem if you want us to believe
>> your theory. The burden of proof is on you." Inconsistency is the
>> terrible bugaboo of young earth creationists.
>>
>> There is no evidence of a global flood. After 20 years I'm still
>> waiting for a young earth creationist to explain to me how a
>> global flood would create tens of thousands of feet of sediment
>> in a single year when the ocean itself creates very little
>> sediment in a hundred years. YECs are completely irrational on
>> such obvious empirical issues as this. It is also the fact of the
>> matter that there is not a YEC view of the global flood. There
>> are several YEC views of the global flood that are very different
>> when it comes to discussing the particular events that they have
>> faith took place. As you stated in another post, young earth
>> creationists couldn't care less about science because for them
>> this is strictly a matter of faith.
>>
>> Exactly. That's what I've been telling the young earth
>> creationist Annika, who has been disagreeing with me on this
>> point, so now I think you two YECs need to hash out that little
>> inconsistency.
>
> Regards,
> Todd S. Greene
>
> Dear Todd:
>
> The inconsistencies between two views can only be negated by
> invalidating the view(s) themselves. You have many words in this
> post but no argumentation that negates the view. I found it
> interesting --your statement about the accumulation of
> sedimentation. What is your method of determining sedimentation
> build up?
>Gary Here:-------------Thank you for your reply. I am aware that some creationists rely heavily on the canopy theory, which in my view may or may not be true. I remain in a state of contemplation concerning this as I am trying to assimilate genuine data. The mechanisms that may or may not have contributed to a universal flood should include iridium which is predominanly an element of space and not earth. It is interesting that iridium is found near and in many bolide impact locations. I have read material that dates impact sites back millions of years ago---and the problem here is so immense that is is not worth considereation. The present bolide impact sites do not show that kind of age. In fact if one compares the existing strata surrounding impact sites it will not correlate with any of our present geological strata theories. Notice that I said any. Why do present impact sites still contain so much iridium. Why do we have so many craters that show almost no erosion? There is not a single crater that has enough erosion to even indicate 20,000 years of wear. The dates that I have studied given by geologist have been assigned without any explanation of process and wlithout any comparison to erosion rates. Notice again, I said any comparison of erosion rates. I am not going to accept their writings without some type of comparison? Why would I Why shoud I?

Neither will I accept what creationists say about the canopy theory without some sort of written documentation giving more concise descriptions of what the canopy was. HOwever I find as much for that theory (as is commonly explained by them) as I do for the theory of dating by stratigraphy which is based on less than 4% ot the topography of the earth. I say that each side must present mnore concise data.

                                                                      Gary
>
>> ###### BilboFrodoSam ######
>>> In a message dated 4/11/02 2:19:30 AM, creationism@y...
>>> writes:
>>>
>>> <<
>>> except there was never a global flood John, only in your and
>>> other fundamentalists imagination.>>
>>>
>>> How do you know this?

  Post message: creationism@yahoogroups.com
  Online: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism