Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:46 pm
Stratified rocks are what are known as sedimentary rocks, they are formed when sediments settle on the bottom of rivers, lakes, oceans, bogs, etc. New orleans is a good example, the Mississipi river deposits sediments along the river delta. As more sediments pile on top the older ones compact and sink. That is why New orleans sank roughly two feet in the past eighty years, the entire city is built on sediments deposited by annual flood waters along the river bank.Jbuza wrote:What is the new rock formed of magic Dark Matter dust? IF the billions of billions of tons of strata simply appear, than long standing principles of science and conservation break down. Explain where the additional matter comes from to form the new rock. I explained for the appearance of strata, of course it will be seen. You fail to explain how the enormity of strata the world over have simply appeared covering up successive hypothetical ages that are constructs of evolution. Starta is explained within the conforms of long standing conservation theories, by the hypothetical construct of the flood that is derived from creation theory.
I will start a new thread on geology so we can go into more detail.
Examine the evidence yourself, take a trip out to maine and examine the strata. You will see that fossils are localized to specific layers. This is a fact.Jbuza wrote:This anology doesn't work. First the toys float, so they would all be on the same layer, i.e. the top of the water. Second they cannot liquefy and become combined with water, would thus not be placed by sedimentation. The chances are quite good that the sedimentation process will happen in an ordered structured way, but there are variables that make it not possible to answer. Geological anomalies are called thus because that field also interprets from a set hypothetical and theoretical framework, evolution. The evolution idea is that you find fossils where those animals lived, and that strata is a picture of geological age, that's fine I don't expect evolution to have all the answers, and am not trying to exclude it from science. I have already said how creation theory explains strata, and the violence involved in an event of this proportion could easily cause and explain numerous “geological anomalies” more easily than evolution does. Neither theory can offer anything by speculating that “a dinosaur will never be in the same layer as a halluciginia and Mammoth.” This is not fact, where did you get this; there are a host of geological anomalies that are called that because they suggest that hypothetical statements like this have no sound basis.
I doubt you have spent much time examining the strata.Jbuza wrote:Yes that is one example fossilized trees that creation theory explain were moved by a recent global flood to be laid down were they are found, or the greenhouse explanation could also have increased earth surface temperatures and produced a different climate to allow them to live where the cannot now. But the point is broader and includes numerous examples; as I see it there are two major flaws with the theoretical explanation of strata by evolution. First there is no coherent explanation for strata to begin with, and second all the evidence that it labels as “anomalies” (observations that evolutionary geology do not explain). Creation does a more thorough job of explaining what we see in the strata, and the strata itself.
___
Jbuza wrote:Your right this is semantics, and I have done a poor job. Thanks for the great defs.
I would define Scientific Study as the careful use of reason and logic guided by long standing principles of investigation. . There is a concept that has a huge impact on scientific study, and that is beliefs and assumptions, the speculation that yields to fruitful hypothesis. That is why I made the comment that creation theory like any theory really cannot be scientifically deduced; that is I said that creation would only lead back to itself. All the evidence I can gain, the science I uncover, the knowledge I gain, and the truth I find, when taken back apart through a deductive process these things will be heavily influenced by the speculative process of the hypothesis, the hypothosis dictates what I should measure, observe, or calculate, it guides investigation and determines what the investigator looks at. For example you might not speculate about the things I would speculate about when investigating from different theoretical and hypothetical frameworks. Science is firstly an inductive process. I digress.
I would define science how you explain knowledge; that is that any decent definition of science will include the concept of knowledge. I would define knowledge as what is being gained, and agree with what you said about truth, but would define it as the view of how things actually are and were from an all-knowing perspective, that is that it is the right explanation of every observation
