Is Evolutionist Disparagement of Creationism Justified?

Which are intrespresed with igneous and metamorphic rock that was not laid down underwater. Geologists realized in the early 1800's that it was impossible for all or even a few number of those layers to be the result of a single event. As Sedqwick said in 1831:

quote:

---

Bearing upon this difficult question, there is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period.

---

(As quoted at A Flood Geologist Recants, to which I've directed you previously). Let's see a reference for that "died by drowning".There are far too many fossils to have all been alive at one time. Se Problems with a Global Flood and search for "karoo". Tooth marks on fossil bones, weathering marks, and deposits on fossils show that they were not all formed in anything like one flood. Let's see your refernces for "washed there by torrents of water". As above, there are far too many fossils to have all been alive at one time.Of course there have been catastrophes ... just not the one of which you are so enamored. Name the volcanoes, and let's see your evidence for their age. Like any other evidence. They evaluate it, and look at all the evidence (which you are avoiding) and if the evidence considered in toto contradicts their presuppositions, they discard those presuppositions and come up with another set. This has happened. Devout Christian creationist geologists started with your presuppositions, and had to discard them because they just don't work. How are you doing with Hugh Miller -- 19th-century creationist geologist?

No, actually I politely asked for you to specify exactly what your vague generalities mean so I can determine if your scenario is reasonable and consistent with the observed facts. As I pointed out already, the formation of any significant portion of the Earth's sedimentary layers and/or fossil record in one diluvial event is an unreasonable scenario that is inconsistent with the observed facts. I alrady gave some references; I'll be glad to provide more on request.I note you didn't address any of the substantive points in my post, especially the fact (and the evidence for that fact) that devout Christian creationist geologists started with exactly your suppositions ... and discarded them because they were untenable in the light of observed reality. Exactly what deductions from exactly what circumstantial evidence? Exactly what is likely to be overturned by the next investigator, and why? I suspect that your only evidence or "reasoning" for those claims is that you wish it to be so because you can't face the real evidence.

Expand, please. Exactly what do you mean by "19th century puffery"? What about it is "typical"? Did you detect any errors in his reasoning? Did he get any facts wrong? Do you disagree with his conclusions and, if so, why?But, most important of all, do you deny that he was a Christian geologist who concluded that no significant portion of the Earth's geology was formed by a global flood, and he did this long before "Origin of Species" was published? If you do deny this, on what basis do you deny it?

Well, it may be arrogant and meanspirited and counterproductive, that's a matter of opinion, but it's true; that's a matter of fact. I posted a reply to exactly that list of questions to which edge referred and which you lauded, Message 100, and the only responses have been snotty and irrelevant, not addressing the isues at all Message 101 and Message 103Nor has there been any response to my polite request for more information, Message 109.So it's pretty obvious that neither Faith nor you are responding to substantive questions and refutations, as edge wrote.{fixed message link}This message has been edited by JonF, 03-22-2005 07:44 AM

That reply was by me ... and what kind of reply did you give in return?Your reply was about what Percy had said, but it did not address what Percy had said. It appears that your reasoning went something like this:

1. I (Faith) know that there was a Noachian flood.
2. I know that the fountains of the deep opened up.
3. I know that there are canyons on the ocean floor.
4. I know that there have been volcanos in the past.
5. Therefore, the canyons and volcanos are explanations for the fountains of the deep.

