I would suggest reading some of Davidson’s work and seeing what you think, rather than asking someone to watch and critique a 90 minute video. The cost/benefit ratio to the experts you appeal to is exceedingly large.
2 Likes
The age of the Earth was not determined by the rate of coal formation, so it is an irrelevant point.
There are regions in the world where there is the beginning of coal formation right now, and yet the Earth is not completely covered in water. I don’t see how finding marine fossils or coal seams evidences a global flood or a young Earth.
1 Like
This planaria is wondering how it can have an eye without bones or muscles for its eye.
The point is that you can’t do the statistical analysis because you have nothing to base it on. For the toss of the coin, a trillion heads in a row is 2 to the trillionth power. Notice how I can do the math for that scenario. Notice how you can’t do the math for the things you claim are impossible. All you have is personal incredulity and nothing to back it.
There’s that projection again.
1 Like
That presentation is just horrible. Wise puts up a few isolated geologic factoids, waves his hands and declares “the Flood is the only explanation for this”. He conveniently ignores 99.9% of the geologic evidence which directly refutes his hand waves. Of course as we’ve already seen he’s not averse to dropping in the occasional outright lie like the porkie on the European mammal fossil record.
With a source like that no wonder you’re so confused on so many different things.
BTW Greg here are some salient points you dodged the last time you brought up Wise’s coal claims:
1. Coal Beds Generally Have Flat Tops and Bottoms.
Sediment layers are deposited in water. Water lays flat due to gravity so the sediment deposition is flat. Have you ever seen a 45 deg. tilted sea or ocean? Also due to plate tectonic movement you can easily find vertical coal seams. How did they occur in just a few thousand years?
2. Coal Beds Consist of Identifiable Plant Parts
Yes but they’re all from plants which existed hundreds of millions of years ago such as long extinct lycopods and sphenopsids. You never find modern deciduous trees like oak or walnut or birch in coal mines. Why is that?
3. The Rock Layers Between Coal Seams Often Contain Marine Fossils
The ingression and regression of inland seas in the Carboniferous period took millions of years to occur. That’s plenty of time for plenty of forest growth. Why is it a problem? Also the only marine fossils found are from species which have been extinct for hundreds of millions of years like ichthyosaurs. You never find the fossils of extant marine creatures like whales or porpoises. Why is that?
4. Coal Can Be Formed Quickly Under the Right Conditions
There’s no evidence those conditions were ever present across the whole planet at the world’s coal seams. Besides, such heat and pressures would cook Noah and squash the Ark like a grape. Oops!
Think maybe you can address them now?
1 Like
If you would not just skim the words written to you, but actually read and comprehend them, you would learn so much. I wrote to you about a red herring. It was constructed as such:
Kurt Wise says that coal can form quickly, the bad people say that it formed over millions of years, Kurt has a video showing that coal forms quickly, he is right and the bad guys are wrong.
The problem is that the argument you’ve set up does not answer the problem. This is not a camp issue, it is a logic issue. It leaves out the correct answer which is that coal can form quickly, but the quantity of coal requires that millions of years worth of trees and other plants have died in order to account for the volume of coal that we have. But instead, once it is shown that coal can form quickly, those from your camp run off in victory, claiming that the bad guys have lost.
Look carefully. You, yourself have done the same thing here, and it is entirely your own fault. Repeatedly people have told you that the laws of physics do not require a creator, that they are not proof of a creator. What they mean is that their interpretation of the big bang does not necessarily require a Cause. That does not mean that their interpretation doesn’t allow for a Cause. It simply means that, from their perspective, they don’t look at the same set of data and come to the same conclusions that you and I do regarding a creator.
The same is so for all of the other bits of evidence that you see. Many of us see them too. But your expectation is that they are literally “proof” of God. Others do not see them as proof of God, but that does not mean that the data does not allow for God’s existence. There is a difference between evidence that can be used to support a hypothesis, and proof. You are constantly mixing the two and misunderstanding the conversation because of this.
Do you see the difference? This is highly problematic, because it is okay that some look at the evidence for the resurrection and do not believe. Jesus said it would be so. It is okay that some look at a sunset and see only photon streams of various wavelength, while others are inspired. People are different.
Appreciate what you see and that you believe, but stop expecting others to see what you see when you peer into the world. It does not work that way. Appreciate that in what you know of science, that your faith can be strengthened. But by insisting that others see what you see, and accept the evidence that you see as proof, you drive people away. Allow them to search, explore, discover and be amazed, as you have been.
1 Like
Before i run to the jobsite i just had to look up a quick resource on this which turned up on answers in gen website by snelling: How Did We Get All This Coal? | Answers in Genesis
Not sure if you care to hear his arguments or not and i am not suited to tell you how reliable his research is…
Sorry. I did my best, but I just couldn’t take it. It’s a lecture to the ignorant that takes advantage of that ignorance. He would never get away with any of that crap if he were speaking to a crowd with any knowledge of geology. I dropped into a claim that there’s a single lithostratigraphic column worldwide. He supports it with half-truths that you are unable to recognize. But the fact is that lithological correlation of sediments only works over a short distance, sedimentary facies are commonly time-transgressive (meaning that a continuous bed of the same lithology is of different ages in different places), and long-distance correlation relies on other things. You will find the same stratigraphic series on different continents only if those spots were once adjacent, as in the Avalon Peninsula of Newfoundland and parts of Scotland; plate tectonics at work again.
