blah de blah blah blah EvC blah de blah

Can't resist, can I?

Pressie is one of the bigger know-nothings about creationism:

This is one thing I would like to know from creationists: why do we find sea shells both "on top" and in some mountains, but no sea shells either "on top" or within other mountains?

Did the "global flood" miss those mountains with no sea shells? How does a global flood explain all those "shell-free" mountains? Just missed by the "flood"?

This guy is a SYE-UN-TIST, geewhilikers!

Hey, the answer is A FLOOD DOESN'T HAVE AN AGENDA, IF THERE ARE NO SEA SHELLS TO BE PICKED UP IN A CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD IT CAN'T DEPOSIT THEM WHERE THEY MIGHT HAVE ENDED UP IN A MOUNTAIN.

ALSO, some mountains are volcanic and don't have strata or fossils.

On another thread recently he asked a similar equally stupid question, which I think was: How does a global flood explain all the places there AREN'T sediments?

AND THE ANSWER IS: It's the EVOLUTIONISTS who should have a problem with the absence of a complete geologic column, NOT FLOODISTS. Again a Flood doesn't have an agenda, it picks up what is there to be picked up and deposits it; if there are no sediments or fossils to be transported at a particular location it doesn't deposit any.

Also, clearly much of the strata were washed away by the receding Flood waters, and would have left prodigious piles of rubble along their path to the sea or whatever might have been their destination, so there should be lots of piles of inchoate rubble besides strata all over the earth.

DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A HIGH QUALITY DEBATE, PERCY? Then get rid of people like this who can't think their way out of a paper bag.

Make everyone pass a test of some sort too. Basic evolution as well as basic creationist arguments. Otherwise that debate is laughable.

Or do you merely want to convert lurkers even if it's by bullying and manipulation, because that's all it really is? Hey, maybe you do. My mistake then.

Then Percy contributes this:

Another way of looking at it is that while there are many websites that accurately present the current state of scientific knowledge, if you want the original data from which this knowledge is distilled then you often have to go to the technical literature. Websites often present what we know without explaining how we know it. This is a general tendency that Dr Adequate is attempting to avoid in his Introduction To Geology thread.

In my experience it's not just "websites" it's books and science magazines as well that fail to give the evidence for evolutionary interpretations. Lots of glossy pictures of dinosaurs and ape-men with some side shots of skeletons and fossils and that sort of thing, nothing that tells you where and how and why and why it matters. And the scientific journals are jargon-ridden -- that's true of even the online abstracts -- very narrow in focus too, and in my case beyond my budget as well.

Can't wait to see if Dr. A has a clue about providing the evidence that is so sorely lacking in most evolutionary / old earth presentations. I see he finally got his next installment up.