Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

I don't know about you, but where I've been - which is plenty of places - grasses grow at almost every elevation.So why don't we find their pollen at every level, like we do with some other, simpler plants? Why instead do we only find fossil grass pollen at the upper levels, levels consistent with an evolutionary timeframe that suggests (and is confirmed by genetics) that grasses are recent species?

Ok lets Rock. I did say Loudmouth that there is post floof rock creation fast or slow. Yet observed slow accumulation is only an observation of just that. Its speculation to say that all rock was created by that process. In fact as you said yourself such sediments must be moved, compacted and perhaps heated and pressurized. AMEN. Thats what creationists say. And this process was not winessed nor is witnessed. Therefore we can fit these rocks into a creationist model of fast events. The flood and continent breckups.
These rocks or any have never been witnessed in being formed. (Unless under very controlled conditions and probably not).
It more plausable for events then slow accumulation which is only a theory. And since untestable its not science.You compare forensics with geology. In forensics I bet the evidence came first leading to a line of investigation and later hypothesis.
In any case there should NOT be (And I mean it) any debate about what Science is and is not. Science in the public mind is about having proven sothing with tests. Otherwise all studies,like history and autorepair, would be sciences too. There not considered as such in Universities. In fact evolutionists will say to Creationists all the time our stuff is not science because testing etc are not done. And they are right. But origin subjects are all just history untill the scientific method is used. Thats why 50% of America don't except evolution.
All the best

Perhaps EDGE your dictionary was referring to the popular way sciece is seen and not the way Scientists actually define it.Always and I mean always evolutionists will say to creationists our stuff is not science because of lack of testability,falsability,predictability etc. And they are right.
Yet likewise historical geology, biology etc also are not science. Yet they assume the prestige thereof.
If systemized knowledge was all there is to being scientific then theology would be a part of science class.No there is obviously a misunderstanding as to what science is.
And there is no excuse on you folks part.
Science is science and history is history. Bothe prestigious and intellectual. But history can not claim the ceritude of science as it deals with past events and motives. And so this is how evolution sneaked its way into the science department.

I think it's pretty important, in fact essential, to determine what evidence stems from true scientific method in these debates. Otherwise we are just babbling assertions at each other... You do realize that in science a hypothesis is usually based on evidence? The hypothesis is then tested to come to a conclusion.A problem only arises when the conclusion comes before the evidence and hypothesis. Then the public mind is wrong.Science never, ever "proves" anything, it only confirms or falsifies hypotheses and theories. Also, the scientific method defines what is science, not "tests". As an aside, the scientific method can be applied to auto repair, (and diagnostic "tests" can be done on an automobile).

hi, History never ever claims certitude, and neither does science. There are similarities however. Historical and scientific hypotheses need to be falsifiable, any historical hypothesis that cannot be falsified is meaningless. For example, in regard to the discipline of history, 'God created the heavens and the earth' is a meaningless statement as it cannot be falsified.Post renaissance historical enquiry requires falsifiable hypotheses, if a hypothesis cannot be proven false then it will become a theory, and a theory is as good as it gets in history and science. This is only one reason why the Bible is virtually useless as a source for reconstructing history, it contains too many pointless statements.Brian.

Thanks Mike for your responce. I answered your point about the stars falling as a metaphore with my answer that this too has its place in verifiable origins studies. Yet you seem not persuaded still.Albert Einstein comment about religion has no merit as he was a Jew rejecting the Christian faith. Besides I see his achievments as minor in that he dealth in a simple field of science. It was still in a primitive state. It was however science as it was testable unlike evolution.Mike you must accept that America today is a more achieving and thus intelligent nation then Great Britain.
In short we know better. Evangelical Christians are at present aheah of Christians in your country in these areas of origins and British folk should seek out our work to see the great confidence with which we speak and our taking back society for the inclusion of the Bible creation truth. We are feared and our opponents hear the ground shaking. Perhaps you hear something over there in England and this is what got you interested. Well you ain't heard nothin' yet.
Regards Rob

Are you really serious? What are you basing this upon?I would hope you would have some solid evidence before you start ranking people intellectually by their current residence.You are rude, offensive, arrogant.

LOL. High ferrous content detected.

It certainly isn't based on grammar and spelling! Brian.

Yeah. Simple stuff, that relativistic physics. Beneath your consideration, I suppose, right, Robert?

Yes, only Christians can make valid comments about religion. Right! Larger size, greater population, greater natural resources, fortuituous geographic location, they're all irrelevant. And we'll just ignore all the studies showing Americans to be poorly educated compared to much of the world, especially Europe. Not to mention our incredible modesty and humility! In fact, we here in the US know they can babble on confidently and meaninglessly on any number of topics!--Percy

What can I say to that? Please see reply below..This message has been edited by Mike_King, 07-16-2004 07:04 PM

quote:

---

Mike you must accept that America today is a more achieving and thus intelligent nation then Great Britain.
In short we know better. Evangelical Christians are at present aheah of Christians in your country in these areas of origins and British folk should seek out our work to see the great confidence with which we speak and our taking back society for the inclusion of the Bible creation truth. We are feared and our opponents hear the ground shaking. Perhaps you hear something over there in England and this is what got you interested. Well you ain't heard nothin' yet.
Regards Rob

---

Sorry Rob,
But having been to your country and worked on the streets of New York with a church on long Island feeding the poor and homeless (http://www.hopeforthefuture.com), I would say the UK has a lot to learn from the USA. With the lack of a suitable welfare state, health care service etc in the US, that is light years ahead of the UK..! At least in this country we have a free healthcare service. We would never treat our own citizens the same way..
Intelligence? Well only you guys know better! After all you seem to know more..
As the ground is shaking beneath our feet, does that mean you believe in plate tectonics?
What interests me in such discussions is that nowhere in the bible does a literal interpretation of the creation story is needed. And that your kind of posts give us christians a bad name. Not all christians are YEC..
The flood story is easily explained; the end of the last ice age, sea levels rose by 80m very fast, and people living in low lying plains, and near coasts were washed away. Evidence? There are recent discoveries of whole towns beneath the black sea when the Bosporus broke through from the Mediterranean Sea(..waters rose from the earth..) and massive flooding over the Indian sub-continent, Persian plains (alluvial deposits on a massive scale No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Black_SeaIf you agree, I can send you some reading material on science and faith issues.

OK good points.
To explain it away One need only say FINE grasses are a recent adaption. I mean from an original kind but ony an adaptation.Such as in the case of corn. They still struggle over what all the present sub-kinds of corn originally descended from when the Indians first manipulated it.Oragain One can simply say grass was a obscure thing in hollows of some hollows in bushes in hollows. As the jungle today have many kinds of plants present but rare.
There is a famous tree in the fossil record that was very common and dominate in areas back then but today is only found in small areas in China. I forget the name but I think some kind of redwood but its quite famous.

Your right Pink whether evolution is science or not is important. I only meant intellectually.
Auto repair is a science?? Auto repairmen are scientists?? No way and if so science loses any claim to a study above anything in ceritude and any claim to authority over anyone who puts thier mind,thier attention to a subject. Creationists with great knowledge and degrees are told, and not in malice, that they do not engage in science. Because science is a particulat study defined by process. And they are right.
Also science is used to prove things. It proves that a shuttle can go here and there before it lifts off. For sure science is about proving and disproving. Thats what creation/evolution deals in.