The utter garbage of Brian Thomas, Vol. 2

Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

Moderator: Moderators

The utter garbage of Brian Thomas, Vol. 2

Postby ProfessorTertius » Wed May 17, 2017 3:11 am

I noticed Ashley's tribute to Brian Thomas of two years ago but decided that this deserves its own new topic. The nonsense from ICR just never ends. I saw this in one of his footnotes at http://www.icr.org/article/9518/

"For example, geologist John Reed listed these seven revealing problems with biostratigraphy in his 2013 book Rocks Aren't Clocks. Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 127:
1) This method depends on evolution. Any uncertainty about evolution translates into uncertainty about biostratigraphy.
2) Even if evolution is true, biostratigraphy depends on the rocks showing a representative record of evolutionary progress.
3) The fossil record as we know it does not show intermediate or transitional forms that show the evolutionary steps.
4) Using evolution to arrange the fossils and then claiming that the order of the fossils proves evolution is circular reasoning.
5) Evidence of catastrophic deposition implies the absence of 'paleoenvironments' which are the basis of the calim that the rocks show historically-reliable snapshots of the past.
6) Living fossils, such as the coelacanth, contradict evolutionary biostratigraphy.
7) The new practice of setting age boundaries by Global Stratotype Section and Points, or 'GSSPs' shows a lack of faith in conventional biostratigraphy."

Face-palm.

One doesn't have to be a geologist or paleontologist to see through these inane and illogical blubberings. My personal favorite is Number 4 is a reminder that someone needs to sit down with these Young Earth Creationists and explain to them the meaning of "circular reasoning" (and what isn't circular reasoning.) (Obviously, the "arrangement" of the fossils is determined within which strata we find them! John Reed makes it sounds like some "evolutionist" arbitrarily assigned them. Sheesh.)
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed May 17, 2017 3:42 pm

Don't you know John Reed is an expert?
http://americanloons.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... -reed.html

Whose writings I have occasionally come across previously. He appears to have a talent for turning meaningful patterns of evidence into meaninglessness (as well as sounding pompous and bigoted in the process):
search.php?keywords=reed&fid%5B0%5D=18

For instance:
http://creation.com/refuting-campbell-y ... eformation
A taster:
"Sorting through the article, one finds a variety of arguments, but the bottom line is that biblical understanding must rely on secular natural history as delivered from on high by the high priests of geology. It’s OK if you don’t have a doctorate in geology; the authors know that it’s a hard subject and they provide an easy shortcut … just take their word for it. After all, the experts all know they are right and history has proven them infallible … except for, well, all that squabbling among them and the constant “evolution” of their theories and presuppositions over time."

'Don't listen to those self-satisfied experts. Listen to ME instead.'
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom


Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests