Dinosaur footprints destroy flood geology.

[thaumaturgy]

Chordateslegacy
All we talk about here is data after the fact.

Do you know of other types of data?

All you say is this was formed this way and that formed that way. I understand geology makes these conclusions about things but they were wrong.

Are you familiar with forensic science? While it isn't geology it's a good example of reconstructing a scene long after the events occurred.

People use it to great effect every day to solve crimes and pursue justice. How do you think the police do that? Do you think that every time they find a person murdered in an apartment building, they have to go to a neighboring apartment and murder someone to see how it was done?

Geology is kinda like that. We can see things forming today, this very second, and they take various shapes and they leave various indicators of why the sediments or rocks look the way the do.

We can even factor in how these will change with pressure and time and heat.

So when we see structures in old, ancient, deeply buried rocks, we can tell what they likely looked like waaaay back when they were forming!

The making of earth crust is not my subject

But you're still going to tell us how it was made, right?

but it doesn't matter.

Well, thanks! I spent 12 years in college in this subject, sacrificed a lot, and went hungry and cold all for that knowledge and it turns out, it doesn't matter that I spent all that time and energy!

I was a sucker!

Its premise on premise. Everything in the earth shows a sudden action with a result.

Really? Everything?

Not gradualism.

I have a clock in front of me. Want to tell me how SUDDENLY that hour hand is spinning around?

this is a weighty subject and I would have to examone all your presumptions you introduce as fact.
Its too broad a subject.

Weighty and broad, so if YOU don't follow it, then no one can?

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Chordateslegacy
All we talk about here is data after the fact.

Retrodiction is as valid and powerful as prediction. Your assertion that it is all in the past is false, as there is much research being done today.

All you say is this was formed this way and that formed that way. I understand geology makes these conclusions about things but they were wrong.

Show evidence of it. Just saying it doesn't make it valid. Post some links to papers about what, exactly, all us geologists are doing wrong.

The making of earth crust is not my subject but it doesn't matter. Its premise on premise. Everything in the earth shows a sudden action with a result. Not gradualism.

Provide a physical model of fast formation of the geology we see. Provide a paper, or something, just one valid piece of real evidence would be a good start from you, rather than just a bunch of assertions.

Also, we see giant crystals in some intrusive bodies. We know the ranges of rates at which crystals form, and they do not fit the 1-year flood model. So you'll need to scientifically prove a way for crystals to form in such a short period, or this fact alone proves your wrong.

this is a weighty subject and I would have to examone all your presumptions you introduce as fact.
Its too broad a subject.

For someone who is a geologist (are you?) it should be easy to address what is in our posts if we are, in fact, wrong.

By the way the Scottish geologists, the first in the world, did not correct themselves but insisted creationism fit geology. In fact Huttons stuff was not dominant until Lyell pushed it forward from what I read.
creationist geology was the first geology in the world. It was not overthrown by the first geologists but only later ones.

But it was overthrown, and has been refuted repeatedly since then. It does not matter if it was the first geologists or not.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Rob Byers wrote:

Chordateslegacy
All we talk about here is data after the fact.

This is true; is there any other type of data, I mean everything we observe is in the past.


All you say is this was formed this way and that formed that way.

Geologists do not say this was formed this way; it is the evidence that says it was formed in such a way. Take the following two images, the first is wave ripples in sandstone and the second is wave ripples in sand on a beach, so the geology of the sandstone and that includes not just the ripples but also grain size, grain composition, fossils, minerals etc tell us that the sandstone was once a beach.

Wave ripples in sandstone.

Wave ripples on beach

The following two images are of mud cracks; firstly fossilised in mudstone and secondly in a dried up mud bed. So we can say with confidence that the fossilised mud cracks formed in a arid, flat muddy area.

Fossilised mud cracks in mudstone


Present day mud cracks


Present day black smoker

Fossilised black smoker

I think you get the picture by now.

I understand geology makes these conclusions about things but they were wrong.

No they are not wrong; Uniformiatrianism works with such elegance that it is simplicity itself.

The making of earth crust is not my subject but it doesn't matter.

Yes it does matter; do you see me commenting on computer science, dentistry, car mechanics etc, no you do not, because they are not my field of expertise.

Its premise on premise.