Sorry, that's not scientific thinking, and doesn't belong in a scientific forum. Perhaps I'm wrong about your thought process, but whatever it really was, it's not scientific thinking and doesn't belong in a scientific forum.As someone else pointed out, the statements as you have made and the rhetorical questions you have asked are not evidence. They are claims. Pointing to the existence of ocean floor canyons and volcanos is not an intelligent answer to a question about the "fountains of the deep"; it is just more implicit claims (of association between these canyons, volcanos, and fountains of the deep).Evidence is things like beds of rocks of particular types with particular crystal structures and particular formations above and below. Evidence is physical objects and measurements of their characteristics. Evidence is measurements and observations of the events that go on in the world and the traces they leave behind. That last one is very important, and often denied by creationists, so I'll repeat it; the traces that events leave behind.In order to answer a question about the fountains of the deep intelligently, you must consider all the relevant facts that have been discovered and relate those facts to your claim. You must answer questions such as "What are the characteristics of these canyons and volcanos that are relevant? Why are these characteristics relevant? What mechanism or mechanisms operated to produce the fountains of the deep? Did these same mechanisms produce the canyons and volcanos? If not, what is the association between the fountains of the deep and the canyons and volcanos? Are your mechanisms consistent with other well-estqablished and widely-known scientific findings such as conservation of energy, the laws of thermodynamics, and so on ... and if they are not, why should we not discard your theory on the basis of being contradicted by these well-established findings? Why do the characteristics of the chanyons and volcanos lead you to associate them with the fountains of the deep? If you reason logically from your theory, what evidence would you expect to see that has not yet been discovered? If you reason logiacally from your theory, is there any evidence that should not be present but is?" And, if you are going to practice science, you must learn to think of and answer these questions before others ask them. You won't be able to think of them all or answer them all, that's why peer review and the kind of criticism you have encountered here are an integral part of teh scientific method, but you need ot work on thinking of ans answeitn as many of them as you can.This is complicated and hard. No creationist has successfully done it. In fact, honest and devout creationists whe went through this process came to the conclusion that there were no fountains of the deep and there was no Noachian flood. There are no known processes that could have produced the events described in the Bible. The events described in the Bible contradict conservation of energy, the laws of thermodynamics, and many more well-established scientific findings. If the events described in the Bible were real events, there are many pieces of evidence that we should see, and those pieces of evidence do not exist. If the events described in the Bible were real events, there are many pieces of evidence that we should not see, but we do see those pieces of evidence. And this was obvious to educated, intelligent people in the early 1800's; all the evidence collected since then reinforces their conclusions.(And you blew off all their study and work and effort as "Typical 19th century puffery" ... and I bet dollars to doughnuts that you didn't even read it, and I'm positive you didn't think about it.)Many people believe that the story of Noah is an important story about Man's relationship with God, and is not intended as history. If it did actually occur, then it required a whole series of miracles by a Being who was determined to hide the truth from us ... and such things cannot be studied scientifically. You are, of course, welcome to any beliefs you wish to hold. If you want to claim your beliefs are based on science, you're going to have to play the science game the way it's played; and you have a lot to lear before you're capable of that (as far as I can see from what you've produced so far).

Mostly no. It varies widely from one fossil bed to another. The Burgess Shale is a famous example of all sorts of different organisms all together. Pretty much yes. There's so much information and evidence that few if any geologists know it all; they have subspecialties. It's kind of amusing when YECs look at 0.0000000000000000000001% of the evidence and then tell the experts that they're all wrong. Amusing, that is, if it weren't so pathetic.Yeah, experts are sometimes wrong. Sometimes.

ils Have you noticed how poor your guesses about geology are? This is another poor one. Quite often, although I don't know exactly what you mean by "kinds of animals"; "kinds" is a loaded word in the creation-evolution debate. Of course, the chronological order of fossils is always present; you never see a dinosaur in Cambrian (e.g. Burgess Shale) layers, nor do you find modern mammals in with dinosaurs. You want to look up the Karoo Supergroup of South Africa. I don't know of any really good on-line resources, but The Karoo supergroup: a geological and palaeontological superlative and The Beaufort Formation - Karoo Basin may get you started. There's a famous (and disputed) estimate that there are 800 billion fossils in the Karoo. There definitely is a s**tload of 'em there. The Karoo covers from before the beginning of the Age of Dinosaurs (late Carboniferous, 290 Ma) to the early Jurassic (about 206 Ma)

In the few places where "unexpected combinations" are found, they are placed in the timeline according to what the evidence shows. You are so increibly ignorant of the evidence, and so arrogant about presenting your fantasies as reality. You are incredible even for a creationist.Sorry, your only reason for saying that is your wish that it be so; and reality doesn't care what you wish. The vast majority of layers and fossils are found in the order expected by mainstream science. The order of the fossil record is an observed fact that any theory must explain; and all flood "theorists" have totally failed to explain it.