quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
It's been a while but here goes:
1)That is what science is for. Through science we should be able to make the determination schraf is asking for. If we had all the answers we wouldn't need science.
schaf:
Science doesn't use the word "kind", therefore science cannot define it.
John Paul:
I am sure there are plenty of words that science, at one time, did not use but it uses now. Do you think
alternating current was used at the inception of science? What about the Tesla Coil? Did that exist when science was first conceived? The city of Troy was once thought to be a myth- guess what archaeology (a branch of science) turned up?
schraf:
Creation "science" uses the word kind, so it therefore needs to define what it means and by what method and criterion different "kinds" are identified. Since Creation 'science' claims to be real science, then it must define it's terms, yet I have never been provided, nor have I ever been able to find, a sufficently firm and clear, non-Bible-based reasoning behind the criterion used to tell one 'kind' from another.
John Paul:
Why does it have to be non-Bible-based? That doesn’t make any sense. The Bible is a collection of history and philosophy books. Archaeology uses history books why can’t Creationists? Also the field is relatively new and does not have the resources that evolutionists have, but there is literature out there.
schraf:
The only conclusion that can be reached is that "kind" is a religious term, not a scientific one, despite Creationist's claim to the contrary.
John Paul:
And I conclude that you are too clouded by your dogma to think objectively.
quote:
2)This question refers to YECs. The fact is the radiometric dates aren't always remakably consistent with each other.
schraf:
Right, like I mentioned above, the times that they are not consistent are well-understood and predicted.
Even still, let's hypothetically say that they were incorrect 20% of the time. (In reality, it is only wrong a few percent of the time, but I'll give you this huge number just for argument's sake)
How do you explain the other %80 of the time that all the dating methods corroborate each other remarkably well?
So, since when do scientific methods have to be 100% perfect at all times for them to be reliable??
quote:
It is more likely that three different dating methods on one sample will yield three different "dates".
schraf:
Really? Please provide evidence of this rather fantastic claim!
John Paul:
What is fantastic about that claim?
A meteorite called Allende:
Pb-207/Pb-206 = 4.50 by
Pb-207/U-235 = 5.57 by
Pb-206/U-238 = 8.82 by
Pb-208/T-232 = 10.4 by
Sr-87/Sr-86 = 4.48 by
Two agree. Three do not.
quote:
3) Who said "all the fossils were laid down in one Biblical Flood event"?
schraf:
True Creation, for one. Anyone who says that the GC was formed by a Noachian flood, for others.
John Paul:
As I have stated, death occurred before the flood so there is no reason to believe fossilization didn’t also occur before the flood. The formation of the GC has what to do with fossils? Couldn’t there be fossils in the ground and then the flood event shifted things around?
quote:
Death occurred before the flood and continued after the flood. Also not everything that has lived and died has become fossilized and we haven't looked in every place for these fossils. What if what you seek is under the Antarctic ice cap, well below the land surface?
schraf:
You still have to explain the GC and the fossils that are known, and these do not indicate a worldwide flood event that happened a few thousand years ago.
John Paul:
99% (or more) of the fossils we do know about do not support the ToE.
What would I expect to see if there was a global flood? Millions of dead things buried in sediment all over the world. Guess what we see? I would also expect to see marine organisms on and in mountains. Guess what we see?
schraf:
You also completely avoided my question. Why have we not found a SINGLE flowering plant fossil in the lower layers of the GC??
John Paul:
What part of not everything that has lived and died has become fossilized and we haven’t looked in every place for these fossils, don’t you understand? Trying to use the fossil record for anything other than studying the fossils it contains is only an exercise in speculation with no objective way to test that speculation.
------------------
John Paul
™ Version 4.2
