Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood = many coincidences
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 301 of 445 (609008)
03-15-2011 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by b.r. bloomberg
03-15-2011 6:25 PM


Re: Flood geology
isn't the scripture writings inspired by the same author
According to some, but in reality it is more like the imagination of at least several hundred men.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by b.r. bloomberg, posted 03-15-2011 6:25 PM b.r. bloomberg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by b.r. bloomberg, posted 03-29-2011 9:59 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 302 of 445 (609009)
03-15-2011 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by b.r. bloomberg
03-15-2011 12:45 AM


Re: Flood geology
b.r. bloomberg writes:
geologically speaking there is more than enough water to cover even everest by a mile or two,however what makes you think it was h20??when jesus said that whoever drinks of the water that i give him mean you will never thirst for h2o molecules????!!!!!!
Is this why archaeologists and geologists can't find any evidence of a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago when it was supposed to have occurred?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by b.r. bloomberg, posted 03-15-2011 12:45 AM b.r. bloomberg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by b.r. bloomberg, posted 03-29-2011 10:08 PM Coyote has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 303 of 445 (609011)
03-15-2011 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by b.r. bloomberg
03-15-2011 6:22 PM


Re: Flood geology
so what did he mean,grace or whatever,or h2o.
Who, Jesus or the author of Genesis?
The author of Genesis meant water. When I read passages like this:
On that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. [...] For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.
What can I say? If that is not actually about rain, and a flood, and water, and the Ark floating, but about something else entirely, then by the same token the Gospels might really be about a rabbit learning to play the trombone.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by b.r. bloomberg, posted 03-15-2011 6:22 PM b.r. bloomberg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by b.r. bloomberg, posted 03-29-2011 10:11 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(1)
Message 304 of 445 (609282)
03-18-2011 1:02 AM


By observation and reasoning one can see there is enough water to have covered the whole earth.
First one should see not the present high mts, themselves from the flood year crashes of the continents, but instead much lower mts or hills. So covering them is not demanding of so much water as it would now.
Second there would not of been the great depths of the seas as now. the seas were dug out by the action of the flood year and so after the flood there was room for the water to drain off the land.
Then there is all the water contained in the pores of rock beneath the ground. i once read that if it was taken out the earh would be drowned by tens of feet or so.
then there is other concentrations of water in areas under the earth.
then there is the underground water.
Then the water in the atmosphere, ice, surface .
So in fact there is plenty of water to have flooded the earth for about half of the flood year. Then it drained away.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines between "paragraphs".

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by bluescat48, posted 03-18-2011 1:45 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 306 by Coyote, posted 03-18-2011 11:30 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 330 by b.r. bloomberg, posted 03-29-2011 10:15 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 305 of 445 (609285)
03-18-2011 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Robert Byers
03-18-2011 1:02 AM


By observation and reasoning one can see there is enough water to have covered the whole earth.
First one should see not the present high mts, themselves from the flood year crashes of the continents, but instead much lower mts or hills. So covering them is not demanding of so much water as it would now.
Evidence please.
Second there would not of been the great depths of the seas as now. the seas were dug out by the action of the flood year and so after the flood there was room for the water to drain off the land.
Evidence Please
Then there is all the water contained in the pores of rock beneath the ground. i once read that if it was taken out the earh would be drowned by tens of feet or so.
Well you read wrong
then there is other concentrations of water in areas under the earth.
not much
then there is the underground water.
Tied to molecules & ions which is under extreme pressure & heat and would biol the ocean is released poaching all life on your ark
Then the water in the atmosphere, ice, surface .
Still not enough
So in fact there is plenty of water to have flooded the earth for about half of the flood year. Then it drained away.
Drained where?
Also, if the water was powerful enough to form the high mountains, that boat would have been swamped.
The whole idea is nothing but a myth. No evidence of any global flood in the last 65 million years at least.
No flood at the time the Biblical flood supposedly occurred, no genetic bottleneck, To much diversity of genetics, too many species of animals, Too small a boat to house the animals + all the food they would need for the duration. There are so many things that point away from the flood idea, that even with enough water, the idea is absurd.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Robert Byers, posted 03-18-2011 1:02 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by b.r. bloomberg, posted 03-29-2011 10:44 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 306 of 445 (609322)
03-18-2011 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Robert Byers
03-18-2011 1:02 AM


A test
By observation and reasoning one can see there is enough water to have covered the whole earth.
If that's the case, we can do a test. You can actually do this yourself.
The global flood is most often placed at about 4,350 years ago. At that time period we are dealing with soils, not geology. Soils of that age are extremely common, and occur almost everywhere--probably in your back yard.
You could learn a little bit about soil science and do a small excavation in your back yard. If there was a flood of that magnitude there should be evidence in the soil layers at about 4,350 years ago. This could take the form of a significant water-deposited layer of some kind or a discontinuity due to erosion. Either way, it should show up in your back yard and most everywhere else.
Or you could visit an archaeological excavation that cross-cuts that time period. Archaeological sites are easier to date than soil layers as there are a lot more materials which can be used for dating.
You don't have to take our word for this--you can perform this test yourself.
Get back to me with the results, eh?
(By the way, I have tested somewhere over a hundred archaeological sites that cross-cut that time period. No evidence of a flood in any of them.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Robert Byers, posted 03-18-2011 1:02 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Coyote, posted 03-21-2011 11:26 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 308 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-22-2011 12:42 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied
 Message 311 by Robert Byers, posted 03-23-2011 12:56 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 307 of 445 (609657)
03-21-2011 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Coyote
03-18-2011 11:30 AM


