From: Chris Jackson
Mr. Wallace,
[Regarding Sarfati’s “Problems with a Global Flood?” essay:] One of the most difficult obstacles for the flood hypothesis wasn’t even discussed—unless I somehow missed it: the sorting of
fossils in the geological strata. Are you all just hoping that the flock won’t flocking notice?
I am happy that you all are doing what you are doing. There certainly
are problems in evolutionary theory, foremost among them being the problem of
prebiotic evolution. And folks like you at least get us to think hard about
this issue.
But it is important to keep in mind that there are many plausible hypotheses
between the account of creation given in Genesis and naturalistic evolution.
I hope that the two (vocal) sides will not blind us to those other options in
their respective endeavors to promote their own. But I must be honest, if I
had to choose between what you folks are offering and what the folks on
talk.origins are offering, well, I’m going with them. Speaking of honesty,
it would be wonderful if both sides would say less about honesty and do more
for this especially salient virtue. Paul warns against utilizing falsehoods
to enhance God’s righteousness, but I have seen things written in creationist
works that would put con men to shame.
Enjoy your day,
Chris Jackson
Response from Timothy Wallace:
>> ...one of the most difficult obstacles for the flood hypothesis [is] the sorting of fossils in the geological strata. <<
Really? In what specific creationary treatments of this topic have
you seen fossil sorting in the geological strata described as a
“difficult obstacle”? I only hear it called things like “difficult
obstacle for the flood hypothesis” by evolutionists who haven’t
bothered to study the creationary side—and those who speak
primarily from ignorance are seldom the most reliable sources on a
given matter.
Kind Regards,
TW
Response from Chris Jackson:
“In what specific creationary treatments of this topic have you seen fossil
sorting in the geological strata described as a ‘difficult obstacle’?”
Um, must a person admit to there being an obstacle for one to actually
exist? Often it’s what an author ignores or treats scantly which betrays
his or her awareness that an obstacle (or even a refutation) exists.
Witness how thoroughgoing evolutionists ignore the topic of prebiotic
evolution. But on your side-I cannot count the issues you ignore or treat
in a too hurried and cursory manner.
I have studied the creationist side as much as I have studied the other
options. I am most familiar with the work from the Institute for Creation
Research, but I have books and articles from the folks in Michigan as well.
Remember I mentioned being something of a fan of Mill? Well, it’s true; and
I believe that it is stupid and intellectually irresponsible to reject
something without first giving it a thorough and careful study and finding
it wanting. Mr. Wallace, flood geology is silly. The predictions made by
this hypothesis, its observable implications, simply do not cohere with the
evidence. And you must know that geologists were well aware of this even
before Darwin did his dastardly deed. Like the sophists you are, you will
ignore the mountain of evidence and direct attention to the molehill of
(supposedly) recalcitrant data: “misplaced fossils” and “unconformities.”
But if you were honest and objective, you would readily admit that
evolutionists have answers, very plausible answers, to these “problems.”
But refocusing attention in this way takes the spotlight off of the brutal
and lucid fact that flood geology is silly - and it’s tragic that an
intelligent man like you would try to sell it.
Be honest regarding the method of science. Bits of evidence in favor of
flood geology cannot overturn a complete and obvious refutation of it.
(Especially when those bits are typically dubious at best.) And the sorting
of the fossils alone provides this refutation.
Chris Jackson
Response from Timothy Wallace:
>> >> In what specific creationary treatments of this topic have you seen fossil sorting in the geological strata described as a “difficult obstacle”? << <<
>> Um, must a person admit to there being an obstacle for one to actually exist? Often it’s what an author ignores or treats scantly which betrays his or her awareness that an obstacle (or even a refutation) exists. <<
You seem to be dodging the question. If you were at all familiar with
the creation science texts and/or journals, you would know that they
have no need to “admit” that “fossil sorting in the geological strata”
as a “difficult obstacle,” precisely because they do NOT “ignore” or
“treat scantily” the topic in question.