No it is not; it is interpretation of the evidence in the light of present day geological processes. What is really interesting is that everything in the geological record can be explained by present day processes “Uniformiatrianism”.


Everything in the earth shows a sudden action with a result.

You keep making this statement; but that is all it is until you can bring some evidence to the discussion, which is something you have not yey done, so the only conclusion any free thinking person can make is that there is no evidence for your and the YEC paradigm where geology is concerned.

Not gradualism.

HO yes; unless you have evidence to the contrary

this is a weighty subject and I would have to examone all your presumptions you introduce as fact.

If I was wrong in someway I am sure other geologists would notice and put me right. Your blind faith is no substitute for hard facts, and geology has all the hard facts.

Its too broad a subject.

The basic concepts of geology are not difficult to grasp; however YEC use their lack of knowledge as evidence for their world paradigm, Ignorance is not evidence.

By the way the Scottish geologists, the first in the world, did not correct themselves but insisted creationism fit geology.

The trouble is creationism does not sit with geology and sorry but it never will, unless of course you are ignorant to geological theory and practice, then it fits at least in the minds of the uneducated.

In fact Huttons stuff was not dominant until Lyell pushed it forward from what I read.
creationist geology was the first geology in the world. It was not overthrown by the first geologists but only later ones.

The first geologists were sent out to find evidence for Noah’s flood, but they could find none. Also not a single piece of evidence in 200 years of geology has come to light in support of the YEC paradigm.

You are all being misled by people sitting in ivory towers; their exuberant life styles rely on the ignorance of their flocks. It’s easy money if you have no conscience.

 

[flatworm]

Its not been tested if a year long movement including all other aspects of the year of the flood would bring destruction to earth.

While we have never actually observed a global yearlong flood, we have observed in detail a great number of phenomena that such a flood would entail. For instance, the observation that water does not come from nowhere nor vanish into nothingness can hardly be overcome just by claiming things would somehow be different if enough water were involved. Likewise, the deformation of rock requires time and produces heat. There is absolutely no justification for the belief this would somehow stop during a hypothetical global flood.

There clearly has been movement and there is no reason to see this great movement frying everything up.

Certainly there is. A great amount of force is required to deform rock (try it sometime). A force applied through a distance is work (i.e. energy). Now, where can that energy go? Inevitably most of it will be lost as heat.

The cause and effect of the flood and the movements of earth and how they were moved is not demonstrable to not work fine.

Just demonstrated it. Sorry. Handwaving wildly about the laws of physics not applying for some reason during a global flood is ludicrous. We might as well say that so much rain at once should produce gerbils instead of flooding.

All sides are dealing with evidence after the fact. The creationist opionion just makes more sense and is rooted in biblical boundaries.

Makes more sense how? By selectively ignoring the laws of physics when they get inconvenient, without justification?

I'm not saying the laws were different back then but just not understood in total right now.

So which is wrong? The first law of thermodynamics? The second?

The creationist model has not been explored by non creationist geology.

Sure it was, 200 years ago- by Christian geologists. They found it was not tenable and rejected it.

So they can't say this or that wouldn't work when they don't include or understand the variables and other options for earth movements.

What variables and options would allow massive ultrarapid deformation of the earth's crust without releasing massive amounts of heat?

Come on, give us a real reason, not just handwaving.

 

[RobertByers]

Everybody (lot of weighty posts here)
You keep saying over and over that present earth actions are used to tell about the past.
This is not science. Its ordinary police work. The police do not do science.
I'm not trying to be unreasonable. Yet all of you never show the scientific method behind the great conclusions but only the surmissing found in books.

Even chordateslegacy pictures here prove my point that ripples (a sudden event) if found in fossil are about a sudden event and not grafualism.

You show why these subjects don't persuade the already doubting.
You show rocks etc from past and gone events without testable or even good analysis of why things happen as you say.
I'm not a geologist but i know the first thing is observation. not observation within a existing theory and mindframe.

All I see with sedimentary rock formations is collected sediment by a event that collected it. If different layers then the event had different stages.
I saw recently on "Secrets of the dead" about Crete a excellent account of how a four layered area was from a single volcanic explosion. The four layers each having different nature but simply different stages in one event. Cause and effect.

