Geological timescale and the flood.

I would like to respond, but you may notice I am under a gag order here.

False. I gave a short answer of my opinion, as a creationist, that was not meant to be in depth. I have looked at the points, and evidences in depth, however. That would have been brought out, if any point was fleshed out. But, as you can see, there is a gag order here, so only one side of the debate can be heard.Edited by simple, : No reason given.

Then be polite and excuse yourself since you have disqualified yourself from this forum. As far as pretending, you are the one doing the pretending, others are pointing that fact out and you seem to not take notice.

What really happened is that your opinion that physical science applied to the far past is disqualified by reason of utter lack of evidence. So, I am being polite here, and about to leave you to your PO dreaming.I can't discuss how, since there is the gag order.

It is not false you admitted it in the next sentence. There was *no* depth. You provided your demarcations between the era's without any reasoning or justifications. For someone under a gag order you sure seem to post a lot.People are (gently) trying to inform you that you need to provide evidence and justifications for your opinions here and you cannot rely solely on some out-of-context Biblical quotes.

There is not yet a gag on posting, only about talking about the ace up my sleeve, namely, your inability to do anything but assume a same past state.As for the post you mentioned, that was a teaser. It was meant to get a response. It was meant to post my opinion, and see if anyone would ask why I had such outrageous ideas. Then, I would respond with the overwhelming logic, and stark facts about what we actually do and do not know, fleshing out the points. I had no intention of starting off with a manifesto, or thesis.

Do that now! Stay out of clearly defined topics unless you can stick to them.You ideas about different past states may be explored as much as you want. But only in a thread for that purpose.

I read this thread and now my head hurts. I suggest that “creation science”, a total contradiction of terms, find a better suited name if it wishes to be taken seriously. Perhaps “creation faith” would be more appropriate.

Of course. But it wouldn't stand much chance of being taught in U.S. school science classes, would it?Welcome to EvC.(Sorry about the off-topic, TheMatt. Back to young earth er...geology??)

Precisely. Thanks, bluegenes. Glad to be here.

quote:

---

The way to do this is on a case-by-case basis. Attempts to label things in advance of investigation are overly ambitious.

---

In advance of investigations? The science of geology is not new and some areas have been investigated in detail for ~200 years. Flood geology is as old if not older. If investigation has not been carried out, I really wonder why, but the information is there.

quote:

---

Any attempt to utilize isochron dates is likely to fail, since these don't take the flood into account. Naturally occurring water can dissolve the ingredients, so there's no way to easily determine initial conditions even if one were inclined to do so.

---

Radiometric dating is not the only method used to date rocks. They were dated relatively by their relationship to one another and their fossil content years before radiometric dating was available, and radiometric dates have generally confirmed the supposed order. I'll refer you to this post if you want to know more.

quote:

---

Fossils are advantageous to the investigator, because they leave clues as to whether a rock would be most likely to have been formed before, during, or after the flood.

---

Tell me more. What would we expect to see fossil-wise in rocks from before, during and after the flood? We'll see if this matches up.I'd personaly think that if biblical creation were true, we'd expect pre-flood rocks to contain all kinds of fossils (fish, bivalve, reptile, bird, mammal, flowering plant etc) mixed together from the earliest rocks, barring some creation week basement rocks. Next there'd be a sudden dissapearance of anything terrestrial, with mass graveyards as the flood begins. Next would come marine rocks devoid of of terrestrial fossils with only a few marine ones, followed by a long recovery period in which groups re-establish themselves and diversity increases as 'kinds' diversify and specialise. The thing is, we don't see this.

Done.By the way, I notice here, as you must have that many refer to the bible, and flood, and bible time for creation, and etc etc etc.How is it we know when we are allowed to bring up a component of the bible, such as God, or the spiritual, in the one case, but not in the other???Bringing up anything about it at all invokes the spiritual, and that cannot be supported with present science.
I move that you eliminate all mention of God, creation, the flood, the bible, etc etc etc. Just stick to what you believe in here, this natural only state we, and science have noticed exists.
Otherwise, you are being selective, biased, and partial in choosing the one bit allowed over another.
Know what I mean?

It's really quite simple. You refer to the Bible to show what the Bible says. And nothing else. If we want to compare what the Bible says with what the physical evidence shows that's the way to do it.

You may discuss almost anything you like at EvC Forum, but threads usually do have well defined topics that they focus on, and we request that members focus their discussion on a thread's topic.There's another issue at work in the case of the type of argument you're advancing, and that's that it can be used in almost any thread. Why does the earth have the appearance of great age? Things were different in the past. Why are most stars further away than 6000 light years? Things were different in the past. How could limestone layers have formed quickly? Things were different in the past. Why does the fossil record appear to indicate that evolution has happened? Things were different in the past.And so members who have a preference for a single answer to many questions are requested to take discussion of that answer to a thread dedicated to it. You may propose a thread to discuss the possibility of different natural laws in the past at [forum=-25].

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

If you provided evidence to support your argument, which you haven't and stopped ignoring how things actually work, you wouldn't be accused of gibbberish, not to mention just pretending that people didn't make points that refuted you entirely. And it appears you've done this in the past. That would explain why there are few posters replying to you.