Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(3)
Message 31 of 1896 (713332)
12-12-2013 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
12-12-2013 1:46 AM


Re: Muddy Water
Even if the minutiae seem to be ironclad they will have to give if the big picture can be established.
This is a fundamentally flawed approach. You have to look at the details in order to establish the big picture. In a universe of cause and effect it is the minutiae that create the big picture. It is the big picture that must give way.
It is not necessary to abandon your faith in order to accept the facts regarding the history of the earth. Surely, God also is in the details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 12-12-2013 1:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 12-12-2013 12:40 PM Dogmafood has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 32 of 1896 (713338)
12-12-2013 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
12-12-2013 1:46 AM


Re: Muddy Water
The minutiae are small things that you have observed in the present, you have no idea how a Flood would have affected them, none, you simply extrapolate from the present to your idea of the Flood. That's not an unreasonable way to approach it but it is never going to definitively defeat the Flood, but if I could get the big picture across that WOULD definitively defeat the Old Earth theory.
Curiously, the minutiae are the jigsaw puzzle pieces that fit together into the big picture -- so you can't build a big picture without them, and especially without them in the proper place and orientation.
When you try to build a different picture you have a lot of pieces that don't fit.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 12-12-2013 1:46 AM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 33 of 1896 (713341)
12-12-2013 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
12-11-2013 11:24 PM


Faith's position is even funnier.
Oh, OK. Faith would like me to remind everyone that not only would she like us to look only at the Grand Canyon when considering whether or not there was a worldwide flood, but she would also like us only to look at it from a distance so's we get a really poor view of it. And no peeking below the Great Unconformity. If you find yourself in danger of getting a glimpse of any actual rocks, hold the Bible in front of your eyes and pray to God for myopia.
She also claims that the very same flood created the strata of the grand canyon and then also eroded the canyon itself.
And she claims the Grand Canyon from the bottom up contains Rube Goldberg solutions.
She is a font of humor.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2013 11:24 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(6)
Message 34 of 1896 (713348)
12-12-2013 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Atheos canadensis
12-11-2013 11:40 PM


Re: Muddy Water
Am I the only one who is curious to hear the answers to the questions I've posed to Faith?
Ah, to be a new member again...
No, I lost my curiosity through experience.
Plainly, she's just not an honest person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-11-2013 11:40 PM Atheos canadensis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by dwise1, posted 12-12-2013 10:37 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(3)
Message 35 of 1896 (713351)
12-12-2013 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by New Cat's Eye
12-12-2013 10:11 AM


Re: Muddy Water
Plainly, she's just not an honest person.
She's a creationist. Creationists can't do honest. It just does not work for them and instead works against them. The common term for an honest creationist is "ex-creationist" and even, solely because of creationism's false theology, "ex-Christian".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-12-2013 10:11 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


(2)
Message 36 of 1896 (713355)
12-12-2013 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
12-12-2013 1:46 AM


Re: Drowning in Muddy Water
You know what, the strata themselves ARE evidence of the Flood. Yes, it's that simple, and if people weren't blinded by the theory of long ages per layer I think it should be easy to get it across. You want something more complex, citations and so on, but no, evidence of the Flood is everywhere really, but most tellingly in the strata.
Nonsense!
You admit to an age of about 4,350 years ago for the flood.
At that time period we are not dealing with geological strata, but with sediments--dirt!
I've tested well over 100 archaeological sites, with probably more than half of them encompassing the 4,350 years ago time period. Not a one was within a geological stratum, nor did any produce evidence of a flood.
Instead what we see is continuity across that time period: continuity of human cultures, fauna and flora, mtDNA, soil buildup, etc.
But I guess that's just more evidence for you to ignore, misrepresent, obfuscate or deny.

