1. According to your reply, I think you simply have no faith in
the various dating technologies the scientist can use to find the
age of the fossils. In what way, do you think that the dating
technologies can not convince you ? Also, can your bible explain
why a seashell fossil can be found in high up in the mountain in
south america [can remember the details, can goggle].
2. You have misunderstood the article in that URL. The rareness
they referring to is the chance where an animal remains can be
preserved as fossil record. [Search for 'rare' in that article, and
you can find 2 hits of 'rare'. The 2nd hit talks about this]. You
mistakenly equate rareness in fossil event to the rareness in
global flooding. Fossil process happens all the time when animal
remains trap underground in sedimentry layers. It is only factors
such as earthquke, land slides, rain, float, human activities that
can disrupt the fossil record.
3. Again, I ask anyone to understand his claim, his assumption,
research sample size and methodology. I noted him as a evolutionist
according to you. They are plenty of opinions out there, we need to
study each and every findings in order to come up with any
conclusion.
4. You did not explain why the raging water can lock up 'air and
other things' that result in fossilization process. Unless you want
to do a U-turn now ?
5.You are not coherent. You said you affirm to natural selection
and mutation. Yet, you cannot believe bacteria can turn to anything
else.
6. You are saying logically. So far you have never invoke the
need for god in your whole paragraph6. Good you are learing now.
Then how do I judge? Based on my own experience and upbrnging. Why
should my views on moral overriding other people ? Other people
have their own judgement. How can I force them to think lke me
?
7. The whole creationism is a good bull story to entice people
into the circle. Then it is easier to control the people
spiritually, politically or economically . I don't see I make any
self-refuting statement by saying there is no truth. I am using
simple english only to speak my mind. Are you playing some word
game ?
1. You really need to understand that all dating
methods require the use of UNTESTABLE ASSUMPTIONS about the past.
Moreover, the results of the dating methods are not consistent.
There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that
are wrong for rocks of known historical age. One example
is rock from a dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano.
Although we know the rock was formed in 1986, the rock was ‘dated’
by the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years
old. Another example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five andesite lava flows
from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. The ‘dates’ ranged from < 0.27
to 3.5 million years—but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in
1954, and one in 1975! As to the existence of marine fossils high
up on mountains, the Biblical account of the worldwide flood
not only explains why so many marine creatures came to be buried in
layers of sediment, but also how these layers came to be lifted to
high altitude. Psalm 104 describes how the Flood ended when
"The mountains rose up; the valleys sank down",
and the waters flowed off the uplifted land into the new ocean
basins. The whole process did not take millions of years, but
occurred rapidly, marking the end of the Flood, around a mere 4,300
years ago.
2. That fossilisation is rare is a fact, for the simple reason
that you need the right conditions for it to happen. Don't
forget that you have also conceded that dead things simply
decompose quickly. When was the last time you went snorkeling and
saw on the sea bed dead things waiting to be fossilised?
3. My point about Mark Ridley's quote is that, contrary to your
claim, he came to the conclusion that no TRUE evolutionist uses the
fossil record as proof of evolution. Nothing is mentioned about
samples or methodology. This is his observation and conclusion
about the fossil record. The fossil record only proves that there
are billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by
water all over the earth, which is what we would expect to find if
there was a worldwide flood.
4. What U-turn? I'm sticking to the road. I thought it
should be obvious to you, considering that I also cited secular
sources. The reason why rapid burial is necessary, and a global
flood will quickly bury many things rapidly via turbidity currents,
is because otherwise it will not be protected from other elements
and will not be a candidate for fossilisation.
5. It's not me being inconsistent, it's you being confused and
thinking that natural selection + mutations = molecules to man
evolution. If you are at all well-read on creationist literature,
you would have known that creationists do not deny natural
selection and mutations at all. We only disagree with evolutionists
concerning what these can accomplish. NS+M can only work on
PRE-EXISTING genetic information, and cannot create genetic
information, not to say originating them in the first place. All
that we have been able to OBSERVE is changes within kinds, but not
one kind of living thing changing into another. The former is fact
while the latter is fiction. I challenge you to provide one example
of a documented and observed instance of one living thing changing
into another completely different thing, like a cat changing into a
dog.
6. I am not invoking God because I am focusing on your view of
morals. And you have just affirmed again what I said earlier. For
you, you make up your own morals. You decide what is right or
wrong. But then again, in order to be consistent in your thinking,
so does another person. So you may think that raping is wrong, but
you are in no position to judge the rapist who thinks it is
right. But everyone will agree that rape is objectively wrong.
It's not that they don't like it, but that they believe it is
REALLY TRULY wrong. So in real life you do not live as though there
are no absolutes or objective moral values.
7. It is simplistic and false to dismiss creationism as some
kind of postmodernistic attempt to control people. If it is indeed
so, then it certainly isn't working! It would be far better and
easier to compromise with evolution and say God used evolution,
which would be more palatable to many people and agreeable with
them, and thus bringing them to accept Christianity and control
them, than to insist on a 6 day young earth view of creation.
Last but not least, you failed to see the self-refuting nature
of your claim. I am not playing word games at all. Let's try
again. If you say "there is no truth", are you tjhereby making a
true statement?
