Replies

The Peppered Moth is not a hoax.

Pay special attention to point #4

Are Darwin's finches also hoaxes?

Insofar as they are presented as proof of evolution. They only illustrate variation.

As for the flood, it supposedly lasted 40 days and nights,

Closer to a year.

That takes millions of years. Are you telling me that all those deposits formed in forty days?

How long do you think these layers took to form?

They formed in a matter of hours.

If the fossils where caused by the Biblical flood then they would all be in one layer, which they are clearly not.

Creationists don't claim this. Your statement assumes the flood layer would be just one layer. See the picture above. That was all laid down by the same flood. Don't forget that rapid burial is necessary for fossilization.

There are other theories that haven't been conclusively proven but are probably true, like the Big Bang Theory.

Isn't it curious that some theories have wider acceptance than others? Don't you wonder why that is? It is not because the supposed scientific set demands its acceptance.

You've been told, by the resident geologists on this forum, no less, that the processes and results of the Mount St. Helens formations are not the same processes and results of, say, the Grand Canyon.

Blank-Slate Syndrome -- a horrible way to go through life.

I thought I'd ping one of those geologists in case you had any questions.

Because one formation of layered sediments formed in a day, that does not therefore mean that all layered sedimentary formations were formed in a short timeframe. And quick burial is required for most terrestial fossils - but many oceanic fossils do not require such - indeed, many limestones are almost entirely composed of coral fossils, such as those forming Guadalupe Peak in Texas (a huge fossil reef complex). And many key indicator fossils - fossils found within a predictable timeframe and across wide parts of the globe - are often hard-shelled microorganisms such as foramnifera that will fossilize whereever they are deposited.

Has geology in the past understated catastrophism as a agent of geologic change? Yep. Does that therefore give a boost to creationism? Nope - just as the shift from a geosynclynic model to a techtonic model for mountain building, something far more profound, did nothing to prove creationism.

If those layers formed in a few hours then they are not sedimentary rock, but merely sand. It takes hundreds if not thousands of years for organic remains to become fossilized, so they could not have been formed in 40 days, or even a year. Would you care to explain why more primitive creatures appear in lower deposits, therefore earlier, and more complex ones higher up, therefore later? That is a good proof of an evolutionary process, if any more was needed.

Do you really believe that the entire world was repopulated from Noah's Ark in only a few thousand years? How did he get all those creatures on to it in the first place? Some species exist today that Noah couldn't have known about or had access to, such as the Pronghorn Antelope, which only exists in the New World, or all the creatures from Australia. You'd think the flood would have wiped them out. This doesn't even come close to being plausible.

You would throw out this work of genius, this wonderful construct, in favor of fables that shouldn't be able to fool a child. You blind yourself to the wonders of the real world, which are infinitely more interesting and intricate than any creation myth.