We believe that the Scriptures provide a literal and historical account of God’s creation of all things.
This means that they believe in a global flood just a few thousand years ago. Aeolian sandstones don’t fit in a global flood model, so this Dr. Whitmore will ‘study’ the rocks with the conclusion already reached before he even looks at them: whatever they are, they cannot be aeolian sandstones.
Sal, this is not science, this is deceit. Pure and simple.
“Boycott separation”? This term appears nowhere except Sal’s posts, where it isn’t defined, and the only possible meaning appears to be in reference to an English cricket team controversy.
It is all pure bullshit. There are no physical ways to sort the microfossils in the way we find them in the strata, apart from them not having been living and dying all at the same time.
If there were ways they would have shown them to us by now, a thousand times over. Doing experiments in flume tanks isn’t all that hard. On the other hand, strewing fancy sciency-sounding words around is easy enough.
Density of water = 997 kg/m^3
Denisty of air = 1.225 kg/m^3
Water is over 813 times more dense than air. I knew something was unwholesome about John Harshman’s air stratification hypothesis for Navajo Sandstones.
Why are you bringing up the relative densities of water and air? How it is relevant to the question of how the Navajo sandstones were formed? Explain your point.
This is just jargon rhetoric, supporting the quote mining rhetoric and the glossy illustration with a zillion paths rhetoric.
These terms, all legitimate in their proper place, are trotted out to impress the scientifically illiterate that the YEC expert presenting the lecture is just as qualified as mainstream scientists. The more technical the jargon, the better, because the purpose is to obfuscate, not clarify. But in the end, flocculation is just what is used to separate out the literal crap in a waste treatment plant clarifier. Maybe a little flocculation would be helpful in YEC geology.