I Believe God created Science. That is my Personal Faith/Belief. I came across the Hydroplate Theory by Walt Brown. He Directs his own Science research lab. Hugely Interesting if anyone wants to check it out on YouTube. I Love the claim that brings gasps to many, being that the Grand Canyon could have been created in 3 months. Im hearing those Gasps lol. Whichever way you swing its a Good Watch @smiles

Walter T. Brown (Aug 1937) is a
young earth creationist , who is the
director of his own ministry called
the Center for Scientific Creation.
The Skeptic's Dictionary considers
him to be one of the leaders of the
creation science movement. [1] He
proposes a specific version of flood
geology called hydroplate theory. He
is a retired army officer with a
degree in mechanical engineering.
Biography
Brown has a Ph.D. in mechanical
engineering from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
, a B.S. from West Point and he
served as an officer in the US
military until he retired in 1980. [2]
Since retiring from the military in
1980, Brown has been the director of
his self created "Center for
Scientific Creation" and has done his
own research, writing, and speaking
on origins theory.

Grand Canyon could have been created in 3 months.

The Channeled Scablands were created in a few days. An Ice dam blocking a giant glacier lake broke and washed away the sediment.

No Gasp here.

The canyon may have been washed bare in an epic flood but the evidence left behind shows the sedimentary layers that can be dated using isotope decay.

There is not only evidence of water erosion there is evidence of Yellowstone super-eruptions that date back millions of years. So not only was there a flood, there was fire and brimstone as well. None of which proves religious dogma.

There was no civilization to witness the last Yellowstone Super-Eruption yet we know it happened because there is EVIDENCE.

they pretty much have it figured out how long it took the GC to form, and it wasn't three months...

I Believe God created Science

Excerpt - Dr. Carl Baugh and Dr. Grady
McMurtry. Both are former atheists
who believed in evolution, but like
Douglas Ell, they eventually realized
that scientific evidence supports the
existence of God and creation. Dr.
Baugh has doctorate degrees in
education, theology and biblical
archaeology. Dr. McMurtry has a
science degree from UC Berkeley
and a doctorate in Divinity.

Abstract

Uranium dosimeter glasses SRM 612, CN1 and CN2 have been calibrated against Co monitors in 79 irradiations in the Herald reactor over seven years. Mean values of the calibration factors B for each glass are B612 = (5.736 ± 0.055)·109 (74 irradiations), BCN1 = (1.883 ± 0.026)·109 (21 irradiations) and BCN2 = (2.014 ± 0.0 26)·109 (21 irradiations). Comparison of relative responses of the four dosimeters reveals that unaccounted errors exist in the response of the Co monitors and, to a lesser extent, in the response of SRM 612. The errors associated with the response of the natural uranium glasses CN1 and CN2 are represented by conventional (Poisson) “counting statistics”. These results show that attempts to calibrate a uranium glass against an activation monitor in only a small number of irradiations may produce results radically discrepant from the true value. The importance of systematic errors in neutron dosimetry for fission-track dating is also discussed. An alternative zeta (ζ) calibration approach is described, which circumvents absolute φ and λf evaluation: each dosimeter glass is calibrated repeatedly against zircon age standards from the Fish Canyon and Bishop tuffs, the Tardree rhyolite and Southern African kimberlites, to obtain empirical calibration factors ζ. The weighted mean ζ-values are 339 ± 5 for SRM 612, 113.0 ± 2.6 for CN1 and 121.0 ± 3.6 for CN2. Independent K/Ar, 40Ar/39Ar and Rb/Sr calibrating ages for the standards are discussed. For two of the three glasses, the presented ζ-values derived from each of the zircon standards are consistent within error. Compatibility of the kimberlite data with that of the other samples is discussed. Age calculation by direct comparison of track density ratios in sample and standard is rejected as grossly imprecise. Examination of the reproducibility of results from repeated measurements indicates the conventional calculation of error to be reasonable, but shows the approach of Johnson et al. (1979) to give a serious over-estimate of precision.

* Present address: Department of Geology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic. 3052, Australia.

