Tasmanofgod wrote:
It is useless to refer to a document that begins with:
The Geological Society of America recognizes that the evolution of life stands as one of the central concepts of modem science.
and expect to get an unbiased view from it.
Why? They stated an objective fact. I understand that you don't like that fact, but that doesn't mean you are entitled to your own fantasty world with it's own facts.
The statement is from the experts (many of whom are Christian). If you choose to ignore what the experts have found, instead preferring unreliabel and explicitly biased sources (as Asssyrian pointed out), then you can reliably expect to be wrong.
Please try something else to proove that the question I ask has been considered
The statement explicity said that your question had been considered. Are you seriously suggesting I ignore the expert opinion, and instead look for sources that happen to agree with you? Who should I ask, Jim the plumber from down the street? You asked a question about geology, which has been specifically answered by the scientific consensus of geologists. Why aren't you simply thanking me for finding a direct and clear answer to your question?
There is no doubt in my mind that the tecnology that commercial geologists use would be equally successful at finding deposits irrespective of whatever theory they may hold as it how it got there.
Except that isn't true. Theories make different predictions about how to find stuff. That's the whole basis of how science works. You and I, as people who aren't geologists and know little about all that might not immediately see that, but I hope we both have the sense, in our ignorance, not to tell the experts that we know their field better than they do.
My question did not revolve around finding stuff but rather how the stuff got there in the first place
And as you saw in the statement, the geologists described that too- and it wasn't a flood.
On the contrary science has a track record of disregarding evidence when it doesn't line up with it's pre-conceived ideas.
If that were the case, the science would not have changed it's ideas in centuries, even millenia. Instead, we see that science changes as the evidence dictates, and that the view scientists have today is radically different in the past. Assyrian gave a long list of examples. Compare that to how creationists operate:
There is one thing about creationists which sets us apart from scientists _we will never change our story.
...and tell me which one is "disregarding evidence when it doesn't line up with it's pre-conceived ideas", and staying stuck in the same place?
The big bang theory has long time been debunked but science wants to hold onto it because the only alternative is God
First, you might want to be more critical of your sources, because the Big Bang theory hasn't been debunked, but instead has been repeatedly confirmed. Secondly, and more importantly, doesn't the Big Bang work quite well with the idea of God? The alternative would be a Universe that always existed, which would be worse, I think, for the idea that God created things. Are you not fighting against an idea that is more compatible with God than many of the alternatives?
Papias
P. S. Noah's ark - an embarrassing (and too-often repeated) hoax. Here is but one example:
Noah's Ark Quest Dead in Water -- Was It a Stunt?
