Evolution is a Fact #31 - Ten Questions for Creationists

by cofty 95 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Vidiot

  cofty - "Creationism is THE fundamental dogma of Jehovah's Witnesses. No Adam means no ransom and the whole house of cards collapses."

  Hard to argue with.

  Would you believe that when I first realized that evolution had to be true, I thought that the WTS was a progressive organization and eventually would come around...

  ...until I realized that they'd have to literally rewrite huge swaths of the theology completely from scratch to accommodate it... and that there was no f**king way the Org would survive the experience.
  
• 

  hooberus

  And a bonus question for "young-earth" creationists...
  How do you explain geological features like the unconformity at Siccar Point? 25

  An unconformity is not "proof" of a long time period, but instead of an erosional event. Sediments laid down by water, uplifted, and later eroded and overlain by other sediments laid down by are perfectly consistent with the Biblical flood.

  https://creationresearch.org

  Hutton assumed the philosophy of "uniformitarianism" to generate his "deep time". Uniformitarianism apriori denies Biblical history, and the flood.
• 

  cofty

  An unconformity is not "proof" of a long time period, but instead of an erosional event. Sediments laid down by water, uplifted, and later eroded and overlain by other sediments laid down by are perfectly consistent with the Biblical flood.

  That is entirely impossible in the time frame of a biblical flood. It requires millions of years not thousands. The Old Red Sandstone was laid down 350 million years ago.

  No prior assumptions are required to conclude that an unconformity is evidence of deep time. The physical evidence speaks for itself.
  
  
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  hooberus -

  Uniformitarianism is a principle of Geology for sure. However it is not left to the assumption that this principle is true (Hutton, like Darwin..., lived in the 19th century and we have learnt a lot more since then and proven a lot of the assumptions that were initially made by the pioneers in science) when working out ages of strata and considering geological features such as unconformities. Such ideas that these formations could have formed in months is ludicrous for many reasons.

  Consider an angular unconformity where the underlying strata is at a different angle to the layers above. The only way that could happen is if the entire formation under the unconformity were to have been tilted. The does not happen on the surface (and if it did the energy needed would destroy the entire rock formation instead of tilting the various strata in situ).

  You also left out subduction in your 'explanation'. This is the process where those sedimentary layers sink lower into the crust due to the build up of layers upon them. When they are deep enough they are then lithified due to the pressure and temperatures that they encounter at such depths (the pressures and movements so deep in the Earth also twist and turn these strata...). After a long while the environment changes and the area of overlain strata then experiences a period of erosion and when the upper layers disappear this allows the older layers to raise back up to the surface (the crust floats on the mantle...).

  Geological features that occur under flood conditions do not cause unconformities of the nature you describe. Geological features of the sort required for a global flood would be very easy to find. There are none.... However we have got evidence of a massive asteroid strike from around 65 million years ago. A strike that hit a small part of the world yet left traces of the resulting explosion all around the world.

  Consider:

  1 - An asteroid hitting the Earth just off the coast of South America leaves evidence in the rock formations all around the globe.

  2 - A Global flood that buried the entire Earth under water leaves no trace at all.

  Which is the myth?
  
• 

  Luo bou to

  if you are so comfortable with your convictions why the incessant need to convince others can I expect a call at my door anytime soon
  
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "if you are so comfortable with your convictions why the incessant need to convince correct others can I expect a call at my door anytime soon" - LBT

  There you go. Perhaps you understand the reasons now that I have adjusted your thinking...
  
• 

  hooberus

  That is entirely impossible in the time frame of a biblical flood. It requires millions of years not thousands. The Old Red Sandstone was laid down 350 million years ago.

  You asked for a creationist explanation, and I gave you a brief one. Here is more detail for those who are interested.

  http://biblicalgeology.net/Geological-Histories/Icon-Unmasked.html

  Those who are interested can then compare it with your assertions.

  No prior assumptions are required to conclude that an unconformity is evidence of deep time. The physical evidence speaks for itself.

  If all this geological evidence of "deep time" speaks for itself, then why was there a need to come up first with the "principal" (apriori philosophy) of Uniformitarianism ?

  
  
  
• 

  hooberus

  You also left out subduction in your 'explanation'. This is the process where those sedimentary layers sink lower into the crust due to the build up of layers upon them. When they are deep enough they are then lithified due to the pressure and temperatures that they encounter at such depths (the pressures and movements so deep in the Earth also twist and turn these strata...). After a long while the environment changes and the area of overlain strata then experiences a period of erosion and when the upper layers disappear this allows the older layers to raise back up to the surface (the crust floats on the mantle...).

  For those who are interested, The work of Dr. John Baumgardner deals with this and its relationship to the biblical flood. The peer reviewed Creation Research Society Quarterly also has a lot of geological articles for those who are interested.
• 

  recovering

  Hooberus there is a logical error in the cited work you have provided. The author of the article says that the methodology used to date the site by scientists is flawed. He relates that since radio carbon dating was not used the accepted age of the site is incorrect. He has missed the mark , he obviously does not understand how radiocarbon dating works.

  1 Radiocarbon dating only works on specimens 70000 years old and younger.

  2 Radiocarbon dating needs the specimen to be a carbon based. biological specimen.
• 

  recovering

  By the way this is how Baumgardner is described in scientific circles.

  Baumgardner is a Christian who sometimes pursues pseudoscientific creationist research. He has, for example, created a computer simulation called Terra to model the Noachian flood.[1][3] In 1985, Baumgardner joined the controversial amateur archaeologist Ron Wyatt and salvage expert David Fasold to Durupınar, Turkey for an expedition recounted in Fasold's The Ark of Noah to locate the biblical ship's remains.[7] Baumgardner did not support Wyatt's and Fasold's claims to have found a boat-shaped 'object' which was the Ark. He argued that the object was a natural formation.[8][9] In 1997, US News and World Report described him as "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection".[3]