You yourself seem to be an excellent example of the very phenomenon
you describe: You are ignoring completely the details of the
creationary position, thereby betraying your own ignorance of their
contents. I can only wonder if you prefer to do this so you can
pretend to have a legitimate argument based on knowledge, when in fact
you are arguing from a position of ignorance.
>> I have studied the creationist side as much as I have studied the other options. I am most familiar with the work from the Institute for Creation Research... <<
Oh? [Question 1:] Which specific works do you profess to be
“familiar” with? And [Question 2:] how many “other options” are
there, and what exactly are they all?
>> ...but I have books and articles from the folks in Michigan as well. Remember I mentioned being something of a fan of Mill? <<
You’ll have to pardon my ignorance here, for I don’t know what
you mean by the “folks in Michigan”—[Question 3:] who exactly are
they, and which “books and articles” are you referring to? Likewise,
the meaning of “Mill” is unclear to me.
>> I believe that it is stupid and intellectually irresponsible to reject something without first giving it a thorough and careful study and finding it wanting. <<
Then [Question 4:] won’t you be all too happy to list the creationary
texts and journal articles (especially the geology related ones) upon
which was based the “thorough and careful study” which has led you to
conclude that fossil sorting in the geological strata as a “difficult
obstacle” for the creationary paradigm?
>> Mr. Wallace, flood geology is silly. The predictions made by this hypothesis, its observable implications, simply do not cohere with the evidence. <<
[Question 5:] Why not venture a bit further than these vague and
bombastic generalities, and start naming the specific evidence with
which you believe flood geology fails to agree?
>> And you must know that geologists were well aware of this even before Darwin... <<
No, as a matter of fact, I don’t. And if you think you do, [Question 6:] how about
explaining and documenting your basis for this claim—or else
withdrawing it?
>> ...you will ignore the mountain of evidence and direct attention to the molehill of (supposedly) recalcitrant data... <<
[Question 7:] What “mountain of evidence” do you allege contradicts
the flood geology model? Please cite several of the specific and
separate elements that comprise this “mountain.”
>> ...Be honest regarding the method of science. <<
I am. And I await a speedy demonstration of your own commitment to do
the same by your answering in detail the questions I have posed in
this message.
>> Bits of evidence in favor of flood geology cannot overturn a complete and obvious refutation of it. <<
[Question 8:] And to what specific, detailed “obvious refutation” do
you refer?
>> ...And the sorting of the fossils alone provides this refutation. <<
Only in the minds of those who equate a superficial and subjective
knowledge of the flood geology literature with a “thorough and careful
study” of the same.
I very much look forward to your detailed answers to the 8 questions above.
Kind Regards,
TW
Response from Chris Jackson:
I am more than happy to answer your eight questions. I have each of your
questions below, and each is followed by an answer or reference to another
answer which covers essentially the same concern.
>> Question 1: Which specific [creationary treatments] do you profess to be
“familiar” with? <<
Answer 1: I cannot remember them all. I have been reading
creationist literature for over twenty years, and my memory, while normal,
is only normal. But I will provide a list of those books and articles which
I own, and I’ll do my best to remember several other “creationary
treatments” which I have read but do not presently possess. I mean, the
creationary treatments which I profess to own or have read. You see, I was
a creationist for a few years, a Genesis account creationist. I came to
accept the untenable nature of flood geology as an evangelical Christian.
This is why I have a difficult time making too much of this “presupposition”
stuff. When evidence speaks loudly enough, an honest person hears it.
Own and have read: “What is Creation Science?” By Morris and Parker;
“The Genesis Flood” by Whitcomb and Morris; “How to Teach Origins (Without ACLU
Interference)” by - I can’t now remember the author’s name: the book is at
home; some volumes of “Origins and Design” and a stack of “Impact” articles
from over the last twenty years or so. I also peruse web sites when I can - I
found you, didn’t I? I attend a Creation Studies series every year which is
presented by the Campus Ambassadors at the college where I teach. It
typically runs for the entire winter quarter.
