Originally posted by lambslove
A lot of science gets revised everyday. Today they think that this buried river valley is millions of years old, next week someone else will find evidence that it's only thousands of years old.
Go back and look at it. It is something that is 100% contrary to your dogma. YECs usually try to explain the layers of sedimentary rock on Earth as a result of the Noachian Deluge. This could NOT have formed from that.
You have two possible possiblities: the Noachian Deluge
laid a mile of sediment, it dried out, the river formed,
existed long enough to meander and make deposits, then 1670 feet of sediments were put on top of it. If you are going to use world-wide floods to "explain" this you are going to have to admit that at least two distinct world-wide flood occured.
Remember when we were in school and they taught us that the Grand Canyon was eroded over millions of years? Now scientists are just as sure that a catastrophic event created it in a very short time, maybe over a period of weeks, not years.
Your YEC sources have outright lied to you on this one.
I recall that from another discussion elsewhere. It turned
out that they, as usual, had quoted geologists out of
context. Geology does not think that the Grand Canyon
formed in weeks. Now it does think that a lava
dam the block the river's path broke down in rapid
fashion. The Canyon predated the formation of the lava dam. Of course if you think geologists thing the Grand Canyon formed in weeks at the most then it should not be too much to ask for a single citation to a paper in the geologic literature that makes this claim or to a single geology textbook that makes this claim, etc. Geologists do NOT think the Grand Canyon formed in weeks -- PERIOD!
So, what's fact today, is debunked tomorrow.
And will you provide any reason to even suspect that the mainstream science view is about to be debunked.
Of course anyone who follows pseudoscience will recognize that this pattern. These sort of argument is commonly used in the service of pseudoscience. I don't accept it from the advocates of "free energy"/perpetual motion devices so why should I accept it from creationists?
While strictly speaking everything in science is tenative -- hey maybe the Earth really is flat -- there are some things that are things that are more likely to be overthown than others. That the Earth is more than 6000 years old is about as a secure a conclusion as anything in science.
In 1840, Louis Agassiz was laughed out of a conference for suggesting the idea of that the earth had experienced an ice age. Now it is accepted as fact!
I will require a reference for this. In any event Agassiz's idea was VERY quickly established in mainstream geology regardless of any initial tempers.
