: I'd like your opinion on the article at this site (incidentally, I DO visit your www.talkorigins.org site frequently -- I just disagree with their conclusions).: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3856.asp
Well, it's an explanation. It's not a scientific explanation, as its veracity cannot be tested; thus it is unfalsifiable.
Personally, I agree with the authors of the report; the conditions are not unlike a modern-day mangrove swamp delta as found in the Far East; dead creatures can sink to the bottom of the swamp and be preserved very well by the mud. As for the sea not being around there during the Carboniferous, well, if the data says it was, then rethink the theory; because the proposition that the sea wasn't there has just been falsified (proved wrong). The science thus gets more accurate and the picture edges nearer to accuracy. As per usual, though, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest the action of any exterior agent.
: In fact, the whole Answers in Genesis website is fascinating as far as I'm concerned.
You would. I don't, because I'm pretty strict in my definition of science and what consitutes 'logical thought'; and that site is nothing more than Creationist gibberish.
You can't assume your pet theory is true to begin with and then use that assumption to prove that your theory is true; it's a circular argument; and one that seems to have gone straight over the heads of the AIG lot.
Furthermore, as both you and Robert said, you can't ultimately prove or disprove God using the physical world and the scientific method; if you accept any physical data as binding evidence of God's existence you are saying that it *is* possible to prove the existence of God; thus either God is perceptible (and thus not ominpresent) or the Bible is not sufficient to "prove" the existence of God; either God isn't divine; or the Bible is fallible.
Gideon.
None.
