Yes new rock is forming all the time. We can start a thread on geology if you wish. http://www.geotech.org/survey/geotech/basicgeo.html
See if there is an overpass or underpass near your house. You will see a hill has been cut away and you can see the strata yourself.
What is the new rock formed of magic Dark Matter dust? IF the billions of billions of tons of strata simply appear, than long standing principles of science and conservation break down. Explain where the additional matter comes from to form the new rock. I explained for the appearance of strata, of course it will be seen. You fail to explain how the enormity of strata the world over have simply appeared covering up successive hypothetical ages that are constructs of evolution. Starta is explained within the conforms of long standing conservation theories, by the hypothetical construct of the flood that is derived from creation theory.
Lets try this, fill and aquarium with a assortment of plastic toys of various sizes. and let the water drain. Do the toys assort themselves by complexity? What are the chances a dinosaur will never be in the same layer as a halluciginia and Mammoth.
This anology doesn't work. First the toys float, so they would all be on the same layer, i.e. the top of the water. Second they cannot liquefy and become combined with water, would thus not be placed by sedimentation. The chances are quite good that the sedimentation process will happen in an ordered structured way, but there are variables that make it not possible to answer. Geological anomalies are called thus because that field also interprets from a set hypothetical and theoretical framework, evolution. The evolution idea is that you find fossils where those animals lived, and that strata is a picture of geological age, that's fine I don't expect evolution to have all the answers, and am not trying to exclude it from science. I have already said how creation theory explains strata, and the violence involved in an event of this proportion could easily cause and explain numerous “geological anomalies” more easily than evolution does. Neither theory can offer anything by speculating that “a dinosaur will never be in the same layer as a halluciginia and Mammoth.” This is not fact, where did you get this; there are a host of geological anomalies that are called that because they suggest that hypothetical statements like this have no sound basis.
This explains where the rock came from and why there is a certain order to the fossil record. It also perfectly answers for the numerous “Geological Anomalies”. Evolution says species are found where they live, yet can't answer why trees, root and all, are found on mountains above the tree line. I think there are a couple of explanations for that in line with my theory.
Do you mean fossilized trees? If so see geology above.
Yes that is one example fossilized trees that creation theory explain were moved by a recent global flood to be laid down were they are found, or the greenhouse explanation could also have increased earth surface temperatures and produced a different climate to allow them to live where the cannot now. But the point is broader and includes numerous examples; as I see it there are two major flaws with the theoretical explanation of strata by evolution. First there is no coherent explanation for strata to begin with, and second all the evidence that it labels as “anomalies” (observations that evolutionary geology do not explain). Creation does a more thorough job of explaining what we see in the strata, and the strata itself.
Why do strata have different forms? And why do primitive forms appear below more advanced ones. And why do higher strata only have forms based on lower strata.
Creation need not explain hypotheses generated from evolution. Also I am not an expert in geology, besides creation doesn't have to explain everything anyway, it is simply an alternative theoretical approach that is capable of explaining and predicting, just like evolution. However creation should be able to explain why strata have different forms, and why particular organisms could be found were they are found. I am not sure if I begin to speculate about the massive pressures, and amazingly powerful forces created by oceanographic and atmospheric forces that spawn storms like we recently saw, would work in a global flood and tirelessly investigate the huge variables involved would do for us. I am sure people would be capable of investigating through computer models how sedimentation would work, and fossilization of species trapped within a particular strata could happen, and if anyone is interested in doing that, it would be wonderful. Of course from an evolutionary framework that strata just appeared there would be no need to hypothesize about these things
One mutation does not make an organism incompatible. When populations are isolated they diverge. Take modern dogs, and wolves. Eventually they will diverge to the point of incompatibility. Like the modern cat.
I agree to much of what you said, but have seen no observations of mutations that produce speciation, and since my theoretical position doesn't hypothesize about it, all I can say is good for you if this is what it takes for you to explain the variety of gene pools go for it, and I hope you discover something useful. I agree that evolutionary forces are at work, but they break down and become nonsensical the closer one gets to the beginning. This is operation of the natural world that was so nicely explained by Darwin's work; However This would suppose that life didn't come from a common ancestor at all, but that an entire gene pool of breedable organisms evolved at the same time.
You are confusing knowledge, truth and science. Science is the scientific study of things. Knowledge is what is being studied. Truth is what we are all striving to uncover.
Investigation through the scientific method does science make.
Your right this is semantics, and I have done a poor job. Thanks for the great defs.
I would define Scientific Study as the careful use of reason and logic guided by long standing principles of investigation. . There is a concept that has a huge impact on scientific study, and that is beliefs and assumptions, the speculation that yields to fruitful hypothesis. That is why I made the comment that creation theory like any theory really cannot be scientifically deduced; that is I said that creation would only lead back to itself. All the evidence I can gain, the science I uncover, the knowledge I gain, and the truth I find, when taken back apart through a deductive process these things will be heavily influenced by the speculative process of the hypothesis, the hypothosis dictates what I should measure, observe, or calculate, it guides investigation and determines what the investigator looks at. For example you might not speculate about the things I would speculate about when investigating from different theoretical and hypothetical frameworks. Science is firstly an inductive process. I digress.
I would define science how you explain knowledge; that is that any decent definition of science will include the concept of knowledge. I would define knowledge as what is being gained, and agree with what you said about truth, but would define it as the view of how things actually are and were from an all-knowing perspective, that is that it is the right explanation of every observation