farmerman wrote:I especially like the one about "There are oceanic deposits on top of mountainstherefore these mountain tops are evidence of a flood". Very poor science and even poorer logic.
I think the member "real life" must believe that we don't pay attention. He was sneering one time about how unfair it were to ask him to provide naturalistic proof of the supernatural. So i pointed out that it were possible that there were naturalistic proof of (or rather disproof of), for example, the Noahic flood, embodied in the question of where all the water went. His response was that it is still here--so i pointed out that the Genesis account stated that all the mountains were covered to a depth of 15 cubits (which raises all sorts of problems for the naval engineering of the Ark), and that must mean that mountains have subsequently been uplifted tens of thousands of feet--which of course leads to other problems of the surface configuration of the planet.
He, of course, always has the fall back position that god just "poofs" things into whatever configuration is preferred. But he leapt on the issue of mountains being uplifted. However, when it comes to oceanic fossils being found on mountain tops, he no longer believes that mountains could be composed of sedimentary rocks which have been uplifted tens of thousands of feet.
He not only wants to claim that any evidence at all is evidence of creation, he wants to claim certain types of evidence when it is convenient, and reject the same types of evidence when it is inconvenient.
).