Have Read: “Evolution? The Fossils Say No!” by Duane Gish - I have not
yet read his latest edition: ”The Fossils Still Say No!; “The Remarkable Birth
of the Planet Earth” by Henry Morris; Other books by Morris which I cannot
now recall; Some articles from “Creation Research Quarterly” - one about
continental drift, one about the ark, and others I cannot now recall; And I
have read a sizable portion of “Impact” articles from the folks at ICR.
>> Question 2: How many “other options” [besides the Genesis account of creation] are there [regarding the issue of origins], and what exactly are they all? <<
Answer 2: I can’t conjure up every single possible hypothesis which might be
(or be thought to be) compatible with the relevant data. But I will provide
you with two other possibilities which a person will find in any decent
treatment of the history of science - including creationist treatments. (I am
just asking here, but do you really consider the Genesis account of creation
and the naturalistic account of evolution to exhaust the set of options
regarding the issue of origins?)
(i) There’s Progressionism, the view that there are intermittent
catastrophies and creation events. This view is not only historically
viable, but there seem to be creationists today who are giving this a second
look.
(ii) There’s Theistic Evolutionism - its many variants. A reasonable
person could maintain that a deity works via the process of evolution (say
by manipulating genes and providing the first self-replicating cell). If
there be a god, this entity does not logically have to be all-powerful or
all-knowing.
So, there are two other possibilities.
>> Question 3: Who exactly are [“the folks in Michigan”], and which “books and
articles” are you referring to? Likewise the meaning of “Mill” is unclear
to me. <<
Answer 3: Regarding the folks in Michigan - I thought you would know:
the folks from the Creation Research Society out of Ann Arbor. I cannot
list everything I have read which has come out of this organization, but one
of the books and some of the articles mentioned in Question 1 do come from
this group. Regarding Mill - I am referring to John Stuart Mill, specifically
to his work in On Liberty. I suppose I took it for granted that you would
get the reference.
>> Question 4: Won’t you be all too happy to list the creationary texts and journal
articles (especially the geology related ones) upon which was based the
“thorough and careful study” which has lead you to conclude that fossil
sorting in the geological strata as a “difficult obstacle” for the
creationary paradigm? <<
Answer 4: See Question 1 above. Also, It has been difficult locating
any creationist work which addresses my specific concern - and it’s not just
mine. I will be asking you later to provide me with a list of articles or
books which cover the specific problem I will be addressing in Question 8.
I’ve been looking. Why do you think I read Sarfati’s piece? But since you
must know the creationist literature quite thoroughly, I will leave it to
you to point me to specific rebuttals of my response in Question 8.
>> Question 5: Why not venture a bit further than [“flood geology is silly”] and
start naming the specific evidence with which you believe flood geology
fails to agree? <<
Answer 5: You are quite right to call me on this. Here goes -
(i) We have tree ring records which reach back for more than 10,000
years which do not contain evidence of a catastrophe of flood magnitude.
(See Becker and Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuvier et al, 1986.)
This is interesting. By the way, Sarfati completely ignores this in his
rebuttal to Isaak’s “Problems With a Global Flood.” Did God, after the
flood, create trees with an “apparent age” of 6,000 years?
(ii) The Scablands of Washington is an interesting geological specimen.
Have you seen video of this area from the air? We know what land looks like
when large quantities of water rush toward lower ground. And yet there are
only a few places on this planet which look like the Scablands. If the
Noachian flood occurred a mere 4,000 years ago, the Scablands’ appearance
should be the rule, rather than a rare exception, on this planet.
(iii) Go to Isaak’s piece, read Sarfati’s too. Is everything covered?
Covered well? And don’t stop yet. There is more to read and think about.
And I’m hoping that you can provide me with a treatment of the sorting
problem I will be addressing in Question 8.
(iv) I will discuss the sorting of fossils in Question 8.
