The density is found in the types of minerals that comprise the aggregations, not the forms of the aggregations--gold sparsely spread is still heavier than silver densely packed: that fact is not by the volume of the metal, but by it's kind; thus an once of gold is always denser than a ton of silver, that is only by kind, not volume, nor form: that fact is also true of the various minerals that comprise the earth.
More dense minerals and more dense rock, in many cases, are found at shallower depths than less dense minerals and less dense rock, including gold and silver.
Anyway, let me know if you would like to continue discussing the video:
We don't have to discuss the video if you don't want to. I just get the impression that we are straying from the topic.
Here was my original statement at the very beginning of our discussion:
As someone noted above, young earthers, while often times they are honest with their interpretations of scripture, they tend to not be particularly honest (at least not public speakers for yecism) when it comes to discussions about creation itself as observed through science.
I could easily go into websites like answers in genesis for example, and could easily find factually incorrect misinformation (typically misrepresentation of scientific information). It's just the way it is.
But to be particular, I've posted a video a couple times now in this thread that I think YECs tend to either not understand (which is fine, most people aren't scientists and I don't expect everyone to just instantly understand), but some YECs also do not want to understand. They don't want to take an honest approach on what exists in creation. Which I view as an extension of Gods word, as He spoke creation into existence.
If you're a yec, you're welcome to be a subject of my words, below is the video if you would like to take an honest approach to the topic. Feel free to review the brief video below and describe how yecism accounts for the existences of corresponding phylogenetic trees.
Why do people even want to put evolution in the equation?
I believe my position remains the same.
For some reason we got stuck at superposition. But superposition really has nothing to do with density of minerals or rocks. Density is largely irrelevant with respect to superposition.
Think about an inclusion for example of a particular mineral. The location of any mineral inclusion in a rock is not based on density as far as whether the inclusion is older or younger than it's surrounding body. The same goes for a dike or sill. Their position in stratigraphy is often not based on the density of the minerals in which they include, but rather is based on their timing of deposition.
And if we are talking about minerals of sedimentary bodies, they aren't sorted by density either.
I can find feldspar above and below copper. Or I can find gold above and below calcite etc.
Superposition really comes down to the simple understanding that lower and deeper layers must form before shallower layers. Else the shallower layers would have nothing to be deposited upon.
And with this, we can then begin to observe the succession of fossils on this sequence of deposited layers. Lower layers containing older fossils and shallower layers containing younger fossils.
Or we just consider that terrestrial formations have footprints on them. And therefore time must have passed between the deposition of the rock layer below and deposition of the rock layer above the tracks, else an animal wouldn't be able to spend time walking between the two events to make the tracks.
And that succession of layers (older is deeper, younger is shallower) and associated fossils (bones and tracks etc.) is what we use to test if evolution is true.
And that's it.
