Hello everyone

Welcome, I'm looking forward to learn from youCould you, before you start, indicate whether you have any qualifications in any of the natural sciences? If you do, which one of them and your field of expertise?Edited by Pressie, : Changed last sentenceEdited by Pressie, : No reason given.

One thing I don't understand is why you've got this either creation or evolution stance, seeing that the overwhelming majority of religious scientists also accept the theory of evolution?It thus seems that it's not an either or situation. Why do you think it is?

This one was quote humerous: The mining companies I work for are pretty happy about the 'speculative sciences of the ancient past' built by geologists. Those models seem to be very accurate. And mining companies tend to make lots of money using those models. Those models work.I've never seen a mining company praying for their models. I've always seen them paying geologists to do the work, though.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This one is funny: Excuse me. It sure can.The objective, empirical, verifiable evidence. You've got nothing, Faith. Just an old book. One amongst thousands of them.Archaeology has got objective, empirical, verifiable evidence.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Faith's 'arguments' (about those photos placed in this thread ) remind me about a great post from Dr Adequate some time ago. It explained exactly what ‘uniformatism’ is and how it is used by geologists.
EvC Forum: Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??

quote:

---

Doesn't the "creationist literature" seem a bit forced, even to you?

​

Let me explain what I mean. To an actualist like myself, nothing is more simple and straightforward than sedimentology. Those things that look like lithified flaser deposits? They're lithified flaser deposits. The things that look eactly like lithified sand dunes? They're lithified sand dunes. The things that look exactly like lithified varves of proglacial lakes? They're lithified varves of proglacial lakes. The rocks that look just like welded tuff? They are welded tuff. The stuff that looks exactly like glacial moraines? Those would be glacial moraines. Chalk looks exactly like the product of millions of years of deposition of coccoliths, and I have an explanation for that. It is the product of millions of years deposition of coccoliths.

​

And you guys want to explain this by one singular event. All these things are somehow consequences of your imaginary magic flood.

​

Don't you yourself find this attitude rather difficult?

​

Let's do another analogy. Walking through the Serengeti, I notice the footprints of lions and zebras and elephants and so forth. I determine that these are the footprints of elephants and so forth. I see that what I identify as the footprints of elephants are the exact same shape as the feet of elephants. I note that the stride length of these footprints are exactly consistent with the stride length of elephants. I watch elephants walk, and look at the footprints they leave, and I see that these impressions are exactly the same as those that I see in the Serengeti. I do the same with the footprints of the zebras and the lions and the giraffes.

​

Then some man comes up to me and states that despite all this, these footprints were left by one single animal that no-one has ever seen.

​

This man is a creationist.

---

Edited by Pressie, : Spelling

Yes, you can. We see them all over. Seen those photo's provided on this thread? They are lithified beach deposits.If it looks like a lithified sand dune, it surely is not a chocolate cake from your mommy's kitchen. It is a lithified sand dune.Do you even know what the word lithified means? Let me give you a hint: it doesn't mean 'magic'.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Sure. Lithified sand dunes in the Clarens Formation, Karoo Sequence.Some of the many, many references ( I just reference two groundbreaking of many, many studies here):Du Toit, A.L. 1918. The zones of the Karoo System and their distribution: Proc. Geol. Soc S. Afr., 21, p xviii-xxxviiBeukes, N.J. 1969. Die sedimentologie van Etage Holkranssandsteen, Sisteem Karoo: M.Sc. thesis, Univ. Orange Free State.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Faith writes: Not being vague at all. Those references are there for you to read. The Karoo Sequence does contain fossils; they are in sequence from the bottom to the top. Both plant and animal fossils. In different members and formations. Those members, formations and groups also have a pattern from bottom to top... Err, all lithified sediments are lithified sediments. Not ignored at all. It's obvious that you don't know what the word 'lithified' means. Err. Hope you do know that organic material normally have to get buried for fossilisation to occur. Nope.Have you ever seen a Karoo 'rock'? Hope you do know that tens of thousands of geologists have actually studied those rocks, themselves?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Faith writes: You still don't know what the word 'lithified' means. So do those geologists and paleontologists who actually study the Karoo Sequence. Luckily what or what or not you regard is of no value at all. What is important are those tens of thousands of geologists and palaeontologists who have actually studied the Karoo Sequence. And publish their findings.Those mining companies, hiring those tens of thousands of geologists, are way more important than you. Unlike you, they actually put their money where their mouths are.

Tangle wrote: It sure must be the most successfull conspiracy theory ever. I can see old Igor (ex-KGB), Fritz (German Intelligence agency), Lee (Chinese Intelligence Agency), Bro (CIA), David (Mossad), Muhammed (Iranian Intelligence Agency), Carlos (Argentinian Intelligence Agency); Japie (South African Intelligence agency), Nigel (SI5); all sitting together around a camp fire (at Camp David, most propably) declaring:'The world is lots of years old', take that. Stuff the YEC "research"!

Faith writes:

quote:

---

Meanwhile I've made some very simple points that absolutely demolish Old Earth theory and you all ignore them. Oh yes, Ignore Faith, that's a biggie you all play, and you all play Change the Subject.

---

Really? Please explain exactly what 'Old Earth theory' is. I've never heard of such a scientific theory in my life.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

You wrote: Do you actually know what you write, Faith? Living in Colorado I guess? (Nothing against people of Colorado at all. Legally smoking weed from the first of January is what I'm referring to). Whoopieeeeeee!Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : Chamged sentence