Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[Justatruthseeker]

6 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: A belief that the ability to count is a belief and a "data is irrelevant" lie !
We see that each year a dusty layer of snow is deposited. We see that snow is compacted into ice with dark layers. We count that there are hundreds of thousands of these layers recording hundreds of thousands of years.
There is a couple of assumptions. Summer happens once a year. God has not created a lying universe.

That is a tiny bit of the empirical data that shows that the Earth is much older than 6000 years. We have tree growth rings data. We have varve data. We have carbon dating. We have many other radiometric dating methods. We have the deposition of sediments and other geological evidence.

The "data is irrelevant" lie is totally ignorant because the history of science is full of empirical data changing scientific theories. It was Christian geologists who first realized that geological evidence suggested a millions of years old Earth.

It is Christians and non -Christians who believe the Earth is old so that "set of beliefs" is wrong.

We find 50 year old airplanes buried under 264 feet of solid ice intact, with layers galore apparent in the ice bore.

So you are correct. The data is irrelevant to believers in evolution and age......

So 5.28 feet per year. The deepest shelf is 10,000 feet. so in 1,839 years the entire shelf could have formed...... And that is 5.28 during the onset of global warming...... in Greenland far from the antarctic where it is 10,000 feet thick.

 

[RealityCheck01]

A list of debunked decades ago old earth myths and lies

You were the one parroting a list of debunked decades ago old earth myths and lies. You are the one that needs to support the myths and remove the lies with evidence.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: What are the other geological process that make "erosion rates of continents" into a lie (hint: Himalayas, Andes, the country of New Zealand).

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: The YEC claim that the sea cannot contain its measured salt is unsupported and starts with a probable "maximum possible age of 62 million years""
Ken Ham’s 10 facts that prove creationism – Debunked

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: You cited a lie that astronomers consider spiral arms to be persistent physical features when that was discarded in 1926.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Did not understand the YEC lie about the sediment accumulation in oceans filling them up.
Ken Ham’s 10 facts that prove creationism – Debunked
The YEC lie is that geology states ocean floors have to be billions of years old and thus accumulation would fill in oceans. The truth is that geology states that ocean floors are a few tens of million years old. They are conveyor belts of rock rising from mid-ocean ridges and descending under continents and into ocean trenches.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Parrots an "overall decay" of the Earth's magnetic field lie
The deluded lie is that the measured decay in the Earth's magnetic field since 1835 results in the Earth disintegrating 10,000 years ago. That is deluded for a start because we can count hundreds of thousands of annual ice core layers. These idiots assume that a decay measured over a couple of centuries can be extrapolated back a period 50x longer, the decay is exponential and there is no way to measure the Earth's magnetic field before 1825.
CREATIONISTS AND "MAGNETIC FIELD DECAY"

Clay pottery and other archeological finds which date to about 6,500 years ago indicate a magnetic field that was about 20% weaker than today, while artifacts from just 3,000 years ago show magnetic fields that are 45% higher than today. Thus, rather than decreasing steadily since the time of creation, the earth's magnetic field has fluctuated, weaker at some times and stronger at others.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A "based on faith" lie about the origins of comets.
This is a comet

Short-period comets originate in the Kuiper belt or its associated scattered disc, which lie beyond the orbit of Neptune. Long-period comets are thought to originate in the Oort cloud, a spherical cloud of icy bodies extending from outside the Kuiper belt to halfway to the nearest star.[1] Long-period comets are set in motion towards the Sun from the Oort cloud by gravitational perturbations caused by passing stars and the galactic tide. Hyperbolic comets may pass once through the inner Solar System before being flung to interstellar space. The appearance of a comet is called an apparition.

The Oort cloud is hypothetical because it is currently impossible to observe objects in it. The Kuiper belt is observed to exist. It contains Pluto and many other objects.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A "evolutionists" lie about the origins of comets.
This is a comet. Their origins from "storehouses" in the outer solar system are astronomy by astronomers.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A lie that uniformitarianism means population growth is constant.
Only the application of uniformitarianism in geology was used as a constant rate of geological processes.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Explain how fossils of species that died out > 65 million years ago can contain soft tissue that is < 6000 years old?
A bit of idiocy of comparing this to frozen soft tissue exposed to dirt! For that irrelevant case we have soft tissue that has been preserved for 25,000 or 35,000 years !