Abstract:
Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating of light-exposed sediments is used
increasingly as a mean of establishing a sediment deposition chronology in a wide variety of
late Quaternary studies. There has been considerable technological development in the last
few years ñ in instrumentation, in the preferred mineral, and in various measurement proto-
cols. New approaches to the latter, especially with the introduction of the single-aliquot
regenerative-dose (SAR) protocol, have given rise to an increasing number of ages in the li-
terature based on the OSL signals from quartz. This paper examines the reliability of these
results by reviewing both published and unpublished SAR quartz ages for which some
independent age control exists. It first discusses studies of modern (zero age) sediments,
and the implications of these results for the importance of incomplete bleaching, especially
in water-lain sediments, i.e. sediments for which the initial light exposure is expected to have
been insufficient to reduce the apparent dose at deposition to a negligible fraction of the final
burial dose. It then compares OSL and independent ages derived from various types of sedi-
ments, including aeolian, fluvial/lacustrine, marine and glacio-fluvial/lacustrine. It is concluded
that, in general, the ages are accurate, in that there is no evidence for systematic errors over
an age range from the last century to at least 350 ka. Nevertheless, the published uncertain-
ties of a small fraction of OSL ages are probably underestimated. We conclude that OSL
dating of quartz is a reliable chronological tool; this conclusion is reflected in its growing
popularity in Quaternary studies.

Abstract

We present an automated method for U–Pb age dating of zircon by single collector laser ablation-magnetic sectorfield-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (LA-SF-ICP-MS). The high sensitivity of SF-ICP-MS allows routine analysis with spot diameter of 20 to 30 μm and ablation time of 30 s, resulting in an ablation crater depth of ∼ 15–20 μm (∼ 35 to ∼ 65 ng of zircon). Zircon consumption is therefore limited to < 3% of a typical crystal and only by a factor of 6–10 times larger compared to secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) based techniques.

Precision and accuracy has been assessed using a number of well-characterised zircons as secondary quality control standards and are comparable to those of laser ablation- and ion-microprobe based techniques that use more complex and time-consuming approaches. Average measurement uncertainties (2σ, mean analytical uncertainty) based on 402 analyses of the Plešovice zircon standard were 2.2%, 3.1% and 2.1% for the 206Pb/238U, 207Pb/235U and 207Pb/206Pb ratios, respectively, comparable with those attainable by SIMS. The weighted mean of all 402 analyses yielded a 206Pb/238U age of 338 ± 1 Ma, which is in excellent agreement with the ID-TIMS 206Pb/238U age of 337.1 ± 0.4 Ma reported for the Plešovice zircon.

Data acquisition is done in automated mode for up to 16 h/day with analytical points pre-set with only minimal operator presence during the data acquisition. Individual U–Pb zircon analysis last ≤ 75 s, and sample throughput is more than an order of magnitude higher (∼ 1000 U–Pb ages/day) compared to SIMS techniques and 3–5 fold higher compared to conventional LA-ICP-MS techniques. The methods presented here are therefore expected to have significant impact on many aspects of zircon U–Pb geochronology, with particular benefits for studies on the Archean crustal evolution and the provenance of detrital zircon crystals from clastic sediments where a large number of high-quality stand-alone in situ zircon U–Pb age determinations are needed.

As for identifying age and the processes itself there is much info out there Prooving & Disproving. Guess it all boils down to what we Choose to Believe

@mightymoe, I am in agreement with the Jewish Calendar which is recorded at 5775 years to answer your question.

....they pretty much have it figured
out how long it took the GC to form,
and it wasn't three months..... Doesnt "pretty much" Constitute a Theory as well?

As for identifying age and the processes itself there is much info out there Prooving & Disproving. Guess it all boils down to what we Choose to Believe Personally. And what we Base that Belief on. As the saying goes...Guess we'l all just have to wait and See right. Also not everything is at it may 'seem'. @smiles

Excerpt - Dr. Carl Baugh and Dr. Grady
McMurtry. Both are former atheists
who believed in evolution, but like
Douglas Ell, they eventually realized
that scientific evidence supports the
existence of God and creation. Dr.
Baugh has doctorate degrees in
education, theology and biblical
archaeology. Dr. McMurtry has a
science degree from UC Berkeley
and a doctorate in Divinity.

Each to his own. No One person can ever Claim they KNOW they are Right about All Pertaining to God or Science 100% for that would mean you know all there is to Know about EVERYTHING? Our Knowledge is All less than a Drop in the Ocean in the Vast Expanse of our Endless Universe. There REMAIN Odysses of Paradigm Complexities whose Frontiers are YET to be DISCOVERED, Yet according to you @mightymoe your Search for TRUTH has Come to an end?? just because YOU say so as in "Nothing more to discuss". YOU my fellow sojourner may have Nothing more to Contribute to the Subject but by NO MEANS is the Subject/topic Wrapped up and Put to bed merely because Your Knowledge has reached it's climax.
This thread is not about me Proving you wrong & me right is it? Just as I accept YOUR OPINION And BELIEFS AND Input I would appreciate the Same Courtesy? Kindest Regards, Candace @smiles and hugz