Implied by YEC? Most science is faulty?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
"...since that discipline of science depends fundamentally on long periods of time to form much of the rock formations we see to day."

​

Mt. St. Helens has debunked (sp?) this school of thought.

​

http://www.creationism.org/sthelens/wonders.htm

---

Logical fallacy, punisher. Just because there are catstrophic occurrences does not mean that all phenomena are catastrophic. For instance, tell us what MSH has to do with continental shelf sedimentation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:

​

edge: Logical fallacy, punisher. Just because there are catstrophic occurrences does not mean that all phenomena are catastrophic.

​

P: exactly; and not all rock formations take millions of years.

---

I'm glad you agree that your reasoning was erroneous.Please point out where I said all rock formations take millions of years. Your statement was the slow geological processes have been debunked. Then you failed to support your statement.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 03-07-2002]

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.

---

Utter silliness. Can you find me a single geological reference that denies catastrophic events and does not include them in a framework of uniformity?

quote:

---

Petrification, river bed formations, multiple layers of fossil forest, etc.

---

On the other hand, coral reefs, pelagic sedimentation, and lake varves. Do you deny that there are slow and fast processes? For your basic premise to be true you must disprove slow processes. You have not done so.

quote:

---

Let me try to simplfy it.

---

Please don't. The whole point here is that creationism falls apart on first contact with details.

quote:

---

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".

---

Yep, that's pretty simple. I don't suppose you would include the concepts of continental shelf sedimentation, metamorphism, orogeny and lithification. You have simplified the GC and the science of geology to the point of ridiculousness.

quote:

---

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.

---

You take snapshots and out of context information and build an untenable model that does not take into account the myriad sources of information that bear on the problem. Why do you ignore the fact that coral reefs take thousands of years to form? Why do you ignore the fact that there are desert deposits in the middle of the GC "flood" sediments? I'm sorry, but your model makes a mockery of three hundred years of geological research.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
edge: Why do you ignore the fact that coral reefs take thousands of years to form?

​

P: How is this a fact given that no one has been around for a thousand years to watch it form?

---

Mainly from empirical evidence regarding measured growth rates. Humans also have worked coral reefs for hundreds of years without noticeable changes. There could be other ways to measure them against rates of subsidence etc. At any rate, none have been observed to form overnight. They are hardly the product of catastrophic events.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
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.

​

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

---

Wrong. I never said that "coral takes thousands of years" to grow. I said that a coral reef would take thousands of years to form. I also did not say that "we have a pretty good idea..." I said we have measured the rates of coral growth and they require very long periods of time to form the large reefs we see some places in the world. We do know for sure and it is not sheer speculation.You have completely misrepresented my statements. I suggest that you read my posts more carefully in the future.You have also ignored the fact that there are geological events that take long periods of time and this goes against your apparent belief that all events are catastrophic. In order for your thesis to be correct, you must show that there are no slow geological processes. You have not done so. Coral reefs are an example. How do you explain them in a biblical flood context?

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 03-08-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
Let me quote from your post just to make sure I didn't read it wrong.

​

"Why do you ignore the fact that coral reefs take thousands of years to form?"

​

That is certainly not the same thing as "I said that a coral reef would take thousands of years to form."

---

Wrong again. At least you are consistent. Here is exactly what you said: [QUOTE][i]"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. "[/QUOTE][/i](emphasis added)Doesn't sound the same to me.

quote:

---

Maybe you should read your own posts more carefully.

---

LOL!

quote:

---

You implied that it is fact that coral takes thousands of years to form; ...

---

Actually, I didn't. I said that a coral reef would take thousands of years to form. (Get it yet?)

quote:

---

...I merely replied that you cannot know that and it is possible that it only takes hundreds.

---

And I replied that we have measured the rate of coral growth. To form the Great Barrier Reef was NOT a catastrophic event!Why do you not address this issue? Will you admit that some geological events are not catastrophic?

quote:

---

My 'have a good idea' response was directed at JM. Sorry for the confusion.

---

Thank you for admitting your carelessness.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
e: why do you not address this issue? Will you admit that some geological events are not catastrophic?

​

P: absolutely, not all geological events are castastrophic. And not all geological events take long periods of time.

---

I assume by this that you agree some geologic events DO take a long period of time, and that by "not catastrophic" that you mean that some MIGHT have taken a long period of time. Okay, let's see what you said earlier:

quote:

---

Previous post: Since that discipline of science depends fundamentally on long periods of time to form much of the rock formations we see to day(emphasis added)

​

P: "Mt. St. Helens has debunked (sp?) this school of thought."

---

Since long periods of time have been "debunked" (according to this earlier post) this means that they are not necessary. Correct? That means that all formations were formed rapidly, according to your previous post. However, if long periods are sometimes necessary then the idea of long periods would not have been debunked.Anyway, I'm glad to see that you are coming around and agree that long periods of time are necessary for some formations. I mean, even hundreds of years is not quite a biblical flood framework.

quote:

---

I wasn't careless; my post read 'both of your replies' indicating that I was replying to more that one response. I thought you would pick up on that; you didn't.

---

Well, I did have several replies on this thread.

quote:

---

Although exhausting, its been fun splitting hairs with you. I'm off for the weekend; ttyl.

---

Well, if it permits you to understand that sweeping statements such as "long periods of time for geological formations has been debunked, (paraphrasing here)" are erroneous, the hair splitting has been worth it.Someone has posted this information before, perhaps they can repost it. In the meantime I will do some checking on my own.