Of course you do since you can’t explain them with your YEC hand waves. Just like you can’t explain any of the geologic features which have been discussed. You talk big but every time someone wants to discuss the details of the evidence you Gish gallop away in a cloud of dust.
Explain to us again how ignoring scientific evidence which completely refutes your YEC nonsense is “doing God’s work”.
You missed it because it isn’t there. I have no interest in Judson and Ritter, which by your description seems like a crank paper. Still, if you really want to discuss it, at least post a full citation.
Sorry, was there a paper you were wanting me to provide, or was I misreading that you were wanting access to one?
Judson and Ritter were Yale geologists. I don’t know about their geology department in 1964, but they weren’t creationists.
Not that I recall, but perhaps I’m wrong. Where did you get the notion? In general, though, whenever you mention a paper, please provide either a link or a complete citation or both.
Then why do you put a creationist message in their mouths? Or perhaps you are just making an incorrect inference from their work. If so, your major problem might be that you have forgotten about uplift, and you have forgotten that the rate of erosion depends critically on the local gradient.
Neither r_speir nor Sal will touch this evidence because they have no readily available YEC excuse they can C&P. Neither has shown the slightest interest in actually discussing the scientific evidence.
I’ll give 10-1 odds the “YEC” passage Sal provided was dishonestly quote-mined from the 1964 paper. It was a throw-away line about “all of N. America should have eroded away by now” which was almost certainly followed by something like “EXCEPT the following known geologic processes are replenishing the soil”
If anyone is interested you can see here where Mr. Cordova made most of not all of these identical YEC arguments 4 years ago at TSZ and got his behind handed to him on them all just as is happening here.
Not one thing has changed, not one of the many refutations Mr. Cordova was shown has been addressed in this recent Gish gallop of the same YEC inanity.
Since my statement came at the end of a series of critiques, and I did not go out of my way to express good will, I see no reason to criticize your leap to assume bad faith. But it was a leap. And my words were sincerely offered, not snark.
Since deeper explanation might be helpful to you, I will go ahead and offer it.
You explained how it is that you reason over evidence to reach a conclusion. Clearly your method is different than that of others in the discussion, because you are starting with the same evidence and reaching different conclusions. It seems to me this difference in methodology is important for everyone to understand. That’s why I drew attention to what you had described.
Indeed, it is good for everyone to understand each other’s reasoning to the greatest extent possible. More people should do what you did, @stcordova, and describe their thinking process and the assumptions on which it rests.
Best,
Chris
It’s pretty easy to understand actually.
Scientists are committed to examining and including all the evidence even if it contradicts their hypotheses. If the contradictory evidence is demonstrated to be valid the hypotheses must be reworked.
YECs are committed to ignoring all the evidence which contradicts their hypotheses. No conceivable evidence will ever cause a re-think of YEC claims.
So, @stcordova, from the paper you appear to be citing, what did Judson and Ritter say about the geologic processes mentioned by others in this discussion that render the implications you are making meaningless? Please be specific, so participants here can see just how was the state of the art in 1964.
It seems to me that by 1964 the majority of U.S. geologists had accepted sea-floor spreading and the other main aspects of plate tectonics. I do wonder if Judson and Ritter mentioned anything of the sort or whether they were stuck in the old unexplained geosyncline idea. No matter, as both would involve subsidence and uplift, the phenomena Sal ignores.
Thanks for the note.
This is not a problem. You can’t actually flood the form on topics. Boring topics are ignored and quickly fade away. Feel free to start many. I greatly prefer this to winding conversations.
What? Are you claiming that YECs have no money? That YEC colleges have no money?
The only thing they lack is faith, ironically. If they had faith, they would be leading the way scientifically.
They also are committed to not looking. They don’t have enough faith to look. Only a few high priests interpret the evidence, while Sal et al. go by hearsay. Real science is much more egalitarian.
But at some level, they must realize such evidence exists. Otherwise, they would dig in as deeply as possible. There’s always a massive resistance to leaving the safety of hearsay behind.
Thanks. We can make this work, then.
Thanks for the opportunity to dialogue.
Sal, I assume that you believe every fossil we’ve ever unearthed, flora and fauna, lived simultaneously in a brief window of 2,500 years or so (creation to flood).
If the flood really did stir things up, why do whole biomes fossilize together without any intrusions? Shouldn’t we find stray hadrosaur bones mixed in with giant sloth remains? And why would they have lived on separate biomes in the first place? And why don’t we have any human records of all these fantastic beasts and plants?
Hi Rich,
I don’t know.
There are two question, one is personal and what does the evidence we have so far say.
At a personal level I think the Fossil record is no older than 6,500 years.
In terms of the data, I don’t think it can be older than a couple million years.
Thus the data is closer to YLC/YFR than old fossil record, starting with the considerations listed above. Less than 1,500 years (6,500 to about 5,000 years ago for Noah’s flood), is hard to establish empirically, but we’ll see.
Dialog would require you actually respond to the technical details being presented instead of just Gish galloping to your next YEC talking point.
Thank you! That was refreshing.
I agree, but Sal did just admit not knowing something. Those who criticize the most should effusively praise progress.
I understand where the first date comes from, but not the second. Why would the fossil record potential be a million years old?