<a href="http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/notes/39/39_1/Note0206.htm" target="_blank">Surface and Subsurface Errors in Anti-Creationist Geology</a> by John K. Reed and John Woodmorappe shows just how nutty YECs can be.
Quote:
Critics often scoff at the “time” problem for creationists. Supposedly there is insufficient time for the rocks observed in nature to have formed absent millions of years. However, time is no less a problem for the critics. Take the Grand Canyon, for example. It is a mile deep in places. Take the range of time supposedly represented and divide the thickness of the sediment by the time for a rate. You will find that the answer is 0.000… something inches per year. Ancient rocks are interpreted by modern analogs, right? Obviously, modern environments, similar to those proposed as analogs for the Grand Canyon sedimentation deposit, sediment much faster than that (or scientists would be hard pressed to observe them). At modern rates, the canyon should show many tens of thousands more feet of sediment than it does. For whom is time a problem now?
What about erosion and nondeposition? How about “the dog ate my homework?” The whole point is that inferring time from these features is arguing from a lack of evidence unless we know in advance what time interval is represented. How is that knowledge possible outside the assumption of the conclusion? Geologists use the column to determine what the interval should be, and then triumphantly think they have discovered something when their reasoning returns full cycle.
|
What has Peczkis been smoking? :-)
10-06-2002, 07:32 AM
Woody is outdoing himself
