Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 1756 of 1896 (717718)
01-30-2014 5:32 PM


Cool Meander
Sand was deposited in the riverbed, mud on the floodplain. Then it lithified, then the landscape was eroded. The sandstone was more resistant to erosion than was the surrounding siltstone and shale, so it now stands 100 ft higher than the surrounding plain. Is that cool or what?

Replies to this message:
 Message 1757 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-30-2014 6:00 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 1761 by roxrkool, posted 01-30-2014 10:00 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 1757 of 1896 (717720)
01-30-2014 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1756 by Dr Adequate
01-30-2014 5:32 PM


Re: Cool Meander
Oh good, I was trying to imagine the light source coming from the right side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1756 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-30-2014 5:32 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 1758 of 1896 (717723)
01-30-2014 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1726 by Faith
01-30-2014 4:00 AM


Re: The nature of science, theory etc.
Faith writes:
There were no polar caps before the Flood; they formed as a result of the Flood.
This is a bald declaration with no evidence supporting it, and with all the ice core evidence that Frako did mention contradicting it.
The glaciers also didn't exist before the Flood but formed afterward.
Another bald declaration with no supporting evidence.
And you can also answer how Noah managed to transport all those human exclusive parasites without his whole crew and him dying?
Noah was of the early men who lived nearly a thousand years, still with extraordinary health and vitality even after the Fall.
More bald declarations and still no evidence. Even your Biblical claims have no foundation because the Bible does not describe Noah as having "extraordinary health and vitality." All the Bible says is, "Noah was a righteous man, blameless..." The Bible also relates God telling Noah, "I have found you righteous..." There's nothing in the Bible about Noah's "extraordinary health and vitality." Apparently you not only make things up about science, you even make things up about the Bible. And you still haven't explained how the huge humber of human parasites could have ridden out the flood in the guts and skin of a small band of humans without killing them by their sheer numbers.
All kinds of diseases we are vulnerable to were unheard of for them, but began to proliferate after the Flood.
Yet another bald declaration with no evidence, and the evidence we do have contradicts your claim, since human specific parasites have been found in ancient human feces that predate both your flood and your supposed creation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1726 by Faith, posted 01-30-2014 4:00 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1759 of 1896 (717724)
01-30-2014 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1727 by Faith
01-30-2014 4:03 AM


Re: The nature of science, theory etc.
Faith writes:
No, I don't follow those arguments.
That's because radiometric dating is one of the essential bodies of evidence about which you're ignorant. We're all just agog at your ability to convince yourself that your scenarios make sense while fully aware of your ignorance in many areas.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1727 by Faith, posted 01-30-2014 4:03 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1760 by Coyote, posted 01-30-2014 9:20 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(4)
Message 1760 of 1896 (717726)
01-30-2014 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1759 by Percy
01-30-2014 8:41 PM


Re: The nature of science, theory etc.
Faith writes:
No, I don't follow those arguments.
That's because radiometric dating is one of the essential bodies of evidence about which you're ignorant. We're all just agog at your ability to convince yourself that your scenarios make sense while fully aware of your ignorance in many areas.
--Percy
Dating, particularly radiometric dating, is the death-knell for the young earth belief. That's why YECs just can't accept it, and have to deny, misrepresent, obfuscate or just plain ignore all of the evidence that shows their beliefs are incorrect. Mostly they just can't deal with what the dating shows.
We have seen ample evidence of this in several threads during the past few months.
--Poor Mindspawn was sent screaming into the night, unable to accept the evidence that RAZD provided to him.
--Faith has resorted to absolute denial of the evidence that virtually everyone else in the world can clearly see in an effort to support her beliefs.
And dating also dooms all the various scenarios that YECs come up with to try and explain a global flood. The bible puts that flood at about 4,350 years ago but there is no evidence to support a global flood at that date. So, they just hunt back in time a few years, a few thousand years, a few hundred thousand years, a few million years, or what the heck, a couple of hundred million years and pick something--anything--that might be misrepresented as a global flood. And then they run with it, ignoring all the problems that extreme dating creates! Problems? Well, such as placing the global flood some 250 million years ago, as some do, means placing modern humans back to that date. Unfortunately for them, the evidence for modern humans only goes back some 200,000 years.
So, dating alone is enough to bust the YEC beliefs. No wonder they are so adamant that scientists are just making things up.
But as we have seen from Faith's posts, it isn't scientists who are just making things up...

