If the earth is young, God created evidence of it being old.

1. In the flood, there would have been active rushing water initially, as well as strong currents moving the whole time. We are talking about enough water to flood the Earth in only 40 days and nights. The rate that the water would have come in would be enough to transport the sand, then the depth of the water and volcanic activity would have created the necessary pressure. 2. First, the flood resulted in large numbers of animals dying, which would have provided the materials to create limestone. Again, the enormous amounts of pressure from the water would have been enough to form the limestone. Second, it is entirely possible that some limestone WAS created with the Earth. This would not be evidence for it being old. Rivers were also created, and even though we can see how rivers form today, that doesn't mean that the existence of other rivers is proof that the Earth is old. It is simply a mistaken assumption that because something is formed a certain way today, that is the way it was always formed. 3. TODAY limestone caves are not created by erosion. There is no way to show that the caves were not initially carved by erosion (at least in part), then rounded out by acidic water flowing through them. 4. I agree that Stalactites are not formed by erosion. However, with a higher calcium concentration in the water, the growth rate of stalactites would be accelerated. This could easily have happened with the water covering the Earth and minerals sinking to the bottom. 5. Ahh... the Grand Canyon. Interesting, usually I see the Grand Canyon used to make the opposite argument. It can be seen from the slope of the sides that it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have existed for 4.5 million years. The continuous erosion would have destroyed the ninety degree angles. Instead of the river making the canyon, the flood made the canyon, then the canyon made the river. 6. First, you are assuming that all of the erosion is caused by the freeze/thaw cycle. Second, this assumes that the freeze/thaw cycle is constant, rather than variable. 7. I believe that your statement is a concession. ("Observed weathering could be from a flood") If you intended it otherwise, please explain how the weathering could not be accelerated by massive amounts of water at high velocity. 8. Under heat and pressure, this too would be accelerated. And even lack of air can't make it last for millions of years. 9. The effects would be dependent on currents. Also, differences in when during the flood the mountains formed (due to differences in tectonics) would also play a large role. 10. A google search for "efflorescence AND erosion" returned mostly results about preventing it from happening to pavement. I'm not sure how it works in the desert, but if they are concerned about it being an issue in recently placed pavement.... 11. You aren't just shaking stuff up. You are also hitting at different times. And there is no consistent order for where things lie in sediment. 12. The precipitation patterns are not necessarily consistent, nor do they follow any strict rules. And Carbon dating is only effective if you know what the concentration of carbon was in that era. If carbon levels don't change, I feel like someone should tell the media. 13. During the Flood, there would have been massive amounts of volcanic activity, including extreme amounts of pressure (which would increase the flow of lava). This would have allowed islands to be formed. 14a. I do not disagree that continental drift occurs. I also do not disagree with the fact that the continents are moving at about an inch a year, I merely argue that this rate is slower than it was in the past. 14b. Yes. The Flood was divine intervention. The entire debate presumes that God has the power to create. That would imply that divine intervention is possible. 14c. No, ordinary water does not have the power to move continents. However, the volcanic activity that accompanied that water does. 14d. What evidence do you have that they have drifted back and together again many times? 15. I agree that tectonic activity raised the mountains. 16. I do not understand how widely differing factors are needed. If both atoms are believed to show 100,000 years, but instead are only 100 years old (I picked numbers at random), that is only a factor of a 1,000 difference for each of them. No differing factors are needed. 17. "The skeleton formed in the winter has a different density than that formed in the summer because of variations in growth rates related to temperature and cloud cover conditions." http://earthguide.ucsd.edu... Temperature and cloud cover are weather. 18. One of my arguments is that the lava itself could have moved. Also, rapid changes in polarity would have been captured differently. 19. I am not disputing distance to the stars (although the margin of error is huge, since you have an extremely skinny triangle to use for the trigonometry) I also never argued that red shift was a method of determining distance, since it has nothing to do with distance, but rather velocity. My argument is that TIME is effected by gravity. Our location in the universe results in time itself being different. Also, the stars used to be slightly closer (though not enough to make a large difference for age calculations). 20. Your argument does not contradict the idea that the rock could more easily (and more quickly) be bent while it was still new. 21. I agree. However, I would argue that the mountains and valleys were created largely by tectonic activity during the flood and immediately after. It is unnecessary for the water to reach 15,000 feet. 22. How are you estimating the initial size of the granite? I disagree that all the errors are consistent. For example, you stated that the Grand Canyon took 4.5 million years to form, yet you also stated that the Hawaiian Islands are 65 million years old. While logically consistent (I'm not saying that one disagrees with the other), these errors cannot be used to give a uniform age of the Earth.