 

[RealityCheck01]

• A blatant "Measurable C-14 Within Ancient Samples" lie.
  There have been insane attempts to C-14 date fossils which have resulted in the dating of the fossil preservatives or the expected of C14 dating.

Yes its all a lie one big conspiracy even peer reviewed evolutionist are in on this lie. Evolutionist sound more like flat earthers ever day.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Rant about the parroted blatant "Measurable C-14 Within Ancient Samples" lie and cites YEC stupidity.

Paul Giem (M.A., M.D.) lists deluded expectations of carbon-14 in fossils older than the applicable range of carbon dating.
He essentially lies that "long-age theories" predict no C14 in geologically old samples. Basic physics predicts that after a sample stops absorbing C14 from its environment, radiocarbon dating will give the time of that occurrence. Living organisms stop breathing when they die. Thus radiocarbon dating gives reliable dates for organic material. Minerals such as diamonds stop absorbing C14 from their environment when they form. Thus radiocarbon dating gives reliable dates for diamond formation which can be within "geologically old" formations.

A stupid citation of Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds. My point was that any C14 in diamonds would not come from the atmosphere and is irrelevant to the C14 dating of once living organisms collecting C14 from the atmosphere. The stupidity is citing a article stating "with geological ages greatly in excess of 100 Ma" and measuring that the diamonds formed ~ 60,000 years ago.

An Institute for Creation Research book article? with probable delusions about C14.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A "peer reviewed evolutionist are in on this lie" lie and insult .
Scientists in various fields measure the ages of fossils.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Lies....
You spend time above denying science, observation and unifomtraian, than turn around and claim uniformitarnism is true when it comes to ice cores.

More fact less and irrelevant insults and ignorance. A lie that I deny science, observation or am arguing for or against uniformitarianism. The facts are:

1. All of recorded history shows that summer happens once a year.
2. Summer causes dust to be deposited in snow.
3. Those dust layers show up as dark layers in ice cores.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Please explain how say 400,000 dark layers in ice cores were deposited in the last 6000 years.
That means that summer happened on average 66 times a year. But then we have recorded history - 400 summers a year?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Ice cores are a simple example of how easy it is to understand evidence that the Earth is old. Anyone who can count up to 55,000 can physically count 55,000 years in ice cores ("For example, at Vostok, layer counting is only possible down to an age of 55,000 years").

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Replies to working science with articles containing delusions and lies from creation.com
Do Greenland ice cores show over one hundred thousand years of annual layers?
There is a lie about the usage of ice-accumulation models which are used to model the lower, not visually clear, layers. In general, the first few tens of thousands of layers (I have seen 55,000 quoted) can be measured by eye and microscope . Glaciers have the additional property that they flow so I suspect that it is multiple ices cores that establish the layer count.
A lie by omission - volcanic ash and isotopic composition are also used to confirm the age of layers.
A delusion of a "700-year Ice Age" creating most of the layers when that requires multiple summers a year .

Greenland Ice Sheet Project

Photograph of a section of the GISP2 ice core from 1837 m depth with clearly visible annual layers.

 

[RealityCheck01]

It was quoted to show the variation in dating methods when applied to the same rock. But I have no issues with that, it falsies that first assumption in radiometric dating.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A "variation in dating methods when applied to the same rock...falsies that first assumption in radiometric dating." lie
Anyone can read the paper, look up what they do not know and see that this is not dating the same rock. The paper dates the formation of 2 minerals in the granite. The paper states the date of formation of the granite. This does not falsify any assumption in radiometric dating. Granite forms by crystalizing from existing minerals. Those minerals can have different dates of formation from each other and the date of crystallization.

3 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: You debunk a young Earth by citing a zircon date of 1,483 million years, monazite date of 97 million years and granite date of 20 million years!

 

[Strathos]

We find 50 year old airplanes buried under 264 feet of solid ice intact, with layers galore apparent in the ice bore.

