Surtsey still surprises (land features thought to take millions of years form in less than a decade)

Journal of Creation ^ | David Catchpoole, P.hD.

[Moonman62]

After the island of Surtsey was born of a huge undersea volcanic eruption off Iceland in 1963,

Now if God had poofed this island out of nothing in an area without volcanic activity, that would be convincing.

[muawiyah]

Well, whatever.

[Philo-Junius]

Noah seems to be a universal archetype—I don’t see this as evidence of Genesis’ essential falsehood, but rather of its essential truth.

[Buck W.]

Some can, most don’t. The tendency of YECs to extrapolate isolated special cases to the broad general case despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary is astounding. They do truly give athiests plenty of ammunition.

[tpanther]

No geo in evo? The Temple of Darwinism rebukes you per temple attendant Scott:

Debates and the Globetrotters

by Eugenie Scott

“ Evolution applies to astronomy, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, biology, geology — you name the field, and evolution will relate to it, like as not...”

Liberals just hate when you hold them to the rules they set up for everyone else.

[Kozak]

C’mon GGG, don’t confuse the evos with the facts.

Facts? You "cretins" wouldn't know what to do with a fact if it sank it's teeth in your a@@....

[Buck W.]

I’m not sure, but I’m not going to wade through all of the self-referencing YEC-babble to find out. The Koran has a few good points, too, but I still reject the whole package.

[Buck W.]

I said nothing about global warming, but if it makes your day, I will: I reject man-made GW and all of Gore’s pseudoscience. Your argument, therefore, remains vacuous.

BTW—Peer review refers to peers in research positions, not those who share the author’s point of view. The latter, unfortunately, is the standard for YEC scholarship.

[CottShop]

Then don;’t claim to be objective

[muawiyah]

Noah is a bit more than archtype ~ he is the structure whereby God, gods, fields of knowledge of wisdom, sages, and mortal men are brought together in a comprehensive, but readily understood story.

The Hindu version has the Messiah, not just the distant "He's in Heaven" God, present. He ties Noah's boat to a great mountain so that it is not destroyed by the storms in the sea.

We meet this Messiah image, as the Great Fish in Jonah. Christians in later ages use the Fish in their own set of symbols.

The Babylonians also used the Fish as an image of their equivalent of the Hindu sages and fields of knowledge.

Abraham gets credit for establishing a rationale for not undertaking human sacrifice.

[Buck W.]

Then why do you cite them as a source?

[CottShop]

Because hwta htey posted was fact- scientific fact- but alas- scientific facts apaprently mean nothign IF they are presented on a ‘creationist’ site, riiight? Again- Don’;t claim to be objective if you are goign to dismiss everythign presented simpyl because it was posted on a creationist site- that’s pure a priori bias- not objectivity

[Buck W.]

Facts are irrelevant if they’re not properly used. As I posted earlier, special cases do not prove the general case. That’s Scientific Method 101.

[CottShop]

[[Facts are irrelevant if they’re not properly used.]]

Yup- true- Now, if you feel they weren’t ‘properly used’, then present the coutner evidence hsowing htis- “I reject it” Because “It’s presented on a creationist site isn’t a valid reason to reject it.

[[As I posted earlier, special cases do not prove the general case. That’s Scientific Method 101.]]

Nor does dismissing everything out of hand and claiming they are nothign but ‘special cases’ when there are MANY such cases. That’s science 101 as well.

[CottShop]

[[I’m not sure, but I’m not going to wade through all of the self-referencing YEC-babble to find out.]]

IF you’re not goign to even bother to check out hte FACTS, then don’t carry on about a site link being invalid- pretty simple.

[Buck W.]

“Nor does dismissing everything out of hand and claiming they are nothign but ‘special cases’ when there are MANY such cases...”

Unfortunately, all of those cases are one-offs. They do not represent or support a consistent position or process. They are individually selected by YECs to throw stones at more rigorous science.

Together, they’re just a group of curious natural occurrences, many of which have alternative explanations. There is no cohesive story that they tell collectively.

[Buck W.]

There are more credible sources for facts!

[tpanther]

I said nothing about global warming

No but I sure did. And where ARE all the lawsuits from your ilk to silence these anti-science freaks anyway?

Yes, I know what peer review means, in theory anyway.

You should probably watch 'Expelled'.

[count-your-change]

The definition of evolution has become as rubbery as the definition of global warming. As an example, try to find a solid definition of what a species is. And then listen to reasons why there is none.

[aposiopetic]

the Great COBRA

1986 was a banner year.