>> Question 6: How about explaining and documenting your basis for [the claim that
geologists prior to Darwin’s The Origin of Species were well aware of the
implausibility of flood geology] - or else withdrawing it. <<
Answer 6: Why should I withdraw this? This is common knowledge
amongst those who know anything about the history of science over the last
two centuries. Go get a decent book on the history of science - an
encyclopedia will do - and look up the following names: Georges Cuvier - a
paleontologist who championed catastrophism (but not the kind you champion),
William Smith, William Buckland, and, of course, Charles Lyell. (You have
heard of Lyell?) None of these individuals could accept that one
catastrophe, the Noachian flood, could have been responsible for the sorting
of fossils in the geological strata. Cuvier and Lyell are frequently
mentioned in creationist literature. You do read creationist literature,
don’t you?
>> Question 7: What “mountain of evidence” do you allege contradicts the flood
geology model? Please cite several of the specific and separate elements
that comprise this “mountain.” <<
Answer 7: See my answers to Questions 5 and 8.
>> Question 8: And to what specific, detailed, “obvious refutation” [of flood
geology] do you refer? <<
Answer 8: I assume that you accept the following conditional:
If the Noachian flood is responsible for the sorting observed in the
geological strata, then the sorting will be a function of random mixing or
the following nonrandom organizing characteristics: hydrodynamic
selectivity-mass and sleekness; ecological habitats-ocean dwelling versus
land dwelling entities, et cetera; and differential mobility-strength and
speed, the ability to fly, et cetera.
Now by modus tollens (a valid argument form), if I can deny the consequent
of this conditional-if I can show that the claim after “then” is false, it
follows that the antecedent - that the Noachian flood is responsible for the
sorting...--is also false. I’ll be quick. There is not a single legitimate
instance of a hominid fossil, footprint, or artifact being found below the
Cenozoic Era, the most recent-or highest-Era. Don’t you think that a
significant quantity of human beings would make it down to the Mesozoic Era
with the dinosaurs of roughly the same mass? Did all humans and no
dinosaurs make it to higher ground? What about human artifacts? Many of
the tools and the products produced by these tools were heavy, sleek, and
durable. Why don’t we ever find these below the Cenozoic Era? These should
be found at all levels of strata. But they are not. The sorting of fossils
is clearly not the result of random mixing - we will both admit this, I think.
The sorting is not the result of the flood-relevant characteristics listed
in the consequent. We’d find hominids and hominid stuff lower than the
Cenozoic Era if this were the case.
The consequent of the conditional is false, so flood geology is false.
Presto magico-there is your refutation!
If you know of any treatment of the OBSTACLE I have just addressed, please
let me know what it is so that I may read and assess it. A list of such
works would be even better. I will most certainly read and evaluate them as
I am able to.
I hope that I have answered your questions sufficiently-
Chris Jackson
Response from Timothy Wallace:
Chris Jackson wrote:
Question 1: Which specific [creationary treatments] do you profess to be "familiar" with?
Answer 1:
>> - “What is Creation Science?” By Morris and Parker
>> - “The Genesis Flood” by Whitcomb and Morris
>> - “How to Teach Origins (Without ACLU Interference)”
>> - some volumes of “Origins and Design”
>> - a stack of “Impact” articles
>> - web sites...
>> - “Evolution? The Fossils Say No!” by Duane Gish
>> - “The Remarkable Birth of the Planet Earth” by Henry Morris
>> - Some articles from “Creation Research Quarterly”
>> - a sizable portion of “Impact” articles <<
Most of these are popular treatments, but surprising nonetheless is
the notion that you could be familiar with “The Genesis Flood” by
Whitcomb and Morris and yet claim that the authors “ignore or treat
scantly” the topic of fossil sorting in the geological strata, when a
good portion of chapter 6 (A Scriptural Framework for Historical
Geology) addresses exactly that topic!
[What is Creation Science? By Morris and Parker also addresses the
topic in chapter 4 (The Fossil Evidence), though much more briefly, as
would be expected from a general text for popular consumption.]
