First of all, I personally read abstracts and other information from standard geology and have studied the geologic timescale on Berkley. As well, I study other disciplines, such as molecular biology and chemistry. I do not claim to have geological knowledge like yourself, but PhD's like Baumgarder, Austin (studied at Harvard), Berthault, and others do. They have all the specialized knowledge that you yourself have, and yet do not agree with your conclusions.
You will not learn much geology from abstracts, yet I have seen one from Steve Austin cited as full evidence supporting a viewpoint. What did a study of the geologic timescale at Berkley entail? I would have thought this would require taking a course such as Historical Geology. Yes, I have seen writings from Austin and others where they basically throw out or ignore the principles of geology that they had learned in favor of backing creationist theories that are impossible if one holds to geologic laws. In my opinion they show great disrespect for the science in doing this.
Yes scanman, who told us about desert varnish, but had no explanation for shale dunes in the Colorado Plateau. Do you?
I don't know what you are talking about. What is a "shale dune"...? Is this a made-up creationist term like "polystrate tree"...?
Since you say we know "next to nothing" I think I should also note the following. I have noticed you have made errors with statements like the Colorado Plateau not being a basin or containing a large basin. This is obvious by looking at a relief map. As well as the massive drainage evidence in the plateau (s).
Where did I say you or others know "next to nothing"...I don't think I said that. On the other hand you don't "know" enough to really know when I am wrong about geology. It does happen, but not as you note here.
My statement about the Colorado Plateau was correct. The one you gave, borrowed from a non-geologic source, was wrong and I explained why this is the case. It is much better termed a plateau than a basin.
Also you said that limestone is not found worldwide--this is wrong--it is found all over the earth. I find it hard to believe a geologist would make such a statement.
I don't think I have ever posted that the existence of limestone has limits in distribution in terms of general world geography and cannot be found pretty much anywhere on the planet. I doubt that I would ever make a statement that taken in context would make the claim you are making here. I think what I did say was in a reply about that obscure geology text you have referenced, and that unlike what you and the author were implying, that there is not a continuous limestone or chalk body worldwide, such as in one that could be called the same formation. You really must be getting desperate if you have to try this approach, apparently needing to twist my words or meaning around to make a case that I have stated something other than what was clearly intended, At best you have taken my words out of context and did not understand what I was saying.
I never did address the "hydrated minerals" error you made. You said that hydrated minerals are rare.
Besides hydroxides, there are some minerals which have water molecules between their crystalline sheets. Have you never heard of the "water of crystallization?"
Based on this, this list of hydroxide minerals (List) is defined to have water in their structure, as an hydroxide is an ion of water. Also quartz (SiO2), the most abundant mineral, can crystallize in water in marketed lab kits. The scientific fact that one of the principles of crystallization requires supersaturation of a substrate or substrates in a solution does not require all minerals to contain water, but points to the strong possibility that many minerals were formed in water.
Desperate yet again? No, I was again correct and did not make an error. Look at my original post. I am tired and not in the mood to search for it. Also the search feature has been rendered rather useless since one can no longer search key words by post, but just by thread. Some threads have so many posts that it is like looking for a needle in a haystack now.
Such minerals are rare in the composition of the earth. Quartz is not the most common mineral. It is just the most common at the earth's surface. Your argument is scratching at straws and not a good one. Once again in context of what I posted I did not make an error. I do not remember limiting my post to "at the surface"....
In light of the fact that you do allow God into your list of possibilities, you should check Genesis, which states that the Earth was covered by water AT CREATION, not just in the deluge. Therefore minerals forming in water at creation would not by any means contradict scripture.
I don't believe I made a statement about whether or not minerals forming in water contradicted scripture. Personally I think this subject has nothing to do with scripture. I also did not exclude God from my list of possibilities in any post I remember making. You sure are on a roll saying that I have made statements that I have not. But for what possibilities do I not allow for God? You really have jumped to a conclusion here as I do not remember saying anything along these lines. In fact I think I remember posting something to the contrary. I am listed as a "theistic evolutionist" which by definition includes God with in my beliefs about the subject of evolution.
This is not meant as a challenge of knowledge in geology, but the things I have stated, I have studied. I don't just make undocumented statements. I read, and don't just recite from videos. I have valid reasons why I object to modern geological and biological teaching. It's not because I know "next to nothing" about it.
Yes, it appears to me that you have made these comments in an attempt to challenge my knowledge of geology. If you had studied the subject more completely I think you would know where I was in fact correct and not as you claim here. Yes, you seem to have picked up a tid-bit of geology here and there, and added them together to sometimes come up with answers a geologist with a fuller knowledge of the subject would not. That is why geologists are not hired without degrees. The degree shows that we have actually studied and understood the subject. Yes, anyone can study geology on their own and reach valid conclusions, but it helps to study with an objective mind and not with a bias to finding the bits and pieces one thinks support a pre-conceived notion. I'll tell you what, I will not give you advice about missionary work and you don't post more false accusations about where I am wrong about geology.
And like you have years of experience in geology, I have years of experience in Bible study. Are you like Scanman, who said he believed on Christ? But yet Christ said that the end times would be "like the days of Noah" in that people would continue on with their lives and never know that judgment was coming soon. If you believe in Christ, you believe what he says over what men say. Yet scanman ignored this contradiction in his faith. You can study 1000 years, but if you study an erroneous interpretation of the earth, which denies scriptural teaching, and is based on the wisdom of men, you are wrong.
I also have years of experience in Bible study. I think Christ was correct in predicting that men would value some of the wrong things now, as they did in the time of Noah. Yes, I believe what Christ said over the opinions of men in terms of Christ's message. But He didn't give sermons on science. Christ did not tell us of a 6,000 year old earth, and other misrepresented aspects of geology. Also, many of the aspects of the earth that YECs refuse to accept are not opinion, but scientific fact. Modern geologic principles are not erroneous and they do not address scripture, so your comment is irrelevant in my opinion. Christ focussed on what was essential for the spiritual well-being and salvation of men, and their opinions about how the earth formed and in how long a period in which this happened is really not important in His grand scheme of things in my opinion.