This is called elephant hurling (a.k.a. gish galloping). None of these represent, however, even if they turned out to be bad arguments, a ‘denial of mathematics and measurement’. Creation scientists accept the basis of science and embrace it. Science was started originally by men who were YEC’s, themselves. Tackling all such arguments as what you’ve listed is outside the scope of this thread.
Yeah, this thread is about dragons, not varves. As it happens I have not yet studied the issue of varves and will not be commenting on it until I have had a chance to do that.
1 Like
No, but they represent a disobedience of the rules of mathematics and measurement.
It’s one thing to pay lip service to the rules. It’s a completely different matter to stick to them.
1 Like
No it isn’t. “Elephant-hurling”, as coined by Sarfati and co, means claiming there are lots of examples but providing none.
Then they should be able to give us a list of potential falsifications for YEC. This is one of the most basic principles of the scientific method, a principle that some YEC organizations completely reject:
Creation science and Darwinism are both examples of historical science. Neither one are subject to what we call the ‘scientific method’, because that method deals with observational / empirical science.
Price, P., Examining the usage and scope of historical science—a response to Dr Carol Cleland and a defence of terminology, Journal of Creation 33 (2):121–127, 2019.
This statement makes even less sense than your previous one. If you can disobey a rule of math then it ceases to be a rule.
You have been…
Is this reality?
No, it doesn’t – it is still a rule. It becomes a broken rule when ignored.
Bent rock layers that are not fractured
This claim is blatantly untrue, as can be seen by comparing the example given to higher-quality photographs of the same rock formation both by USGS and by Answers in Genesis themselves. Bent rock layers are fractured.
@PDPrice, I’d be interested in your reaction to this one.
I haven’t read the AIG article in question, but the general argument as I’ve heard it presented doesn’t hinge on whether there are fractures anywhere in the formation (which can be caused by a great many things at various times), but it’s the existence of swirled, bent strata in the first place. They unequivocally show that the formation in question was soft and pliable when deposited, showing a rapid and catastrophic depositional environment.
We’re only talking about dragons.
Except where it 100% refutes their young Earth / literal Noah’s Ark and Flood views. Then they reject the sciences (like radiometric dating and geology and genetics) and call the scientists Atheist frauds.
Are you ever going to explain the logic behind even if we find some non-avian dinosaurs still alive, how in the world does that disprove all the other evidence for an old Earth and life existing for 3.5 billion years?
If that old hoary Creationist canard were true then detectives could never use science to solve crimes based on the trace evidence left behind.
1 Like
Why not do it now at your leisure, so to speak. I’m We’re not in a hurry. We are talking about time, God’s deep time, after all.
Er, no. The only way such sedimentary rock is bent and twisted like that is when it has been subducted far below the earth’s surface where it is subjected to tremendous heat and pressures. It then takes millions of more years to erode back out to become visible. That’s Geology 101.
Do you think this deformed fossil of a trilobite means the trilobite was soft and pliable when it was buried?
2 Likes
That explanation fails the test of Ockham’s Razor. And it also concedes that the creationists are right: bent layers show that the formation had to be soft and pliable to produce that effect. Gradualism cannot explain it. Rather than saying the layers were originally straight, but then they got sucked far underground, heated to molten, bent, and then got gradually exposed again much later on, is just a whole lot of complicated gyration compared to simply saying it looks like they were soft when they were laid down to begin with. I’m going to go with the latter, more elegant, explanation.