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1759 by Percy, posted 01-30-2014 8:41 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 1761 of 1896 (717728)
01-30-2014 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1756 by Dr Adequate
01-30-2014 5:32 PM


Re: Cool Meander
Awesome!!!
Is that another of those underground canyons?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1756 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-30-2014 5:32 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1768 by JonF, posted 01-31-2014 8:23 AM roxrkool has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1762 of 1896 (717730)
01-31-2014 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1738 by dwise1
01-30-2014 10:24 AM


Re: The nature of science, theory etc.
It can't happen. I KNOW there was a worldwide Flood. I may come to see particulars about the Flood differently than I do now, but I'll never come to believe there was no Flood. That's because I know God's word is God's word.
God's Word is written in the rocks. You persistently deny God's Word.
The Bible is only a book.
Dear DW: You aren't thinking and this gets awfully tiresome. If the rocks deny the written Word it's the rocks that are wrong. But the rocks don't deny anything, it's fallen human minds interpreting the rocks that deny God's word, and I don't have to listen to fallen human minds. If you interpret the rocks to contradict the Word you are wrong about the rocks.
It's a terrible mistake not to appreciate the amazing fact that God gave us revelation in written form, which is suited to help our darkened fallen minds understand His creation and everything else of importance, which otherwise we get wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1738 by dwise1, posted 01-30-2014 10:24 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1766 by Heathen, posted 01-31-2014 4:56 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1767 by Pollux, posted 01-31-2014 5:53 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1771 by Percy, posted 01-31-2014 9:42 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1763 of 1896 (717731)
01-31-2014 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1739 by Atheos canadensis
01-30-2014 10:38 AM


Re: dinosaur again
ABE: Hundreds of thousands of drownings don't say anything about the huge numbers of fossils all over the world; what's to fossilize all those drowned animals? /ABE Predators are going to get them in short order.
I don't get your question about rapid burial being required for fossilization. Of course it's required. You have to show that other circumstances provide the conditions, and provide them for a sufficient number of victims.
ABE: You've also got to get them embedded in identifiable layers.
Edited by Faith, : Reworded first paragraph for clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1739 by Atheos canadensis, posted 01-30-2014 10:38 AM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1779 by Atheos canadensis, posted 01-31-2014 1:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 1764 of 1896 (717732)
01-31-2014 12:17 AM



  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1765 of 1896 (717733)
01-31-2014 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1741 by RAZD
01-30-2014 11:40 AM


Re: faults and erosion
There is also a much larger rise than your "mound" of the plateau at the west end of the canyon ... and we see fault lines there. ... crossing the canyon.
The cracks I'm talking about OCCURRED IN THE UPPERMOST STRATA A MILE DEEP ABOVE THE CURRENT RIM OF THE GRAND CANYON. THOSE CRACKS NO LONGER EXIST. THEY WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN BREAKING UP THE STRATA WHICH ALL WASHED AWAY, AND I THINK ALSO INSTRUMENTAL IN ADMITTING THE WATER WHICH WOULD HAVE CARVED THE CANYON. IN ANY CASE THERE IS NO LONGER ANY EVIDENCE OF THEM TO BE FOUND, EXCEPT IN THE GRAND STAIRCASE AREA WHERE THAT HIGHER LEVEL OF STRATA DIDN'T ALL GET WASHED AWAY AND IN WHICH YOU CAN SEE THE RESULTS OF EAST-WEST CRACKS TO THIS DAY.
There is no point in trying to compare them to existing faults.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : better choice of words in a couple places

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1741 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2014 11:40 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1772 by Percy, posted 01-31-2014 9:55 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1775 by herebedragons, posted 01-31-2014 11:24 AM Faith has replied
 Message 1801 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2014 8:08 AM Faith has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


(2)
Message 1766 of 1896 (717739)
01-31-2014 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1762 by Faith
01-31-2014 12:07 AM


Re: The nature of science, theory etc.
fallen human minds interpreting the rocks that deny God's word,
and you completely reject the possibility that it's fallen human minds interpreting God's word that deny the rocks?
Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1762 by Faith, posted 01-31-2014 12:07 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1769 by JonF, posted 01-31-2014 8:25 AM Heathen has not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


(2)
Message 1767 of 1896 (717742)
01-31-2014 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1762 by Faith
01-31-2014 12:07 AM


Re: The nature of science, theory etc.
#Rule 1. The Bible is always right.
#Rule 2. All evidence agrees with the Bible.
#Rule 3. Where the evidence disagrees with the Bible, see Rule 1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1762 by Faith, posted 01-31-2014 12:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1768 of 1896 (717746)
01-31-2014 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1761 by roxrkool
01-30-2014 10:00 PM


Re: Cool Meander
No, it's a sinuous ridge. A negative version of an incised meander.
{ABE} There were some cool images of sinuopus ridges posted at the old TWeb but I can't find them now.
Want another cool underground canyon?
I don't suppose you would have access to that paper? {/ABE}
Edited by JonF, : Add stuff

