Hi, Gary.

First you try to pretend that I'm the one who was making the argument
(establishing a premise), when the fact of the matter is that it was
you who stated the premise and it was me who then immediately showed
that your premise was false.

Here is what you wrote, from
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/5008 :

> 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
> without any comparison to erosion rates. Notice again, I said
> any comparison of erosion rates.

While almost all of the links I referred to are popular presentation,
some of them are by qualified geologists who have done research on
impact craters and who have worked on the geology of the region of
the discussed crater. I know that you know that even what is
presented in the popular material I referred to corresponds to the
results presented by professional geologists on these craters.
Additionally, I have already pointed out to you that with such impact
crater sites as the Panther Mountain Crater site in New York and the
Manicouagan Crater site in Quebec, Canada, anyone who looks at the
pictures of the crater sites can see for themselves that the craters
themselves no longer even exist. What we see are the geological
features that have developed after the craters themselves have been
eroded away. We don't need anyone at all, professional geologist or
otherwise, to tell us this. All you have to do is look (which, I
realize, is actually asking quite a lot of for young earth
creationists, since their religious doctrine has turned their minds
to mush).

Gary, in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/5418 you
also wrote:

> On and oN and on you go. Make a precisley stated case and I
> will reply. I am not interested in what Turner says. I am
> interested in data that establishes premises from which
> ligitimate conclusions may be reached. All I have seen is what
> people say and no relevant data. Give me the means by which
> erosion rates are determined and then demonstrate that those
> means have been consistenlty applied to indicate age of certain
> craters...---Waiting.

And in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/5432 you
wrote:

> I repeat---give me a major premise wehreby errosion rates are
> determined and systematically applied to relevant data. Then
> draw the necessary conclusions form that data. I have read the
> material which you referenced. No major premises with deductive
> conclusions are presentes--just he said--she said.

So, Gary, you made the false statement that

> 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.

It looks like your premise is that large impact craters (greater than
50 kilometers in diameter) can be completely eroded, can then
experience burial by sediment deposition, then this sediment can
lithify (become rock), and then this sedimentary rock itself
experience extensive erosion, all in less than 20,000 years. Or would
you care to try for less than 4,300 years? (Don't forget my post 5399
about the Roman aqueducts where I pointed out that the rock used to
construct the aqueduct has eroded only about 4 inches in 2,000 years.
And here you are falsely claiming that rock has eroded hundreds of
feet in only 4,300 years.) You know as well as I do, Gary, that your
premise is totally absurd.

Incidentally, when have you ever provided a single reference to the
professional geology literature in support of your false claims?
Nothing is more hypocritical than the man who refuses to follow his
own advice.

I know that as a young earth creationist you would love to obfuscate
matters with the fact that erosion rates are not uniform. While it is
absolutely true that erosion rates such as rock weathering are not
uniform, it is also just as true that it is impossible to erode
hundreds of feet of rock in 4,300 years. In other words, while the
rock of the Roman aqueducts erodes about 4 inches in 2,000 years,
there could certainly be different climate conditions that would
increase or decrease this rate substantially. Just as a first guess
by me, the amateur, we could have anything from less than 1 inch to
over 10 inches in 2,000 years. (Different kinds of rock would also
alter the weathering rates.) While we recognize such variability in
erosion rates, we also recognize that there are limits to the range
of this variability. We know, for example, that the rock of the Roman
aqueducts is not going to erode away completely (say 100 feet) in
2,000 years. In fact, it would make good scientific study just to see
how you could get such rock, and different kinds of rock (such as,
say, granite or sandstone), to erode under various conditions, such
as in the constantly running water of a river, or under the constant
pounding of the ocean surf, or under the constant impact of grains of
desert sand driven by wind along with the occasional desert downpour
of rain. Indeed, many such studies have been done, and if you were
genuinely interested in the truth on these matters, you would be
presenting the information from these professional science studies
yourself (and explaining to us yourself how nonsensical young earth
creationism really is). But you know, Gary, and I know that you know,
that nothing about reality supports your absurd premise that the
erosion of hundreds of feet of rock can occur in 200 thousand years,
let alone 20,000 years or 4,300 years.

The fact that you attempt to obfuscate these matters simply gives
everyone another demonstration of the fact that young earth
creationists are not really interested in the truth. That is my major
premise, and I sincerely thank you for your demonstrating its truth.
Please continue.

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