Bump for Robert Byers
In case you missed the above post.
I would hate to think that you are trying to ignore the wonderful test I described in that post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Coyote, posted 03-18-2011 11:30 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 308 of 445 (609660)
03-22-2011 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by Coyote
03-18-2011 11:30 AM


Re: A test - the "young Earth" vs "old Earth" problem
I must presume that Robert Byers is a young Earth creationist (YEC). If such is actually true, your argument (and any argument against YECism) can be reduced down to some variation of "there is massive evidence that the YEC time frame is very wrong". YEC is wrong starting right at the Y.
As I see it (and this is also the admin-mode perspective), outside of the "Dates and Dating" forum, the old Earth evo side needs to argue from the "presuming the Earth is YEC young" perspective.
Very possibly this consideration deserves its own topic. Alas, the non-admin mode is only capable of doing "Proposed New Topics" (PNTs) that the admin-mode would be inclined to reject.
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Coyote, posted 03-18-2011 11:30 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 309 of 445 (609763)
03-22-2011 10:39 PM


Critical thinking and the flood
Much of what creationists post concerning the "global flood" is contradicted by empirical evidence. Perhaps if they were to follow this flow chart things would proceed more smoothly:

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by bluescat48, posted 03-22-2011 11:51 PM Coyote has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 310 of 445 (609771)
03-22-2011 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Coyote
03-22-2011 10:39 PM


Re: Critical thinking and the flood
Good chart. Makes sense.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Coyote, posted 03-22-2011 10:39 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 311 of 445 (609785)
03-23-2011 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by Coyote
03-18-2011 11:30 AM


Re: A test
All sedimentary rock below the k-t line is from the flood year. nOt just mere soils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Coyote, posted 03-18-2011 11:30 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by bluescat48, posted 03-23-2011 4:33 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 313 by Admin, posted 03-23-2011 8:43 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 314 by jar, posted 03-23-2011 10:48 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 312 of 445 (609795)
03-23-2011 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by Robert Byers
03-23-2011 12:56 AM


Re: A test
All the rock below the K-T boundary is over 65,000,000 years old.
http://www.universetoday.com/39801/k-t-boundary/
The Above url writes:
What is the K-T boundary? K is actually the traditional abbreviation for the Cretaceous period, and T is the abbreviation for the Tertiary period. So the K-T boundary is the point in between the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods. Geologists have dated this period to about 65.5 million years ago.
Edited by bluescat48, : sticky key
Edited by bluescat48, : added ref

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Robert Byers, posted 03-23-2011 12:56 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 313 of 445 (609803)
03-23-2011 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by Robert Byers
03-23-2011 12:56 AM


Re: A test
Having not participated in this thread as Percy in over two months, I will now assume a moderation role.
Robert, the Forum Guidelines state:
  1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
The full content of your Message 311 was this:
Robert Byers writes:
All sedimentary rock below the k-t line is from the flood year. nOt just mere soils.
Could you please provide evidence for the claim that sedimentary rock below the K-T line is from the flood year.
For those of the countervailing view: Could you please provide evidence for the claim that sedimentary rock below the K-T line is from 65 million years ago and before.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Robert Byers, posted 03-23-2011 12:56 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 314 of 445 (609808)
03-23-2011 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by Robert Byers
03-23-2011 12:56 AM


perhaps some help for Robert.
It could be that you are just plain ignorant and so here is a link to the thread "The Grand Canyon from the Bottom Up.
It totally refutes that anything from below the K-T barrier can be from a single year.
Enjoy and please stop making Christians and Christianity look so totally stupid. You embarrass us.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Robert Byers, posted 03-23-2011 12:56 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 315 of 445 (610071)
03-26-2011 1:39 AM


it was just a side comment.
Anyways. This creationist sees the k-t line as the flood line. That is that all sedimentary rock and fossils therein are from the collection and deposition of the flood year., The rocks and fossils above this from events a few centuries after the flood.
In fact the acceptance of the k-t line in modern geology and biology has been a great gain to yec creationism or many of us. they did the work to demonstrate a great sudden change in fauna and flora on earth from a disaster.
We just know it was a flood disaster and not a rock from space.

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Coyote, posted 03-26-2011 11:10 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 317 by fearandloathing, posted 03-26-2011 12:08 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 318 by fearandloathing, posted 03-26-2011 12:08 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 319 by Admin, posted 03-26-2011 1:54 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 320 by jar, posted 03-26-2011 1:58 PM Robert Byers has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024