Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,147 Year: 5,404/9,624 Month: 429/323 Week: 69/204 Day: 11/34 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do creationists try to find and study fossils?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 25 of 182 (698002)
05-02-2013 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Faith
05-02-2013 1:48 AM


You're wrong on the fossil bit
Evidence FOR the Flood is everywhere -- in the mere existence of the strata, and in the prodigious numbers of fossils themselves among other things.
You are wrong from the start. Fossils have nothing to do with your great flood. Biblical scholars place the flood about 4,350 years ago. The fossils you are talking about are generally millions to hundreds of millions of years old.
The flood involved people--modern humans--with a spoken and written language. That fits with the 4,350 year date, but not with fossil beds millions of years ago.
Further, in all of those ancient fossil beds there are no remains of humans. That's because humans weren't around at the time.
And no, you can't just hand-wave the dating issue away.
I do think they are all wrong about the time factor and their basic assumptions about the relation of the fossils to each other, yes, of course.
Are you really silly enough to think that scientists can mistake Permian Period fossils for modern ones from just 4,350 years ago? And that all dating methods are off by a factor of about 5,500x?
You have no evidence for this, you just cling to your belief system and assume (hope) that everything that contradicts it is wrong.
I'm not sure why YECs don't get more involved in that aspect of the science...
For about the same reason few witch doctors apply to medical school.
...perhaps partly because it's been taken over by the OE people, partly because YECs don't have a huge need to study fossils since we know they are the result of the Flood?
In other words, you just ignore any evidence that doesn't fit your belief system. That's pretty sad.
Perhaps mostly it's because YEC science is still too new to have an organized approach beyond simply trying to answer the OE claims.
YEC "science" is an oxymoron. First, any science run by YECs would, just as you do, ignore evidence that didn't fit you belief system. Right there you have ceased to do science. Second, YEC science would be nothing but apologetics. The goal would not be to learn, but to convince themselves and others that their belief system is correct.
This is the exact opposite of science.
You were born with a big and wonderful brain, the culmination of millions of years of evolution. It is sad that you don't use it.
(And see signature block.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 05-02-2013 1:48 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 05-02-2013 3:15 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
(1)
Message 95 of 182 (698257)
05-04-2013 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
05-04-2013 9:52 PM


Interpretations
The evidence remains open to interpretation.
But some interpretations fit the data better than others, and, most importantly, are not contradicted by any significant data. This is true of the scientific interpretation of the geological record, but not true of the genesis-based interpretation. The latter is just wishful thinking permitted by fingers-in-the-ears and heads-in-the-sand sullen and self-imposed ignorance.
The same evidence you take to prove evolution I take to prove the Flood and I think the interpretation of a stack of neatly horizontal sediments as eras in time is stupid in the extreme.
But it doesn't matter what you think! You have admitted proudly that you wouldn't accept any evidence that contradicted the bible, so when it comes to science you're out of the game. You're just preaching, with a mind so closed it's rusted shut.
When it comes to science we'd do better to listen to four-year-old children. They, at least, can still see the world around them without the blinders you have willingly donned.
Sorry to be so blunt, but I don't think I have ever met someone as close-minded as you seem to be. That is not a trait I respect.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 9:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 10:17 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 157 of 182 (698381)
05-06-2013 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
05-06-2013 11:17 AM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Everything in the Grand Canyon I think demonstrates the Flood and the video of Garner's lecture covers most of it. The sedimentary layers themselves ought to be regarded as evidence of the Flood, and their fossil contents are further evidence.
The extent of the layers across many states and most of the continent in some cases shows deposition by water, a huge amount of water covering the whole continent, and of course the fossil contents show the bazillion dead things the Flood was expected to bring about.
Again, you are ignoring the dating. Those layers were deposited over a long period of time, not a single year.
We have clear evidence of evolution in the distribution of the various species. And a great time depth is clearly demonstrated by the various layers.
Here is an article which lays this out clearly enough even you could understand:
http://www.chem.tufts.edu/science/franksteiger/grandcyn.htm
But then I don't expect you will accept any evidence that goes against your beliefs.
You shouldn't even pretend to be doing science, as what you are doing is the exact opposite--religious apologetics.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 11:17 AM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024