Creationist vs Logic, errr, Geologist

[ill_be_ur_pal]

In the perfect forum of a debate on evolution, Noah's flood, and geology, by which this forum is a fantasy football message board, came my friend's Steve hypothesis that Noah's flood was caused by the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. He also took a critical view on geologist. So I relayed the post to my geology friend Tim(Fridge) who is also a

Comments

Re: Holy Crap

[anonymous]

“This is simply incorrect. In chemistry experiments we can control the inputs, outputs, and variables along the way. In radioisotope dating of rocks to detrmine their age, we don't know what all of the inputs were nor do we know all of the variables that affected these rocks over the years.” Wrong again. What is locked within crystals is either the original input or the product of the original input. Specimens can easily be examined for evidence that it might have been raised above the locking temperature for a particular isotope pair. If it has been, then this technique is not used. We do not know exactly what has effected the rock but studying it in its entirety allows for very educated guesses.

“It would be great if all uses of radioisotope dating were recorded, including the "corrupt" ones. We could then see if it is statistically a sound method.” If these bad trials weren’t being recorded, how exactly are you aware of them? They are presented and thus it can be seen to be statistically significant.

While we have not observed a fish growing limbs or something of the sort, but examples of what appear to be such changes do apeear in the fossil record, and to say otherwise is not accurate. You are right to say that the fossil record shows more or less consistent life followed by geologically rapid change. This is why the idea of punctuated equilibrium has come to be a strong idea in the theory of evolution as opposed to steady methodic change. The idea is that relatively quick changes in environment might bring about changes in organisms, whereas stable conditions allow organisms to carry on in their same fashion.

If theories “can’t be proven and have rather large holes in them” then they are tossed out. The theory of evolution does not have rather large holes in it despite the falsities you have been led to believe. The fossil record does indeed contain examples of the “missing links” creationists like to claim are not there. As for life from nonlife, it has been demonstrated that simple amino acids can form from completely inorganic material. While these basic acids are a far cry from more complex amino acids which life forms utilize, this does imply that organisms developing from inorganic matter is a possibility.

Even if evolution is wrong it is still a natural process. If you can’t grasp the difference between supernatural and natural, obviously this debate is going nowhere.

Creationism says that things were put the way they are. Thus geologists believe that the earth is old is just an illusion of old age as this is the way the world was built. This position can not possibly be proven one way or the other. I really don’t understand how to make this any clearer.

“Would an impact from a meteor not result in volcanic explosions and tectonic plate shifts?” Well, since plate tectonics appears to be unique to earth and this planet clearly has not received more bombardment than other planets, this is a nice safe no.

“The shifting would have lasted for much longer than just a day or two after the impact.” What mechanism would keep this going?
No one observed the formation of the earth or life, people observe actual process and formations which allow them to infer what led to their creation.