So you are correct. The data is irrelevant to believers in evolution and age......

So 5.28 feet per year. The deepest shelf is 10,000 feet. so in 1,839 years the entire shelf could have formed...... And that is 5.28 during the onset of global warming...... in Greenland far from the antarctic where it is 10,000 feet thick.

You really need to change your username if you are going to repeat lies like this that have been debunked time after time.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html

 

[RealityCheck01]

We find 50 year old airplanes buried under 264 feet of solid ice intact, with layers galore apparent in the ice bore.

As Strathos pointed out , that is not the truth, a hint of which is no source for that assertion.
6 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: A belief that the ability to count is a belief and a "data is irrelevant" lie !
Note the word dusty in the post you replied to. The annual dust layers are the dark layers that anyone with eyes can see and count.
Greenland Ice Sheet Project

Photograph of a section of the GISP2 ice core from 1837 m depth with clearly visible annual layers.

The airplanes are ICR stupidity from 1992 debunked in 2001. The Lost Squadron of P38's was buried under snow and glacier ice. Larry Vardiman ignorantly thought that coastal snow fall rates were applicable to the inland locations where the ice cores were taken. The coastal location with its warmer temperatures and frequent surface melting explains a rumor of layers.

A parroted "with layers galore apparent in the ice bore" lie when the original ICR article mentions no such layers. The source is the unreliable Kent Hovind who has a rumor of “Many hundreds of them” [layers] stated in a telephone conversation Bob Cardin (seemingly not a glaciologist). Hovind lies because he missed the sensible act of asking experts about what causes ice layers in warm, coastal temperatures or learning about ice cores or glaciers for himself.

The GISP2 Ice Core: Ultimate Proof that Noah’s Flood Was Not Global (PDF)

Two experienced glaciologists informed me that Hovind is largely correct about the “hundreds” of lines in the hole dug to remove the WW2planes. They both said that the area where the planes landed is a relatively warm area because of its lower, southern elevation, and several melt layers can be formed every year in regions like that which would appear as layers in the hole. Add to these melt layers the actual annual layers, which near the top show up as several lines within the space of a few inches, and you can have an off the cuff estimate of “hundreds of lines.” One can understand Hovind’s confusion.

But let’s make this perfectly clear: The 110,000 layers of the GISP2 ice core are not due to melting. They are definitely not melt layers. Even if melting had occurred more often in the past, layers due to melting are readily recognized and would certainly not be counted as annual.44

 

[46AND2]

Sorry if this has been addressed, but I wanted to start with these "assumptions." I have not yet read the whole thread, but will catch up.

Assumptions

1] That each system is a closed system. Nothing can contaminate the parent or daughter products being measured.

This is a lie. Scientists do not assume this. We know that contamination can and does happen. We know how to identify and account for it.

2] Each system most initially have contained no daughter components, which is unprovable.

This is a lie. Scientists do not assume this. Not only does the initial concentration NOT need to be zero. We can DETERMINE how much there initially was. Most of the time it WAS NOT ZERO.

3] The process rate must always be the same.

This is a lie. Scientists do not assume this. We already KNOW that decay rates have been constant for FAR, FAR longer than is compatible with YEC. If you'd like to know how, I'd be more than happy to explain it to you. However, scientists do not assume that it has always been constant.

Some other assumptions. If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet this could greatly effect the clocks in minerals.

Change like what? How do you know it could effect the clocks? Have you found something that does effect them? Because scientists have tried everything they can think of, and NOTHING significantly changes the clocks of the elements we use to date the earth.

Further, this is a moot point, because we already know that they have been constant for at least hundreds of millions of years.

Carbon dating assumptions

1] The air around us has for the past several million years, had the same amount of atmospheric carbon that it now has.

This is a lie. Scientists do not assume this. In fact, they know it hasn't been constant. They even know how much it has varied (at least over the last 50k years). That's why we have to calibrate it with dendrochronology, lake varves, and ice cores.

2] The very large amount of oceanic carbon has remained constant.

