Objections to Evo-Timeframe Deposition of Strata

The geologic strata are not perfectly smooth and horizontal, as I keep telling you, over and over and over and over.... What flatness? They aren't found together; they're found vertically sorted by descending complexity of shell suture (that is, the most recent/uppermost fossils have very complex shell sutures, while the ones on the bottom have the simplest). No hydrodynamic sorting argument can explain that arrangement. What kind of flood can sort by kind? That doesn't make any sense. How does the flood know where to put things based on their kind?Utter nonsense. You didn't understand the question, which is why you found it ridiculous. It's actually an irrefutable argument against the flood. I'm sorry, you've lost me. Who was talking about gardens? Oh? We only find soil and sediment over small, isolated areas of the Earth? That's quite news to me. Then why, as an explanation, was it abandonded by creationists early in the 19th century?

I hope at some point that you'll share with us what you think those basic assumptions are, and allow us to attempt to show you the evidence for them.As a creationist, I had many of the same questions. Evolution proceeds from a certain basis - I wouldn't call them "assumptions" - and when I saw what the evidence for that basis was, and that given that basis, evolution was the inevitable result, I knew that creationism was wrong. I hope you'll believe me when I tell you that none of us demand quick and constant posting; you're free to take as much time as you need.

If I may just say, this reasoning is a mistake. For instance, by the same reasoning, we might observe that children all across the world recieve presents on Christmas, and that therefore it must really be possible to fly around the world in one night behind eight tiny reindeer. Oh, you might "jerryrig an explanation out of multiple local events, if necessary", but isn't it better to explain all the presents at once via one single explanation - Santa Claus?Sometimes we explain things with "multiple local events" because that's actually what happened.

Yeah, we probably can. I know I can; as an ex-creationist I know that the YEC/Flood models are seductively simple explanations for a layperson's observations of the Earth. Just as Santa Claus is a seductively simple explanation for all those presents on Christimas morning.But when you dig deeper - when you so much as scratch the surface - you see that the Flood model simply can't be true. Just as you find out soon enough that 8 tiny reindeer won't tow you around the world in one night, no matter what you name them.Of course the Flood appears to be a good model at face value - that's on purpose, by the leaders of its proponents, or else there wouldn't be too many creationists, now would there? But it seriously doesn't take too much digging (pardon the pun) to see that the Flood simply can't have happened; that there's too many things that directly contradict the physics of covering the Earth in water. It's not a matter of what the flood doesn't explain. It's a matter of what it can't ever explain; the observations we make that wouldn't be possible if the flood model was true.

So, that's your "simpler model"? The one that proposes a bunch of geologic processes that no longer occur, and a bunch of geologic features we can no longer detect?How very convinient. It isn't, because there's no way that a global flood could have caused the geologic column that we have. It isn't evidence for the flood.

No, it was exactly the one I believed; rapid deposition of sediments, hydrologic/environmental sorting of fossils, "fountains of the deep" to explain where all the water came from, etc.I never even tried to consider objections to it because nobody in my church really cared enough about it to talk about it with me. They just sat me in front of Kent Hovind's video series and that was pretty much it. To what end? Good luck with that, I guess.

Geology in the absence of those theories isn't science; it's just rock collecting.

Does that really make sense to you?

So the flood does create the layers? Which is it? You can't seem to make up your mind, which is why I asked you if it made sense to you.

I think Percy makes a good point, and I don't see myself summoning the patience to approach this in the right way, so I'll bow out. At any rate I think others are carrying this forward far better than anything I've done.

Buried under other sediments, which protect them from weathering until they solidify.

The ones on top, yes. Below that, sediments may rest undisturbed.

Yes, but only until they're buried. Remember when I asked you what planet you live on? This is why. Here on planet Earth, it's entirely possible - and common, and obviously necessary for life - for sediments to stay in one place ong enough to be buried by other sediments.Apparently on your planet there's no possibility that any particle of soil might remain in one place for any length of time, so I'm somewhat curious how you're able to grow anything where you live. Right, for all of what, a couple hours or so until its sufficiently buried? How much weathering do you think can occur in a few hours? Incorrect. The layers are old. The layers solidify relatively quickly. Both of those things are true. You've only been told that over and over again; why doesn't it sink in? There's a difference between the age of the layer and how long it takes to turn from silt to rock. Huh?

None of them are neat and flat and undisturbed. They're almost all disturbed by millions of years of erosion and plate activity. How come we have to keep repeating that to you? Explain to me what erosion you believe is happening in this place: This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-14-2005 10:28 PMThis message has been edited by Admin, 03-14-2005 10:42 PM

All the thinking done in science is based on the evidence. Basing it on anything else is not scientific. No, we wouldn't. We're not like you. If evidence exists that contradicts evolution, and if a better model is developed that explains not only all the evidence that evolution explains, but also the evidence that contradicts evolution, then we'll know that evolution is probably false.We don't start by assuming evolution. We developed evolution as a conclusion from the evidence, and if that evidence changes, then so will our conclusions. That's how science operates.