Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,137 Year: 5,394/9,624 Month: 419/323 Week: 59/204 Day: 1/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17851
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 256 of 377 (620255)
06-15-2011 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Buzsaw
06-14-2011 11:37 PM


Re: The Other POV
quote:
Zen, my position has never been that the rain or flood skewed the dating. It has always been that the implications of the make-up of the pre-flood planet and atmosphere would be the reason for skewing the conclusions reached via research methodology of conventional science.
And if you could give a good reason for thinking that that was even possible we wouldn't laugh at you so much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Buzsaw, posted 06-14-2011 11:37 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 257 of 377 (620269)
06-15-2011 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Buzsaw
06-14-2011 11:37 PM


Re: The Other POV
Hi Buz,
It wasn't so long ago that you were restricted from posting in the science forums because of your inability or unwillingness to argue from evidence. You were permitted back in to the science forums after committing to keep your arguments focused on evidence, but you're not doing this. Efforts to reach an understanding with you about what was desired in terms of evidence have not been successful.
You only just joined this thread, I haven't interacted with you in this thread, and I'm only telling you precisely the same things I have been telling you in other threads and in PMs for quite some time now, so I have no compunction whatsoever in taking this action.
You leave me no choice but to reinstate your restriction from the science forums. Please do not participate in threads in the science forums from this time forward.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Buzsaw, posted 06-14-2011 11:37 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 355 days)
Posts: 99
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


Message 258 of 377 (620378)
06-15-2011 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Minnemooseus
06-15-2011 12:28 AM


Re: Buz's old Earth/young life perspective - A topic elsewhere
Unfortunately he is banned from the Science forums, maybe you could bring up my query with him in your debate? Namely -
Why do the radiometric ages from lunar and asteroid samples so closely match those from the oldest terrestrial samples, which according to him have been distorted by the pre-flood conditions on Earth? Is it a coincidence or is God playing a joke on us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-15-2011 12:28 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-15-2011 11:58 PM Boof has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 377 (620379)
06-15-2011 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Boof
06-15-2011 11:23 PM


Off-topic Buz position side note - Don't reply
As per the subtitle "You're trying to have it both ways", initiated here, Buz's position accepts (or is at least agnostic) about the c. 4.5 billion year age of the Earth. It that sense, he is NOT a young Earth creationist (YEC). As such (as I see it), he's also willing to accept those old lunar etc. radiometric dates.
Per animal life on Earth - He's a full blown YEC. It's those old Earth dates of rocks associated with his "young life" that he has problems with. Some sort of "part of the Earth is ancient, but large parts are much younger than the mainstream scientific perspective" thing.
Yes, it's a convoluted position. That's why I tried to isolate it in a "Great Debate" - To try to straighten things out without his (more or less) unique position mucking up other topics.
All this is off-topic here and should not be discussed further. And I have the special privilege of dealing with Buz one-on-one in the GD topic.
Personal Message me if you wish to discuss this further.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Boof, posted 06-15-2011 11:23 PM Boof has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4477 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(1)
Message 260 of 377 (620385)
06-16-2011 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Admin
06-14-2011 9:26 AM


Re: Summation
I'm just replying to the question with a answer from a common creationist point of view.
I'm not derailing anything.
I don't understand the claim that my replys are only assertions?
Its a reply!
How can there be a conversation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Admin, posted 06-14-2011 9:26 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Admin, posted 06-16-2011 10:00 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13084
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
(1)
Message 261 of 377 (620406)
06-16-2011 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Robert Byers
06-16-2011 2:59 AM


Re: Summation
Hi Robert,
In your posts you always tell us what you believe, but you never tell us the evidence and rationale you used to reach your conclusions. If you like you could try describing the evidence that leads you to conclude that the layers in the geologic column were laid down by a single great event. For as long as you support your assertions with evidence you can continue participation, not only in this thread but in any thread.
What I'd like to avoid seeing in any thread is repeated statements of viewpoint with nary any supporting evidence. It turns the rest of the thread's participants into beggars for evidence with the effect that the topic itself receives little attention. When I see that pattern I step in. Both you and Buzsaw are in this category, and you both seem to believe that merely stating what you think happened is evidence.
So go ahead and resume participation, but don't forget the evidence. If I don't see evidence I will again ask you to cease participating in this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Robert Byers, posted 06-16-2011 2:59 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 377 (620589)
06-18-2011 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Coyote
06-14-2011 10:36 AM


Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
Coyote, thanks for the links. I will look at them. I havn't been on for a few days and didn't get a chance to respond till now and will give a more detailed response after I look at the info you provided. Sorry for the late response.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2011 10:36 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1815 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 263 of 377 (620962)
06-21-2011 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Dr Adequate
06-14-2011 10:25 PM


Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
Arguably they're not a good example of what creationists should be looking for, since they were caused by a natural dam breaking and a sheet of water sweeping laterally across the landscape.
That must be the 'de-flooding'. Which is, somehow, evidence for a flood. Never mind that it happens without global floods, also...
Yah, it's confusing for some people. Such is YEC.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2011 10:25 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 264 of 377 (620975)
06-22-2011 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Coyote
06-14-2011 10:36 AM


Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
Coyote, the channeled Scablands article was interesting in a lot of ways.
I see your points and all I can say is are the dates accurate according to how they dated these localized floods? I can't refute your argument based on the dates of these local floods. I have no proof of the worlwide flood when it comes to "regular" Science. All my info is from guys like Steve austin and Creationist sites.
Is it possible that all of the waters from the flood are in the oceans today? The mountains were "hills" before the flood and didn't "sprout " up till afterwards because of plate tectonics?Or catastophic plate tech? The earth's surface was maybe a little more level back then. Also the water poured into the deep valleys in the oceans afterwards when tectonic movement took place.
So basically the moutains rose and the valleys deepened which poured most if not all of the water back into the oceans. IMO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2011 10:36 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-22-2011 5:25 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 266 by Percy, posted 06-22-2011 8:15 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 269 by Coyote, posted 06-22-2011 10:31 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 270 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-22-2011 12:10 PM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 271 by Taq, posted 06-23-2011 6:54 PM Chuck77 has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 265 of 377 (620977)
06-22-2011 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Chuck77
06-22-2011 4:57 AM


Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
Is it possible that all of the waters from the flood are in the oceans today? The mountains were "hills" before the flood and didn't "sprout " up till afterwards because of plate tectonics?Or catastophic plate tech?
Genesis 7:19 makes it clear that there were "high mountains" pre-flood; and Genesis 8:7 and 8:13 describe the water as drying up from the fac of the Earth, not flowing away.
As for catastrophic tectonic events, might they not have been a little too catastrophic? I don't see what you're describing happening without tsunamis, which would have been inconvenient for Noah.
Myself I don't think creationists need to try to hard to explain the how of the Flood, since your hypothesis involves a god with miraculous powers who can take care of these details. But the question of whether it happened at all is much more awkward.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Chuck77, posted 06-22-2011 4:57 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 266 of 377 (620986)
06-22-2011 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Chuck77
06-22-2011 4:57 AM


The Primacy of Evidence
Chuck77 writes:
Is it possible that all of the waters from the flood are in the oceans today?
Sure it's possible all the waters from the flood are in today's oceans, but let me ask you the same type of question. Is it possible you went to Dunkin' Donuts this morning? Sure it's possible. But did you? Is there any evidence that you went to Dunkin' Donuts this morning?
It's evidence that's important, not the possibility. Everything's that physically possible is under consideration, and it's the evidence that tells us which of the enormous number of possibilities actually happened.
So the question you want to ask about the waters of the flood isn't whether it's possible they're in today's oceans. A much better question to ask is whether there's any evidence of what happened to the waters. Another question you should ask first is whether there's any evidence water even covered the entire Earth at one time.
As I'm fond of saying, things that actually happen leave evidence behind. If around 4500 years ago water covered the Earth, and if the mountains rose and the valleys deepened, then there must be evidence of these events. Every geological event of Earth's history is accepted by geologists because of evidence, and they'll include the flood as one of those events as soon as evidence of the flood is discovered.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Chuck77, posted 06-22-2011 4:57 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 267 of 377 (620995)
06-22-2011 9:22 AM


Rates are a problem for creationists
It's been alluded to, but the big problem with condensing events such as plate tectonics into a short time period is that there are certain characteristics of the events that cannot be scaled. E.g., radioactive decay releases heat and radiation, and X amount of radioactive decay releases Y amount of heat and radiation no matter the time period, so accelerated nuclear decay would leave subtle traces such as a molten Earth and all life destroyed twice over.
Similarly, mountain building by plate tectonics is inefficient (thermodynamically speaking) and releases heat, and creates earthquakes and tsunamis. It's difficult if not impossible to quantify the effects of catastrophic plate tectonics but it's pretty certain no life could survive it. And that's not even considering the extreme silliness of the scenarios that have been proposed for catastrophic plate tectonics.
IOW, the fact that we are here is strong evidence that plate tectonics and nuclear decay and other process have taken place over time scales many orders of magnitude greater than YEC time scales.

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by jar, posted 06-22-2011 9:25 AM JonF has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34133
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 268 of 377 (620996)
06-22-2011 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by JonF
06-22-2011 9:22 AM


Re: Rates are a problem for creationists
Yup. I have yet to find a YEC that can explain how the lowest exposed material at the Grand Canyon got formed.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by JonF, posted 06-22-2011 9:22 AM JonF has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 269 of 377 (621003)
06-22-2011 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Chuck77
06-22-2011 4:57 AM


Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
I see your points and all I can say is are the dates accurate according to how they dated these localized floods? I can't refute your argument based on the dates of these local floods. I have no proof of the worlwide flood when it comes to "regular" Science. All my info is from guys like Steve austin and Creationist sites.
The dates for the local post-ice age floods fit within an overall framework, which includes fauna and flora, geology, sedimentation rates, and so on. The whole package fits together nicely, as worked out by scientists over 100+ years. If there were any real dating problems you can bet that various scientists and advanced students would be all over them, trying to figure out where the problems were. A good way to become well-known quickly in a field is to find the answer to a long-standing puzzle. But at this point, the dating of the post-ice age floods is pretty well understood, as that site I referred you to shows.
You note that you find no proof for the worldwide flood in "regular" science and that you get your support from creationist sources. That should be a clue.
Keep checking out the real science sites, and perhaps you will learn a few things. The information is out there, in plain sight.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Chuck77, posted 06-22-2011 4:57 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4620 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 270 of 377 (621014)
06-22-2011 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Chuck77
06-22-2011 4:57 AM


Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
Chuck77 writes:
I see your points and all I can say is are the dates accurate according to how they dated these localized floods? I can't refute your argument based on the dates of these local floods. I have no proof of the worlwide flood when it comes to "regular" Science. All my info is from guys like Steve austin and Creationist sites.
I'll add that if you'd like to read a careful and lucid explanation of why we can have confidence in the accuracy of current dating methods, please take a look at RAZD's Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread. Very informative.
Good learning!

Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Chuck77, posted 06-22-2011 4:57 AM Chuck77 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