Evolution v. Creationism

[surada]

Yeah, it's abundantly clear that james bond has NEVER even darkened the door of an intro geology class.

I agree. He's a joke.

 

[james bond]

Yeah, it's abundantly clear that james bond has NEVER even darkened the door of an intro geology class.

I'm positive I have earned better degree than you. In fact, I was the one who provided the evos with the definitive evolution website (a lie) from my alma mater -- Understanding Evolution - Your one-stop source for information on evolution.

 

[james bond]

I agree. He's a joke.

As usual, you don't have any evidence. That's the joke on you.

 

[surada]

Dang, I am speaking with another SAF. Your photo is a monument to the global flood. It curves like that and is comprised of marine fossils due to the fountains of the deep as explained in the Bible. We know from creation scientist Alfred Wegener about plate tectonics, but he was wrong about continental drift. The one or two large land masses were broken up by the global flood. I just explained how our continents were formed, 3/4 of Earth is covered by sea water, how we have oceans of water below the seafloor and more while you gave me sh*t for brainz.

You're incapable of learning. We have fossil water aquifers but no underground oceans. It rarely rains in Dilmun (Bahrain). Do you know why they have so many fresh water springs even in the surrounding Persian Gulf? Do you understand the geology?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I'm positive I have earned better degree than you.

You would be wrong.

In fact, I was the one who provided the evos with the definitive evolution website (a lie) from my alma mater -- Understanding Evolution - Your one-stop source for information on evolution.

You went to Berkeley? What did you major in?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

, but he was wrong about continental drift. The one or two large land masses were broken up by the global flood. I just explained how our continents were formed, 3/4 of Earth is covered by sea water, how we have oceans of water below the seafloor and more while you gave me sh*t for brainz.

You kiss your lord Jesus with that mouth?

 

[surada]

You kiss your lord Jesus with that mouth?

He thinks Pangea broke up in the past 6 thousand years.

 

[james bond]

With the following, I kick gigantic arse on the evos once again and @P V System:

'Earle E. Spamer said of the problem: ‘The greatest of Grand Canyon’ enigmas is the problem of how it was made. ... Grand Canyon has held tight to her secrets of origin and age.’1

Yet the canyon’ rock strata can be interpreted well from a creationist and catastrophist view.

Creationist geologist Dr Steven Austin says:

‘The crystalline-basement rocks exposed deep within the Canyon (schist, granite, and gneiss) represent some of earth’ oldest rocks, probably from early in Creation Week. Tilted, deeply buried strata (the "Grand Canyon Supergroup") show evidence of catastrophic-marine sedimentation and tectonics associated with the formation of an ocean basin midway through Creation Week, and may include ocean deposits from the post-Creation, but pre-Flood world. The Canyon’ characteristic horizontally stratified layers (the "Paleozoic Strata") are up to 4,000 feet thick [1,200 metres] and are understood to be broad sedimentary deposits in northern Arizona dating from the early part of Noah’ Flood. Remnants of strata overlying the rim of Grand Canyon (the "Mesozoic Strata") are associated with a widespread erosion surface.’2

Dr Austin says that these features suggest tectonics, sedimentation, and erosion during the last half of the Flood year as the Colorado Plateau was lifted more than a mile above sea level.

‘The catastrophic erosion of Grand Canyon (probably a result of drainage of lakes) was associated with river-terrace gravels, lake sediments, landslide deposits, and lava flows of the post-Flood period,’ he says.3

Rather than being easily explained by evolutionists, the formation of the Grand Canyon is a problem for evolutionists, but fits well into the framework of the Bible.'

Grand Canyon

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

 

[james bond]

You kiss your lord Jesus with that mouth?

No way I can sugar coat your thinking.

 

[james bond]

You would be wrong.



You went to Berkeley? What did you major in?

Math and computer science and later earned an MBA. Where did you go and what was your major?

 

[surada]

Math and computer science and later earned an MBA. Where did you go and what was your major?

No geology. The Grand canyon isn't about evolution. It's about plate tectonics.
.

Grand Canyon Video: The Fluid Fingers of Formation

How was the Grand Canyon formed? Continental drift and the fluid fingers of an artistic river produced the exquisite results we have today. Watch!

www.nathab.com

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

With the following, I kick gigantic arse on the evos once again and @P V System:

What an interesting Christian. It's all about kickin' arse, isn't it? That's Jesus' message: "Lo I say unto you go forth and kick some serious a**!"

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Math and computer science and later earned an MBA.

So not a thing related to geology. OK.

Where did you go and what was your major?

Geochemistry.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No way I can sugar coat your thinking.

