/* ----------------------------------------------- Blogger Template Style Name: Rounders 3 Designer: Douglas Bowman URL: www.stopdesign.com Date: 27 Feb 2004 ----------------------------------------------- */
Google

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Answers in Genesis tells us what we already knew

One of my favorite complaints about young earth flood creationism is that we have a vast geologic record in place, but creationists can't explain it. Oh sure, they blame the flood for the bulk of the geologic record. It is, after all, the defining event in earth history in the minds of young earther's, but I've long noticed a reluctance to give specifics on what rocks belong to what 'period'. When referring to period in this sense I mean pre, post or syn flood deposits. Any sophomore geology major would quickly recognize why creationists won't commit to the layers defining the flood. No matter what time periods are chosen, anti-flood evidence is present in the form of paleosols, desert deposits, orderly fossil record etc etc. In short, if they ever try to be specific, they know their arguments will be dissected, rejected and in big trouble. This week, AIG finally had the balls to admit that THE defining event in earth history is....not defined! Here's my favorite quote from the article. You have to read the whole thing to get the flavor of rock star worship of the 'scientists' by the author:

The Big Puzzle—Flood Geology

Most science in the museum is fairly straightforward, and scientists have very little, if any, disagreement. The wonders of God’s creation are “clearly seen,” as Paul says in Romans 1:20.

But the Flood Geology Room was another thing altogether. The scientists agree that the rock layers were laid down in the past 6,000 years, but they debate which rocks were laid down before, during, or after the Flood. Each interpretation has its own supporters and theories.

Early in the project, I thought a simple solution would be to scatter geologic artifacts around the room—coal, fossils, rocks, etc.—and with each artifact, present a theory that explains the fact. Different scientists could present different theories. It didn’t matter how well they fit together, or so I thought.

I was wrong. As the potential contradictions became clearer, I had to rethink the whole concept for the room.


Not news to me, but then again I've been asking creationists these questions for years. It seems that 200+ years of work has not allowed them to define anything in the key geologic event in their wacky earth history.

Cheers

Joe Meert

3 Comments:

At 6:12 AM, Blogger Daniel said...

One thing that only hit me recently as I considered the flood arguments was looking in each strata for evidence that it could not have been laid down suddenly would be fairly easy. For example, nest structures and unscattered eggshell pieces would provide a fairly conclusive answer to each layer examined. Other examples could include the positions of mass burials and layers of fine volcanic ash sandwiched between strata. We find exactly those kinds of delicate, couldn't-have-been-laid-down-by-a-flood structures in each stratum. So how do they rationalize this? Do they ignore it? Do they even know about these issues?

 
At 11:18 AM, Blogger Joshua said...

I think this is also a nicely illustrative example of pseudoscientific thought: "Different scientists could present different theories. It didn’t matter how well they fit together..."

When you're just trying to rationalise a pre-existing belief rather than actually trying to understand the truth, I suppose it doesn't matter how well the theories fit together.

 
At 8:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, you both make good points. What you will see continuously is 'there's evidence for the flood' without ever developing a specific timeline. They won't do it because they know it is anathema to their con game.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page