[Tj3]

What are some of those unvalidated assumptions?

The most basic is an assumption of an uncontaminated sample, and the other is the assumption of what the starting point is since the technique depends upon the half-life of the substance. If there was, for some reason, a lower concentration of the substance at the site than would be expected, then you will get a much different reading.

These are a couple of examples.

[NeedKarma]

All science is a study of God's creation.

If that is the starting point of a scientific study then isn't the science flawed from the get-go due to preconceived notions?

[Tj3]

If that is the starting point of a scientific study then isn't the science flawed from the get-go due to preconceived notions?

That depends upon the specific scientist. Good scientists are willing to accept the facts that their assumptions may be wrong.

[Wondergirl]

So according to Young Earth adherents, God created the Grand Canyon or Monument Valley or the Himalayas as is?

[Tj3]

So according to Young Earth adherents, God created the Grand Canyon or Monument Valley or the Himalayas as is?

I have never heard anyone make that claim. Have you?

[Wondergirl]

I have never heard anyone make that claim. Have you?

Actually, yes, I have. So how then do the Young Earth people explain those natural wonders? They've been shaped during the past 10,000 years (or less)?

[Tj3]

Actually, yes, I have. So how then do the Young Earth people explain those natural wonders? They've been shaped during the past 10,000 years (or less)?

No one knows exactly how they came to be, but there are certainly easy ways for such things to form in a very short timeframe. For one, check out the scientific studies done on the Mount St. Helen's area and the impact of the eruptions, the canyons, the layers, etc. that were formed. Formations once thought to require millions of years occurred in minutes.

Secondly, when the worldwide flood occurred, it is reasonable to expect that such immense amounts of water would cause major changes to the surface of the earth.

I find the "appearance of age" arguments interesting. A few years ago a geologist tried to prove the age of the earth by sending me this picture and said - he questioned how could that fossilized beach occur in a short timeframe. For it to have been formed and risen that far above the modern beach much have taken millions of years, he said.

http://www.geocities.com/smithtj.geo/pictures/geol6.gif

Simple calculations come to a different answer. At a rate of 1.5 cm/yr, to reach 45 meters, the beach would be only 3000 years old. At the time, I was given more information on the maximum and minimum height of the beach, and using those calculations, the maximum and minimum ages worked out to be 1000-4000 years old.

The counter argument was that the rocks behind the beach were smooth, and that must take millions of years. However, Niagara falls loses about 5-10 feet of rock every year. Now, it is under far more stress than these rocks would ever see, but to smooth the rough edges off a rock only requires a removal of an inch or two of rock, and rocks pounded by waves from the ocean for years would certainly lose an inch or so in far less than millions of years, indeed likely in less than a hundred.

I show this just to point out appearance of age does not mean that it is millions of years old. We, having lived for at most a few decades, have difficulty in getting a perspective on how fast or slow aging occurs over several hundred or thousand years.

[Wondergirl]

Niagara falls loses about 5-10 feet of rock every year.

I'm from the NF area. This is from onlineniagara.com --

How much does Niagara Falls erode each year?

Studies to determine how much erosion was taking place were started in 1842. Between that year and 1905 erosion took place at the rate of 1.16 meters, or 3.8 feet per year, at Horseshoe Falls. Between 1906 and 1927 the erosion rate declined to .70 meters, or 2.3 feet per year. The decline was due to water being diverted for hydro electric generation.

Currently remedial efforts are underway to reduce the erosion even more. It is estimated that erosion is reduced to less than 1 foot per year due to those efforts.

At American Falls the flow rate of 10,000 cubic feet per second is insufficient to cause any major erosion. As it stands today, American Falls has an erosion rate of about 3 to 4 inches per year. The biggest factor for the American falls is the fact that it has cracks at the Crestline in the top cap rock layer. Underneath that is a softer shale layer. The lifting action of water coming through these cracks cause them to become larger and along with the freezing and thawing each year, the rock structure continues to weaken until that part finally cracks and falls off. The flow at American Falls isn't strong enough to erode the rocks at the bottom of the Fall.

[Tj3]

I'm from the NF area. This is from onlineniagara.com --

[I]How much does Niagara Falls erode each year?

Studies to determine how much erosion was taking place were started in 1842. Between that year and 1905 erosion took place at the rate of 1.16 meters, or 3.8 feet per year, at Horseshoe Falls. Between 1906 and 1927 the erosion rate declined to .70 meters, or 2.3 feet per year. The decline was due to water being diverted for hydro electric generation.

We could argue over the exact amounts that it erodes, but whether your source or mine is more accurate does not matter. It still supports what I said.

[Wondergirl]

We could argue over the exact amounts that it erodes, but whether your source or mine is more accurate does not matter. It still supports what I said.

And your source is?

[Tj3]

And your source is?

I looked it up years ago, and would have to dig through a lot of information to locate it again. But as I said, it does not matter. Your figures support what I said just as well.

[Wondergirl]

Your figures support what I said just as well.

They do?

[Tj3]

They do?

Yep.

[Wondergirl]

Yep.

A few inches vs. 10 feet are the same?

[Tj3]

A few inches vs. 10 feet are the same?

Don't you mean 4 feet vs 5-10 ft? And I did not say that they were the same, but they both support my point. If you disagree, please explain. BTW, even a few inches erosion per year would be enough, so I don't know what your point is.

[Wondergirl]

Don't you mean 4 feet vs 5-10 ft? And I did not say that they were the same, but they both support my point. If you disagree, please explain. BTW, even a few inches erosion per year would be enough, so I don't know what your point is.

My post #28, bolded print. 3-4 inches vs. your 10 feet.

Have you ever driven through Monument Valley? No water there. How were those monoliths created?

Btw --

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...a%3DN%26um%3D1

[Tj3]

My post #28, bolded print. 3-4 inches vs. your 10 feet.

You are arguing after erosion control and location specific rates. But nonetheless, 3-4 inches per year is more than enough. A fraction of an inche per year would be plenty.

Have you ever driven through Monument Valley? No water there. How were those monoliths created?

Like I said, no one knows how each of these were created. The fact that there is no water now does not mean that there was not at one time. Indeed we know that there was.

[Wondergirl]

You are arguing after erosion control and location specific rates. But nonetheless, 3-4 inches per year is more than enough. A fraction of an inche per year would be plenty.

Hmmmmmmmmmm... Please visit the American Southwest at your earliest convenience. Bring your camera and a wide-angle lens.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...mentvalley.jpg

[Tj3]

Hmmmmmmmmmm..... Please visit the American Southwest at your earliest convenience. Bring your camera and a wide-angle lens.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...mentvalley.jpg

So what? You should see what the scenery is near where I live.

[Wondergirl]

So what? You should see what the scenery is near where I live.

I have. And it was all created within the past 6000 years?