Also surprising is that despite your claim to be “most familiar with
the work from the Institute for Creation Research,” and despite your
apparent “familiarity” with the “Creation Research Society Quarterly”
(CRSQ), you apparently are completely unaware of Woodmorappe’s several CRSQ
studies addressing this and related topics from the technical point of
view of a geologist, which have been readily available in a
compilation published by ICR since 1993!
While I have no indexes for the balance of CRSQ articles over the
years, for the articles of “Creation Magazine,” or for those of the
“Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal” (CENTJ), I am hard-pressed to
believe that Woodmorappe’s articles are the only ones treating this
topic. In any case, based on the above, your actually very limited “familiarity” with the literature on this topic hardly qualifies you
to claim that “fossil sorting in the geological strata is a
‘difficult obstacle’ ignored or treated scantly” by creationary
writers.
Whitcomb & Morris (right under your nose), and particularly
Woodmorappe (hardly obscure or inaccessible), refute your claim,
rendering it a FALSE claim. In the interest of moral integrity, I invite you to withdraw the claim.
Question 2: How many “other options” [besides creation and evolution] are there, and what exactly are they all?
Answer 2:
>> I can’t conjure up every single possible hypothesis which might be (or be thought to be) compatible with the relevant data... <<
Maybe not, but, having “studied the creationist side as much as...the other options,” you should have no trouble citing the several objects of your studies.
>> (I am just asking here, but do you really consider the Genesis account of creation and the naturalistic account of evolution to exhaust the set of options regarding the issue of origins?) <<
A “careful and thorough” reading of the main (index) page of the
TrueOrigin site would have saved you from asking that question.
>> (i) There’s Progressionism...
>> (ii) There’s Theistic Evolutionism...
So, there are two other possibilities. <<
Both of these are merely attempts to hybridize the two paradigms of creation
and evolution, and they find significant, specific, unequivocal
support in neither the empirical data of science, nor (therefore) the
scientific community at large, nor in the Scriptures. They might
qualify in your mind as “other options” but in truth, they consist of
“borrowed” aspects of the only two fundamental paradigms (evolution
and creation), which end in anti-biblical naturalism and Christian
theism, respectively.
Question 3: Who exactly are “the folks in Michigan,” and which “books and articles” are you referring to? Likewise the meaning of “Mill” is unclear to me.
Answer 3:
>> Regarding the folks in Michigan - I thought you would know: the folks from the Creation Research Society out of Ann Arbor... <<
The only Creation Research Society that I am familiar with (publishing the
CRSQ) is based in St. Joseph, Missouri—and has been for many years, with a research center in
Chino Valley, Arizona. I am unaware of any current (or even remotely recent) presence of a Creation Research Society in Ann Arbor, Michigan. It’s sounding like your “familiarity” with the creationary paradigm is not only sparse, but also based mainly on activity in the distant past.
>> I cannot list everything I have read which has come out of this organization, but one of the books and some of the articles mentioned in Question 1 do come from this group. <<
“One book” and “some of the articles” leaves you with pretty flimsy “qualifications” to speak with much authority on the contents of their publications. (I should think you would be embarrassed to be found doing so nonetheless!)
>> Regarding Mill - I am referring to John Stuart Mill, specifically to his work in On Liberty. I suppose I took it for granted that you would get the reference. <<
Sorry. I am not familiar with John Stuart Mill or On Liberty.
Question 4: Won’t you be all too happy to list the creationary texts and journal articles (especially the geology related ones) upon which was based the “thorough and careful study” which has lead you to conclude that fossil sorting in the geological strata as a “difficult obstacle” for the creationary paradigm?
Answer 4:
>> See Question 1 above. Also, It has been difficult locating any creationist work which addresses my specific concern-and it’s not just mine... <<
So your “thorough and careful study” has been “difficult”—yet you haven’t bothered to read Woodmorappe’s studies, nor bothered to peruse any other available articles from CRSQ or CENTJ? How difficult can that be? [Or did you mean that dealing with the published facts was so difficult that you found it easier to ignore them?] And how “thorough and careful” can a study be said to be, when existing treatments of the topic of interest, and from the sources specified, are readily available, but ignored?
