>I think that is the worst problem flood geologists have. They have no
>detailed model. But what they do have DOES have certain expectations.
>And Art, if we must wait for another generation, what has been wrong with
>the past generation of flood geologists that they have not come up with any
>sort of workable flood model. I searched for something workable for 20 years
>and found nothing but disappointment.
I think the last generation was not aware or did not have the tools to
recognize the necessity of a model for a scientific appropach to flood
geology. The present scientific cadre are more aware of the needs but
there is still an enormous amount of data gathering that has to precede any
serious scientific approach to the problem. It will take time, but
progress is being made (at least in some people's eyes.)
>"The reinterpretation of geologic data according to flood geology
>would include a re-evaluation of all dating methods, including
>especially a critical review of radiometric dating methods."~Duane
>Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, (El Cajon:
>Creation-Life Publishers, 1985), p. 51
While I agree that if I were a nuclear physicist or a trained
geochronologist these problems might be formidible challenges to me. Since
I am not, for the present I just have to assume the methods are telling us
something besides calendar time and go about dealing with issues i am
trained to tackle. I know that might be difficult to you as a physicist
though. So go for it!
>Exactly what do you expect to see change in the next generation? More
>researchers? I seriously doubt it. And at the end of another generation,
>would you say that it is time to give up on a flood model?
Hey, I am making progress, and I know others who are as well. It is
happening, although we are still pre-paradigmic.
>The global flood concept requires that all the sediment be deposited in a
>single year. No matter how you slice it, that means that almost all the
>erosion must occur at the beginning of the flood, and everything be stirred
>up in suspension.
All which sediment?
>Here the laws of physics come into play, mixing everything up. The biggest
>sedimentation law ought to be, large dense rocks on the bottom of the
>geologic column and small less dense material at the top. We don't find
Again, you are assuming a model when you predict what ought to be. I don't
see a model yet, although one is emerging.
>Art, here it is the responsibility of those believing in a global flood to
>elaborate a hypothesis which does not require us to ignore what we see with
>our eyes. To date, all models fail at this point.