This is a lie. Scientists do not assume this. In fact, they know that it has varied, and still varies. They even know why it varies more in one location than another. That's why they need DIFFERENT calibration charts for different parts of the ocean.

3] Cosmic rays from outer space have reached the earth in the same amounts in the past as now.

This is a lie. Scientists do not assume this. This is getting redundant. Do you know where your apologists get these "assumptions?" They are problems that scientists DOCUMENTED AND SOLVED DECADES AGO.

4] Both the rate of formation and rate of decay of carbon 14 have always in the past remained in balance.

This is a lie. Scientists do not assume this.

5] The decay rate of carbon 14 has never changed.

This is a lie. Scientists don't assume this. We don't need to know if it has NEVER changed. We can only test it for the last 50k years or so. And we know it's been constant at least that long. If it wasn't, then readings we take would not be consistent across tree rings, lake varves, speleothems, coral bands, and ice cores. So, if you want to propose that the rate has changed, then you also must explain how those other methods have ALSO changed, through vastly different mechanisms, in JUST such a way, that they all match up.

6] Nothing has ever contaminated any specimen containing carbon 14.

This is a lie. Scientists don't assume this. In fact, they have to account for the contamination introduced BY THEIR OWN INSTRUMENTS. They also know how it gets contaminated, how to account for it, and when and why to expect it.

If you would like to discuss any of these in more detail, pick ONE to start out with. I don't care about quotes, because I don't trust apologist quotes--I have seen how they literally, and repeatedly lie about the quotes. So don't use them.

I also want YOUR words. You can use a link to SUPPORT your arguments, and small snippets of quoted text ( no more than a couple sentences) but if you just post a wall of copied text, I'm done. It's against the rules of the forum to do that, anyway.

Also, scientists use the word "assumption" in a much different sense than do laymen. If a scientist says something can be assumed, they have good reason to think so--it's backed by plenty of evidence. Not that it matters in this case, because they literally do not assume any of those things on your list.

And it's been like that for DECADES.

 

[46AND2]

...If an argument holds for a long while, does not that add validity to it? ...

Could it not also indicate chronic dishonesty when the presenter has had their arguments refuted, yet never recants the claims? Seriously, some of this stuff is mindbogglingly easy to refute. Even just a little logic and a well stated followup question often suffices. But it takes integrity on the part of the presenter to recant. It was this lack of integrity which I had a serious problem with when I was a YEC.

 

[46AND2]

Could they for thousands or tens of thousands, that is the argument.


‘If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10 million years, then, assuming a constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100 000 years to bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous.

‘Alternatively, if a 10 m tree were buried in 10 years, that would mean 1000 km in a million years or 10 000 km in 10 million years (i.e. the duration of the coal measures). This is equally ridiculous and we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous’

Derek Ager, Emeritus Professor of Geology, University College of Swansea, trained under strict Lyellian uniformitarianism, describes some polystrate fossil tree trunks that he illustrated in his book:

Ager’s illustration—an old print showing fossil trees that appear to be in growth position at Nant Llech in the Swansea Valley, South Wales, UK. The trees are now preserved outside Swansea Museum.https://creation.com/polystrate-fossils-evidence-for-a-young-earth

Please cite one scientific paper in which a polystrate tree goes through multiple layers which date vastly different from one another. Just one.

For this paper to count, it must show the radiometric dates for at least a couple of the layers it passes through.

Heck, you can even show me a paper in which a CREATIONIST actually did some research of his or her own, and had the layers surrounding the tree dated.

You won't find one. Because it's stupid. Scientists are not that stupid. They know about polystrate fossils, and it poses no threat to radiometric dating. Because we've known the answer to such a quandary for OVER 100 years. Even before radiometric dating existed, we knew the explanation, and how it is compatible with an old earth.

 

[RealityCheck01]

‘If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10 million years, then, assuming a constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100 000 years to bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous.

‘Alternatively, if a 10 m tree were buried in 10 years, that would mean 1000 km in a million years or 10 000 km in 10 million years (i.e. the duration of the coal measures). This is equally ridiculous and we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous’

Derek Ager, Emeritus Professor of Geology, University College of Swansea, trained under strict Lyellian uniformitarianism, describes some polystrate fossil tree trunks that he illustrated in his book ...

