The cream of flood geology research

ok, v e r y funny! But enough of the silly stuff now.Let's wait for Buz (or other interested party) to give a serious answer to the question.Other comments might just result in a short suspension. However, funny they happen to be.

All you waiting folks twidling your thumbs need do is assess the members on line at any given time and go figure that the angels aren't likely going to pop in to cover for all half dozen or so of us EvC IDist and floodist creo fundies, some of who've become intimidated by just how they are suppose to address science debate scientifically without admin problems as to what science really is and others of us who've been too busy with other matters in life like making a living. I've just opened this thread and in spite of my busy schedule I'll see what I can assemble for a response to the OP.Please understand that I consider the challenge a sensible and reasonable one which does warrant addressing. This is getting into science however and those of you who aren't aware, be aware that you're about to debate a non degreed member who's only college ed was a year and a half at BJU, (Bob Jones University). That is not to say I can't address some scientific stuff since one of the valuable things the good folks at BJU taught me was how to learn. Imo, you needn't necessarily be in a classroom to learn. Anyhow, enough of that. I'll get at mustering up something. Hopefully I won't get my first suspension for being unscientific. I'll try hard to keep it proper and welcome warnings from any of my admin friends if I get out of line. Edited by Buzsaw, : spelling

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Fortunately, Buz, I think you'd be answering the OP perfectly well by refering to those who can address the scientific stuff. As you posted, and were quoted in the OP:

quote:

---

...bonafide practicing geologists who research flood geology arriving at alternative interpretations of what is observed are doing science.
  —Buz

---

All you have to do is do your best to describe their work in your own words and then offer links to the complete work.

{Content removied by moi for fear of suspension.}Edited by gasby, : No reason given.Edited by gasby, : No reason given.

Does BJU have a geology department? Perhaps you could contact (email?) a professor there with this query and get some expert input. Even if you didn't take geology courses yourself, being an alumnis should get you some response, although I would think the topic itself and the opportunity to address this forum would draw his/their interest.Regards, AnInGe

I'm afraid you'll be taking a short break. Please follow moderator requests, thank you.Comments to thread in signature.

---

1. You misspelled my username. There's one "z". No biggie. Just pointing it out so you are aware for the future.2. It's important for the purpose of this debate to hold me responsible only to what I am claiming and nothing more. I am not here at this thread to prove that there was a flood. I am here to back up my claim that there are bonafide credible scientists who research flood geology and that this research is doing science., observing the same stuff mainline scientists and geologists are oserving and ending up with an alternative interpretation than that of the majority.3. In the other thread I cited a Chris Miller who works for an oil company as a geologist who drills core samples and other activity which he utilizes in forming his hypothesis on creationism and the flood. This is not all he uses, of course. He observes through his employment many aspects of plate tetonics, H2O data relative to different aspects of layering, location of oil always below bedrock et al.This man, during most of his career was an avid evolutionist who pshawed the Biblical account of creation, the flood and all. However, what he observed as a research geologist in his field caused him to begin to question the claims of evolution and to find a more viable explanation for what he was observing upon and in the earth.He was learning from observing things like how the Mt St Helens canyon did a remarkable job of sediment layering in a short period of time. He cited in his lecture I believe some 80 or a hundred distinct layers neatly sorted out and layered in a sample wall of the canyon which was a relatively small canyon for so many layers. His point here was simply to use this observation relative to the efficient sorting job H2O can do in a catastrophy, sorting out different types of material in distinct layers and how much greater this layering would be in such a horrendous catastrophy as a world wide flood which would have produced a tremendous amount of volcanic and earthquake/upheaval activity. He also explained how all the oil below the bedrock needed to have been formed in a short period of time as there is no evidence of oil a great amount of oil being formed gradually as things decay into the soil. I don't remember all the specifics of his lecture so I may not be articulating it all as he put it but hope you get the drift.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Thanks AdminNosy. I had at first thought that Chris Miller had a website, but have learned that that is not the case. However I am going to email him at CreationAndEvolution@hotmail.com and see if I can get a link to some of his flood research.Also I have an excellent video of ICR's research of Grand Canyon, articulating all their arguments on why the observed sediment layers, et al threre can be interpreted as to have been created suddenly via the WW flood. Again, I'm not here to debate the credibility of their research, but to back up my claim that it is bonafide science and that PaulK and others who are repeatedly falsely claiming there's no such thing are whistling in the wind.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Buzsaw states: Here is an example of what ICR refers to as "doing science" from a visit to their museum. From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/bartelt3.html :

quote:

