Splintering our Education System based on FAITH

quote:

---

oddly enough the explanatory framework simply does not explain anything and the facts could indeed do without it very well.

---

That is a complete falsehood. Evolution was developed to explain three major patterns of evidence:
1) Biogeographical distribution of species
(important to both Drwin and Wllace)2) The patterns observed in taxonomy3) The change in time of life on Earth as shown in the fossil recordNone of these are adequately explained by creationist "theories". (e.g. "God did it that way" is not an adequate explanation - even if the existence of God is taken for granted - since God could easily have done it in a completely different way).

Well "the Flood just happened to somehow sort the fossils" isn't an adequate explanation either. To have a proper explanation of the order of the fossils you need to deal with a whole range of issues - some already raised in this forum, such as the sorting between Jurassic and Cretaceous dinosaurs and others that have not been such as the position of trilobites in the geological record.As for biogeography we can all look at the website you suggest and see that it basically dismisses the problem without even considering the real issues. Such as why do islands so often contain their own unique species ? Or the issue of why Australasia is dominated by marsupials ? Thanks for providing yet more evidence that creationism fails to offer an adequate explanation.

Sorry, but we do find unique species on islands. Merely denying the evidence doesn't make it go away. We have evidence for continental drift in rocks you attribute to the Flood and you would need continents to drift much (much !) faster than the observed rates to account for the drift. And appealing to a concentration of marsupials in Australia is not very good unless you can explain why any animals should even have got that far within a few generatiosn of the Flood - as well as why marsupials should have gone that much further than placental mammals. If your idea of a "good" answer ignores inconvenient facts, and relies on questionable speculations then how can you argue against evolution ? Are you willing to allow our side the same latitude you claim for yourself ?As to the reason why the majority of fossils are marine the explanation is a simple combination of two facts. One is that marine environments are often good areas from a point of view of preservation of fossils and another is that a good amount of marine life is well-suited to be preserved by fossilisation (shellfish, for instance). And while you now talk about rapid burial of marine life in the Flood I can only point out that you have angrily denied believing any such thing in the discussion of the marine fossils found at Dinosaur National Monument - instead you isnsited that the Flood waters must have been churning things up until well after the Flood waters had mostly cleared from the land.This is where science scores over creationism - science is about producing consistent models, not ad hoc excuses with no regard for the actual evidence or consistency.

The "Darwin's finches" of the Galapgos aren't even classified as a single genus, to use just one example. Please provide evidence that they are the same as a mainland species.And I am afraid that you are wrong to claim that there is no evidence of past drift rates. In fact the evidence is that drift rates have been largely constant for a long time (see http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/CT.htm which has been discussed here before), and even though there have been times when rates were faster, there is no evidence that they have been anywehre near as fast as the "Flood" scenarios require. (You do realise that we are talking about rates at least 6 or more orders of magnitude - and that 6 orders of magnitudes is 1 MILLION tiems faster ? - so where is the evidence of THAT ?)Moroever your claim about marsupials is simple invention. Why the shortage of placental mammals in Australia ? Surely SOME must have made it through in your scenario. Your idea is not even a plausible explanation.And I am really amazed that you shoulsd have to ask what facts you denied when I explicitly told you. You deny the fact that unique sepcies are often found on islands (the more isolated the better).And when I refute your claim that the predominance of marine fossils is evidence for the Flood by pointing to mainstream explanations you simply ask how they disprove the Flood. And no, the observation is NOT so "very compatible" with the Flood - the Flood maintains that there were unusually good conditions for the preservation of land life and so the Flood should produce a balance LESS weighted towards marine life.In the previous discussion you DENIED claiming that fossil marine life was "dug up" from the bottom (i.e. unburied). But if you are committed to rapid burial at the most you can claim that the fossils were buried, dug up and rapidly reburied. If they were being churned around for an entire year - as is required unless you accept they were dug up - then they were certainly not rapidly buried. And I really don't see how you can fail to remember discussing the marine strata at the site, preceding and following the dinosaur remains.Finally, creationists aren't looking for a "plausible explanation" for the Flood. They are looking for a plausible explanation for the geological record. Trying to explain such a huge amount fo geology in terms of the Flood is an impediment to producing a "plausible" Flood story - but to explain geology in terms of a Young Earth they have only two real choices. Either assume Omphalism - that God HAD to plant fake fossils and rocks with false radiometric ages - or try to explain it all in terms of a Flood, despite the fact that the vast majority of the geological column looks quite unlike a flood deposit.