Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
The thread is already about to start its fourth page, and yet the discussion has not even taken off the ground.
If the geologic evidence so easily fits the Young Earth model using a global flooding mechanism as YECists insist, then why is it so hard to get an answer to these questions, questions raised in the threads linked in the opening post, and so hard to actually get anyone who holds that belief to back up their claims?
It is getting a little lonesome isn't it. You'd think if were so easy to fit these observations neatly into a young earth framework as we keep hearing, we would see some efforts to answer some of the questions you have raised. Apparently not. Could it be because none of these things can actually be fit nicely into a young earth framework. Apparently so.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
__________________ A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
The silence is very telling. Can we all now agree that claims of a global flood as a mechanism to create Earth's sedimentary features and the notion of a 6,000 year old Earth are completely unsubstantiated and false? Let's hope so. As harsh as it might sound, I'm simply inclined to say, "put up, or shut up."
Today at 02:33 PM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #35
The silence is very telling. Can we all now agree that claims of a global flood as a mechanism to create Earth's sedimentary features and the notion of a 6,000 year old Earth are completely unsubstantiated and false? Let's hope so. As harsh as it might sound, I'm simply inclined to say, "put up, or shut up."
The silence is always very telling. Unfortunately, most creationists seem to ignore that this makes their position look incredibly weak. Of course, most of them are just interested in preaching and not interested in the science aspect of it anyway...
(Which makes me wonder why they bother even posting in this forum...)
the geologic activities at Mount St. Helens provided us with a remarkable natural field model of significant volcanic and aqueous depositions, as well as deep canyon formation
Since this was posted in another thread, I thought it was time to bump this thread up again.
Mt. St. Helens provides information on deposition of interbedded pyroclastics and mud, but it is in no way representative of how the majority of strata in the geologic column are deposited. This argument has been refuted countless times on this forum but it is still used out of an ignorance for basic geologic principles. Of course when a volcano erupts there will be rapid deposition--but those sediments deposited are not entirely sedimentary at all, are derived from already weathered soils combined with ice from the summit that melts during the eruption, and is soft when eroded. In no way is this representative of say, a limestone or sandstone...even a shale.
Why do these arguments consistenly come up even though they have been discussed multiple times on this board recently and thoroughly refuted?
Why can't the YECs answer the questions in this thread?
It's because there's no consensus. There's no consensus on a lot of things in science, esp. speculation on past events.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Byepolar - Natural, Nutritional, and Alternative Treatment Solutions to Bipolar Disorder
There's scientific consensus from any relevant field that the earth is 4.5 billion years old with the smallest margin of error (Isochron dating) being less than 1%.
Linear Mode
