Implied by YEC? Most science is faulty?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
The point of the Mt. St. Helens reference was to show that geologic occurances once thought to take millions of years, in fact, do not need that much time with the right conditions. Petrification, river bed formations, multiple layers of fossil forest, etc. Let me try to simplfy it. You look at the Grand Canyon and say "little bit of water and a whole lot of time". I see the same canyon and say "a whole lot of water and a little bit of time". We don't throw out modern geology as implied in the original post; we merely make observations in the present to help us make 'guesses' about the past, as do evolutionists.

---

So, when the Mississppi river floods, is there a deep canyon formed which winds and snakes, or does the water spread out over the plain after it fills up the existing riverbanks?If your "interpretation" of how the Grand Canyon came about is with a lot of water in a short time, it contradicts everything we know about how rivers flood and meandering rivers cut through the land. Therefoore, the "interpretation" is a poor one and makes little sense.Hey, if Creationists want to say that their interpretations are simply different, that's fine, but then I have to say that the interpretations are often silly ones which are also inelegant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
I'm sorry Que; lets start over. Civility will get us much further.

​

Layers of strata once thought to require millions of years to form only took days. Coal formation and fossil forests once thought to require long periods of time, given the right conditions, do not need millions of years. Once again, my reference to MSH was to explain that creationists do not need to abandon modern geology to form a hypothesis about the past as implied in the original post.

​

http://pws.prserv.net/creation/Articles/CRYOUNG3.HTM (skip down to rapid formation)

​

Bottom line is this, and I think it applies for all posts on this board. The two sides of this debate start with different presuppositions. Mine are as non-negotioable as yours. We will always arrive at different conclusions.

---

What do you think the presuppositions of science are?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
[b]Both of your replies still require speculation. Please do not use phrases like "the fact that coral takes thousands of years", when in fact, we don't know for sure. I speculate that it doesn't grow overnight but may not take thousands of years. Maybe hundreds.[/QUOTE]

​

If it only took hundreds of years then the growth of a coral reef would have been observed by humans.

​

[QUOTE]Please tell me evolutionists have stronger arguments than to pass off "we have a pretty good idea" as fact.[/b]

---

Right.Nobody, anywhere, has ever seen an electron. We only know of their existence through their effects (inference).Are you now going to say that we should not consider the existence of electrons as a fact?