Your "witness" is showing....

 

[surada]

What an interesting Christian. It's all about kickin' arse, isn't it? That's Jesus' message: "Lo I say unto you go forth and kick some serious a**!"

He's an idiot. The Colorado River is about plate tectonics not evolution.

 

[james bond]

No geology. The Grand canyon isn't about evolution. It's about plate tectonics.
.

Grand Canyon Video: The Fluid Fingers of Formation

How was the Grand Canyon formed? Continental drift and the fluid fingers of an artistic river produced the exquisite results we have today. Watch!

www.nathab.com

You sound like you don't have much of an education. Does Hollie beat you like a drum in that regards?

And you are SAF as you do not read in terms of listening to me, DA WINNER, in regards to the science forum. Plate tectonics was founded by another creationist (but he was wrong about continental drift which happened fast). Not a SAF/POS atheist scientist.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

And you are SAF as you do not read in terms of listening to me, DA WINNER, in regards to the science forum. Plate tectonics was founded by another creationist (but he was wrong about continental drift which happened fast). Not a SAF/POS atheist scientist.

What is a "SAF"?

 

[surada]

Plate tectonics - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[surada]

You sound like you don't have much of an education. Does Hollie beat you like a drum in that regards?

And you are SAF as you do not read in terms of listening to me, DA WINNER, in regards to the science forum. Plate tectonics was founded by another creationist (but he was wrong about continental drift which happened fast). Not a SAF/POS atheist scientist.

You should stick with computers.

 

[Hollie]

With the following, I kick gigantic arse on the evos once again and @P V System:

'Earle E. Spamer said of the problem: ‘The greatest of Grand Canyon’ enigmas is the problem of how it was made. ... Grand Canyon has held tight to her secrets of origin and age.’1

Yet the canyon’ rock strata can be interpreted well from a creationist and catastrophist view.

Creationist geologist Dr Steven Austin says:

‘The crystalline-basement rocks exposed deep within the Canyon (schist, granite, and gneiss) represent some of earth’ oldest rocks, probably from early in Creation Week. Tilted, deeply buried strata (the "Grand Canyon Supergroup") show evidence of catastrophic-marine sedimentation and tectonics associated with the formation of an ocean basin midway through Creation Week, and may include ocean deposits from the post-Creation, but pre-Flood world. The Canyon’ characteristic horizontally stratified layers (the "Paleozoic Strata") are up to 4,000 feet thick [1,200 metres] and are understood to be broad sedimentary deposits in northern Arizona dating from the early part of Noah’ Flood. Remnants of strata overlying the rim of Grand Canyon (the "Mesozoic Strata") are associated with a widespread erosion surface.’2

Dr Austin says that these features suggest tectonics, sedimentation, and erosion during the last half of the Flood year as the Colorado Plateau was lifted more than a mile above sea level.

‘The catastrophic erosion of Grand Canyon (probably a result of drainage of lakes) was associated with river-terrace gravels, lake sediments, landslide deposits, and lava flows of the post-Flood period,’ he says.3

Rather than being easily explained by evolutionists, the formation of the Grand Canyon is a problem for evolutionists, but fits well into the framework of the Bible.'

Grand Canyon

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

You mean this Steve Austin?

#459: Steve Austin

Plenty of people sharing the name, but the Steve Austin we have in mind is chair of the geology department at the Insti...

americanloons.blogspot.com

Plenty of people sharing the name, but the Steve Austin we have in mind is chair of the geology department at the Institute for Creation Research, which describes itself as the “leader in scientific research from a biblical perspective, conducting innovative laboratory and field research in the major disciplines of science,” a.k.a. “Jesus geology” (“Innovative” means that they count the Bible as evidence and, apparently, little else, which is, come to think of it, not particularly innovative). Austin has been an active promoter of a Noah's Flood interpretation of the geology of the Grand Canyon, and has presented various posters in various venues, including the Geological Society of America in 2012.

As a creationist, Austin is no stranger to subterfuge, as illustrated by the attempt to score points by him and fellow creationists (Marcus Ross, Tim Clarey, John Whitmore, and Bill Hoesch) at this 2011 Geological Society of America arrangement; Austin introduced himself as a geologic consultant, without a word on his background. And that’s not his only attempt at this kind of deceptive ploy, as shown by this one. Indeed, even his “research” is permeated by claims that must be judged incredibly and obviously dishonest rather than just erroneous, as pointed out here.


Diagnosis: Austin’s affinity for reinterpreting honesty could even suggest a fraud, but his aptitude for cognitive dissonance is hardly in doubt either, so the verdict is “addle-brained nincompoop”.