Questions Creationists Never Answer-still waiting!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B] 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.You also completely avoided my question. Why have we not found a SINGLE flowering plant fossil in the lower layers of the GC??
B][/QUOTE]--Respectfully, concerning Shraf’s belaborings and Degreed’s response, both.--Flowering plants not existing beneath certain plate layers and the GC ... Perhaps MANY plate layers are pre-flood in most parts of the world (with and without fossil graveyards--that were due to catastrophes). Please enlighten me (us) on the significance of your questioning. Does it really ‘prove’ no recent global flood or no flood induced GC?--Does your flowering plant inference also rule-out oil being formed ‘post-flood’? (Again, forgive my lack of knowledge geology, I’m still studying much conflicting data)--Many evolutionists conclude catastrophic nearly global flood(s) have occurred without compromising their position.--The genesis flood, regardless of any scientific mechanism, for many YECs (like myself), did take place, indeed. The real mechanism was undoubtedly supernatural (similar to Sodom & Gommorha, the creation of Eden, the dispensations of the Bible, Christ’s death & resurrection, etc.). I’ve read YEC literature which gives scientific mechanisms (comets, tides, canopy breakdown, plate tectonics, and hosts of other explanations for the 40 days/nights of global deluge. Yet, I, too, believe it was supernaturally induced, not very explicable by scientific mechanisms. The number 40 is a ‘supernatural’ clue here. As a YEC I defy any biblical creationist who states this was not a ‘supernatural event, dispensation, and covenant (by God). Mechanisms are arbitrary here, if supernatural. Scientifically proving the ‘rain’ alone didit is nearly impossible. But that the deity didit must be inferred.--Degreed (and others), might you not scientifically consider?:
Are there not variations of YECs and ToEs/ToMs (theory of mutation), besides the so-called ‘nave’ ones ? Consider:
Humphrey’s theorizes ‘general relativistic’ time dilation at the ‘event horizon’ within universal gravitation. I myself follow a special-relativistic time dilation model (E=mc(^2)), or ‘increased gamma’, at the instant following the ‘big bang’. The latter model seems to account for extreme solar time dilation in numerous (radiometric) clocks.--Do not radiometric clocks perpetrate fraud to the unsuspecting public regarding the solar time intervals of the GC?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Why retreat to a Godidit position on the flood, but then try to use science to explain aspects of cosmology?

---

--Because after what I perceive must have been a ‘supernatural’ flood (to be possible), there should be scientific evidence supporting such a flood afterwards. If science does not confirm the global flood, then no global flood took place. I search for the evidences of the flood because I am a scientist and physician (always questioning and testing nave statements of science, medicine, and reality) as well as believing in biblical proofs as God’s Word. When my biblical ‘faith’ is weak I rely on science and its methods to help my conscience, overall. The events of the cosmos (observed and/or inferred) are our present reality and must be dealt with scientifically and ethically, both.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
What is a solar time dilation, & how does it affect radiometric clocks?

---

1) Using E=mc^2 (special relativity): The instant(s) after the big bang, ‘gamma’ may have been high (i.e., significant relativistic dilation in time from earth’s perspective), due to a force of expansion at or near the speed of light especially near the periphery. This would cause solar time to be dilated relative to constricted radiometric clocks. Distant stars would only appear ‘light years’ away etc. Please, you may infer the math with regards to electromagnetic effects on atomic clocks relative to our solar clock. Molecules, essentially, may have become old by their own clocks in the instant(s) following the bang. (Note this is NOT Humphrey’s universal event horizon theory)2) Interestingly, Barry Setterfield conveniently theorizes the speed of light has just now decelerated to a constant, which is ‘too coincidental’(which ToEs and YECs both reject). Yet, there may have been a higher speed of light at the beginning of the ‘big bang’ as well, perhaps infinite c. This would also invalidate atomic time as constricted relative to solar time.3) The non-relativistic YEC would ultimately (in all conscience of science and math) say that God created it all apriori and ex-nihilo, with ‘matured’ observed molecular events manifesting a solar time dilation as well, and would thus be c/w Ch. 1 of Genesis.

Are Mark's innumerable example/models really conclusive of anything other than 'way out' speculation, i.e., supporting an uncanny theory of mutationals)? Do they beg the question of mutations without proving the mutations?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Then go to post 106 & explain the evidence using the flood scenario.

​

Or would the flood scenario be "way out" speculation?

​

Please be substantive. Leave nothing out.

​

The fossil record supports evolution as having occurred. It says nothing of the mechanism.

​

Mark

​

---

--Of course the flood is way out speculation and must require ‘supernatural’ forces for it to have lasted 40 days/nights. You know, the G’didit phenomenon. Same as the creation itself. Scientifically, it is impossible (I concur).--But the speculation seems more way out as a fossil record supporting mutationals as having occurred (regardless of the mechanism).I would sooner scientifically accept that life has been here ‘billions’ of years sans intermediary mutationals. But then devolvement and catastrophes would have caused great decay. This would beg ‘special creation’ in those layers (which at present I don’t perceive).

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

What do you think the fossil record best represents?

---

Mark, I think it represents either (a) the ‘gap’ creationist theory (ID) or (b) the YEC theory (YEC in the sense of solar time, OEC in the sense of molecular time). But in the last 5 years or so, I’ve jumped on the latter boat.
Reasons:
1) My confused data observations on the fossil record and the GC needs more development in my own mind. That is, I require more absolute and comprehensive dogmatic facts regarding the dynamic GC before I can make apt conclusions, as a non-geologist.
2) Gross intermediary mutant changes are absurd to my logic until a better NS or non-NS mechanism is tested and proved.I realize this is indirect reasoning from the geologist/paleontology perspective and regret that I still seek layman’s terms on the sedimentary layer(s).--Phil