quote:Yes, sorry I don't get everything said that needs to be said in one post, and I forget things I've said years ago. Whatever. The thing about the geological phenomena is that most of it is one time events that occurred in the Prehistoric past...
But it is not really about one-time events. Lakes and rivers and seas, earthquakes, continental drift, volcanic eruptions. These are things that exist today.
quote:But I also don't want to rest any of this specifically on witnesses either because there are sciences that rely on indirect information, whichis what I was referring to about atomic phenomena and the mostion of the Earth and so on. There is no direct witnessing but there are measuruable AND REPEATABLE effects that can be used to study them
And indeed the events are repeatable - in a general rather than exact sense - but that is good enough. Astronomy has it worse, yet that is still accepted as science.
quote:It's not that we can't know SOME things about that past, such as that fossils were once living creatures -- but that was not known to those who originally studied them as they came up with all sorts of outlandish ideas about them because they didn't have anything to compare them too. That's the ONE-TIME-EVENT phenomenon. Even that can be resolved as it was in the case of the fossils by a more reasonable interpretation.
And that is why the Flood was rejected by geology. All the supposed evidence for it had more reasonable interpretations.
quote:t as for explaining the causes of the strata and the fossils, that's where we are getting into territory I'm arguing isn't so easily knowable, because of course I'm objecting to the standard interprreation of it which I consider to be … let's say irrational?
Which only means that you want it to be wrong because it contradicts your beliefs. If you want to see real irrationality, your own arguments are full of it.
quote:Time periods attached to slabs of rock by dating methods that don't even date the rocks themselves.
And yet the methods are quite sound. Even if the rocks are not dated directly the relationships between them (remember the law of superposition?) provide adequate evidence to work out ages from the rocks that are directly dated.
quote:Slabs of rock that couldn't ever possibly form from a landscape in a time period anyway.
So you say, but you’ve never come up with any real problems.
quote:Fossils that form under rare conditions occurring in amazing abundance in these rocks, and sorted BY the rocks too.
Of course the conditions are more common in sone environments than others - and unsurprisingly fossils are more frequently found in rocks formed where favourable conditions would have been more common. And the order is easily explained under the conventional view. It’s your Flood geology that can’t explain it.
quote:That's supposedly evidence of the time periods interpretation but once you see that a rock can't represent a time period the whole idea comes crashing down. And so on.
But Faith you don’t “see” any such thing. You just make up crazy nonsense. And you can’t call that anything but irrational.
Right now I've only been touching on Flood related concepts so I think I'll take my last post over to the thread "Did the Flood Really Happen" for now anyway. If more general evolution ideas come up we can move them again.