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 29 by Faith, posted 12-12-2013 1:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 1:46 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 37 of 1896 (713358)
12-12-2013 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
12-12-2013 1:46 AM


Re: Muddy Water
You think I'm just being rude I guess but when I say the Old Earth explanation of the layers is "ridiculous" I mean it IS ridiculous, and I actually wish it would be taken as a serious criticism.
But it isn't, any more than "You're stupid" would be a serious argument.
For every stratum in the Grand Canyon, we can point to an actual process that is right now laying down similar strata. It seems, if not ridiculous, than at least redundant, to suppose that some other process which we have never seen was responsible for the strata visible in the Grand Canyon. It's like seeing a chicken hatch from an egg and saying "But it's ridiculous to suppose that those chickens over there hatched out of eggs. It's far more plausible to think that some other process that we've never observed and which involves God doing magic was responsible for those chickens."
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 12-12-2013 1:46 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 38 of 1896 (713359)
12-12-2013 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dogmafood
12-12-2013 7:21 AM


Science and Faith
Even if the minutiae seem to be ironclad they will have to give if the big picture can be established.
This is a fundamentally flawed approach. You have to look at the details in order to establish the big picture. In a universe of cause and effect it is the minutiae that create the big picture. It is the big picture that must give way.
If structurally the strata could not possibly have formed according to the Old Earth interpretation (which looks like an open-and-shut case to me) but could clearly have formed in a huge deluge that covered the planet, then all the minutiae that suggest otherwise have to be reinterpreted.
It is not necessary to abandon your faith in order to accept the facts regarding the history of the earth. Surely, God also is in the details.
People who think you don't have to abandon your faith to embrace the Old Earth and the ToE have no idea what Christian faith is all about. It's about a very specific revelation -- given by God Himself, you understand -- that contradicts those "sciences" that purport to reconstruct the history of the earth. (The "sciences" of the past as I keep saying, there's no problem with the sciences that study anything that can be replicated in the present).
God gives us enough of the history of the earth in His revelation to contradict both the Old Earth and evolution, and those "sciences" reject it. They don't have to. True science should affirm the Biblical revelation, that's why there is such a thing as Creation Science.
You definitely have to choose. God or fallible "science." That's your choice as a Biblical Christian. You don't have to argue the issues of course, you can ignore it all, but some of us find them interesting enough to try.
[As I was writing this I realized something that I tend to forget when I'm here, which is that Christianity really is about a radical choice one makes between Christ and the world. I keep wanting to be able to persuade evolutionists to the Biblical perspective, but what happens instead is that I am met with a solid wall of rejection. Meaning God is forcing me all the time to that radical choice and isn't going to let up.
As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, "Come to Christ and die." As Jesus said in many ways, "You must take up your cross (that is, embrace your own death) to follow Me," you must "die to yourself," you must "hate" everyone who would draw you away from Him.
Well, that seems to be played out even on the "scientific" front. God isn't going to let evolution be defeated because it's a very effective "cross" for us to die on. EvC is a daily "ego death" for a Christian. Not that we submit nicely to it, we often fight it, but this is what I mean about how I forget what the Christian life is all about. It's not about winning the argument, it's about dying to self. I hate it, I fight it, but every time I come here I'm staring it in the face and it's staring back at me: Die, die die. Maybe I'm finally getting it. There is no way to win this argument, and I would lose something precious if I did.
But wouldn't winning the argument lead some people to Christ? That IS the idea behind it all. But no, you come to Christ and DIE. That's how we ALL come to Christ.
This is why it's very sad when a foreveryoung or a scienceishonesty capitulates to evolution. It's a refusal to die, it's a refusal to accept the radical division between Christ and the World. You win the world and lose your soul. "He who saves his life will lose it but he who gives up his life for My sake will save it for eternity." You get the approval of everybody at EvC but you've lost the approval of God.
Come to Christ and die.]
Sorry, I know this is a science thread, but I think maybe I just came to a point where I see that I don't need to argue all this any more. Can't win the argument and wouldn't want to if I could, understanding it this way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dogmafood, posted 12-12-2013 7:21 AM Dogmafood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-12-2013 1:49 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 40 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-12-2013 1:53 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 41 by Stile, posted 12-12-2013 3:02 PM Faith has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 39 of 1896 (713361)
12-12-2013 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
12-12-2013 12:40 PM