Based on that video, the most likely explanation is that Wise is consciously lying, and that he knows he can get away with it before an ignorant and trusting audience.
1 Like
Exactly. But you believe it because it’s what you want to hear. That isn’t a good guide to truth.
LOL! Snelling’s BS-to-fact ratio is about 10x worse than Wise’s already abysmal record. Did you ever stop to think about what Snelling is claiming? With ZERO evidence Snelling claims there were these huge “floating forests” covering most of the Earth’s ocean surface. Then the Fountains of the Deep scour off the top mile of sediment across the whole planet, manage to sink the “floating forests” to the bottom of the churning sludge INTACT, then somehow sort the churning sludge into discrete layers for gentle deposition which preserves things like animal tracks and worm burrows.
Even Hans Christian Andersen would reject Snelling’s fairy tales as being too over the top ridiculous. 
1 Like
Sadly, this is exactly what I was talking about. This conversation requires more than a hit and run. It requires Greg to think for Greg. You speak of “my camp” and then, without consideration, you run to yours and grab unscientific pablum that does not hold water. If you cannot think for yourself, you are like a cultist who simply repeats the same information spoon fed to him again and again. We are all familiar with AIG and what they have to say. You cannot present it as “evidence” because it is not. There is nothing compelling in what they have to say, except the spin. That’s it.
If you refuse to read and think, I do not wish to continue to converse with you. As Curtis Henderson says:
3 Likes
Don’t forget that these same processes have to sort insect and leaf debris into alternating layers of fine clay silt and diatoms, and sort them by their 14C content. This is what we see in lake varves (e.g. Lake Suigetsu). The first thing the creationists need to explain is why all of this biological detritus would have different 14C content since they should all be in equilibrium with the same atmospheric concentrations. Once they get over that hurdle, they then need to explain how a flood can segregate the biological detritus by tiny differences in a carbon isotope. Good luck with that.
Well to give Greg some credit, he at least doesn’t blame left wing for ‘recent (about a century or so) invention of racism’ like another YEC on this forum does.
2 Likes
Every day i have interchanges w yall i believe more and more that presuppositions are astronomically powerful in scientific assessment. In other words, if one concludes towards what is more likely that a Cause exists, he will not be so quick to make assessment on everything else from a naturalistic perspective which in reality, may produce completely off based theories that are not true . If a Cause may exist, then both naturalistic and supernaturalustic possibilities may be explored.
The problem i see with naturalists/materialistsis that the materialistic science that the KNOW of physical laws guiding materialism folds and implodes on itself on the issue of entropy which should give them pause for naturalistic explanations on everything else.
So like Wise, we are not trying to necessarily prove God exists, but are demonstrating that a presumption of the existence of God and supernatural events such as the flood doesnt need to be intellectual suicide. (And which provides just a small amount of fertilizer and water by which the gospel seed about a Great God who saves man from great sin may grow.)
I just wonder sometime if a person indoctrinated in such a naturalistic darwinistic environment can even understand this language, a foreign language which i try to speak. I am glad that ID movement is growing bc its language is more fitting if things we see about the physics in the cosmos as well as bio complexity. And i am growing to appreciate more and more works from creation science from AIG and ICR and Wise. Logic from entropy point me 99% toward creation science by the fact that science seems to declare that a Creator is likely. I reserve only 1% hope that those trying to define our history from a naturalistic point of view void of a Creators hand as the presumption based on silly big bang conclusions are capable of good conclusions about earths history.
This was written as my mind is scattered in the midst of 5 jobs going on simulataneously so bear w any error in transmission of thought!
Oh please, don’t tell us you’re going to trot out the stinky old “2nd law of Thermo disproves evolution” argument. Besides we’re talking about geology of the Flood, not biological evolution.
Then why do you have to dodge the huge number of problems and discrepancies in their stories we keep showing you?
1 Like
Sorry, but I think you’re demonstrating just the opposite.
1 Like
This is what @swamidass , Craig, Plantiga (I really hope I didn’t f**k up his name), Stephen Barr, Feser and Hart are doing, but they are doing it ten times better than Wise or Ham do.
Except for the flood part.
2 Likes
Ignoring evidence that contradicts a recent global flood is intellectual suicide, at least in the sciences.
Wise tries to support a recent global flood with the same exact language that “naturalistic darwinists” use. YEC is an attempt to scientifically support a young Earth and recent global flood, and it claims to be using the same tools that supposed Darwinists use.
Then you don’t understand the science or entropy. Thermodynamics seems to be one of those subjects that creationists try really hard to get wrong.
1 Like
This is clear. Why is it that you do not value the conversation enough to wait and focus upon it? It is so important to speak, regardless of the content?
I’m done. Thanks.
3 Likes
As someone who had almost the identical beliefs you express, can I echo what Michael is saying, and make a suggestion to take it even further. Pick one place where those who support YEC and those who don’t disagree and dive into it. Try to set aside any bias’ you have and prayerfully follow the evidence and logic. Get the paper’s they reference and read them enough to understand the evidence and arguments. Ask questions to both sides where they appear inconsistent or you don’t understand their arguments. In other words, don’t just rely on either side being right or wrong, follow the evidence and logic. See where it takes you (without every doubting the the Bible is inspired by the God who is also the creator).
3 Likes