If one observes rock that was folded or melted of tilted or moved then one should conclude a event did this all at once. not say all came from your ages of slow movement.
I'm being the better geologist. Not impressed my previos mens work unless it has solid evidence behind it. Not claims to degrees.

Past and gone events are not testable. They just are not. The minor little things to compare can not be said to back up the conclusions. The origin of rock formations was not witnessed. Any scenario can have minor collabarating evidence.

You guys need something that shows why a old age conclusion is the only reasonable option. Is this a difficult task?

 

[Chalnoth]

Everybody (lot of weighty posts here)
You keep saying over and over that present earth actions are used to tell about the past.
This is not science.

Sure it is! It's a good enough assumption to start with. It allows you to draw patterns from looking at current processes, then predict what we should see if those same processes happened in the past. And, lo and behold, we find exactly what we would expect to find if this were the case.

Past and gone events are not testable. They just are not. The minor little things to compare can not be said to back up the conclusions. The origin of rock formations was not witnessed. Any scenario can have minor collabarating evidence.

You keep claiming this, but you're simply wrong. They are very testable because our models of past rock formations provide predictions as to how various rock formations will be related to one another. If the patterns don't match up, then our theories are wrong. This possibility of falsification is the essence of testability. So you simply have no reasonable objections. All you have is ignorance.

You guys need something that shows why a old age conclusion is the only reasonable option. Is this a difficult task?

No, not at all. Except for somebody that will not pay any attention to the evidence. I would usually point out, for instance, SN1987A:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/SN1987A.html

This demonstrates beyond any shadow of a doubt that the universe is older than 168,000 years. As for the Earth itself, we have found rocks that have been radiometrically dated to billions of years old.

Zircons are a good example here. Zircon crystals will sometimes form with Uranium in one of the locations in their crystal lattice. The chemistry of lead, however, is different from uranium, and lead cannot form within a zircon crystal. But lead is the decay product of Uranium. So, when we pick up a zircon crystal, and find a mixture of lead and uranium in it, we know that all of the lead was once uranium (the crystals are very, very hard and thus highly resistant to contamination). We just take the ratios and the measured decay rate of uranium, and lo and behold, we find that some of these zircons date to ages in excess of 3 billion years old. How would that be remotely possible in a young Earth?

 

[AV1611VET]

One of the most boring things I've ever done is sit through a lecture on Plate Tectonics --- (and my wife and I have sat through several).

At least Astronomony lectures have pretty pictures.

 

[Nathan Poe]

One of the most boring things I've ever done is sit through a lecture on Plate Tectonics --- (and my wife and I have sat through several).

At least Astronomony lectures have pretty pictures.

Anything seems boring if it's far enough over your head.

 

[thaumaturgy]

One of the most boring things I've ever done is sit through a lecture on Plate Tectonics --- (and my wife and I have sat through several).

"One of the most boring things I've ever done is sit through a church sermon. And I've sat through several."

Actually, AV, if you have indeed "sat through several" you clearly weren't paying attention. If I am recalling correctly, based on your earlier posts on the Indian Sub-continent, I should think either you went to a plate tectonics seminar offered by your pastor or you went to a real one and just napped.

At least Astronomony lectures have pretty pictures.

So then you didn't go to a real plate tectonics lecture, huh?

Yeah, yer right. No pretty pictures associated with plate tectonics. NOTHIN' like this beauty:

(NOTE: No offense, astronomers, I'm just goofin'....)

 

[Psudopod]

You keep saying over and over that present earth actions are used to tell about the past.
This is not science. Its ordinary police work. The police do not do science.
I'm not trying to be unreasonable. Yet all of you never show the scientific method behind the great conclusions but only the surmissing found in books.

The police use science though. You do understand forensics right? There was a nice example posted. We use the present to examine past all the time. We're also aware that it may not be the same. What we're looking for is evidence of this. Not just a priori assumptions that it has to have been.

Based on what we know about now, we can make models of the past. If the evidence doesn't fit the model, then we know there is some problem. We then look at why.

People might only show the summaries, but this is an internet forum and people have lives. It takes year to get to the level of understanding that some people have. Years of hard work and study. Years that cannot be conveyed in a simple post.

 

[flatworm]

Everybody (lot of weighty posts here)
You keep saying over and over that present earth actions are used to tell about the past.
This is not science. Its ordinary police work. The police do not do science.