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1761 by roxrkool, posted 01-30-2014 10:00 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1769 of 1896 (717747)
01-31-2014 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1766 by Heathen
01-31-2014 4:56 AM


Re: The nature of science, theory etc.
and you completely reject the possibility that it's fallen human minds interpreting God's word that deny the rocks?
She's explicitly stated that she is infallible on the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1766 by Heathen, posted 01-31-2014 4:56 AM Heathen has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1770 of 1896 (717748)
01-31-2014 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1730 by Faith
01-30-2014 6:21 AM


Re: The nature of science, theory etc.
Faith writes:
Another puzzle to solve.
More dissembling from you. The coral data is consilient with all the other dating data. There is no puzzle.
It would indeed be a puzzle if some dating data indicated a young earth and other an old earth, but all dating data indicates an old earth.
Very very cold. Wouldn't the Ice Age have been very very cold? Glaciers all the way down into the temperate zones etc.
The last ice age ended by around 10,000 years ago. There is no evidence of an ice age beginning 4300 years ago. You're making things up again.
Well, if God wants to save you He'll save you and you'll know it. Maybe we all will.
Given how wrong you've been about the Lord's word as recorded in the Bible, presuming to speak for God is a bit of a stretch for you, wouldn't you say?
It can't happen. I KNOW there was a worldwide Flood.
Again, it is not possible for you to know in any scientific sense that there was a worldwide Flood 4300 years ago, because there is no evidence that any such thing ever happened.
But also there IS evidence for the Flood:
  • The strata the strata the strata. Nothing else could have made the strata.
The strata of the geologic column are as far as can possibly be from what a flood would deposit. First and foremost, the heaviest and densest material would be at the bottom and the lightest and least dense at the top, but that's not what we find. The layers would differ and be ordered by size and density, but that's not what we find. Fossils would appear in no particular layer or order, but that's not what we find. Radiometric materials would date the same from top to bottom, but that's not what we find.
The strata we find in the geologic column are pretty much the same as those being deposited today beneath our lakes, seas and oceans all around the word. Sedimentary layers were formed by the same processes in the past as they are today.
  • The incredible abundance of fossils around the planet.
Certainly there are far more fossils than there could have been life in existence at the time of your supposed flood. There's even far more fossils than could have lived in the 2000 years before the flood. Just the amount of limestone alone is more than could have been deposited in a mere 2000 years, since the deposition rate is around 4 inches per year yielding a depth after 2000 years of about 700 feet. There's far, far more limestone than that in the geologic column.
  • The wrecked condition of the planet.
Leaving out what man has done to the planet, how could you have any criteria for what a wrecked planet looks like? Compared to the moon, Mars, Venus, Mercury and the other planets, the earth doesn't look wrecked at all. Far from it.
  • The lack of tectonic effects for some hundreds of millions of years as seen in the unruffled strata for that period on OE diagrams. Proves those hundreds of millions of years didn't exist.
You say this as if it hadn't been thoroughly rebutted. You've even been completely unable to describe why you think the region should have experienced more tectonic activity than it did. You just keep declaring, without any evidence, that it should have.
  • Flat slabness of the sedimentary rocks in the strata: proves they were laid down in water, all of them despite claims they couldn't have been, and that none of them was ever at the surface for any great length of time. We'll just have to explain the angle of repose somehow.
This is just another bald declaration with no supporting evidence. Any region of net deposition, whether terrestrial or marine, will be flat.
  • The absurdity of the OE scenarios of time periods attached to sedimentary rocks.
Just another bald declaration with no supporting evidence and literally megatons of evidence contradicting it.
  • Junk DNA (Massive genetic death as a result of the bottleneck) Also the percentage of heterozygosity in the human genome is no doubt much lower than it was before the Flood, but unfortunately there's no way to prove this. (It's probably evidence more for the Fall and against the ToE than the Flood anyway)
Now you're just making things up wholesale. There is no global genetic bottleneck from 4300 years ago, there is no evidence of any significant change in human heterozygosity over this period, and the evidence we do have rules it out. The amount of genetic variation between races rules it out all by itself since so much variation could not have occurred in so short a period of time.
  • These things may not be evident yet but I'd predict: Increasing genetic diseases, increasing mutations, increasing species extinctions.
Species are already going extinct at increasing rates, but we're the cause of that. As for your predictions of increasing genetic diseases and increasing mutations, good luck with that. Unless the laws of physics, chemistry or biology change, these will remain largely unchanged for the foreseeable future.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1730 by Faith, posted 01-30-2014 6:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024