g-21-lto

For the sake of argument, here's one site a google search of "creationism sedimentology" turned up:

Creation Geology in Russia

This guy is a sedimentologist and a creationist. Let the fun commence.

ninewands

... could it be because proponents of the ToE don't CLAIM to know everything, while creationists do claim to? Such as:

(Behe, or Dembsky, or whoever) "Explain how bacterial flagella evolved."
(Dawkins, or other evolutionary biologist) "I don't know. YET!"
(Behe. or Dembsky or ... ) "Well, I do ... Goddidit!"

I was going to address the remainder of the paragraph but decided not to impose on the Mods' patience.

buckshot23

Hmm. I don't claim to know everything as evidenced in this thread.

ninewands

Well, let's see ... I notice that he has only ever published in "Creation Research Society Quarterly" and "Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal." These are not exactly high-impact journals outside the creationist market. In addition, it appears he hasn't published anything in the past 5 years, although he claims to have an article "in review" for "Creation Research Society Quarterly." So he is probably not a highly productive researcher.

I am not the one to comment on the validity of the details of his work. For that I will defer to Joe or one of the other geologists that hang out here, although I am very skeptical of his claim that the main depositional event for the Val'cumey placer deposits occurred in a short time some 4,500 years ago. There were societies with written language at the time and I feel relatively sure that a depositional event of that magnitude occurring in a short time would have had world-wide consequences that would have been recorded. You know ... like Noah's global flood that no one seems to have noticed outside the Tigris-Euphrates basin ...

Mech Bliss

Given that many, if not most, creationists arguing for a young earth and global flood don't even realize there are compositional and depositional differences between a sandstone and a limestone, it's not surprising that more advanced geological explanations will be overlooked (particularly on a board of atheists in the first place).

There are really only two answers you get from creationists when discussing geology:

Some variation of "that was pre/post-flood" but without an identification of which parts of the sedimentary rock record actually supposedly represent this event and which don't (like the way geologists can identify onlap/offlap sequences). They seem to know that being pinned down like that with pesky details makes their position easily disproved. But when they keep evading making that identification, they can keep using the "flood didn't do it" excuse.

Some variation of "flood did it" which would be the obvious converse, and no real explanation of how this flood did it (or even the basic details of where all this water and sediment came from in the first place).

Creationism essentially never explains anything. It's just the emotional reaction of people uncomfortable with certain scientific explanations that they can neither refute nor replace with anything better.

g-21-lto

Strange, that.

As far as I can tell, his argument is "our mathematical model shows that placers can form in a few years, therefore all the placers on Earth formed in this minimum amount of time," the uppermost of which is 40,000 years. But of course it happened much more quickly than that, because Genesis told them so.

Ubercat

So what IS an area of interest for you, in regards to YEC? You're probably well versed in 1 or more scientific areas. Certainly enough to feel confident in your YEC beliefs. Why don't you pick one and start a debate on it. (probably in another thread)

Who knows? You might lead a soul to Christ.

-Ubercat

buckshot23

Hmmm. Just might do that.