The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence

Chuck, your references are just so unbelievably idiotic. Your first reference Flood transported quartzites: Part 1east of the Rocky Mountains - creation.com : Well-rounded gravel, cobbles and boulders of quartzite with percussion and pressure solution marks are very often found in glacial deposits as well as river systems, etc. No catastrophe necessary. No flood necessary. It even forms today right in front of our own eyes. Coupled with the fact that those conglomerates are part of the mountains, not on the mountains, it certainly points away from a flood.This was so ridiculous that I went to have a look at the authors.Oard is a Meteorologist. While he was studying weather patterns, geologists actually studied rocks. Oard wouldn’t have a clue about geology.Hergenrather is a Geographer. While he was studying towns, geologists were actually studying rocks. Hergenrather wouldn’t have a clue about geology.Klevberg is a Civil Engineer. While he was studying how to build supermarkets, geologists were actually studying rocks. Klevberg wouldn’t have a clue about geology.I mean, how wrong can you actually be about a subject and then some people still think you know it all? The only way for them is to be taken seriously bycreationists who don't know what science is.Edited by Pressie, : Altered a few sentences to clarifyEdited by Pressie, : Removed a full-stop

IT’S A WEARYING BUSINESS, ARGUING WITH CREATIONISTS. BASICALLY, IT IS A GAME OF WHACK-A-MOLE. THEY MAKE AN ARGUMENT, YOU WHACK IT DOWN. THEY MAKE A SECOND, YOU WHACK IT DOWN. THEY MAKE A THIRD, YOU WHACK IT DOWN. SO THEY MAKE THE FIRST ARGUMENT AGAIN. -- John DerbyshireSorry, I forgot to add that this is the main reason for referring "new" creationists to old threads. It's not worth going through all those PRATTS, again.Edited by Pressie, : Added last paragraph

That's the whole point. You see, Chuck77, creationism is completely separate from science, altogether.Even if some people try to call it 'creation science'. They mislead people, because even that name is an oxymoron. Creationists pretend to do science by using sciency sounding words. That's it. Why do you think not even one scientific organization in the world has ever recognized 'creation science' as science?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : Fixed spelling mistakeEdited by Pressie, : No reason given.