Geological Sciences v. YEC/Flood Geology

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Listen Bliss...you told me that posting links doesnt cut it. All the evidence is there, allready organized and presented. WHy should i write it all out on a forum just so you dont have to spend the little extra energy to click the link. Would you rather i post every page? read the stuff. Evedence links up with creation account in gensis. of course you have to read Genisis to know that.
I dont know why you expect me to reserch for you when you wont even look at the links i present. AiG is a very good site for these things...i suggest you go to it.

www.answeresingenisis.org

Do you mean
Answers in Genesis

The problem is that there web pages are full of incomplete, inaccurate or just plain wrong "information" and errors of logic abound.

Their page on the Coconino Sandstones is a good example. It is written by two of their top "flood geologists" and it can easily be shown to be absurd in the extreme. There are many other examples and examples.

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Listen Bliss...you told me that posting links doesnt cut it.

And I'll tell you why...

It takes you a matter of seconds to post a link, but it takes me or my equivalent a much longer time to sift through an entire webpage debunking it, not to mention an entire website. Simply posting the front page of AiG doesn't cut it because I'm not going to spend hours of my time nitpicking their entire website for you. If you want to discuss specific pieces of evidence, then by all means, do it. It might be good for you to start addressing the falsifying evidence as well.

Furthermore, you should know that AiG is not a reputable source of information, as I already pointed out to you. They admit flat out that they omit and/or ignore and/or disort any evidence that does not automatically serve their preconceived conclusion. That means they are not doing science and they are operating dishonestly.

All the evidence is there, allready organized and presented. WHy should i write it all out on a forum just so you dont have to spend the little extra energy to click the link.

It's not that I won't look at a link (read my reasoning above). If you are just going to post a link flat out rather than posting your argument with a link as a support, you aren't trying very hard. You aren't the one expending the little extra energy to flesh out your argument.

You are the one making the claim, you are the one who should do the research to substantiate your claim.

Would you rather i post every page? read the stuff. Evedence links up with creation account in gensis. of course you have to read Genisis to know that.

I have read Genesis and I have read many arguments promoted by AiG and none of them withstand the careful scrutiny that creationists are unwilling and/or unable to give them.

What I would rather you do is to post your argument IN YOUR OWN WORDS and use links to substantiate it if you so choose. Spamming with miscellaneous links to AiG doesn't require much effort at all. It indicates that you aren't thinking about the issue YOURSELF and are just posting a link.

I dont know why you expect me to reserch for you when you wont even look at the links i present. AiG is a very good site for these things...i suggest you go to it.

www.answeresingenisis.org

It's dishonest to say I won't even look at your links. I will if you present more specific claims. Just linking to a list and expecting me to spend hundreds of times the amount of time it took you to post a link debunking it is entirely unreasonable. Just as it would be unreasonable for me to just post a blank link to talkorigins.org and say "there you go." That's not good enough. Put yourself in my shoes for a minute and maybe you'll understand.

AiG is NOT a good site for information for the reasons above and you are expected to research your own claims for the reasons above. I don't think it's unreasonable.

If you want to do this in a more reasonable fashion in the ways I specified above, then that's fine. But simply linking to the front page of AiG doesn't cut it.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

One more thing. If you think AiG is a good source that supports the claim of a global flood, then try to use it to either (1) defend any of the falsifying evidence presented in the OP or (2) take up the global flood challenge in this thread by answering the three brief points in the OP of this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t728542

 

[Ataradrac]

I'm arriving late here, but it's been an interesting - if frustrating - discussion.

I've noticed that many YECs seem to have a basic misunderstanding on how stratigraphy works. Considering that stratigraphy can fill a whole semester, it would be a bit foolhardy to attempt to explain everything. But the basic concept of sedimentary layering should be easy enough to explain.

First, the demonstration bit:
Take a scoop of dirt from your garden and dump it in a clear bottle. Fill the bottle with water, cap it, and let it sit until the water clears. (You may need to let it sit for a day or two if you have a lot of clay particles in your soil.) Now, take a look at the way that the soil settled out. The large particles (pebbles and large grains of sand) settled out onto the bottom first. They are covered by progressively finer particles, until the finest clay particles - almost an ooze - settled out last, on top.

Now, consider what did/would have happened during a world wide flood event as described in Genesis. The earth was "filled" with water, given a good shake (storms, the waters of the deep emerging, and what have you), and then left to settle out, purportedly developing the flood strata. If this is true, then all rocks on the earth that are supposed to have been deposited during the flood should be layered just like the sediment in your bottle. Conglomerates with boulders and large rocks should be on the very bottom of all geologic columns. That would grade up through sandstone and into shale, which is just clay, right? (Err, that doesn't take into account biologically derived sediments like limestone, but one problem at a time, eh?)

So, Mechanical Bliss is looking for a column of flood strata that shows this particular arrangement of layers from bottom to top. Hope that helps clear up any confusion.

 

[Arikay]

Also remember that to water, bones and animals are just funny shapped rocks, and thus the fossil record should be sorted in about the same way.

 

[Ataradrac]

True, although if there were all these dead bodies floating in the water, then they should be halfway up or near the top of the strata. Once the bodies sank, they'd end up in whatever layer was being deposited at that time.

 

[pompuspom]

Tricky one. There is evidence that the flood story in the Bible is a grafting from the Babylonian flood epic. But then you have convincing arguments from creationists that the best way to accumulate vast numbers of fossils, all or nearly all in tact, is to drown the animal and quickly cover it with sediment. Which of course is the flood. If an animal dies, it is usually scavenged and the bones scattered. It's perplexing, because the world preserves large numbers of dinosaurs, but no equal number of fossil mammals. Why? It could be that dinosaurs lived for millions of years and there was opportunity to drown and cover etc. over time. Do we need to accept the Noah story? I really don't know.