Uniformitarianism & Age of Creationists' Earth

Howdy Granny and Child,
It is not like evilutionist don't do precisely what you are accusing creationists in this case. Before the find "scientific" thought was expressed as fact that no soft tissue..yadda yadda. No problem we can just change the facts. Again. So when the fact comes out you bet the creationists said whoopee. Science responds by saying sorry that's not a fact anymore. I as a creationist only have a problem with interpretation or with it being stated as fact. I admit openly to being dismissive of that.

Uninformatarianism was used to drive out research based on the flood.
Once it was established as the only game in academia and only religious zealots believed in the flood it could be safely altered to include a few catastrophes (as long as they weren't a global flood). It was synonymous with gradualism for nearly a century. I was taught that it took millions of years for the dinosaurs to all die off. Now it happened with a single impact off Yucatan?

Thanx Granny MagdaCan I just call you Granny?As to it being typical of creationist to embrace the same science they are lampooning to make a point. No different than evol ones quoting scripture. As far as I see it same intent same results.Thank you for the tips on quotes. Others tried to clue me in earlier but it went over my head. Go figure. I will click on the HERE link you left me when I am done with this drink. Hey I claim to be a Christian I never claimed I was any good at it.I agree the "soft tissue" is only speculatory as far as I am concerned.In fact soft tissue is not a fossil by definition (unless the definition of fossil has changed)
For the sake of argument if it really is soft tissue science could at least ask if maybe this specimen is not millions of years old and perhaps young enough to fit their concept of just how long soft tissue can remain "intact". A surprising number were all too willing to reconsider million year old soft tissue than a younger sample than previously accepted. Make any sense? Again I do not think it was intact soft tissue anyway. But Yes the Scientific community most certainly does cherry pick. It made me mad when I found out but they do. Proper science is neutral. I agree with that. I am not wearing blinders I know how science works. I also know money ruined the scientific process as surely as it ruined pro sports.As for peer reviewed scientific journals, ideas and claims not consistent with uniformity rarely survive the peer review process.I rejected uniformity in the fifth grade. I know everyone thinks I live at AiG but I was there for a minute or two one time only. Oh wait I linked to it from here once today and they do just like you say. These claims you say are refuted in these journals how are they refuted? I can tell you before I go look that 90% are "refuted" on the basis of uniformatarian criteria. It is not science, has never been proven and is supported exclusively on censorship. It is supported by allowing interpretations to be perceived as evidence.As for the one "respectable scientific source" I can't. The game is much too sophisticated for that but please bear with me on this.When I learned the Principle of Uniformity it was the doctrine of gradualism and I was taught that there were no global catastrophes like the flood. By the way global flood was specifically cited as the one example of catastrophes that violated the Principle of Uniformity. I realize it was not stated as fact but just like the word theory is left off evolution it was accepted as fact. You probably accept the theory of evolution as fact, I have heard scientists insist it is a fact but it was built on uniformity. The no global catastrophe doctrine. Well maybe a regional catastrophe or two but certainly never a global one But wait. Now that only 8th grade graduates and not very many even of them sincerely believe in things like the flood and God there WAS a global catastrophe. Yup. Wiped out the dinosaurs.Now even global catastrophes are perfectly acceptable as long as they don't involve a global flood.It is not just that I cling to the bible and I freely admit that I do. It is the methods used to suppress anything that might remotely infer there is any validity to bible. This is already too long. Read what happened to Emanuel Velikovsky. He was one of the founders of Hebrew University, no crackpot and certainly not on the bible side. He equated the bible with all ancient myth. But read about him. To really get an idea read what he actually wrote and see how it was twisted. Um, he wrote an awful lot. Also read forbidden Archeology. Pretty thick but written so us 8th grade graduates could plow through it. Couple of Hindu guys wrote it. No bible bias there.In closing I lied earlier. I actually have a problem with interpretation being deceptively presented as fact even more than when it is expressly stated as such.If you actually read all of this, Thank you for your time.JD Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines between paragraphs.

Hey Granny,Guilty, at this point I am YEC and do stick to as literal interpretation of Genesis as I can.Wealth of evidence is still there it is how we choose to interpret the evidence.I admit there are lots of things I do not understand about science.Radiometric dating, Potassium-argon, Amino Acid Racemization, Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Even Carbon 14 the math makes my head spin but here is what I do know about all of them. They all assume uniformity. Is the rate of C-14 entering the biosphere a constant? Is it absorbed more rapidly with higher sea levels? Yes I suppose uniformity is my problem.I still have not mastered the stuff on Razd's page but I will get to it next week. I mean boxing comments I am replying too and such.Anyhow, Uniformity is as yet assumed and not repeatable so it really is a matter of choice. From your perspective I make the wrong choice.The recent research on sedimentology and stratigraphy?Watch how fast factual repeatable experiments are dismissed by the scientific community when the results conflict with accepted theories, and how they are dismissed. Note that trying to repeat them is not being mentioned as a means of refuting them.That is cherry picking as far as I can tell.On conspiracy, it is more logical to assume there is one even when there is not, than to assume there isn't one. I mean there is no conspiracy that advertises in the yellow pages. Evidence that conflicts with the accepted model is stamped anomalous and and ignored. We all tend to believe that such anomalies are rare.There may not be smoke filled rooms of evol ones plotting to suppress evidence and may never have been. The funding goes to maintaining the status quo. Money is the issue everywhere.I don't know Behe or his work.I must concede the point of uniformity as I can not find the books that defined it as I stated it. Take your pick on being taught wrong or not paying attention in class or I am lying. Like I said I never claimed I was any good at being Christian. Read what Lyell had to say about it. That is as close as I can get to proving what I and my classmates were taught.According to what he wrote uniformity was different. As late as 1917 "The Origins of Evolution and Life" science was building on the foundation as I describe it.I think it was Coyote that said I wouldn't believe anything he had to say. I restate that the evidence is the same I choose to question the manner in which it is interpreted. The millions of years paradigm was built on the assumption of uniformity as defined by Lyell. Even if it was correct it was not science. If you are not on the millions of years bandwagon good luck graduating let alone qualifying for research grants.I suspect I am persuading few if any that my world view is just as valid as theirs but I will say it sure beats preaching to the choir.Listen I type slow and already should have been working. I pretty much only have Saturdays to surf and such.Hope to type at all of you next week. Edited by Adminnemooseus to put blank lines between paragraphs.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines between paragraphs.