What I have noticed about these debates...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Well, I simply disagree. The data and the mechanisms of layering we know about now are compatible with a catastrophic flood origin of much of the geo-col.

---

Wrong, they are compatible with the conditions and materials used in Brethault's experiments. We have been over this ground many times, TB. Brethault's flume experiments do not mirror shallow water limestones, corals, pelagic sediments, or deltaic distributary channels among many others. They only reflect a high flow regime in in beach or sand bar type deposits. They do not match real-world conditions where the laminations form, are destroyed to be formed again and again before a single lamination is preserved.The experiments are compatible with only PARTS of the geological column, by no means even a majority of it.

quote:

---

The 19th century guys had little idea about layering under flow and paleocurrents in general.

---

Too bad you cannot debate them. You might do better.

quote:

---

The present lab and field models of catastrophism we have make the flood a very attractive scenario for most formations and the geo-col as a whole.

---

Okay, then show us the lab experiments that imitate deep sea conditions or black shale basin conditions. You have shown us only a single set of unrealistic experiments with one type of sediment and a temporary temporary flow regime. You are committing (still) the logical fallacy of a hasty generalization. Please show us more complete evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
When was the last time you picked up a paleontology book and read it from cover to cover to see ehat the evidence of transitions was? Benton's 1990s 'Vertebrate Paleontology' contains dozens of fossil distribution diagrams and hundreds of anatomical drawings and hundreds of cladograms but almost nothing on transitonal forms.

---

Probably because this is not the big controversy that creationists see for transitional fossils.

quote:

---

I am completely serious. I can flip through the entire book with almost no examples of transitonal forms. Just lots of fossil distribution diagrams and lots of cladograms. The links are drawn in between the most similar oranisms. There are systematically almost no transitional froms. That is a fact.

---

Maybe you need to look at a text that addresses your problem.Now, please address Schraf's comment/question:

quote:

---

How is this part of the statement of faith from AiG not blatantly admitting that they filter ideas?:

​

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

​

"By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

​

This is filtering. They are required to do it. It is part of the doctrine. I really do not understand how this can be viewed in any other way.

---

Do you still maintain that AIG does not filter its 'science?'[This message has been edited by edge, 12-27-2002]