Why didn’t I know this the last time I did my taxes??
2 Likes
You are playing a rhetorical word game here. When you say “whatever process”, that is clearly erosion. When you say “gradualism”, that is also erosion.
But, for the sake of argument and ignoring the in front of your eyes photographs which have been posted here, let us assume that the flood conditions produced fast erosion. Why would the violence of that rapid erosion not destroy these arches also faster than they were created?
3 Likes
So then we need only demonstrate that similar process can occur in the absence of submersion in water, and then would you be convinced?
1 Like
So you deny miracles now? This is certainly a strawman argument as far as I’m concerned: I’ve never appealed to changing laws of physics, outside the formative period of the Creation Week, that is. Of course, Big Bangers change the laws of physics at will without a God to perform this feat.
1 Like
Absolutely: you need to demonstrate a repeatable experiment that shows the formation of natural arches in the absence of water. That might convince me that this argument should be retired, or at least reevaluated.
Because the erosion was shortlived. It came from the continents uplifting and the water draining off.
Here you go:
“A little reflection will show that all historical procedure is in the nature of a reconstruction; and that no historical determination is sure in the sense that determinations in physical science are sure; that is, objectively verifiable. Historical determinations are in their essence subjective findings; and at best they only approximate truth or certainty. They differ from one another in seeming more or less probably true, the criterion being the degree of completeness with which a historical interpretation fits into the totality of phenomena; or if one like, into the totality of historical interpretations of phenomena.”
- A. L. Kroeber, History and Science In Anthropology 37, no.4 (October–December 1935), 546-7.
Since your Flood story requires multiple miracles which all left no evidence we can safely put it in the science-free fantasy pile.
Hi @PDPrice. As usual, enjoyed your article. Thanks. I have a question regarding fiat creation. Am I reading too much into this when I am thinking that you and your co-author are perhaps appealing to fiat as a sort of origins cosmology? Or are you simply using that as a “wall”, a sort of historical barrier that we really cannot extrapolate beyond backwards.
If a cosmology, is CMI currently considering fiat creation for origins?
1 Like
So having your Flood make an arch out of molten lava doesn’t faze you at all? 
I see you once again ignored the evidence the proto-arches shown in Utah are in the desert nowhere near an ocean or river. What a surprise.
Just once it would be nice to meet a YEC who didn’t run from scientific evidence like a scared bunny rabbit.
No. Please read more carefully.
Yes, you are making a straw man argument.
And I never said you did. (However, I’m certainly willing to take up that topic.)
For now let’s stick to the arguments actually posted in this thread.
For example, for the atmosphere of the ark not to turn toxic would have required a continuous miracle.
Did you get a chance to look at today’s CMI article? https://creation.com/historical-science-and-chaos-theory
Could you explain what your question means in terms I can understand? I’m curious what you’re referring to, but I need to understand the question first.
That was one paranoid and history-contradicting spiel.
That’s relevant specifically to anthropology, not historical science in general. In fact the historical sciences we’re talking about here are physical science, so Kroeber’s distinction isn’t the one you make. Shame on you for quote-mining Kroeber.
2 Likes
I did. It’s just another whiny missive with hand waving excuses for rejecting scientific evidence of an old earth and evolution just because you don’t like it. Same old same old.
Of course your silly “geology” of natural arches claims have been pulverized on this thread already, helped by you dodging all the geologic evidence you can’t explain as always.
I used fiat creation in the wrong sense and PDPrice corrected me. I was trying to make a distinction between miraculous creation models that do not employ higher-level mathematics to explain universe origins and models that do use it (e.g., Humphrey’s cosmologies). I was conflating “fiat” with “miraculous” and asking if CMI was currently considering and/or leaning in that direction regarding cosmology. However, as Price said, “fiat” would include all YEC cosmology models, even those with exotic math.
1 Like
That’s patently false. Kroeber even contrasts the two himself, in the quote I provided, showing he was not considering “historical science” and “physical science” as equivalent or as subsets of one another. He is referring to repeatable, laboratory science as “physical science”- the very same thing we today would call operational science.
Then you need to show us how to account for accelerated nuclear decay in those igneous rocks that were formed after the ‘Creation Week’ (like volcanic sills and dykes that cross across supposed Flood sediments) You also need to show us the physics that would support raising entire continents and mountain ranges in a matter of a few months or years, because that most emphatically isn’t supported by rock physics as we know it. You also need to give an account of the energey budget in ‘catastrophic plate tectonics’ which would need enormous amounts of energy to initiate and keep going, and which would generate sufficient heat to melt the entire planet several times over.
Here is a bit of homework for your geologist colleagues: calculate the amount of heat generated by the total volume of lava forming the ocean floors, and the temperature rise of the overlying ocean waters if all of this lava were to cool and solidify in a matter of just a few months or years.
This isn’t all that hard to do if you make some reasonable simplifications. A nice opportunity to show that your model works with the laws of physics we know today. Thanks.
1 Like
Seriously? You’re asking @r_speir if he’s looked at the article he’s talking about? Do you get paid per click?