Posted on 11/18/2009 9:13:37 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Brian Thomas MS* uses that phrase to prop up something it does not prop up....just like everything else he does and concludes from nonsense. Just because one thing in one location at one time did something more than expected means nothing concerning what is expected and observed in all other locations.
Time to feed the gigantosaurus...
It is NOT consistent with the Bible 'His-story', because Genesis 1:1-2 are not dated. But took place in what Peter calls the 'time' that WAS.
Maybe they think you look foolish simply because you’re a Christian. Every think of that?
I’m not a Christian. So who seems foolish?
Well from the hydroplate theory [see link provided in post #19 earlier] Dr. Walt Brown Ph.D. extrapolates that the tectonic plates would have moved as fast as 45mph initially after the flood waters began to recede significantly. This will allow you to travel your 6,000 ‘Pacific Ocean’ miles in less than a week. ymmv. :’)
==Pretty much any science that doesn’t support a six thousand or so year old Earth/ Universe is “evolution”; and that would be ALL of science that deals in any way with how old things are, or how they got to be the way they are.
Hmmm...then how do you explain the following, dreamer? It would appear that your fellow evos are calling the data from all the scientific disciplines you mentioned above “evolution” as well. Imagine that.
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
And this part is just funny,
Now, accumulating evidence of rapid rifting―huge seams that open in perhaps days―contradicts the uniformitarian gradualism popularized by geologist Charles Lyell and naturalist Charles Darwin 150 years ago and still held by many modern geologists.
I suppose the author has a copy of Darwin's, "On the Origin of Continents" as evidence.
Also geology is not a sub-discipline of biology.
Indeed, there is so much catastrophism being uncovered these days, one wonders what uniformitarianism even means any more.
LOL...pretty soon the evos will probably be claiming that geological processes are uniformly catastrophic (hehe :o)
Second sentence okay, first sentence wrong. We don't see "all changes occur in a slow uniform pace" now, so there's no reason to assume they did in the past. There were probably 35-mile-long cracks that opened a couple of inches in a matter of days 10 thousand, ten million, or a hundred million years ago. That really doesn't get you any closer to thousands-of-mile-long cracks opening at a rate of meters per second, like the "surfing continents" idea requires.
When Creationists use the word they use it as a boogieman and try to claim that the timeframes given for Geology and Astronomy and Radiometric dating are somehow dependent upon Darwin's theory of natural selection of genetic variation.
Creationist lie when they say they only oppose evolution. They oppose all science that doesn't “Bend the knee” to their particular interpretation of scripture. And like this article title, Geology become “Evolution” when it, like all other branches of science, doesn't conform to a six thousand year old Yabba Dabba Doo creationist model.
Isn't the full title "On the Origin of Continents by Means of Uniformitarian Processes or the Preservation of Favoured Countries in the Struggle to Stay Above Water (and P.S. I Hate God)"?
Why is that funny? Did any geologist ever claim that the kinds of catastrophes we see now didn't happen in the past? That's all "uniformly catastrophic" would mean.
No.
Or did you ever think of checking with creationists themselves instead of accepting a biased take on something?
No, because checking with Creationists means going to a committed, doctrine-biased source.
LOL!
Yeah, that’s it.
I have an idea.
Instead of YECs let’s call them YDDCs (Yabba Dabbba Do Creationists).
Funny.
Like evos aren’t?
You haven’t been following these threads very carefully then.
So, you’re not willing to check with creationists themselves about what they think.
Instead you’ll take the word of someone who disparages and scorns what he thinks they believe?
How do you expect to get an accurate representation of what creationists believe if you take only second hand rumor and innuendo from a biased source?
‘Evos’ have theories and ‘YECs’ have beliefs and never the twain shall meet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.