With due respect, I must question the legitimacy of your claim to have
conducted a “thorough and careful study” on this matter. With respect, it appears to be nothing but the empty boast of (yet another) poseur. In your eagerness to portray yourself as an objective seeker of facts, you have exposed yourself as something altogether different.
I won’t bother to argue whether “fossil sorting in the geological
strata” is of concern to others beside yourself, though I will say you
certainly seem to be the only individual to have submitted feedback at
TrueOrigin in which so much is made of the matter.
Question 5: Why not venture a bit further than [“flood geology is silly”] and start naming the specific evidence with which you believe flood geology fails to agree?
Answer 5:
>> (i) We have tree ring records which reach back for more than
10,000 years which do not contain evidence of a catastrophe of
flood magnitude... <<
The conclusions of dendochronology to which you refer don’t seem to be
quite as conclusive and unambiguous as they might be presented. Some
familiarity with the climate patterns likely to have occurred after a
global flood helps one see that every ring need not represent a full
year, but rather cycles of temperature and/or water conditions.
Some popular-level articles on this topic are available at
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-252.htm and
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/546.asp. However, I do not necessarily concur with some appeals to “appearance of age” as a necessary cause for an apparently “excessive” number of tree rings.
See also:
“Tree-Ring Dating and Multiple Ring Growth Per Year”
(G. Aardsma,
Ph.D.) CRSQ, Vol. 29, No. 4
“The Bible, Radiocarbon Dating, and Ancient Egypt”
(R. Long) CRSQ, Vol. 10, No. 1
“Bristlecone Pines And Tree-Ring Dating: A Critique”
(H. Sorenson,
Ph.D.) CRSQ, Vol. 13, No. 1
>> (ii) The Scablands of Washington is an interesting geological specimen. ...If the Noachian flood occurred a mere 4,000 years ago, the Scablands’ appearance should be the rule, rather than a rare exception, on this planet. <<
“Should...”? Why? On what basis must we make this conclusion? On the basis of an
assumption that all sediment is the same, dried at the same rate, and
was subjected to the identical conditions and residual effects of the
post-Flood world? (Using this kind of logic, there should
also be a Grand Canyon wherever we find a river today.) There are a
lot of phenomenal geological formations around the globe—many of
them unique, or nearly unique. They speak of localized events, any or
all of which could easily have been produced during or following the
final days of the Flood itself.
>> (iii) Go to Isaak’s piece, read Sarfati’s too. Is everything covered? Covered well?...
(iv) ...I will discuss the sorting of fossils in Question 8. <<
Instead of answering my question, you’re asking me to critique one man’s answer to another man’s essay (iii). This, combined with your declaration of your intentions (iv), hardly qualify as
“specific evidence with which you believe flood geology fails to agree”!
Question 6: How about explaining and documenting your basis for [the claim that geologists prior to Darwin’s The Origin of Species were well aware of the implausibility of flood geology]—or else withdrawing it.
Answer 6:
>> Why should I withdraw this? This is common knowledge amongst those who know anything about the history of science over the last two centuries. <<
Oh really? So you think it is “common knowledge” that scientists in
general were already rejecting the Flood for geological reasons? I’m
not so sure it is a straightforward “history of science” that you have
been taught. There is no doubt that questions were being raised, but
that doesn’t merit painting a picture of wholesale rejection of the
Flood as historical fact by “scientists” in general, as is often
taught in the popular version of history today.
>> Go get a decent book on the history of science... <<
So now do you mean to be saying that a book that doesn’t support the
version of “science history” to which you subscribe is not “decent”?
>> ...and look up the following names: Georges Cuvier - a paleontologist who championed catastrophism (but not the kind you champion)... <<
What exactly was it about the empirical geological evidence that led
Cuvier to become “well aware of the implausibility of flood geology”—and (more importantly) what exactly did he say to indicate his “awareness” of this?