Yet another lie and even delusion from your source, Tolkien R.R.J.
The book by Derek Ager is The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History (published in 1993) and is on exceptions to "strict Lyellian uniformitarianism". The examples of the exceptions include colliding continents and asteroid impacts over the past 4.6 billion years. This is geology supporting an old Earth thus the deluded part of quoting the book.

You are citing a geologist whose examples of sudden geological events moved geologists away from strict Lyellian uniformitarianism! You would know that if you ever read a reliable source on modern uniformitarianism

Derek Ager has noted that "geologists do not deny uniformitarianism in its true sense, that is to say, of interpreting the past by means of the processes that are seen going on at the present day, so long as we remember that the periodic catastrophe is one of those processes. Those periodic catastrophes make more showing in the stratigraphical record than we have hitherto assumed."[39]

Derek Ager was anti-YEC and explicitly did not want his words abused by creationists. Ager's Opinion of Young-Earth Creationists by Dr. Kevin R. Henke

"For a century and a half the geological world has been dominated, one might even say brain-washed, by the gradualistic uniformitarianism of Charles Lyell. Any suggestion of 'catastrophic' events has been rejected as old-fashioned, unscientific and even laughable. This is partly due to the extremism of some of Cuvier's followers, though not of Cuvier himself.

On that side too were the obviously untenable views of bible-oriented fanatics, obsessed with myths such as Noah's flood, and of classicists thinking of Nemesis. That is why I think it necessary to include the following 'disclaimer': in view of the misuse that my words have been put to in the past, I wish to say that nothing in this book should be taken out of context and thought in any way to support the views of the 'creationists' (who I refuse to call 'scientific')." [Ager's emphasis]

Reference
Ager, Derek, 1993, 1995 (paperback edition), The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain.

 

[SkyWriting]

How dare you degrade the Appendix of the great LOTR comparing it to this thread. Tolkien would slap you like a girl.

Did he often slap girls?

 

[SkyWriting]

The continents would have eroded away over 250 times if they were as old as the evolutionist say. Earths surface is constantly being eroded, this rate of erosion is easily measured , the average height reduction for all continents is 2.4 inches per thousand years.

There is the possibility of mountains raising up with evidence of sea creature fossils....which we do find.

 

[SkyWriting]

Giving best possible assumptions and generous calculations to the evolutionist the salt would have accumulated in the oceans in a maximum possible age of 62 million years. Many processes continually add salt to the oceans and seas, but salt is not removed as easily from the sea , resulting in a steady increase of salt in the oceans. This has been used as a way to date the earth since 1715 when it was first calculated to be maximum of 80 to 90 million years old. Today every kilogram of sea water contains about 10.8 grams of dissolved sodium, the oceans contain 1,370 million cubic kilometers of water making a total of 14,700 trillion tons of sodium in the oceans. Every year rivers and other sources dump 457 million tons of sodium into the oceans.

Given the idea of erosion, I'd imagine that salt dissolving would increase dramatically over time, with near to none in "early years", when ever those years may be. Salt is generally found in huge deposits and not spread even across the land.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The continents would have eroded away over 250 times if they were as old as the evolutionist say. Earths surface is constantly being eroded, this rate of erosion is easily measured , the average height reduction for all continents is 2.4 inches per thousand years.

8 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Parrots a YEC delusion that continent only erode and the North American continent is about 10 million years old.
Explaining the deluded part first - this is young Earth creationism that believes the Earth is 6000 years old citing evidence that the Earth is millions of years old! They are stating that their erosion rate gives that the North American continent is about 10 million years old with older continent ages also calculated.

They assume the erosion rate is constant.
They deny mountain building as if the Himalayas and volcanoes did not exist doh and other continent building processes, e.g. lava flows, delta and continental shelf buildup.
They lie about the ages of modern continents. The modern continents formed from the breakup of Pangaea about 175 million years ago. There are rock formations within continents dated back to the early Earth.

