In this following article, I want to show people that the idea that the story of long ages and how the rocks came to exist, isn't as rock solid as one may think.
Highlighted in blue, I have shown how many times the explanation for the Hawkesbury sandstone, has changed;
Thats also what the geologists thought about the Hawkesbury Sandstone in 1883. However, scientists did not always think the sand amassed in a desert. In 1844 Charles Darwin described the Sydney rocks as forming in a marine environment. However, in 1880 another scientist said they had been partly formed by glaciers. In 1883 yet another scientist said the rocks had partly formed in a lake.So, the various ideas about how the sandstone formed were tossed back and forth like shifting sands. In 1920 a geologist proposed that all the sand accumulated in a large lake. Thus, between 1920 and 1960 the lake interpretation was taught at the universities and presented to the public as fact.However, by the 1960s, some geologists questioned how such large sand waves, which point to fast flowing water,could form in a lake. Accordingly, in 1964 it was proposed that the sand was deposited by a river. Yet the size of the deposits was still a puzzle, so in 1969 it was said that the sand was deposited by tides on a marine barrier in a river delta. But this didn't make sense either.Since the late 1970s, geologists have thought that the Hawkesbury Sandstone was deposited in a very wide river. Not only was the river wide, but also very long, extending over 2,000 kilometres north. Rock was eroded from either side of the river, transported thousands of kilometres, sorted into a uniform sand size, and deposited in the Sydney area. But how could normal rainfall sustain a fast-flowing, 250-km-wide river? The latest suggestion is that the river flowed intermittently. A huge lake upstream accumulated a large volume of water, which periodically burst through its ice dam. Massive flood waves, 20 metres high and 250 km wide roared downstream at enormous speed, delivering tonnes of sand into the Sydney area.This interpretation, which is becoming increasingly accepted, sounds very like the catastrophic Flood of Noah. Especially since there is no evidence of extended time-breaks in the Hawkesbury Sandstone. For example, there are no soil horizons or fossils of marine communities. We just see hundreds of metres of sand that have been deposited rapidly. This, of course, is what we would expect from the global Flood.The sandstone around Bridgnorth has similar characteristics and is long overdue for reinterpretation. The cross beds are not windblown desert dunes but underwater sand waves. Geologists in England need to address the problems of the desert interpretation. For example, the angles of the cross beds are wrong for windblown dunes, and there is evidence for ancient water channels in parts of the deposit (Figure 3).So, what should we do if a geological interpretation doesn?t fit with the Bible? Question the geological interpretation!
Six stories about how the sandstone occurred.
What's my point? My point is, the creationist version of history is often ridiculed, evolutionists picking out certain evidences and saying it could never have happened; "evidence P means it could never have been a flood", but let's face it, if you wait long enough it seems the secularist evolutionists basically come around to arguing water is involved in some way, OR they let the old desert paradigm hang there as though it is fact.
That is always the problem, the stories of the past are always presented as fact as shown above, but notice how they can change? If a historical hypothesis is factual, and scientists, "know" how such rocks formed, then logically it wouldn't be possible for them to change their story.
Think about it - if I say, "it is factual the moon exists and we really do know it does", that isn't a statement that can change unless the moon is destroyed. So I think evolutionists, particular amateurists on the internet, are confused about what knowledge and proof really are. Proof can't change, because Mt Everest's existence as a claim or the moon, aren't claims that are going to change because they really are proven.
When something is truly proven and factual, you can't change the story later on and say it isn't factual for that is not the nature of facts/knowledge/proof, for had it been proven then your story can't later change because it's proof. The true knowledge and proof is the rocks themselves and the facts we glean from them, not the story of how they got there.
"It is a fact and is now proven that these fossil species were ancestors of P". - 1980
"We now believe artiodactyls are in fact the ancestors of P" - 1995.
mikey answer; yeah right.
If you are going to be duped into thinking stories are factual, at least realise that the one being presented as a fact today, will likely be discarded tomorrow, proving the story was never a proof of your worldview, for if it was, you wouldn't be able to change the story later on. (Reductio Ad Absurdum).
EXAMPLE; mikey is 12 foot tall.
"If he was he would be able to reach this 13 foot shelf to get my ornament of Darwin down for me."
"He isn't able to by demonstration, therefore he is not 12 foot tall."
(for the obtuse few, for the sake of the pretend example, we assume the example is solid, so to complain, "but what if his legs were broken" is not a valid complaint, we assume that it is GRANTED that he can stand. Any other complaints of that type my answer is this; YAWN.