nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→You Just Gotta Be Kidding Me: A not-so-brief reply to somebody who hasn't really studied creation, but argues against it anyway.
:::::::::: I am not saying that only the mainstream can be correct. I am saying that logic dictates that if something is correct then the evidence to prove that it is correct correlates with other evidence. The mainstream does not connect with flood geology. There is no other evidence, anywhere, that links with it to provide a coherent whole. The dating process for gauging the ages of deposits, fossils and rocks has stood the test of time. It works. Flood geology does not provide links to the mainstream, it stands totally outside it and also does not provide any evidence. It therefore does not fit in.
:::::::::: I am not saying that only the mainstream can be correct. I am saying that logic dictates that if something is correct then the evidence to prove that it is correct correlates with other evidence. The mainstream does not connect with flood geology. There is no other evidence, anywhere, that links with it to provide a coherent whole. The dating process for gauging the ages of deposits, fossils and rocks has stood the test of time. It works. Flood geology does not provide links to the mainstream, it stands totally outside it and also does not provide any evidence. It therefore does not fit in.
:::::::::: I fail to see your last point. The age of the sea bed varies from place to place. We know its age based on the amount of sedimentation and the existence of the magnetic stipes that show magnetic field reversals. The closer you get to the mid-Atlantic ridge, the younger the rocks. The further away the older. That is not my idea - that is the evidence. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:05, 15 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: I fail to see your last point. The age of the sea bed varies from place to place. We know its age based on the amount of sedimentation and the existence of the magnetic stipes that show magnetic field reversals. The closer you get to the mid-Atlantic ridge, the younger the rocks. The further away the older. That is not my idea - that is the evidence. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:05, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: How much effort should I spend explaining an idea to you that you criticise before understanding it? Shouldn't you have the responsibility of finding out about the idea first? Nevertheless, I'll try to briefly answer your points, but after that you really should spend some time and effort yourself acquainting yourself with the view you so readily criticise—from the people who believe it, not their opponents, by the way. An excellent resource is [http://www.creationontheweb.com here].
::::::::::: The scientists (yes, scientists) who support Baumgardner are other young-Earth creation scientists.
::::::::::: The problem with your second sentence was the comprehensiveness of it: "everything ... have (sic) to be massively wrong". This is you speaking from your ignorance. Flood geology accepts much of what geology, vulcanology, plate tectonics, hydrogeology, and palaeontology has taught us. Sure, it doesn't accept ''everything'' that experts in those fields believe, but it accepts a fair bit. In fact, some (if not all) of those fields were started by creationists!
::::::::::: "''That is a very small amount of time given the fact that at the moment I think that fingernails grow faster than some some continents are moving''": But what does ''present'' rates have to do with it? See, this is one of the differences. Hutton introduced the principle that the Earth has been shaped by processes we see happening ''today'' ("uniformitarianism"). In doing so, he declared the previous view, catastrophism, to be wrong. This was an axiom, not a deduction from the evidence. Since then, geologists have been forced to return somewhat to catastrophism. Most haven't returned to the point of accepting a world-wide flood, but the point is that what you believe about much of geology depends on your starting position, such as uniformitarianism or catastrophism. Uniformitarianism would say that you use present-day movements to explain the positions of continents. Flood geology (a form of catastrophism) would say that you ''don't'' use present-day movements to explain them. But both positions are starting premises, or assumptions, not facts. You are arguing that Flood Geology, based on a presumption of catastrophism, is wrong because it doesn't fit with ''your'' presumption of uniformitarianism. That's not to say that either view is equally valid. Certainly one can test both views to see which is more consistent with the evidence, but that's what needs to be done: comparing the views to the evidence, not to a particular starting presumption.
::::::::::: No, I didn't directly address the vulcanology point, but then you haven't actually explained how it doesn't fit, simply declaring it to be so. As for the timescale, more on that below.
::::::::::: "''I am saying that logic dictates that if something is correct then the evidence to prove that it is correct correlates with other evidence. The mainstream does not connect with flood geology.''": So what are you comparing it to? evidence, or mainstream views? The point is that you seem to be saying that mainstream views are the same thing as the evidence. That's a non-sequitur. Sure, compare his views to the evidence, but not to whether it fits with mainstream views.
::::::::::: "''There is no other evidence, anywhere, that links with it to provide a coherent whole.''": Incorrect. What you mean is that there is no other evidence ''that you know of'', but as you have already shown that you don't have much of a clue about the creation model, that's not saying much.
::::::::::: "''The dating process for gauging the ages of deposits, fossils and rocks has stood the test of time. It works.''": No it hadn't and no it doesn't. The radiodating methods are based on unprovable assumptions, cannot be calibrated against artifacts of known age (for the most part) and have often been shown to be incorrect and/or inconsistent.
::::::::::: As far as the age of the seabed is concerned, you are again judging Flood geology by how well it fits with uniformitarianism. The amount of sediment is quite consistent with a short time frame if you accept a global flood. Such a flood would obviously deposit large amounts of sediment in a short time. I'd agree that the rocks closer to the mid-Atlantic ridge are younger than those further away, but the question is how much younger. I'd say months younger, not hundreds of thousands of years. You haven't offered any evidence of your claim. That is, you mentioned magnetic stripes showing reversals, but didn't explain how this shows the ages you claim. Were you aware (I'm sure that you are not) that a creationary scientist made a prediction on the basis of the creation model (yes, the creationary model has predictive value) that we would find fossil evidence of magnetic reversals with a timescale in the order of days or weeks? And did you know that non-creationary geologists subsequently found fossil evidence of magnetic reversals with a timescale of weeks?
::::::::::: Okay, that wasn't so brief, but how about you spend some effort studying the creation model before attempting to refute it any further? Good idea?
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:02, 15 January 2008 (EST)