Nonsense. Of course they do- it's called forensics.

I'm not trying to be unreasonable.

Then I'll just assume it comes naturally.

Even chordateslegacy pictures here prove my point that ripples (a sudden event) if found in fossil are about a sudden event and not grafualism.

Preserved beach ripples suggest sudden burial, but several layers of beach ripples one on top of the other require a sequence of several such events interrupted by periods of normal wave action. Similarly, a single set of preserbed mud tracks suggests rapid burial, but a sequence of layers with mud cracks indicates several rapid burials interrupted by periods of dryness.

I'm not a geologist but i know the first thing is observation. not observation within a existing theory and mindframe.

So how do you interpret these things, without the existing theory or mindframe of taking Genesis literally?

All I see with sedimentary rock formations is collected sediment by a event that collected it. If different layers then the event had different stages.

...different stages that cannot physically coexist within narrow timeframes, ruling out that their formation during a global flood.

I saw recently on "Secrets of the dead" about Crete a excellent account of how a four layered area was from a single volcanic explosion. The four layers each having different nature but simply different stages in one event. Cause and effect.

Would I be correct in supposing that these four layers were... volcanic? Not say, a coal bed, followed by a layer of sandstone with animal tracks?

If one observes rock that was folded or melted of tilted or moved then one should conclude a event did this all at once.

Why? The mechanics of the rock physically prevent it from bending at speed, and melting would leave behind telltale changes in structure.

I'm being the better geologist. Not impressed my previos mens work unless it has solid evidence behind it.

There is, so you can stop posturing. You're not any sort of geologist.

Past and gone events are not testable. They just are not. The minor little things to compare can not be said to back up the conclusions. The origin of rock formations was not witnessed. Any scenario can have minor collabarating evidence.

So you're in favour of freeing all criminals convicted without eyewitnesses?

We're not talking about minor corroborating evidence, by the way. We're talking about evidence that shows conclusively that your claims cannot possibly be true.

You guys need something that shows why a old age conclusion is the only reasonable option. Is this a difficult task?

Radiometric dating, lake varves, chalk cliffs, multiple layered coal beds... it's all there, and hand-waving won't make it go away.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Rob Byers wrote

Everybody (lot of weighty posts here)
You keep saying over and over that present earth actions are used to tell about the past.
This is not science. Its ordinary police work.

1. Science and technology1 are already important tools
in all areas of policing, particularly in the fight
against crime. Their contribution is vital to policing -
most people will already be aware of the
importance of fingerprints and more recently DNA in
solving crime. But, every day, the police forces of
England and Wales rely on an increasingly wide range
of Information and Communications Technology
(ICT), forensic science, and other technologies to
serve the public.

2. The effective use of these tools is critical if more
offenders are to be brought to justice and
bureaucracy eliminated to free up officers for front-line
duties. As science develops and new technologies
become available, there will be further opportunities
for harnessing these to deliver effective policing.

3. As part of the police reform programme, the major
stakeholders in policing identified the need for an
overarching strategy for the police use of science
and technology. The purpose of this police science
and technology strategy is:

‘to ensure the police service is equipped to exploit
the opportunities in science and technology to
deliver effective policing as part of a modern and
respected criminal justice system’
.
4. This single overarching strategic framework, first
published in 20032, creates a clear common,
understanding of how requirements are identified and
met, how funding and priorities are agreed, and how
local and national needs are balanced. This allows the
strategic management of a single portfolio of police
science and technology, with a strong operational focus,
including a clear role for research and development.
5. The Science and Technology Strategy is reviewed
regularly. This is the second edition.

LINK: Science in police work

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Rob Byers wrote:

I'm not trying to be unreasonable. Yet all of you never show the scientific method behind the great conclusions but only the surmissing found in books.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND GEOLOGY​

A. DEFINITIONS
1. SCIENCE
Science is any methodological activity, discipline, or study.
Therefore, science is NOT a certain body of information, but a
method of learning or a process for discovering truth.



2. NATURAL SCIENCE
Definition: any activity designed to further our understanding of
why things happen the way they do in the natural world.
Auxiliary Assumption: scientists assume that the natural world
behaves in a consistent and predictable manner, according to
certain physical laws (as opposed to behaving randomly). This
implies that "cause and effect" relationships exist in nature.


3. SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Although scientists generally rely upon certain principles (such
as logic) in conducting their work, there is no single, universally
accepted "scientific method". Nonetheless, most every scientist
would agree that science includes at least three basic elements:
(1) collecting facts, or "data", (2) formulating a "hypothesis" to
explain those facts, and (3) testing the hypothesis. These three
elements are explained in more detail below.


B. THE SCIENTIFIC "METHOD"
1. COLLECTING FACTS ("DATA")
a. Observations
Making observations is the most basic way to collect facts,
and in its most basic form, requires no special training or
equipment.
Example: it doesn't take a scientist to notice Devil's Tower!

b. Measurements
Making measurements usually requires measuring devices,
and often the use of those devices requires special training.
Example: not everyone knows how to monitor a volcano!


2. PROPOSING EXPLANATIONS
The next step is to formulate a hypothesis to explains the facts.
A hypothesis, by definition, is neither right nor wrong, it's simply
an untested explanation. However, good science avoids basing
a hypothesis on "anecdotal evidence", attempts to evaluate all of
the information that is available, and even uses common sense.


3. HYPOTHESIS TESTING
Once a hypothesis has been tested it can be rejected, modified,
or accepted. A hypothesis that survives the scrutiny of proper
testing is then known as a theory or a model (not a proven fact).


C. TESTING HYPOTHESES
There are various ways to test a hypothesis. Three of the common
approaches are used in geology are:
1. CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS
Controlled experiments (usually carried out in laboratories) are
properly designed to test a certain hypothesis, and they can be
repeated. Unfortunately, many hypotheses in geology cannot
be directly tested in a controlled experiment (e.g., the origin of
Devil's Tower cannot be discovered by using this approach).
Note that some people distinguish between "hard" and "soft"
science on this basis: "hard" science relies on controlled and
repeatable experiments to support its hypotheses and theories,
whereas "soft" science does not.


2. PREDICTIONS
A hypothesis or model can also be tested by making predictions
based on that hypothesis. If a prediction comes true, then there
is reasonable evidence for accepting the hypothesis. Of course,
not every hypothesis can be tested in this way (e.g., the origin of
Devil's Tower cannot be discovered by using this approach).


3. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
When it is impossible to collect direct evidence (e.g., through a
controlled experiment), geologists must rely on "circumstantial"
evidence to test hypotheses (as would a detective).
However, circumstantial evidence is subject to interpretation, so
the conclusions drawn using this approach are less certain.

[FONT='Univers Cd (W1)'][/FONT]
D. UNSCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES
Any hypothesis (including a scientific one) could be right or wrong,
but for a hypothesis to considered scientific, it must satisfy certain
criteria. To illustrate, we shall consider two possible explanations
for the origin of Devil's Tower: it was created by the devil, or it was
created as described by a Native American Indian legend (picture).
The unscientific aspects to these hypotheses include:

1. IGNORING FACTS
A hypotheses is unscientific if it ignores any contradictory data.
In the case of Devil's Tower, there are facts that contradict the
Indian legend (e.g., the fact that the tower breaks into columns
shows that the cracks were not formed by a bear's claws).


2. UNFALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESES
Explanations that cannot be tested are not considered scientific.
For example, the hypothesis that the devil created Devil's Tower
cannot be tested and therefore falls outside the realm of science.


3. BAD AUXILIARY ASSUMPTIONS
Using a bad auxiliary assumption to develop a hypothesis is not
considered scientific. The Indian legend for the origin of Devil's
Tower presumes the existence of a large bear that could make
the observed "scratches" in rock: a bad auxiliary assumption
(and some might argue that the presumed existence of the devil
is also a bad auxiliary assumption).


4. USING INVALID ANALOGIES
An invalid analogy assumes similarities where none exist. In the
Devil's Tower example, the Indian legend is uses a bad analogy
in assuming that the "scratches" are similar to claw marks left by
bears in trees, because solid rock behaves quite differently than
wood, even if the bear claws are presumed to be large.


5. OVERLY COMPLICATED EXPLANATIONS
The principle of "Occum's Razor" states that hypotheses should
be as simple as they can be to explain the observations. In this
regard, the Indian legend is a bit more complicated than it needs
to be, and the acceptance of that hypothesis to explain the origin
Devil's Tower would justify unrelated hypotheses (e.g., the origin
of certain stars).


