View Single Post
Old 2010-06-23, 01:44 PM   #137
bigrobwoot
EJ251
 
bigrobwoot's Avatar
 
Real Name: Rob
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Reno
Posts: 679
 
Car: 2019 CBS WRX Premium
Class: Middle
 
Shoot for the moon, because even if you miss, you'll still be among the stars
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby View Post
It's not an issue of "word-play", I am making a point...everyone who ever questions the validity of the Genesis flood account always says somehting like "there is no way Noah could have gotten two of every SPECIES of animal on the ark". I am simply saying that the bible doesn't use the term "species", it uses the word "kind". That word does have a biological term equivalent, "family" is the nearest option. In any case, many of myown professors have admitted that those classifications are rather arbitrary anyway, and they are constantly being rearranged. I do find it interesting though that, instead of trying to actually refute what I said, you have to resort to using terms like "silly" and "old tricks". Typical of someone who doesn't want to give a serious look at the other side of the story.






Well I am "staggered" by the level of assumptions coming from people who have little or NO education in this field. You can say what you want, but I have been out there on the rocks and digging in the dirt, measuring the faults, mapping the ground, looking at the fossils, and seeing with my own eyes the kinds of processes that work out there. I have the advantage of having studied BOTH models (evolution and creation) for years, which is more than I can say for most people out there...I actually have a standard of comparison. Do you have anything more than TV indoctrination? The formation of geological features is my speciality, and there is no "dizzying array" of methods or processes. The kinds of forces that can change the way the earth surface looks is actually pretty limited...water, wind, tectonics, and chemical reactions. When you actually get away from the tv and look at the rocks themselves, water erosion is actually the primary method responsible for most of the features we see. The only question is how much water and how much time. Most geologists are realizing that catastrophic changes are more the norm, which is why they invented punctuated equilibrium to try to explain it.

In any case, I don't have to "pretend" anything...the evidence is there, just depends on how you want to interpret it. You said "There is most certainly NOT any evidence of a "global flood."". So are you saying that sedimentary layers that extend worldwide could not have been caused by a global flood? Are you saying that the trillions upon trillions of fossils found worldwide could not have possibly been buried and preserved by sediment from a global flood? Are you saying that even though most of the world's landmass is made up of miles thick sedimentary layers, a global flood could not have possibly been the reason they are there? Are you saying that the evolutionary geologic model is the ONLY possible explanation there is? You must be smarter than Einstein then to be able to state, as a fact, that there is no evidence for a global flood. I am actually curious...where did you learn about geology? By the way, if you drop the mountain ranges and raise the ocean basins, there is PLENTY of water to cover everything...tectonic models actually do allow for this to have possibly been the case. If you have evidence to prove otherwise, I'd like to see it.





Hmmm..."preposterous, silly, and irresponsible"...is that all you can do is to throw out more of those obviously condescending remarks (see my note from earlier)? After 7 years of official study, and many more outside of the classroom, I find a literal understanding of Genesis to make alot more sense than to believe that some cosmic accident made everything from nothing (something evolutionists STILL cannot explain), and that we all evolved from rocks. As for everyone descending from Noah and his family, even the director of the Human Genome Project admits that all humans come from a single genetic ancestor. So, no, my ideas are not as silly as you think they are, if the number 1 geneticist on the planet agrees with me. Also, if a global flood didn't kill all of those animals, then would you care to explain how we have trillions of fossils preserved under miles of sediments all around the world? Fossilization requires RAPID burial to even have a chance...no other process will work. Once again, I will suggest to you that you actually study the claims and scientific models produced by the creation community and stop relying so much on the 6-7 regular guests that show up on Discovery and History channel every time this subject is brought up.
I'd suggest that a mistake you're making is trying to make the evidence you've found fit the conclusions you've already reached. Based on my admittedly limited study in the area of Geology (I got an A in Geology 101 ) aren't there other processes than a global flood that could have caused all of the rock formations you're talking about? Like, localized flooding combined with tectonic plate movement? I'd say it is generally accepted that mountains have been continually growing. Therefore, they used to be a lot smaller than they are now. Also, the great lake lahontan used to cover most of this state. This is evidenced near walker lake looking at the mountains. Now, not being a geologist, I genuinely don't know where else in the world this existed, if it did anywhere at all. But I'd say that this could also erode mountains to cause the formations you were talking about. Another possible source is localized flooding. I'm sure everyone remembers the flood of '97? That was either a 100-year or 200-year flood, which means it is a pretty small flood, on a geological timeline. There could have been massive floods tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago that would also have caused erosion. The last ice age also contributed, via giant icebergs colliding with land masses.

Sorry if that doesn't flow too well, I wrote in spurts.
bigrobwoot is offline