---

The ICR asserts that there is just one way to ascertain the age of a fossil. There are many "do nots":

​

Do not use the depth where it is found (many "old" formations lie on the surface, and others are known to be above "young" formations).

​

Again, museum patrons are not apprised of fundamental geological principles like folding and faulting.

​

Do not use the type of rock in which it is found (rocks and minerals and structures of all types are found in every 'age').

​

Geologists don't do this anyway. There are 800 myr-old limestones, 200 myr-old limestones, and 10 myr-old limestones. They will tend to not contain the same fossils.

​

Do not use a radiometric date (these are practical only in non-fossil-bearing igneous rocks, and often disagree with each other).

​

The ICR neglects to inform its patrons that age of a sedimentary stratum can be bracketed by dating igneous rocks that lie above and below it, for instance. The ICR's attempts at radiometric dating have produced some pretty disagreeable dates (Austin 1997, Austin 1992). Generally, radiometric dates measured using two independent methods agree very well. Check out the radiometric dates of lunar rocks or meteorites in Dalyrymple (1991), for example.

​

Do not use the 'stage of evolution' of the fossil (this would be circular reasoning, for the age-sequence of fossils is the main 'proof' of evolution).

​

Ages of rocks are sometimes estimated on the basis of the fossils they contain, but this estimate can and should be substantiated by other methods such as radiometric dating.

​

The ICR says that there is only one way to determine a fossil's age:

​

Do use the Word of God (The Bible indicates that most of the fossils must have been buried in one year - the year of the Flood).

---

It is NOT science to pronounce all methods for dating fossils as incorrect due solely to their misinterpretation of a religious text. Science is NOT vetted by such self-proclaimed infallible ayatollahs but rather through peer review of real scientists with real degrees from real universities.ICR has absolutely nothing to do with science. Considering the founder, Morris, stated "negroes" are inferior "sons of Ham," and 'blood chemistry tests indicate butter beans are more closely related to humans than chimpanzees', I don't see how anyone with the slightest shred of integrity would lend the claims of their founder or the organization he set up any creedence whatsoever.ABE - Here is a bit more concerning the "scientific research" ICR has performed on the Grand Canyon. From Wikipedia Institute for Creation Research - Wikipedia :

quote:

---

In 2004, the Institute for Creation Research was represented by Gish on Penn and Teller's Showtime television show Bullshit! on the episode "Creationism." On the show Duane Gish explained that "neither creation nor evolution are scientific theories. Evolution is no more scientific than creation." Standing behind the Grand Canyon display of the ICR musuem, Gish claimed, the Grand Canyon was created in one day during the Biblical flood that involved Noah's Ark. Dr Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education responded, "the Grand Canyon consists of granite and shale and really hard stuff about 5,000 feet of it. You're not going to cut this very hard rock with just a bunch of water flowing through it at one time." She further noted that "a lot of the time the creationists... they'll search through scientific journals and try to pull out something they think demonstrates evolution doesn't work and there is a kind of interesting rationale behind it. Their theology is such that if one thing is wrong with the Bible you have to throw it all out so that's why Gensis has to be interpreted literally. They look at science the same way. If one little piece of the evolutionary puzzle doesn't fit the whole thing has to go." Scott then explained "that's not the way science is done."

