Phil, I don't think we should say so unqualified that "no flood" could ever explain the stratification of fossils.
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fo ... long-ages/
Audie wrote:Trying to maintain it with made up nonsense like that 9 degrees C means the ice is frozen solid to bedrock, or that it could withstand the stresses from being underwater is just crazy talk. The ice absolutely could not freeze down in any case; glaciers move. Billions of tons of ice make a lot of pressure, its not gonna stick down. (you can see them move, in a speeded up film)
We note that ab called it a "set up" when he saw he was getting trapped, and ran away. He was getting close to an epiphany, but it was too much for him.
The other idea he offered (made up) was that the ice lifted up, but just spun around in the circumpolar current, then set back down as the water receded.
Id be happy to be faced with a real challenge to what I think. C profoundly misreads me thinking I only like it when people think as I do.
I wish someone would come up with a serious challenge to evolution or deep time. It would be one of, if not the most interesting things I ever heard.
A serious minded challenge to what I said about the glaciers disproving a flood would likewise be most welcome. "stick down, spin around" aint it.
I think you hit the nail on the head, and thus my ban-worthy appeal to stop insulting the faith with such ridiculous claims. I think it's evident from what little I know that either 1) there was no global flood of any kind to worry about with glaciers or 2) the glaciers we see are the result of a global flood. I understand that you would strongly argue against the second option, and I'm not trying to defend it here. I'm simply saying that, with respect to evidence glaciers provides, that's the only two positions. And in the interest of intellectual honesty, that's the position that young earth creationists have in fact taken. YECs could well be wrong on a range of scientific issues related to the age of the earth, and perhaps glacial evidence itself is sufficient to show that the earth is much older than YECs propose (that is, that a global flood cannot account for glaciers and their related topographical effects and be consistent with all evidence). But regardess of all that, YECs
do recognize that if you have glaciers, you can't have a global flood that post-dates them. That's absolutely indefensible, and while I wish I could offer you an argument against deep time, all I can say with all honesty is that, at this point, I can't do so without getting into source wars that I don't understand--not from science, anyway. Perhaps some people here can, or perhaps someone will join who can, or perhaps I'll be able to one of these days. But that day isn't today. As such, my only hopes are: 1) to continue to point out and reject arguments that I
do understand that are obviously indefensible (there is nothing virtuous in defending truth with lies); and 2) that to the extent you and others (perhaps me included) can talk about the veracity of the Chrsitain faith can do so less on the basis of deep time or creation models and rather on those evidences upon which we (I)
do rest our faith.
