Home > Creationism Group > Discussion Board

In reply to #3:  There is evidence that the Grand Canyon formed relatively quickly in either an Ice Dam failure or a Lava Dam failure. Some sections of the Grand Canyon may not be more than 700,000 years old.

There is a great deal of speculation regarding the formation of the Grand Canyon.  There is evidence of  "scouring"  on the walls of the canyon which typically occurs during "great floods". (http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/scabland.html)

As an interesting aside, the fossilized trees found in the Painted Desert and Petrified Forest National Park do not have roots that are part of that "flora" system.  The trees were washed into that area from somewhere else. All of the tree roots were broken off.  I learned this on a visit to the location from one of the park rangers. (http://www.petrified.forest.national-park.com/info.htm)

Another interesting aside is the recent eruption of Mt. St. Helens and the immediate flooding of Spirit Lake. One can see from the way the logs have begun to fall apart and drop down into the bottom of the lake that it is quickly possible that coal and other fossil fuels were buried rather quickly in the aftermath of the cataclysmic events post-eruption.   This might account for the problems found by geologists in the geologic layers of the earth.  Creationists say that the layers formed in Spirit Lake after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens occurred over days rather than over years.  They claim that Mt. St. Helens would serve as a model for "the Great Flood" of Noah's time. (http://www.olywa.net/radu/valerie/mshduring.html)

The point is that if we weren't there at the time, we can't prove how a thing was made unless we can create a model or a similar cataclysmic event that mimics something from the past.

We don't know anything for sure prior to about 6500 BC, but we can make inferences based on geology, etc. and about the age of the universe through a variety of techniques developed by scientists.  But these do not nail down anything definitively- we just believe these are good estimates based on what we do know. Hi1954

oh what's life for if not for enjoying yourself? Come on then Hi1954, why can't we be sure about anything before 6,500 years? Why are all the dozens of different methods and indicators of an ancient universe unreliable?

the "Geologic Column" is fascinating as a theory, but it does not actually exist anywhere in the world. 

Would you care to back up your fascinating claim that modern geology doesn't exist? 

There are, if you look, hundreds of books out there by scientists (many not Christian, some are atheists) who use nothing but hard science to disprove the theories of evolution and biogenesis. You're all intelligent people, you can find these. Hi1954

Sorry, but I'm not intelligent, I need assistance, would you care to name them please? Either that or explain this 'hard science' that disproves evolution.

Politics has sadly always been influencing both science and religion.  Perhaps the most commonly recognized controversy was with Galileo and the Church.  Facts may change; Truths do not.  We live in an expanding Universe (anyone debating that?) and that implies certain physical laws.  In whatever system of facts we observe and choose to define our sense of existence,  and the more consistent those facts are with each other, the clearer our understanding and knowledge.  These may shift, but no new system can be valid if it does not consistently incorporate the old system, either by extending it or explaining its anomalies.  Physics has undergone 2 revolutions in 400 years -- Newton was right, until Einstein proved him wrong.  But Newton is still right at "normal" speeds.

If there are religious objections to science, so be it.  But those religious objections cannot dismiss science without proof.  Claiming faith is not evidence in a scientific model.

The further we wander from being objective, the more we attempt to camouflage and pass off political agendas as verifiable scientific fact, masquerading as intelligent thought, the more impassioned we insist "facts" be accepted alongside their proven brethren without critical analysis and consistent proof, the quicker we run down the road to the Dark Ages.

How many angels dance on the head of a pin?

Whatever the answer, it's not science.

Well, about 6500 years ago is as far as we have human observations recorded.  Before that we may make good guesses, but... Look at neolithic cave paintings. We don't really know for certain why they were done or what they were for. Art, amusement, magic, religion? But we can extrapolate from what we know of primitive cultures discovered during the historic period. Likewise we can use what we know of gamma radiation, x-rays, various light spectra, etc. to study things we don't know about the universe. I never said they were unreliable. We're pretty sure about the Big Bang. We can even estimate (!) when, although our estimate changes as we learn more. The how exactly this came about and the why we have no clue.  But that is what science is about- to try to find out everything.

I did not say modern geology doesn't exist, I studied it in college, I have three friends who are geologists. But the idealized Geo. Column as it exists in textbooks, with each layer in its exact order and every layer from bottom to top in a complete order as in the book, simply has never been found.  One of my friends is a professor, one works for Union Carbide and one for Royal Dutch Shell.  They've all told me that- so did my professor back in the Jurassic when I was a sophomore.

And please don't try to convince me you're not smart, I've been around highly intelligent people my whole life. I know the warning signs! Here's a few books to start with. Some are pro-evolution; they still haven't convinced me but I appreciate their clarity about the general problems and their forthrightness in addressing them. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to find plenty more on your own. If you don't read the languages they are available in translations (or they were).

Collin Patterson, the Listener ;

Salet, Hasard et al, Certitude: le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle;

Stephen Jay Gould, the Panda's Thumb;

H. Nielson, Synthetische Artbilding.

Before [6500 y.o.] we may make good guesses. Hi1954

guesses, shmesses 

Radio

Metric

Dating

You mentioned books by, "scientists who use nothing but hard science to disprove the theories of evolution". I asked for names, you gave... 

1. Colin Patterson, the Listener
2. Salet, Hasard et al, Certitude: le Transformisme...
3. Stephen Jay Gould, the Panda's Thumb;
4. H. Nielson, Synthetische...
5. Luther Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma.

1. CP supports evolution

2. In French...

3. S J Gould supports evolution

4. In German...

So we are left with

5. Luther Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma.

Now, dear old LS is a creationist snake-oil merchant. He deliberately twists non-creationist scientist's work to pretend they are creationists, including Colin Patterson. CP gave a talk where he posed some "just suppose" rhetorical questions. LS grabbed them out of context, then lied that CP had smashed evolution...

"I was naive and foolish: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to Luther Sunderland...  I asked Sunderland to stop circulating the transcipt, but of course to no effect... I was putting a case for discussion, off the record, and was speaking only about systematics... In short his [Sunderland's] article does not fairly represent my views."  Letter from CP to Steven W. Binkley, June 17, 1982

LS is a cheat and a liar, I hope you weren't duped by his vile behaviour? So, sadly, your list is light on 'hard science which disproves evolution'.

I didn't put Sunderland on the list of books for you, look at the post. Yeah, you have to be careful with him, and I didn't think you were qualified to tiptoe through that minefield.  The German and French books are available in translation.

I didn't give you an extensive list. Do you really want to jump right into the really hardcore science stuff? You don't really seem ready for it. You seem to be ignoring everything I actually say and responding to something in your own head. Good luck with that.

To highlight the lengths creationists will go to fool you, look at this site,

http://creationwiki.org/DNA

This site is step up to look ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE WIKIPEDIA. If you are not paying close attention, you think you are reading a normal wiki page. But it is not wiki. It is a huge dummy site only pushing creation 'science'. And there is one major difference... you are not allowed to contribute. If you sign up and add anything that questions their theories, they remove it and ban you instantly.

Creationwiki, like all creation portals, is not interested in discussion. Creationists do not like discussion with scientists. They only want to confuse unscientific people with pseudo-science.

It is an interesting question why people who claim to be Christians seem more than happy to lie, cheat and mislead, but that is what they do. Their only aim is to convince non-scientists that there is 'doubt' and 'controversy' within science regarding evolution (and other science that contradicts The Bible). But within the scientific community and academia the level of support for evolution is essentially universal, whereas support for biblically-literal accounts or other creationist alternatives is very small among scientists, and virtually nonexistent among those in the relevant fields.

There is no controversy within Science. The only controversy is the immoral behaviour of creationist politicians. Don't be fooled.

In reply to #1:Read the Bible. thats enough evidence.

"Read the Bible. thats enough evidence." Posted by branbran on May 18, 2009.

What a brilliant circular false argument: The Bible's the truth because it is.

Is it any wonder that people find it hard to discuss religion with fundamentalists when they have such intractable, illogical determination to not even begin to consider the possibility that it's just an old book of stories!

you need the Bible to survive in the world we live in today. Posted by branbran

65% of the world's population aren't Christians, they seem to survive perfectly well.

Non-believer should at least give christianity a chance because i promise you, you wont regret it. Posted by branbran

I have tried it, for three years when I was younger, and with a turly sincere heart. I do regret it a little. I was living a delusion and all my love for Jesus was unrequited. So your promise is a very bold and rather empty one.