MrSpooky Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Sweet god! Look at this quote from Hovind's "dissertation" in reference to Charles Darwin... He was born in 1809 and died about 1880. He was very anti-Christian and tried to influence anyone he could not to believe in God. He was very full of godless ideas. He was a very avid agnostic, racist, and an evolutionist. He believed in a great infinite age of the universe. He was very influential in furthering the ideas of evolution, particularly in the country of England. Dude... my writing style was better than this when I was in the sixth grade!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 "Very full"! A sentence directly from the Department Of Redundancy Department. "He was very anti-Christian" "He was a very avid agnostic, racist, and an evolutionist." "He was very influential in furthering the ideas of evolution, particularly in the country of England." "And he was a very, very, very bad man, and I really, really don't like him." (Not actually a quote) Oh man. I learned in freakin' grade school not to overuse adjectives like that. That's blatant padding! And to think that you've only shown a small exerpt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Oh man. I learned in freakin' grade school not to overuse adjectives like that. That's blatant padding! And to think that you've only shown a small expert. Don't you mean excerpt? I really don't think you meant to call Hovind an EXPERT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Erm... yes. Quite. There's no way I would ever call Hovind an "expert". I fixed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustmouse Posted May 14, 2005 Share Posted May 14, 2005 I haven't spent time looking at answersingenesis, but isn't the Insitute for Creation Research just about the most pathetic thing ever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted May 14, 2005 Share Posted May 14, 2005 They totally are. Actually, when I had originally done a search on AiG and ICR for angular unconformities, I was using the plural form of the word, so I was getting very few results. As soon as I used the singular "unconformity", though, both sites suddenly brought forth articles about geology. After giving a few of these articles a good read, I find that none of them really address the charge at all. Here is a flow chart which shows how AIG and ICR have addressed the problems of unconformities... Hear the question about unconformities --> Completely ignore the question --> Invent a new question that is nothing like the question that was asked --> Answer the new question as though it was the original question all along Here's an example taken from Answers in Genesis... Although unconformities (clear breaks in deposition) indicate time breaks, such unconformities are localized, with no break evident in rocks of the same strata elsewhere, thus indicating that any time break was localized and brief.-http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp This is simply an evasion. Do you see where AIG has invented their own question and answered it? They think that they can ignore the problem by trailing off on a related, but altogether irrelevent, line of argumentation. The problem is not whether unconformities are localized or worldwide. The problem is that they indicate drying, because the layers have been tilted and eroded. If these layers tilted while they were still sediment in a flood, they would have shown signs of sliding. You see, gravity is the main problem here. Not the extent to which these unconformities reach worldwide. ICR's answers are pretty much the same. Neither site even comes close to addressing the problem. They just sort of pretend as though they have. Any attempt by creationists to use these arguments will be quickly evicerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted May 14, 2005 Share Posted May 14, 2005 And they have an even bigger problem with converging evidence, because there are the raindrop and footprint impressions that are to found all over these rocks. And these can be found within strata, not just on top of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts