Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,628 Year: 4,885/9,624 Month: 233/427 Week: 43/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 121 of 304 (292710)
03-06-2006 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by jar
03-06-2006 11:11 AM


Re: No Claims Faith?
I don't HAVE a grass scenario. I don't understand what on earth you are talking about. If grass is found in the higher strata and not the lower, then obviously that is because it was on the land and not in the ocean. I have no idea about pollen and seeds. What IS your point anyway??? What, you want me to figure out how those things got into the lower strata? Is that what you are claiming? I don't know. All I know is that grass didn't run to high ground, it had to already be there. That's sufficient for the point Schraf raised and you are just being an irritant and what was that other word you branded me with yesterday?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 03-06-2006 11:11 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by jar, posted 03-06-2006 11:30 AM Faith has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1073 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 122 of 304 (292711)
03-06-2006 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
03-06-2006 10:35 AM


That is hardly staggaring evidence, Faith. Evidence in favor of a flood suggests that evidence is better explained by the flood, but as everyone here has pointed out time and time again, your 'evidence' is easily explained within the old earth model, if not better.
You have to present evidence on WHY the flood is a better explanation.
How can the flood be a better explanation for the stratigraphy when you can't even tell us how limestone or dolomite can precipitate from flood waters?
Who the hell cares about the friggin rates of sedimentation when you can't even offer evidence it's POSSIBLE!!
Your statements are nothing but empty rhetoric and arguments from incredulity. You are refusing to go into the details of 'why' because you don't know how to do it - you are simply too ignorant of both old earth and young earth models.
And you ignored every single point I've made to date.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 10:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:18 AM roxrkool has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 123 of 304 (292712)
03-06-2006 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by roxrkool
03-06-2006 11:17 AM


Who the hell cares about the friggin rates of sedimentation when you can't even offer evidence it's POSSIBLE!!
Who the hell cares about your friggin opinion either. Not I, that's for sure.
You can't read either.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-06-2006 11:21 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by roxrkool, posted 03-06-2006 11:17 AM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by roxrkool, posted 03-06-2006 11:22 AM Faith has replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1073 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 124 of 304 (292713)
03-06-2006 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Faith
03-06-2006 11:18 AM


What the heck are you talking about? What opinion? That you don't know crap? That's pretty damn obvious.
HOW DO FLOOD WATERS PRECIPITATE LIMESTONE AND DOLOMITE?
If you cannot answer that question, then your incredulity over sedimentation rates is IRRELEVANT!
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-06-2006 11:22 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:18 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:23 AM roxrkool has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 125 of 304 (292714)
03-06-2006 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
03-06-2006 11:12 AM


Re: Parsimony
There was no miracle involved with the Flood. It was a completely natural event.
So you believe that the water got here naturally, and left here naturally? OK, I think this would be the perfect time for the evidence.
A reason the Flood is a better explanation for the fossil record is that huge quantities of wet sediments were involved, staggering quantities, that captured these dead things pretty obviously at one time and not piece by piece over millions of years, and then were subjected to tectonic forces that compressed them and reared the mountains.
The reason why it isn't a better explanation is that it fails to explain all the things we see. The geology/evolution explanation does a great job of explaining it. The thing that explains the most in the most detail, with experimental evidence, is the better explanation.
I still don't see the Flood hypothesis explaining the whole shebang nearly as well, and I see no experimental evidence that would confirm things. How would we be able to interpret this evidence even if we had it? Geology as we know it is probably wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:05 PM Modulous has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 126 of 304 (292715)
03-06-2006 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by roxrkool
03-06-2006 11:22 AM


Sorry you are so obtuse about what I'm saying. It's really very simple. Perhaps you need to take a rest for a while. Clearly this is too hard on you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by roxrkool, posted 03-06-2006 11:22 AM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by roxrkool, posted 03-06-2006 11:26 AM Faith has replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1073 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 127 of 304 (292716)
03-06-2006 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
03-06-2006 11:23 AM


No, I'm sick and tired of everyone asking you clear questions and you whining your way out of them.
How do flood waters precipitate limestone and dolomite? Simple question.
If you cannot answer that question, your entire argument that the flood offers a better explanation for a primarily marine global stratigraphy is garbage.
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-06-2006 11:27 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:23 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:31 AM roxrkool has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34059
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 128 of 304 (292717)
03-06-2006 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
03-06-2006 11:17 AM


