I've got to say that I've become increasingly disappointed at the increasing arrogance of the evolutionist side. EvC Forum is not supposed to be a protected environment for evolutionists. Evolutionists already have every advantage because the evidence is all on their side, and at EvC Forum you're required to argue the evidence. There is no need to engage in small-minded belittlements of the opposition. Some nuts are hard to crack, some nuts are incredibly frustrating, and some nuts are just nuts, but I would expect the side with all the advantages to maintain much better decorum. I include myself in this criticism.
This topic is reopened for debate. The combatants:
Faith: YEC Creationist Jazzns: Evolutionist
Only the combatants and moderators are permitted to post in this thread. Violators will have their posting privileges in the Great Debate forum temporarily suspended in order to prevent future such "accidents".
Does the evidence of sedimentation and erosion found in the geological record support a young-earth viewpoint?
I'm currently the moderator, but that could change. All decisions by the moderator are final.
I used the MS Paint program and I made them into JPG files, but it turns out Image Shack won't accept them, says the files are corrupted -- I forget the exact message but something along those lines. I'm afraid they're also too large and I haven't learned the HTML way to post here. Well, maybe I'll try pictures again eventually.
Please email any images to Admin's Email and I'll make them available at EvC Forum so you can include them in your messages.
Here's a thumb of the image, you should be able to fetch the path off it by right clicking on Properties so you can use it in your own messages, let me know if you need help (don't worry, it looks great at full size:
If that's how you want to do it. But remember I got into the Great Debate on others' suggestions as it seemed the best way to deal with the piling-on problem. In other words, I didn't enter it with a clear understanding of the intention of a Great Debate, merely as a way of dealing with the previous problems, so I was far from having any ducks lined up for the purpose. But it's your call. I am sure I will again connect with the issues there but I don't want to go back to it uninspired.
You can't discuss geologic time frames without geological issues being the centerpiece.
The change in title was only a minor clarification, since geological strata both deposit *and* erode. All Moose did was change "Deposition of Strata" to "Deposition and Erosion of Sediments". The deleted "Objections to" portion was mere window dressing, since it is assumed you object. I don't see the change of title as modifying the thread's focus.
When you think it's okay to discuss Christianity without the Bible being the centerpiece then let me know and I'll reexamine my opinion that you can't discuss geologic time frames without geology being the centerpiece.
What you're actually struggling against is your unwillingness to confront the fact that one can't debate issues one is uninformed about. You want your naive ideas given as much consideration and respect as those of people who have studied for years. As long as you continue to hold such unreasonable expectations you will continue to struggle here.
By the way, it's also okay, at least in my opinion, to learn while you debate, as long as you understand that your preconceptions may turn out to be wrong. Persistent insistance that your preconceptions are right when there's an absence of supporting evidence and the presence of contradictory evidence is looked on as being unconstructive by the moderators. That doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means you can't keep arguing if you can't support your point of view with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Arguing just to argue doesn't play well here. Find what you need to support your views, then post. Reversing the order will only bring you grief.