The cream of flood geology research

I am far from a creationist but in an effort to help the debate along here is some research possibly worth discussing?
FYI all I did was type "creationist geology research" into Google and various sites pointing to this one came up.
If any creationists have anything better to offer I suggest they do sohttp://www.creationism.org/arctur/index.htm

StragglerOddly enough the evidence they are using to bolster their case still places the deposition in the 40,000 year range which is seven times longer than the model they are trying to establish.

Bona fide geologists do not publish in Creation Research Society Quarterly and the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal.I'm assuming that when Buzsaw said "bona fide geologists" doing genuine research into flood geology that he wasn't referring to the same old ICR/CRS gang. If he was then this thread is nothing more than a rehash of how what ICR/CRS and company are doing isn't science. If that's what Buzsaw meant then we already know all about ICR/CRS and company, and it would be silly to debate this. We already know that Stephen Austin and Andrew Snelling and the rest of the ICR/CRS crew exist, and there can be no debate about this.I thought the whole reason Buzsaw's assertion was controversial and the reason it was challenged was because he was claiming that there are genuine geologists doing legitimate scientific research into the flood.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

A discussion years ago in another forum may shed some light on this apparent contradiction. A creationist was using the old sea-salt argument for a young earth and I explained to him about residence times and pointed out not only that aluminum would thus show the earth to be no more than 100 years old, but also the sodium residence time would make the earth millions of years old, instead of the 10,000-year age that his position claims. He said that he was very satisfied with an age-of-the-earth in the millions of years, just so long as it wasn't billions of years as science says that it is.In other words, his goal was not to prove or support the "creation model", but rather to show science to be wrong. And I believe that many, if not most, creationists are doing the same.---------------------

quote:

---

"... -- the idea of killing evolution instead of playing these debating games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade already."
(Paul Ellwanger, author of the "Balanced Treatment" model bill on which Arkansas Act 590 was based, from the closing of a letter written to Tom Bethell, which was admitted as evidence and cited by Judge Overton in his Decision of the Court, 1981)

---

Edited by dwise1, : Had to replace non-functional dBCodes with HTMLEdited by dwise1, : Missed one

Fair enough. With my, albeit limited, research I could not find anything other than this or similarly unconvincing sources.
If there are real geologists doing flood geology they are not easy to track down.
I was just trying to help the debate along but I will leave it to the creationists to provide us with the genuine research they claim there actually is.
I agree that if there is not any real geological research to discuss there seems little point in this thread continuing.

In some ways I find that position a vast improvement on normal creationist methodologies which usually just set out to "prove" biblical "fact" regardless of what the actual evidence points to.
I question their motives for trying to prove established sceintific theories wrong but I think science is all the better for people attempting to find genuine evidence which does not fit with established theories. That is after all how science progresses.It is that sort of attitude that I believe is one of the key differences between genuine science and anything that could be called "creationist science"However this might all be digressing from the main topic of genuine flood based geological research so I shall shut up.

Bumped for the benefit of Buzsaw.Where's the science, Buzsaw?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Again, I ask you, I implore you, to contact your BJU mentors, in particular the geology department if they have one (?), to provide you the the list of names and articles that Percy is asking you for. Surely, this is one area in which they would have expertice (geological foundations of creation science and flood geology).

The BJU catalog seems to say that they have a geology course. One.

What's the name of the course?

"General Geology." Described, very briefly, on page 252 of their pdf'd catalog. Page not found | Bob Jones University
Be sure and read further to Biology II with its "biblical response to the theory of evolution."

Not to mention Biology I which covers "a proper Christian philosophy of science"!--Percy

Here are some of the descriptions from their catalog: The other thing to remembr is that BJU is a candidate for accreditation through TRACS and not through any of the generally accepted accreditation organizations. This will be the FIRST time that BJU has ever had ANY form of accreditation.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well that's obvious. Creationism is not designed to support its own model. It is designed to attack all others and declare itself correct by proxy. The fundemental idiocy of this is that it assumes not only that people will accept it without merit, but that it is indeed correct. My favorite mockery of this line of thinking goes like this: if the sky is not magenta-orange, it is therefore neon green.Ask a creationist to debate the merits of literal creation. You'll need more snickers bars then the number that currently exist.

Buzsaw writes: Its been a week, is he on vacation or something?If you are unable to find any flood research from Chris Miller even after going the extra mile by emailing him, I hope you do the honorable thing and admit such research is at best, unavailable.That is what an honorable scientist would do, admit their hypothesis was wrong. Then go on to propose the next hypothesis, test it, and publish the results regardless of if the results supported or falsified the hypothesis.