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."
Maybe you should read your own posts more carefully.
You implied that it is fact that coral takes thousands of years to form; I merely replied that you cannot know that and it is possible that it only takes hundreds. My 'have a good idea' response was directed at JM. Sorry for the confusion.
quote:Originally posted by Punisher: I'm sorry Que; lets start over. Civility will get us much further.
Layers of strata once thought to require millions of years to form only took days. Coal formation and fossil forests once thought to require long periods of time, given the right conditions, do not need millions of years. Once again, my reference to MSH was to explain that creationists do not need to abandon modern geology to form a hypothesis about the past as implied in the original post.
Bottom line is this, and I think it applies for all posts on this board. The two sides of this debate start with different presuppositions. Mine are as non-negotioable as yours. We will always arrive at different conclusions.
What do you think the presuppositions of science are?
quote:Originally posted by Punisher: [b]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.[/QUOTE]
If it only took hundreds of years then the growth of a coral reef would have been observed by humans.
[QUOTE]Please tell me evolutionists have stronger arguments than to pass off "we have a pretty good idea" as fact.[/b]
Nobody, anywhere, has ever seen an electron. We only know of their existence through their effects (inference).
Are you now going to say that we should not consider the existence of electrons as a fact?
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.