Jump to content


Photo

What Are The Moral Pillars Of Evolution?


  • Please log in to reply
144 replies to this topic

#141 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 April 2009 - 08:36 PM

What Scott you don't want something like this when someone says the geologic column is proven:

Posted Image
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm

Wow! How conclusive. We find the geologic column all over an entire country. No imaginative constructing needed. ;)

#142 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 April 2009 - 10:50 PM

I think you are misunderstanding the logic. The "old earth" position is that many things can bury trees upright and allow them to fossilize. These include local floods, ash deposits, mud flows etc.

View Post

I think the actual "old earth position" is too obviously flawed to cop to.

Tell me where I can go to any national park which offers tours including these formations, and I won't be told that the formation spans 50 million years or more. The signs, the books, and the tourguides'll all repeat the actual old earth position, and we all know it.

Hey, if you can admit the truth about these things that's great. But I don't think it's right to pretend this dogma doesn't exist, or worse yet, try to claim it never did. Who hasn't seen this stuff?

Now what'd be an interesting project'd be to see how the "date correlations" we hear so much about have been revised to reflect reality. Or have they? Are the upper parts of these formations still dated crazy millions of years younger than the lower parts? If they've been revised, what does this say about "correlations"? If the whole thing's caused by a flood, even a local flood, the evodates should be the same for the whole formation, right?

At any rate, this is no straw man. Creationists didn't invent the dogma, and it's still alive in the real world.

#143 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 April 2009 - 11:04 PM

What Scott you don't want something like this when someone says the geologic column is proven:
{once was enough with the image, I think}
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm

Wow! How conclusive. We find the geologic column all over an entire country. No imaginative constructing needed. ;)

View Post

Did you happen to catch this part from the link?

They are wrong. You just saw the whole column piled up in one place where one oil well can drill through it. Not only that, the entire geologic column is found in 31 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are:

I think someone needs to get their story straight. What's oil doing in the Precambrian?

#144 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 April 2009 - 11:13 PM

It got funnier.

I want to add one more thing to my response to this criticism. If you really want to find the experts in geology (especially in the areas in which oil and gas is found) you MUST go to the oil industry. We spend millions of dollars a year gathering data. While my source, the Stratigraphic Database of Major Sedimentary Basins of the World, is the work of a worldwide consulting group, it is, therefore the best thing that is available anywhere on the entire geologic column. I don't think there is anything in the public domain literature like it. And I might add that I have seen professors do the same things with their work – sell it to industry through consortiums. Such data are never published in the refereed journals – it is too valuable. However, in the above I have provided widely available sources for the Bonaparte Basin in Australia and the Beaufort Sea basin, as well as the publicly available well log in North Dakota. If Woodmorappe really wants to see at least these six data points, he can easily access them.

Never published in refereed journals? What kind of evolutionist would dare touch that?

#145 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 06 April 2009 - 09:14 AM

I think you are misunderstanding the logic. The "old earth" position is that many things can bury trees upright and allow them to fossilize. These include local floods, ash deposits, mud flows etc.

View Post


No, you are misunderstanding the logic with your lack of logic. You make a claim, then you don't support it. You attempt to claim that only "The old earth position" can claim something, when you are obviously wrong. No one said "only the flood can bury things". That is inane on your part. Young Earth creationists use volcanoes, mud flows etc... in explanations ALLTHE TIME... Take Mt. St. Helens for example. It is a miniature example of many things (including how the Grand Canyon was formed.

The difference is, The "old earth" position is that it takes Millions of years for fossilization (which it clearly does not).


The creationist position appears to argue that all upright fossilized trees buried in sedimentary rock are the results of flood.

View Post


Wrong again! But when it was done on a massive scale, and around the same time. The flood is a FAR better explanation than postulating millions of years, or Billions of years, or Gazillions of years...


Examples of trees buried in a flood favors neither view, since both accept that floods can bury trees.

View Post


Actually, examples of trees buried in a flood favors a young earth position due to the magnitude of the action.


However, trees buried in ash falls and entire forests fossilized upright with 1000s of feet of sediment below these features goes against the flood model.

View Post


This doesn't go against the flood model. It just shows a volcano that erupted sometime after the flood...


I find it humorous that I stated And of course, as a Young Earth Creationist you promptly ignored these facts that go directly against the flood model

View Post


I find it humorous that you would look around your elitist prejudice to find humor in anything... I ignored nothing, I simply pointed out your fallacies and lack of logical arguementation...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users