kingston,
Ringman, Don't take this the wrong way. I'm not sure what your goal is in this thread and threads like it. I like you. You are a gentleman and I enjoy many of your posts, but your understanding of geology, plate tectonics, the basic tenets of paleontology, the history of science, and modern history interferes with your ability to develop a consistently coherent and rational world view. I appreciate your passion for these topics, but the kind of discussion you seem to want to have requires a commitment to much more rigorous methods. At minimum, these would include clearly argued points supported with cited facts much like a_s did above. Anything less and both your position and credibility suffer catastrophically.
Thanks for you polite and concerned post. I don't claim to be educated. I received a GED when I was fifty-one years old. Over the years, before that and after, I have met a few scientists and learned a few things. Among them is to challenge people to support their claims with more of the old refuted by evolutionist claims. I remember in 1974 when Goldschmid or something like that came up with the "hopeful monster mechanism" because there were no positively identified transitional forms at the time. His colleagues ridiculed and badgered him over it. Now they call it punctuated equilibrium because there still are no water tight transitional forms that all evolutionist agree on.
If you want to know about plate tectonics you need to read someone besides evolutionists. I met a scientist who used to be an evolutionist. He had a Ph.D in hydraulics (water running). His study of the Grand Canyon convinced him he was wrong and concluded it was formed rapidly. He demonstrated his opinion with aerial photos and convinced many. Mount St Helens has a little canyon 140th the size of Grand Canyon. It was cut out of solid rock in one afternoon. If an evolutionary geologist was taken to that canyon and didn't know it was cut in a few hours he would say it took millenia at least, based on his flawed education.
You mentioned plate tectonics. I watched a video from the Sandia National Laboratories. It is not a Creationist bastion. The ran some programs to discover what would cause the world's mountain ranges. They discovered the plates would have to move at meters per second to bend the strata to form them. There are some huge bends in rocks demonstrated to have been formed while the the strata was still soft. These are evidence of a world wide flood.
Anything less and both your position and credibility suffer catastrophically.
My credibility is of no repute. The positions I posit are supported by good science, just not necessarily conforming to the evolutionary position. If you think my positions are so shaky get a masters degree or Ph.D scientist for a debate and I will get a Ph.D person to take the other side. The last debate he had, that I remember was with a biologist professor. When it came time for the rebuttal the evolutionist said, "There's nothing I can say to rebut Dr. Kindell."
I used to be an atheistic evolutionist. The facts didn't support my beliefs. I became a creationist and then a Christian and them a Biblical creationist. I constantly find circular reasoning in evolutionist who start with evolution as their starting point. The problem with that is they are pushed to a place where they have to believe nothing became something. The Bible creationist can appeal to an Infinite Intelligent Energy Who is capable of creating all that we see. This too is circular. But at least it is not irrational.