In addition to the above, remember that scientific hypotheses avoid
the use of anecdotal evidence and illogical arguments.

LINK TO ARTICE

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Rob Byers wrote:

Even chordateslegacy pictures here prove my point that ripples (a sudden event) if found in fossil are about a sudden event and not grafualism.


Ripples are not a sudden event; they are formed by wave action; most are destroyed by the following tide, but a few are covered by sand and therefore their structure remains.

For the ripples to be fossilised they have to undergo diagenetic processes, i.e. burial and cementation. If these ripples are then to be seen at the surface there must be uplift and erosion. These processes have to be gentle and gradual, if they were sudden and violent they would be destroyed.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Rob Byers wrote:

You show why these subjects don't persuade the already doubting.
You show rocks etc from past and gone events without testable or even good analysis of why things happen as you say.
I'm not a geologist but i know the first thing is observation. not observation within a existing theory and mindframe.

What, your religious doctrines are not an existing mind-frame and this was developed without even basic observations.

Geologists are constantly observing, testing and modelling and looking for new angles which allows for geological theory to be refined on a daily basis, but the overall theories of geology are standing strong against all new findings.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Rob Byers wrote:

All I see with sedimentary rock formations is collected sediment by a event that collected it. If different layers then the event had different stages.
I saw recently on "Secrets of the dead" about Crete a excellent account of how a four layered area was from a single volcanic explosion.

I bet none of these layers were in-situ biogenic rock.

I bet none of them were boma sequencies

I bet none of them were glacial deposits.

I bet all of them were rapid, high energy deposits.


Here’s the tsunami deposits on Create from the Santorini volcanic eruption with a link to a very good geological paper on the subject

(1) erosional contact with the underlying strata, (2) volcanic ash intraclasts in the lower part of the deposit,
(3) reworked building stone material in the lower part of the deposit, (4) individual marine shells, (5) marine micro-fauna, (6) imbrication of
rounded beach pebbles, settlement debris, ceramic sherds and even bones, (7) multi-modal chaotic composition.

LINK

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Rob Byers wrote:

If one observes rock that was folded or melted of tilted or moved then one should conclude a event did this all at once. not say all came from your ages of slow movement.

Wrong take the geology in the image above; this is the sequence of events.

1 Bottom (remember this sequence is a lot thicker than that visible). Deposition of the biogenic carboniferous limestone by living creatures.
2 Burial of the Carboniferous sediments at depth.
3 Diagenesis of Carboniferous sediments.
4 Pressure dissolution of carboniferous sediments.
5 Uplift of Carboniferous sediments.
6 Erosion of Carboniferous sediments.
7 Subsidence of Carboniferous sediments.
8 Large time gap 200 million years.
9 Deposition of Jurassic biogenic sediments.
10 Burial of Jurassic biogenic sediments.
11 Diagenesis of Jurassic biogenic sediments.
12 Uplift of Jurassic biogenic sediments.
13 Erosion of Jurassic biogenic Sediments.
14 Weather of upper layer of Jurassic sediments.
Large time gap 140 million years
15 Deposition of glacial soils of top of Jurassic sediments

This is the short version.


By the way i am just about visable in this image; guess who

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Rob Byers wrote:

I'm being the better geologist. Not impressed my previos mens work unless it has solid evidence behind it. Not claims to degrees.

You are being impressed by previous men; you subscribe to an ancient Bronze Aged text written by men with not even one iota of evidence for their mystical claims.

Geologists on the other hand formulate their ideas from the observable evidence, leading to many geological ideas being superseded by new hypotheses.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Rob Byers wrote:

Past and gone events are not testable. They just are not. The minor little things to compare can not be said to back up the conclusions. The origin of rock formations was not witnessed. Any scenario can have minor collabarating evidence.

Yes they are: here’s an example

Ancient pyroclasic flow.

2000 year old pyroclasic flow Pompei

Modern pyroclastic flow

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Rob Byers Wrote:

You guys need something that shows why a old age conclusion is the only reasonable option. Is this a difficult task?

This is the best and it is geology.

A total Lack of short and medium life isotopes anywhere on this planet.

The only explanation, the Earth is very very old