111
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 312:
Line 312: + + + + +
→You Just Gotta Be Kidding Me
::::: I suggest that YEC geology makes no sense to you because you simply have very little idea of it. If you are interested in learning more, I suggest that you read some of the geology papers published in the [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2011/ ''Journal of Creation'']. You could also check out [http://www.biblicalgeology.net/ this]. But of course you would need to read more than just a paper or two to get a good understanding.
::::: I suggest that YEC geology makes no sense to you because you simply have very little idea of it. If you are interested in learning more, I suggest that you read some of the geology papers published in the [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2011/ ''Journal of Creation'']. You could also check out [http://www.biblicalgeology.net/ this]. But of course you would need to read more than just a paper or two to get a good understanding.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::::::No, I do have a very clear idea of what YEC geology is like, because I have actually done some research on it. Thanks for your comments, which have helped me to take a good hard look at it, and pointed me to some interesting aspects of it that I hadn't seen before. It still makes no logical sense in terms of science. I apologise for these comments, but this is what I feel about this.
::::::Everything that I have read, seen and understood so far leads me to believe that flood geology seems to be deeply flawed and based upon one main premise - YEC geology believes in an early creation and the flood. And that's it.
::::::But every other piece of evidence that contradicts this worldview, this conception, is immediately dismissed by YEC believers. Geology points to a world that is billions of years older? No, there has to be a mistake with radiometric dating. Plate tectonics points to billions of years of continental drift? No, it can all be explained with rapid subduction, with anomalies like the Pacific Hotspot, the fact that such rapid subduction would have - by Baumgardners own admission - have boiled the oceans being explained away at some future time.
::::::Erosion? The Flood. Sedimentation? The flood. The discovery of fossils? Animals that didn't make it onto the ark.
::::::It's like... YEC people start off with a fixed idea and then they either ignore those facts that contradict their own ideas, or they try to bend those facts to fit their own world view. That's not science. It's manipulating reality to fit their own view. I stand by the mainstream not out of rigidity, not out of fixation, but because it fits the facts. Like I said, let's agree to disagree. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 18:54, 24 January 2008 (EST)