>> ...William Smith, William Buckland... <<
What exactly was it about the empirical geological
evidence that led Smith and Buckland to become "well aware of the
implausibility of flood geology" and what exactly did they say to
indicate their “awareness” of this?
>> ...and, of course, Charles Lyell... <<
Ah yes, the lawyer. (I thought you said scientists!) His having
completely reinterpreted some of the evidence and imposed
unsubstantiated assumptions on all of it by no means amounts to a
refutation—or even a scientific challenge—to Flood geology as a
viable option. The two interpretations still relate to the same
empirical data; they are based on two entirely different sets of
assumptions (or presuppositions); the one does not negate or refute
the other by either its mere existence or by its popularity.
>> None of these individuals could accept that one catastrophe, the Noachian flood, could have been responsible for the sorting of fossils in the geological strata. <<
You haven’t exactly demonstrated this to be true by merely dropping their names. What exactly was it about “the sorting of fossils in the geological strata” that kept them from accepting the Flood as the cause, and why? What exactly did they say to this effect? Remember that they lived when paleontology was a relatively young discipline, having produced a tiny fraction of the evidence to which we have access today.
Question 7: What “mountain of evidence” do you allege contradicts the flood geology model? Please cite several of the specific and separate elements that comprise this “mountain.”
Answer 7:
>> See my answers to Questions 5 and 8. <<
Your answers to Questions 5 and 8 hardly constitute (or even allude to) a
“mountain of evidence.” If you wish to persist in claiming that a
“mountain of evidence” unequivocally contradicts the flood geology
model, I suggest you’ll have to do much better than citing tree rings,
unique geological formations, and false assumptions. I think you’d be
better off not having made this claim as well. I hear it often enough,
but alluding to the “mountain” and producing it are two completely
different things.
Question 8: And to what specific, detailed, “obvious refutation” [of flood geology] do you refer?
Answer 8:
>> I assume that you accept the following conditional:
If the Noachian flood is responsible for the sorting observed in the geological strata, then the sorting will be a function of random mixing or the following nonrandom organizing characteristics...
...The consequent of the conditional is false, so flood geology is false.
Presto magico - there is your refutation! <<
It sounds to me as if you’re making an assumption that is neither
capable of substantiation, nor is a legitimate element of flood
geology: You seem to be assuming that the Flood was one huge swirling
soup of homogenously (or nearly homogenously) mixed sediment, flora
and fauna. Neither Whitcomb and Morris (a copy of which you have), nor
Woodmorappe (which you haven’t even sought), nor anyone else truly
familiar with flood geology, would consent to your assumption, as far
as I know—and neither would I. Were you actually even moderately
familiar with flood geology, you would not have made this assumption.
In any case, your conditional is thus erroneous—and you cannot
build a valid argument on a False Assumption.
(Presto chango -- there went your refutation!)
Furthermore, the combination of your false assumption, the series of
questions with which you follow your invalid argument, and your
earlier claim that it is a topic which creationists “ignore or treat
scantly,” all serve to betray once and for all as utterly false your
claim to have conducted a “thorough and careful study” of the
creationary treatment of the topic of fossil sorting in the geological
strata.
>> I hope that I have answered your questions sufficiently- <<
With due respect, you have not. I think your answers have revealed far more—and
done far less in your favor—than you intended them to. You have made a point of identifying yourself as a (former?) “Christian”—yet you have clearly engaged in declaring falsehoods for the purpose of lending “scientific” credibility to your rejection of the biblical record. You’ve pretended to be familiar with the creationary paradigm, but your arguments rely on what is actually a very limited knowledge-base, supplemented with an unreasonable measure of plain ignorance. (Could this be why you would prefer it “if both sides would say less about honesty”?)
You’ve furthermore alluded to historical matters which you failed to substantiate, described the ever-popular yet equally evasive “mountain of evidence” that supposedly supports your position without producing it, and credited yourself with having produced a “refutation,” but served up a false assumption in its place.
Thank you for taking the time to provide yet another example of the moral integrity from the camp of evolutionism.
Kind Regards,
TW
