tgamble

In case anyone is finding things a bit slow here. No creationists come here anymore!

<a href="http://creationtalk.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000065.html" target="_blank">http://creationtalk.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000065.html</a>

Patrick might have some fun with this site.
<a href="http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/flood.html" target="_blank">http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/flood.html</a>

Here's an interesting claim
<a href="http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html#anchorearth" target="_blank">http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html#anchorearth</a>

Nuclear Decay: Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE project1 indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay took place in one or more short episodes between 4,000 and 14,000 years ago.

Nuclear Decay: Evidence for a Young World by Russel Humphreys, PhD. Impact #352: Acts & Facts Vol. 31 No. 10 October 2002 Online Issue No. 26

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

Bubba

Tim, we need a few more good infidels at Creationtalk.

Bubba

ps418

Just the same old crap.

The first page of "Amazing Discoveries" claims that clastic pipes/dikes are somehow evidence for the flood, a claim parroted from an article by Ariel Roth. That claim is false, as dicussed in G. Morton's article: <a href="http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/clasdyke.htm" target="_blank">Why Clastic Dykes Don't Indicate a Global Flood.</a>

The second page attempts to argue against a wind-blown (aeolian), desert origin of some sandstones. The author is clearly clueless, as he does not discuss any of the criteria that sedimentologists use to distinguish aeolian sandstones from those deposited in marine or fluvial environments. He refers to "cross-graining" when presumably cross-bedding is what he means. For a look at some of the sedimentologic evidence that can be used to support an aeolian origin of some sandstones, see the section on the Coconino Sandstone as a flood deposit on <a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htm" target="_blank">this page.</a> Its toward the bottom.

The third page simply asserts with no evidence that the "vast canyons, valleys, and hill relics of the world favor Diluvial rather than Uniformitarian formation." In fact, there is abundant evidence bearing on the rates of erosion and river incision which have created erosional landscapes, for instance cosmogenic nuclide exposure dating, soil-profile development indices, and quartz thermoluminescence dating of fluvial terraces, etc.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>