|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46&2 Junior Member (Idle past 3153 days) Posts: 24 From: Kailua-Kona Joined: |
ONLY AFTER THE WHOLE STACK WAS IN PLACE Except this is a demonstrably false statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46&2 Junior Member (Idle past 3153 days) Posts: 24 From: Kailua-Kona Joined: |
None of the internal erosion or unconformities are anywhere near the scale of things hundreds of millions of years should be expected to produce. This is a tacit admission that you know your statement was false. Regardless of what you think about the required time to produce such erosion, you know that it exists, and ANY such erosion would be difficult for the flood hypothesis to explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46&2 Junior Member (Idle past 3153 days) Posts: 24 From: Kailua-Kona Joined: |
No. You didn't. Certainly not with simply a MAP.
Edited by 46&2, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46&2 Junior Member (Idle past 3153 days) Posts: 24 From: Kailua-Kona Joined: |
The only argument possible is what's been given, the supposed internal erosion and unconformities, which are pathetically inadequate answers. They are perfectly adequate if you can't explain them. Your defense is that it couldn't have taken millions of years...yet, you offer no explanation for them being there AT ALL. How did ANY internal erosion take place if the entire stack was laid down in the flood? Edited by 46&2, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46&2 Junior Member (Idle past 3153 days) Posts: 24 From: Kailua-Kona Joined: |
Silly me. I forgot you would assume that all the internal erosion I was talking about was water erosion. There are plenty of examples of internal, SUB-AERIAL, erosion.
Of course, it was something easy to forget, since sub-aerial erosion must have been what you were talking about in the first place, when you claimed that it only occurred after the stack was built. Edited by 46&2, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46&2 Junior Member (Idle past 3153 days) Posts: 24 From: Kailua-Kona Joined: |
Oh yeah, all that minuscule "sub-aerial" erosion. You're missing the forest for the trees. Even if what you say is true (it's not) that there hasn't been massive sub-aerial erosion in lower layers, your flood cannot explain ANY sub-aerial erosion, even "minuscule."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46&2 Junior Member (Idle past 3153 days) Posts: 24 From: Kailua-Kona Joined: |
Sure it can. Some layers would have been deposited as the waters receded, sub aerially. This statement doesn't even make any sense. Layers can't be deposited by water, even receding water, AND be sub-aerial at the same time. It's either sub-aerial, or it's covered by water.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46&2 Junior Member (Idle past 3153 days) Posts: 24 From: Kailua-Kona Joined: |
I can't really find a source for his claim, either, after a brief search. I suspect it's a twist on the argument concerning the reservoir effect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46&2 Junior Member (Idle past 3153 days) Posts: 24 From: Kailua-Kona Joined:
|
There is so much evidence that the strata deposited continuously over a short period of time There really isn't. Christian geologists, who specifically set out to find evidence of the flood, realized this hundreds of years ago. Edited by 46&2, : No reason given. Edited by 46&2, : No reason given. Edited by 46&2, : No reason given. Edited by 46&2, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46&2 Junior Member (Idle past 3153 days) Posts: 24 From: Kailua-Kona Joined:
|
They were looking in the wrong place. How could they look in the wrong place? The flood was GLOBAL.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46&2 Junior Member (Idle past 3153 days) Posts: 24 From: Kailua-Kona Joined: |
I was similarly confused by Coyote's assertion of the creationist tilt of that site, as I undoubtedly saw the same page/s you did, which were reasonable, if amateurish. So I went back to the site, and saw the page he was talking about, and it is very clearly typical creationist propaganda.
Here's the page: Radio Carbon Dating - Archaeology Expert Also, the Radiocarbon article you posted is behind a paywall, since it is fairly new-- 2013. I'd eventually like to read the whole article. But being so new, it certainly wasn't the source of the claim, since the video is a couple years older. Edited by 46&2, : No reason given. Edited by 46&2, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46&2 Junior Member (Idle past 3153 days) Posts: 24 From: Kailua-Kona Joined: |
Though I am not qualified to vouch for the content of the article, I think it would be interesting to note in your blog that the author, Glen Morton, is a former YEC. Here is an article he wrote about his conversion:
Old Earth Creation Science Testimony - Why I Left Young Earth
Creationism, by Glenn Morton Edited by 46&2, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024