Re: Science and Faith
If structurally the strata could not possibly have formed according to the Old Earth interpretation (which looks like an open-and-shut case to me)
But not to people who have looked at the strata, who have studied geological processes that actually occur, and who don't need to be shown photographs to know what a beach looks like.
People who think you don't have to abandon your faith to embrace the Old Earth and the ToE have no idea what Christian faith is all about.
People who think the Pope isn't the Viceregent of God on Earth have no idea what the Christian faith is all about. Also, it turns out they're flammable.
God gives us enough of the history of the earth in His revelation to contradict both the Old Earth and evolution ...
Though I must have missed the bit mentioning the Grand Canyon. And the existence of America.
God gives us enough of the history of the earth in His revelation to contradict both the Old Earth and evolution, and those "sciences" reject it. They don't have to.
But they do. Science has to look at the facts. All the facts. Or it ceases to be science. For example, in science, as opposed to your religion, it is not legitimate to demand that conclusions about the Grand Canyon should be reached by looking at the rocks from a distance of no less than four miles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 12-12-2013 12:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 40 of 1896 (713362)
12-12-2013 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
12-12-2013 12:40 PM


Re: Science and Faith
Faith writes:
If structurally the strata could not possibly have formed according to the Old Earth interpretation
If, If, If, If,
But, it could and it did and it does, and it still is forming.
You can not point to one single valid point you have made in all of your 12941 posts at EvC that shows that the strata could not have formed exactly as Geology and Science say it has.
Faith writes:
(which looks like an open-and-shut case to me)
It only looks like that to you because you have never actually looked at any strata anywhere. You have never studied Geology or read a geology book. The only place you have seen any strata is in fantasy "experiments" that you make up in your head and that have no resemblance to reality.
but could clearly have formed in a huge deluge that covered the planet
There is not one shred of evidence anywhere on the whole planet that such a flood ever took place. If such a flood ever did take place it would not leave strata that looks anything like the actual strata that we can see.
We know what floods look like, big floods and little floods and none of them leave behind what we see in the kilometers thick sedimentary layers on this planet.
Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 12-12-2013 12:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 41 of 1896 (713366)
12-12-2013 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
12-12-2013 12:40 PM


Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
If structurally the strata could not possibly have formed according to the Old Earth interpretation (which looks like an open-and-shut case to me)...
I'm still trying to understand this part. What makes it (or even implies that it may be) impossible?
Can you explain what actually is "open-and-shut?"
quote:
My question is... why is that impossible? Why can't all those layers form over millions (and even up to a billion... as you say) years before getting cut out? Science that says the earth is old says that the earth is over 3 billion years old. Why can't these layers have been forming for hundreds of millions of years (even close to a billion) and then get cut after they all formed?
Message 377
From what I can see... there's only 1 Grand Canyon in the world. It's so spectacular and unique that it's even named one of the seven natural wonders of the world. It doesn't seem like this kind of cutting-through-the-landscape is something that can happen on a regular basis.
Something that is so unique on this planet, and only happened once... I don't see much of a problem with that one-time-cutting occurring after "up to a billion years" of layers being formed in the area. After all, those layers had over 3 billion years to form before the canyon was cut. The timeline seems plausible, to me.
That is, in all other parts of the world... this sort of cutting has never happened at all for over 3 billion years.
I don't see an issue with it "not occurring for up to a billion years" in just one place on the planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 12-12-2013 12:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 12-12-2013 4:37 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 12-12-2013 4:55 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 42 of 1896 (713371)
12-12-2013 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Stile
12-12-2013 3:02 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
If structurally the strata could not possibly have formed according to the Old Earth interpretation (which looks like an open-and-shut case to me)...
I'm still trying to understand this part. What makes it (or even implies that it may be) impossible? Can you explain what actually is "open-and-shut?"
I've been trying to do that for years here and not succeeding at getting it across, so I don't think I could do any better with it now. I just like to state it from time to time so it won't get totally lost in the shuffle. I think it's "obvious" but I know that isn't going to make the case for you. Sorry.
My question is... why is that impossible? Why can't all those layers form over millions (and even up to a billion... as you say) years before getting cut out?
Oddly enough, I think some of the evolutionists here could explain what I mean about that, maybe Dr. A. He'll lard it with all his objections, in fact he'll probably bury it in his objections a mile deep, but I think he might be able to get it said at least. Perhaps he can be persuaded to try.
Science that says the earth is old says that the earth is over 3 billion years old. Why can't these layers have been forming for hundreds of millions of years (even close to a billion) and then get cut after they all formed?
Simply because the Old Earthers don't believe the planet was totally inactive for a few billion years. They believe that the activity we see ongoing in the world today has always been going on, the volcanoes, the earthquakes, the tectonic disturbances, the destructive weather patterns. I think, on the other hand, that if any of that happened during the formation of the stack of the Grand Canyon you would not have that nice neat stack a mile deep that is visible in various places in the canyon.
From what I can see... there's only 1 Grand Canyon in the world. It's so spectacular and unique that it's even named one of the seven natural wonders of the world. It doesn't seem like this kind of cutting-through-the-landscape is something that can happen on a regular basis.
You're right, it doesn't, it was a one-time event, which is what makes the GC such a fantastic example for creationist purposes. The canyon shows how the strata all over the earth were originally laid down to a tremendous depth/height, and how neatly flat and horizontal they must have been originally everywhere else too, and how they weren't disturbed until after they'd all been laid down, which I think all would agree is simply an impossibility on the Old Earth idea if we think of this planet as active all along, so for that to be the case the strata had to have been laid down very rapidly, which fits with the Flood model rather than the Old Earth model.
Something that is so unique on this planet, and only happened once... I don't see much of a problem with that one-time-cutting occurring after "up to a billion years" of layers being formed in the area. After all, those layers had over 3 billion years to form before the canyon was cut. The timeline seems plausible, to me.
OK.
That is, in all other parts of the world... this sort of cutting has never happened at all for over 3 billion years.
The cutting of the canyon is just one effect of the kinds of disturbances that occur all over the world. In the case of the GC I believe that volcanic and tectonic disturbance cracked the strata that began the opening of the canyon, and, also according to my theory, receding Flood waters rushed into the cracked strata carrying tons of broken strata with it and carved out the canyon. Same sort of thing happened to create the Grand Staircase area to the north with all its canyons, and sculpted out all the odd formations of the Southwest, though yearly erosion since then has also contributed to their shaping. If that much ever got considered as a plausibility at least, then I think I could go on to show that wherever we see strata whatever disturbances occurred to them can be shown to have ALSO happened after they were laid down. You see a block of six or seven layers perhaps and the whole block is folded and warped. All six or seven were there already obviously before the folding and warping. And so on. The thing is you never find such a complete stack of strata anywhere besides the Grand Canyon because they've all been broken up by one disruptive event or another since they were laid down.
I don't see an issue with it "not occurring for up to a billion years" in just one place on the planet.
OK, you don't. I haven't persuaded you.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Stile, posted 12-12-2013 3:02 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-12-2013 5:30 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2013 8:03 PM Faith has replied
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-12-2013 8:12 PM Faith has replied

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


(1)
Message 43 of 1896 (713372)
12-12-2013 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Stile
12-12-2013 3:02 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
From what I can see... there's only 1 Grand Canyon in the world.
Yarlung Tsangpo Grand Canyon
Fish River Canyon
Tara River Canyon
And probably some more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Stile, posted 12-12-2013 3:02 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1672 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-28-2014 4:08 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 1896 (713376)
12-12-2013 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
12-12-2013 4:37 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Simply because the Old Earthers don't believe the planet was totally inactive for a few billion years. They believe that the activity we see ongoing in the world today has always been going on, the volcanoes, the earthquakes, the tectonic disturbances, the destructive weather patterns. I think, on the other hand, that if any of that happened during the formation of the stack of the Grand Canyon you would not have that nice neat stack a mile deep that is visible in various places in the canyon.
The strata that the GC cuts through wasn't where it is now when it was forming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 12-12-2013 4:37 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-12-2013 7:05 PM New Cat's Eye 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 45 of 1896 (713383)
12-12-2013 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by New Cat's Eye
12-12-2013 5:30 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
The strata that the GC cuts through wasn't where it is now when it was forming.
Care to elaborate on that a little?
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-12-2013 5:30 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by AZPaul3, posted 12-12-2013 9:24 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but 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