The Erosion of Continents as a Creationist Clock
That article cites an old Earth creationist not denying or lying abut geology: "Ross, Hugh. 2004. A Matter of Days. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 186-187 p.".

 

[RealityCheck01]

Conservapedia: Arguments for a recent creation is a handy source for the debunking of some YEC fantasies about the age of the Earth.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...Thus the moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm (1½ inches) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance.8 NB: this is the maximum possible age — far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks) — not the actual age.

8 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Parrots a YEC delusion about the recession of the Moon from the Earth.
Explaining the deluded part first - this is young Earth creationism that believes the Earth is 6000 years old calculating that the Moon and presumably the Earth is at least 1.37 billion years old!

Claim CE110: Because of tidal friction, the moon is receding, and the earth's rotation is slowing down, at rates too fast for the earth to be billions of years old.

Response:

1. The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm per year. Since the moon is 3.85 × 10^10 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old.
   
   
2. The magnitude of tidal friction depends on the arrangement of the continents. In the past, the continents were arranged such that tidal friction, and thus the rates of earth's slowing and the moon's recession, would have been less. The earth's rotation has slowed at a rate of two seconds every 100,000 years (Eicher 1976).
   
   
3. The rate of earth's rotation in the distant past can be measured. Corals produce skeletons with both daily layers and yearly patterns, so we can count the number of days per year when the coral grew. Measurements of fossil corals from 180 to 400 million years ago show year lengths from 381 to 410 days, with older corals showing more days per year (Eicher 1976; Scrutton 1970; Wells 1963; 1970). Similarly, days per year can also be computed from growth patterns in mollusks (Pannella 1976; Scrutton 1978) and stromatolites (Mohr 1975; Pannella et al. 1968) and from sediment deposition patterns (Williams 1997). All such measurements are consistent with a gradual rate of earth's slowing for the last 650 million years.
   
   
4. The clocks based on the slowing of earth's rotation described above provide an independent method of dating geological layers over most of the fossil record. The data is inconsistent with a young earth.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

I want you to explain how a flood can form the unconformity I described, or if you would like the question rephrased, how do you think it could have formed in anything less than millions of years?

Ok. Im going to conclude that you're incapable of responding.

As I've said before, giving me a random link is not a response. A website cannot respond when spoken to. You are the voice for this website and I am speaking to you. And you aren't responding.

You make a mistake thinking i am a good representative of creation. I am just a crazy christian with to much time on his hands. Yet I think we both know what is going on here. You have old earth assumptions about formations formation and assumptions about the floods inability to produce hard rock in a short time. Once those assumptions are removed we see no objections from observation. I saw nothing wrong with how you see the formation formed other than time. But unless you can give me a specific reason as to why the features take long ages, your objection is based on assumptions that the flood could not produce hard rocks in short time or seemingly, that creationist deny any plate movement.

So i ask once more, what from observation and not assumption do you point to that you believe indicates long time.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

This is a very incomplete list I have compiled myself. None of these things are compatible with the Flood or Flood geology.
--------------------------
How does a Flood explain subaerial igneous deposits?
How does a Flood address all the heat that would be produced by the formation of limestone?
How does the Flood explain trace fossils?
How does the Flood explain faunal succession?
How does the Flood explain 60,000 varve layers in Lake Suigetsu and hundreds of thousands of layers in ice cores?
How does the Flood explain glacial erosion and deposits?
How does Flood explain eolian deposits and paleosols?
How does the Flood explain meanders like Horseshoe bend?
How does the Flood explain the different states of erosion exhibited by different mountain ranges?
How does the Flood explain batholiths?

I will put in the effort that you did. And link to responses to common objections to the flood. However please keep these for a future thread on the flood, this is the age of the earth.



https://www.amazon.com/Earths-Catastrophic-Past-Geology-Creation/dp/0932766943
https://www.masterbooks.com/rock-solid-answers-paperback-single
https://www.amazon.com/Geology-Design-Carl-Froede-Jr/dp/0890515034
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/
https://creationresearch.org/product/how-noahs-flood-shaped-our-earth/
https://creation.com/noahs-flood-questions-and-answers