Flood Geology Cannot Explain Sedimentary Formations. Here's Why

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@Wesley_Coleman

That idea is wholly part of human nature. There are people in every camp that will refuse to be convinced of the other side. But be honest. What evidence would convince you of YEC?

But it’s not part of the scientific method. Scientists should be convinced of the other side if the other side provides evidence that is of a satisfactory quality—but only if the other side provides evidence of a satisfactory quality. And “satisfactory quality” isn’t something entirely subjective here. There are objective, measurable criteria that can be used to determine quality (e.g. size of sample, size of error bars, mathematical integrity, consistency etc).

And it’s not hard to come up with examples of things that should convince people that the earth is young if we were to see them. The only problem is that we don’t.

We discussed that on another thread here:

@jammycakes

• We would not see any stars more than six thousand light years away, with additional stars regularly coming into view with measurable distances of one light year further per year.
• Zircon crystals never being found containing more than about eighteen parts of lead per billion.
• We would have sequenced the entire T-Rex genome by now. In fact we would have whole T-Rex carcasses preserved in Arctic permafrost, just as we do with the woolly mammoths.
• Deposits of chalk, shale or other sedimentary rocks formed from fine particulate matter would never be more than a few metres thick.
• Levels of carbon-14 in ancient coals and diamonds would consistently reach as high as 25%-50% modern carbon in almost every sample that was tested. These levels would be consistent across all sorts of samples with very little variation in the lower limit.
• A measurable decrease in the speed of light or radioisotope decay rates of 0.1% per year – certainly well within the sensitivity range of lasers and other instruments.
• Alternatively, strong sensitivity of radioactive decay rates to temperature or pressure.

@Wesley_Coleman

f you reference a work, it is your responsibility to give a reasonable citation (Author/s, Title, Date at a minimum), if not a link.

This is a forum, not a science journal. I’m no more beholden to cite a paper than you are to respond to me. This is a conversation and if you contest or ask for a source, of course I’ll give you one. Just don’t be rude about it. Thank you, kindly.

No, it’s a perfectly reasonable request. Reading and responding to forum posts takes time, and if you can provide clear, easily accessible sources for your claims, you will be showing a lot of respect to your readers. It also makes you look more honest and credible.