Exactly! This is the same problem I have. I have dealt with quite a few
people who hold quite strongly to the idea of Ideal time. This is what I
was trying to address when I proposed to them what this meant in my
appeance of age post to which most agreed with my hypothetical proposal. I
wrote up the stuff on the Praclaux crater to show that even for what most
people believe are post-flood deposits there is evidence of great age.
When I put the question to these people as to how they would interpret the
sediment records in these craters I was told these were also created with
the appearence of age. Then I said, but what then of the Flood, didn't it
have ANY effect on the surface of the earth? To that I received silence!!
This seems the greatest stumbling block to Ideal time. One rock was
created with the appearance of age while another is the result of the
action of a global flood. But this creates a problem. The methods used to
date the rock created with the appearnce of age really are giving a correct
"Ideal" age though not real age but the same methods to date a flood or
post-flood rock are lying to us because the ideal age and real age should
be the same but aren't. I am always left with the impression that my
friends are resorting to "appearance of age" simply to explain that which
they cannot explain in any other way.
Joel and Dawn Duff / | ' \ Spell Check?
Carbondale IL 62901 ( ) 0
e-mail: email@example.com \_/-, ,----'
or firstname.lastname@example.org ==== //
or email@example.com / \-'~; /~~~(O)
* * * * * * / __/~| / | * * *
\\\/// \\\/// =( _____| (_________| \\\///
_/_/_/_/ homepage: http://www.intrnet.net/~virkotto _/_/_/_/