---

How can a person or group who apparently despise science judge what constitutes science?Edited by anglagard, : as shown

Buzsaw states: Maybe you should check to see if that is a real person first and if they are currently operating under any aliases second.From that museum tour at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/bartelt1.html :

quote:

---

At the end of the presentation Austin was confronted by another member of our group, who asked, "Whatever happened to Stuart Nevins? Does he publish anymore?" Those of you familiar with ICR literature may recognize the name from tracts published in the late 70's. Austin admitted that he had published under that penname. So much for his recent, Mt. St. Helen's-induced conversion to creationism.

---

Wow, the same ol' honest Austin that did that radioactive dating referred to in the previous reply.

Given what you write about this "Chris Miller" I have to wonder if he really is a qualified geologist rather than a technician who doesn't understand the science.Surely if he he had actually studied geology he would have to know that simply pointing to the fact that water action can produce layers in a relatively short period of time doesn't mean that all layers were produced in a short periood of time. If it were that simple then YEC views would never have been refuted. There's a lot more to geology than that (for instance erosion - that was one of the clues that first pointed to an old Earth).I certainly can't call what you have described "science".

Do we have to go through this again? A video is not science - a Video shows whatever you want it to show and is a very poor source.Let's stick with Chris Miller before we even think about the video.What we need to see is something that he has published about his work - something that outlines his methods, methodology and the results he came to.EDIT: I've looked for information on this person and I asked at Talkorigins and nobody has heard of him neither has google or any other search engine. I have to ask - is this a real person or an alias for someone else?Edited by CK, : typo.Edited by CK, : Millar > Miller.Edited by CK, : see edit.

Hi Buzsaw,Here's CK quoting you in the opening post:

quote:

---

Contrary to your claim that there is no creation science, regardless of what you personally think of flood geology, bonafide practicing geologists who research flood geology arriving at alternative interpretations of what is observed are doing science.

---

Looking through your reply to CK's request to back this up, Chris Miller doesn't sound like a "bonafide practicing geologist" who researches "flood geology". What you first describe sounds more like a conversion from traditional geology to flood geology, while what you later describe concerning his thinking about Mount St. Helens makes him sound like he has no geological training at all.In a world of six billion people you'll find examples of everything from strippers for God to Jewish Nazis, so of course you can find people who have converted from traditional to flood geology. In fact, it's a common claim of creationists here. Faith herself says she once accepted the evolutionist story.What you need are examples of what you claimed, bona fide geologists researching flood geology.The basis of this thread is just one of the many variations of, "More and more scientists are rejecting evolution." You're in effect claiming that flood geology is an active area of research by a small cadre of legitimate geologists, and that the evolutionists at EvC Forum just have their heads so wedged that they refuse to see and acknowledge this. You're saying that as flood geology is making legitimate scientific gains, the evolutionists at EvC Forum are just casting a blind eye. But when it comes time to back it up, all we get is unsupported stories that aren't even examples of the right thing.For those of you trying to track down Chris Miller via the Internet, forget the Chris Miller of Cedarville University. He's in the Bible Department, he doesn't work for an oil company, and he appears to have little interest in geology.--Percy

1. I assume you have not viewed the Grand Canyon video. I have and it's full of scientific data which originated from ICR and ICR alone for the purpose of the video. The scientists had to go to the site and photograph segments of the canyon et al, had to do analytic studies of what is observed and so forth to do produce the video for others to view and assess the evidence for themselves. This is science in action by professionals. Henry Morris himself as well as other ICR folks have credentials. Morris did secular science before becoming a creationist.2. As for Morris's alleged racism, he cited Darwin himself as having racist tendencies, quoting some of his racist statements which implicated negroes and women as inferior to others. Below is a Talk Origins source quote regarding Morris's alleged racism. Creationism Implies Racism?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

I'm already contributing as Percy so I won't step in as Admin, but please don't let Anglagard pull you off-topic. I'm sure there are other threads where ICR's many contributions to science can be discussed, where the example of the Grand Canyon can be shown to support flood theory, and where the legitimacy of science videos can be examined.Asserted in the OP: that bonafide practicing geologists who research flood geology arriving at alternative interpretations of what is observed are doing science.Evidence pro and con for this assertion is now being accepted.--Percy