Quote:
|
Because it's ALREADY BEEN PROVEN WRONG and HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED.
|
Er. No. It hasen't. Maybe is crazy-topsy-turvy creationist world is has but here in reality, the modern scientific community, it hasn't. The conspiricy talk to amusing too. You've just stated some fairly amusing stuff, I challenege you to back up one of those claims with a paper published in a reputable scientific journal. Not some wacky creationist one but a real scientific paper supporting one of those points that has been perr reviewed and published.
Lets have a closer look at AiG then shall we? Why not look at the top? Persident Ken Ham, who, according to his bio:
Quote:
|
Ken’s bachelor’s degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) was awarded by the Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia.
|
Impressive! An undergrad degree from a second rate uni! Ken's writings demonstrate perfectly the kind of logical silliness the AiG is based on and OnyxCougar is so ready to accept without question:
Like this gem:
Quote:
Ken Ham: Question: Remember being taught that coal formed slowly in swamps over millions of years? How can we say that coal is the result of Noah's Flood just thousands of years ago?
Answer: The theory that coal formed in swamps over millions of years just doesn't fit with the evidence. Peat swamps that we observe today are totally different in composition and texture from coal deposits. In these swamps we find mainly roots and a texture like mashed potatoes.
However, coal deposits have trees, bark and other material giving it a totally different texture.
In my homeland of Australia, many of the coal deposits consist largely of pine trees that don't grow in swamps. Some of these trees are enormous - many feet in diameter. And these trees are in coal deposits that are hundreds of feet thick.
The only explanation that fits what we observe in coal deposits is that enormous quantities of plant material, including massive trees, were washed into place. This would require a lot of force and a lot of water. The event of Noah's Flood makes sense of this evidence - and gives us the real answers!
|
Sounds convincing if you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Sadly Diluvial models of coal formation are inconsistent with a wide variety of observations, and can be dismissed as untenable. Criticisms of autochthonous models made by AiG and other creationists are based largely on factual errors, misleading statements, and failure to consider all data. Moreover, since there exists strong evidence for many autochthonous coals in the geologic record, and since peats in the modern world accumulate at rates less than or equal to about 5mm/yr (Diemont and Supardi 1987), the presence of numerous thick autochthonous coals is good evidence that the earth is older than YECs typically allow."
This is typical of AiG arguments, fudge a bit there, ignore something when it doesn't fit and claim that all of science is an evil conspiricy to keep you down. I could go on for pages but why bother? It's not needed, nothing will move those that cling to their silly misconceptions and lies and everyone else thinks they're worrying at worst and hilarious at best.