Wanting the penny and the cake.

Status
Not open for further replies.

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,169
226
62
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
And I answered The geological column was formed by and through the flood. []During the flood almost all of the geological column was formed. Some instances of evidence; Footprints in layers, that could not be preserved unless buried very quickly,
quot-bot-left.gif


Above is a quote from another thread about explaining the geological column as a flood remnant.



This is a quote from Answers in Goofyness' website:

Answers In Goofyness said:
Did you know the geologic column does not exist in the real world? It only exists on paper and in textbooks.






Which is it? It exists and the Flood explains it OR it doesn't exist except in a textbook?


I have seen this kind of thing many times. First it can be explained by Creationism and then it doesn't exist at all when the Creation 'science' argument has run out of steam.

You can't have both guys - pick one or the other!



 

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,169
226
62
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The Lady Kate said:
Shifting goalposts is bad enough... trying to replace them with basketball hoops is absurd.


Another famous example is saying evidence of evolution points to ID and then they'll say there is no evidence of evolution. Again I ask them at least choose one or the other absurd argument.
 
Upvote 0

RightWingGirl

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
971
28
34
America
✟8,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
KerrMetric said:
Above is a quote from another thread about explaining the geological column as a flood remnant.



This is a quote from Answers in Goofyness' website

Which is it? It exists and the Flood explains it OR it doesn't exist except in a textbook?


KerrMetric, the quote you posted is mine. To clarify--I was refering to that portion of geological evidence that is called by some the "geological column" I used this term because it would be more widely and easily recognized. However the "geological column" as a geological record of millions of years that was formed through many long ages does not exist.


 
Upvote 0

Remus

Senior Member
Feb 22, 2004
666
30
53
Austin, TX
✟8,471.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How interesting. This article seems to say more than what was originally posted:
Did you know the geologic column does not exist in the real world? It only exists on paper and in textbooks. In the real world the layers with their fossils are frequently in reversed order or completely intermixed. Often a supposed more recent layer will rest on top of a supposed ancient layer with no layers in between. What the real world shows makes sense if the cause of it all was the devastatingly destructve Flood of Noah’s time,but makes no sense in the concept of slow settling over millions of years.
Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see how this indicates any change in position. This looks consistent with what other creationist have been saying all along. Maybe there's a semantics issue here.

There's something about this thread that troubles me. Well, a few things, but one stands out. From what I've seen, it's not uncommon for the scientific community changes its position. It seems to me that there's a double standard here.
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
Remus said:
How interesting. This article seems to say more than what was originally posted:

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see how this indicates any change in position. This looks consistent with what other creationist have been saying all along. Maybe there's a semantics issue here.

There's something about this thread that troubles me. Well, a few things, but one stands out. From what I've seen, it's not uncommon for the scientific community changes its position. It seems to me that there's a double standard here.

No, the problem is once science falsifies an idea, it doesn't reuse it. Hence, we don't use flat Earth or geocentric orbits in our theories any more. However, Creationists are arguing that the isn't such thing as a geologic column, but at the same time, arguing that the column was the result of the flood. I think this is what Ken was trying to point out.
 
Upvote 0

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,169
226
62
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
shernren said:
Good catch, Remus. A Google of the quote seems to indicate that there is only one verbatim source of this quote:

http://creationsciencemessages.org/geologcol.htm

not AiG.


I grabbed it off AIG but I think the page may have been a redirect. However it was not the page you linked to. I currently cannot find the exact page. If I do I'll post it.

By the way - you have to be careful Googling for an exact quote since Google does not search every page in a large site. I use the same trick as well but it frequently misses.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Donkeytron

Veteran
Oct 24, 2005
1,443
139
43
✟9,874.00
Faith
Non-Denom
RightWingGirl said:
[/b]
However the "geological column" as a geological record of millions of years that was formed through many long ages does not exist.
[/color][/size]

Pretty much every geologist on the planet would disagree. And, interestingly, everyone who believes in a young earth just happens to do so for religious reasons and is usually christian.
 
Upvote 0

Remus

Senior Member
Feb 22, 2004
666
30
53
Austin, TX
✟8,471.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
random_guy said:
No, the problem is once science falsifies an idea, it doesn't reuse it. Hence, we don't use flat Earth or geocentric orbits in our theories any more.
Actually, "science" itself doesn't do anything other than provide a guideline for people to follow (I know, oversimplification). However, it would be scientists, following these guidelines, that would falsify ideas. You can't equate science with scientists.
However, Creationists are arguing that the isn't such thing as a geologic column, but at the same time, arguing that the column was the result of the flood. I think this is what Ken was trying to point out.
I believe that RightWingGirl cleared up this misunderstanding. What she said is inline with what the article says and what other mainstream creationists say.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.