|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The TRVE history of the Flood... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
quote: And as we know from discussions here the strata were deposited over a long period of time and are certainly not the result of a single short-term event. So that claim is false.
quote: And that's another false claim.
quote: I fail to see how failed attempts to force-fit the evidence to the Flood should be considered evidence FOR the Flood, while multiple dating methods based on genuine evidence, all well-tested should be rejected out of hand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
quote: On the contrary, the facts demonstrate that long time periods are required.
quote: In places, and rapid deposition is hardly required for that.
quote: Except for things like riverbeds and embedded tree roots...
quote: Maybe one day you will explain what you mean by that.
quote: Except that there are extensive deposits that were not laid down by water, plenty laid down in lakes and especially seas (and not by a flood) and no reason to attribute the vast majority of deaths to even a local deluge (the dominance of marine fossils being an obvious example)
quote: Rather obviously, regardless of who's right.
quote: And we have strata obviously laid on top of folded rock.
quote: We have buried canyons, which were obviously cut before they were filled in.
quote: And when they are eroded away the surface will be flat.
quote: Not all. But they have to be distinct in some ways to be labelled as different strata.
quote: Which is more likely? That there would be many significant changes in conditions over millions of years or the same changes over just one ? Anyone who thinks seriously about the issue can see that you are being absurd. The sequences produced according Walther's law are an example - changes in sea level change the sort of sediment deposited at a location, in ways a flood would not be expected to mimic.
quote: No, it wouldn't. Where does all this sediment come from ? How was it sorted ? How were the living things sorted ? Why doesn't it look like a catastrophic flood deposit (e.g. the preservation of delicate features in some strata). It is much easier to explain it in terms of long periods of time And this is just repeating points from previous discussion. As I said, we've established here that you don't have a viable case for the flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
To briefly answer your points
So you say that rapid despoliation is "the only realistic explanation" because in some places tectonic forces have distorted the strata. That doesn't exactly follow. As you haven't examined any of the riverbeds in question I wonder how you can insist that they aren't riverbeds. And when we have in situ tree roots, I think we can say that they weren't moved around by the assumed flood. Strata "represent" the time period in which they were deposited by providing evidence of the conditions in which they were deposited. I really don't see how you can object to that. I can't think of a good reason why a flood would affect marine life worse than land life, and the terrestrial examples you refer to are not mass kill sites so your point remains obscure. The fact that the current surface IS the surface is all we need to show that it was formed "today". So calling it an important point is odd. Besides we know that there ARE examples of buried topography so claiming that they don't exist doesn't work either. I would think that a sensible explanation would be better than an absurd fantasy. The sensible explanation for angular uncomformities is that the strata above the uncomfority were deposited after the underlying strata were tilted. Buried canyons were obviously filled AFTER they were cut, even in your "explanation" - so they still disprove your claim that all the rocks were deposited first. I note that you still have provided no explanation of how your abrupt changes occur assuming sudden deposition. Contrary to your assertion mainstream geology does have such explanations. For instance if deposition were to stop and start again thousands of years later there is no reason to expect the new material to be the same as that last deposited (or uncovered by erosion in the interval) The sequences of Walther's law depend on normal deposition - the huge amounts of sediment supposedly deposited by the flood have no reason to follow it. the flood is not a long-term change in sea level and your claims for it are quite at odds with any such idea. Asking for details of your "easy explanation" is NOT changing the subject.
quote: On the contrary, it is quite easy. Which is not "even harder" than "impossible" And so we are left - yet again - with the fact that the flood makes no sense as an explanation of the geological record and even less sense as an explanation of the fossil record. That you refuse to accept these facts is your problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
Please don't insult mathematical modelling. David's nutty numerology does not qualify.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
quote: And why would you think that ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
quote: Generally it is the groups that continue, not species. The "lower apes" might still exist as a group, but the species that existed when the "higher apes" branched off almost certainly do not. And even the larger groups tend to thin out over time (as tour would expect). Especially when mass extinctions occur. But we still have some dinosaurs (birds) and crocodiles and Cephalopoda and even velvet worms alive today. So, if you mean species you are quite definitely wrong, and if you mean larger taxonomic groups then you definitely need to provide some quantification.
quote: Without knowing what "unevolved" forms you are talking about and without numbers - and an argument for those numbers this is just hopelessly vague. If there is any basis for your assertion you haven't provided it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
quote: That depends on the time involved, and the selection pressures. The longer the time the more change you should expect.
quote: Again this is just vague and without quantification. You don't even give any examples. You still haven't provided any support for your assertion.
quote: And I have still no idea how you get that impression. You offer no basis for working out how many "should" be found or how many are found. Or even clearly stating what it is that you are (supposedly) counting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
While there is not even an attempt to offer evidence for the Flood here never mind anything that deserves to be called an "exact proof" I thought I would correct the numbers since they seem to be important to you.
First, the data given lacks the precision to provide an exact year. Second, making reasonable assumptions, the time given by the text is in the range of 1655-1662 years. Possibly longer - the predominance of multiples of 5 suggests that the figures may be even less precise than I assumed, increasing the uncertainty. Third, the Septuagint and Samaritan texts offer quite different ages so the above result only applies to the Masoretic text. No need to thank me, this is very simple mathematics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
quote: I did state as such Message 61 And I note that you originally claimed it was 1646 years.
How many years until the Flood ..... 1646 years. Thats your product RIGHT ? RIGHT ? The genesis or Biblical history says that exactly 1646 years after Creation there was a worldwide flood. Now dont throw a fit and start writing the words, myth, lies etc etc... Mathematically you cant deny the addition of these years. Its easy, its a basic, a cornerstone, its EXACT. Its not billions and trillions of years, changed with every new theory of a new theory of an old theory. Its a standard. The number of years is 1646.
So, if your "correct" math gave 1646 years why are you now saying it is 1656 years. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
quote: Which was it ? April 21st or the Equinox ? And how would you know ?
quote: While such a figure is within the range of possible dates it is hardly established as correct. And even if it were it would only be a feature of the story. So, still no evidence of the Flood at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
quote: No, it is not agreed, because it is not true. I don't know how you can think you can get away with lying like this. The Genesis account does not add up to any exact number of years because it does not give the information necessary. And can you make up your mind please. First you said it was 1646 years from creation to the start of the Flood, then it was 1656 years and now it seems to be 1656 years until Noah left the ark - which is more than a year later than the start. Funny how the "exact" figure keeps changing.
quote: No, it is not - you don't have the exact numbers you would need. There is just no way to know the exact number of weeks
quote: Whether the story is in fact history is what you are supposed to be proving - so even if you weren't telling obvious lies you would be begging the question. All you could hope to prove is that the story was carefully designed, something which is within human capability and no use to you at all. So any actual thinking person will tell you to stop wasting time with stupid lies and actually start doing what you said you would do - if you can. (Which is an extraordinarily generous appraisal since you can't)
quote: Is Step 3 going to actual going to offer any valid argument for the Flood or is it going to be another stupid waste of time ? Your step 1 was wrong, your step 2 relied on the erroneous step 1 and could only prove a clever bit of numerology built into the story even if it step 1 was correct.
quote: Funny how creationists think that they can completely reverse reality.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024