I have a couple of questions for you. As this thread is about education, I would like to use your answers in my evolution course (in which we also discuss the predictions of creation hypotheses).
1. Why do you assume that evolutionists are atheists? Science itself is actually agnostic, not atheistic (which requires a belief), and scientists (and thus evolutionists) therefore have the freedom to believe in God (and many do).
2. Do you take the biblical events as literal and global explanations for patterns of biological variation in the fossil record? If so...
2a. I would agree that a prolonged seawater flooding could potentially explain why fossil oysters might be found in some areas that are now land. Would you not agree that orogeny (pushing up of mountains that once were undersea sediments) could explain the existence of fossil oysters on mountain tops? (If not, why not?)
2b. Why are there two strikingly different (indeed, conflicting) creation myths in Genesis? Which one do you hold to be the accurate one, and why?
The way that the Flood is described in the Bible explains to the TEE, the fossils
Actually, the Flud explanation doesn't explain anything about fossils, most particularly why they're so well-sorted. For instance it doesn't explain why grass pollen is never found in dinosaur layers, or why you never find a T Rex next to its last meal of cattle.
It doesn't explain how human civilizations could exist before, during, and after the purported flood time yet not have noticed they were all drowning. It doesn't explain why there are coral reefs far older than the flood - even though no coral reef could have survived the flood. It doesn't explain why there's any life at all on Earth - there's no way that all of the current species could be decended from the scant number of animals that could have fit on the Ark, and even if they could, there's no way that an Ark full of animals could have survived the thermodymaic conditions of the Flooded Earth, which would have raised atmospheric temperatures to well over 200 degrees.
When you get right down to it, the flood explains nothing. Because it explains nothing, it belongs in a mythology book, not a science classroom.
d yankee, you claimed some amount of science eduction. You have been asked to explain something simple, like the sea shells.
More and more you show that your so-called eduction is only parroting creationists sites which, unfortunately, are rather ready to use lies if that convinces their intended audience.
I think you are going to have to stop simply making assertions now and start to back them up.
If you can't learn how to conduct yourself over the next couple of days (or few 10's of posts, whichever comes first) you will have to be confined to boot camp so you don't continue to pollute to many fora.
1) First answer. That is because most evolutionists are atheists. Now, evolutionists are beginning to sway over to an intelligent designer. So because of being atheists for so long they have neglected extensive study in the fields of history, theology, and the Bible...making them Biblically retarded if you will.
2) Second answer. Yes. Through my studies of history, theology, science, and the Bible I take them literally when they mean it.
2a) Orogeny is part of what happened during the Great Flood. Genesis states..."the fountains of the great deep "BURST" open and the water above the heaven poured down upon the earth...
2b)Can you state what conflicting myths you are talking about. Because I've read many translations of the Bible and don't know what you may be talking about. Clarify.
You state that "most" evolutionists are atheist? Please give an approximate percentage so we know what "most" means. Then supply sources for this. I do, btw, expect that more than half would be and that the number has remained pretty much the same for decades.
You then state that evolutionists are beginning to sway over to an intelligent designer.
What does "sway over to" mean? Where did you get this idea? You have yet to do anything but make assertions. It is time you learned that you need to do better than that if you want to have any credibility.
I am still waiting for you to explain the sea shells.