On Grass
Faith, you have a lot on your plate right now and so we can put this off for awhile. But grass is an interesting problem, a major one, for flood supporters.
Think about what we should see related to grass if the Flood story happened to be true and perhaps we can discuss it in another thread one day.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:17 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 129 of 304 (292718)
03-06-2006 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by roxrkool
03-06-2006 11:26 AM


The idea that discrete sediments were laid down over multiplied millions of years with discrete fossil contents is what is absurd. I don't have to explain the flood, YOU have to deal with this absurdity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by roxrkool, posted 03-06-2006 11:26 AM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by roxrkool, posted 03-06-2006 11:36 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 131 by Belfry, posted 03-06-2006 11:38 AM Faith has replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1073 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 130 of 304 (292719)
03-06-2006 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
03-06-2006 11:31 AM


Faith, stop it. I CAN explain sedimentation rates using science, but it's patently clear you cannot follow that explanation or will refuse the evidence.
You are again trying to weasel your way out of providing evidence and it's been made clear to you this thread is for YOU to provide evidence for a flood. Do it.
You have stated over and over again that the flood offers a better explanation for the stratigraphy. However, unless you can explain how flood waters can precipitate limestone and dolomite, which make up a large portion of the global stratigrapy, your statement about the flood is FALSE.
So, once again, how can flood waters precipitate limestone and dolomite? Simple question.
Ed. exchanged 'deposit' for 'precipitate'
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-06-2006 11:39 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:31 AM Faith has not replied

Belfry
Member (Idle past 5170 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 131 of 304 (292720)
03-06-2006 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
03-06-2006 11:31 AM


Absurd how?
Faith, I've been lurking and following this discussion. This idea seems to be your primary focus:
quote:
The idea that discrete sediments were laid down over multiplied millions of years with discrete fossil contents is what is absurd.
But so far you have not explained how it is absurd, what leads you to that conclusion. Instead, you have supported it nothing but your own personal incredulity and implied ad hominem (suggesting that it would be obvious to anyone who thought about it). In other words, with nothing substantial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:08 PM Belfry has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 132 of 304 (292723)
03-06-2006 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
03-06-2006 11:12 AM


Re: Parsimony
The volume of sediment is a bigger problem for the Flood (see Message 38 for a specific example).
The idea that all fossils were formed at the same time is another one that requires evidence. Geologists realised long ago that the fossil record was best explained by different species beng present in the region at different times.
And as has already been pointed out the timescales for mountain raising are another problem for the Flood idea.
So on every point you mention, the Flood is a worse explanation, not a better one as you claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:55 AM PaulK has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 133 of 304 (292726)
03-06-2006 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by PaulK
03-06-2006 11:52 AM


Re: Parsimony
All I claimed, way back at the beginning, was that the Flood is a better epxlanation for the incredible abundance of fossils found everywhere on earth, especially marine fossils in the mountains and deserts, where they are UNIVERSALLY, and not just locally, and that the slow deposition explanation of the strata is absurd, clearly water was requried to form all that whether we know how or not.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-06-2006 11:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2006 11:52 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2006 12:08 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 140 by roxrkool, posted 03-06-2006 12:09 PM Faith has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22614
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 134 of 304 (292728)
03-06-2006 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
03-06-2006 11:08 AM


Dating answered, on to limestone sedimentation
Faith writes:
They ARE older, just not as old as evo theory claims. I always opt out of radiometric dating discussions as I don't understand it well enough.
Okay, that's fine, no flood scenario explanations for fossil ordering or radiometric dates of geological layers.
Next question:
How does a flood scenario explain limestone layers like those of the White Cliffs of Dover?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:08 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 12:00 PM Percy has replied
 Message 142 by zephyr, posted 03-06-2006 12:17 PM Percy has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 135 of 304 (292730)
03-06-2006 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Percy
03-06-2006 11:57 AM


Re: Dating answered, on to limestone sedimentation
Better than slow sedimentation rates explains it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Percy, posted 03-06-2006 11:57 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2006 12:03 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 03-06-2006 12:06 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 144 by Percy, posted 03-06-2006 12:35 PM Faith has replied
 Message 181 by lfen, posted 03-06-2006 10:39 PM 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