Continental Seperation Mechanism

[dad]

These lines of evidence support a gradual continental drift.

Not without baseless old age assumptions all the way through, like how long ago fossils lived, etc. Not at all.

In fact, these were some of the evidences put forth in support of the original theory. You cannot claim these evidences in support of your own hypothesis without garnering additional information as to the "catastrophic" nature of continental drift -- none of which you have presented yet (you love to accuse others of holding back the evidence, yet you never present any yourself).

They already have it. They claim mountain building for example. If we crash a continent that is moving to almost a halt, except fot residual movements, that is pretty catastrophic. If we cover huge swaths of continents with ice and water, that is pretty catastrophic. If we slam comets and meteors into earth, that also is. If we have matter enter into a state of decay, that is pretty wild as well.
We won't see the kind of "catastrophic" nature one expects in the present if these things happened, because the past was different. Again, the reason you need to prove it was the same to support the mountain of claims that rest on that sole foundation!!!! Don't recite things you threw on the pile, and built up on that foundation, just show the foundation is good, I absolutely do not believe you, and demand evidence or drop the claims.

Actually, I think if you ever took the time to attend school or maybe even read a book, you would find that there is much evidential support for gradualism/actualism.

Aclaim I am familiar with, but if you took the time to dig a little you would see ALL old age claims in EVERY area of 'science' rest ONLY on that same foundation!

Any high-school geology text will tell you (and show you) that much.

Don't you have high school? Can't you put some juicy things on the table, the stars of your old age high school claim parade perhaps?

So again, given that actualism is the accepted framework, the onus is on you to show us why it is false;

I would think if 'actualism' as you call presentonlyism could actually be clearly demonstrated to have applied to the furthest past, and future, if you actually claim it does!

science has already shown time and again why it works. Whether or not it works to your specific liking, or to the liking of a handfull of creationists, is irrelevant.

You are singing to the choir here, I don't dout it works. I doubt it will work and used to work!

Science continues to progress, it continues to be taught in classrooms, and you are left in the dust, having contributed nothing to our understanding of the world.

Actually, the winds of change are in the air as we speak.

 

[LaLaRu]

When the instance is the entire far past and future, and you BASE a mountain of old age theories on it, of course it needs to be demonstrably true.

No change has happened now, so extrapolating backwards no change happened then. A line with a slope of zero is a constant value.

No, it is more like claiming that The sun and stars, and earth, and men will get shot one day far in the future with that weapon, just because it is used today. No one questions how it fires in the present, or recent past.

Why not? What's the diffrence in your mind?

Calling the bible crackpot, then stuffing your own crackpot unfoundable ideas in it's place is an excercise in hypocracy.

Prove, prove, prove your crackpot theories.

I have marginally more respect for the Bible.

You are guilty of the very crime you accuse the bible of, that is, not having physical proofs of it's claims regarding the future, or far past! You do the same, yet have the unmitigated gall to claim it as part of actual science?

Hey, let me ask you this, did the Bible ever change? Was, perhaps, the text of the Bible something completely different few thousand years ago, and it just spontaneously changed to the present form now? "Absurd" you say? You're right, it is absurd, because things that are well established and well documented don't change for no reason.

Doesn't matter, what matters is that you back up your claims of science! Regardless of what you believe went on. This you fail to do here. This is getting ridiculous, it is sounding like old age apologetics! 'Gee, I'm sorry, I really want to keep claiming the future and past were PO, cause all my old ageism beliefs depend on it, but I shouldn't have to evidence my so called science, cause you, big bad bible believer, can't provide the evidence your claims are science eithr, wah wah wah.'

OK, let me explain this to you clearly. Science assumes that physical laws don't spontaneously change for no reason, just as you assume that The Bible doesn't spontaneously change for no reason. Understand now?

Only your claim is supposed to be science. You claim the past and future are in the fishbowl. Don't whine and run when someone demands you back up your bogus science claims!

Only what you are arguing is not science. "Change for no reason" is not a scientific argument!!

 

[dlamberth]

Not without baseless old age assumptions all the way through, like how long ago fossils lived, etc. Not at all.

Old age measurements of the earth are not baseless. In the reams of rhetoric that you have written, you certainly have never proved otherwise.

.

 

[suzybeezy]

closing for staff review