The TRVE history of the Flood...

quote:

---

We've shown that the Bible is God's word many times already, but of course we don't succeed at persuading anyone here.

---

Of course you haven't come close to showing it. I'll refrain from giving my opinion of your arguments but suffice to say they fall far short of rationally convincing.

quote:

---

Seems to me if we have the job of proving it to YOU, then you ought to have the job of proving your dating methods to US. How about that for fair

---

But you see we've provided very strong evidence for scientific dating methods that you can't effectively rebut. So to be fair you should admit that we are well ahead of you.I challenged you to go back to RAZDs dating correlation threads. If you have an argument that the Bible, read literally to the extent that you do, is reliable point me at it. If it hasn't already been shredded I'll do it. And it will be easy.

quote:

---

I've seen RAZD's correlations. I've also commented on them IIRC. I've acknowledged that they are good arguments that are hard to answer although there are many possible ways they may be refuted

---

Thank you for finally admitting that we have a strong case. Although be honest - there aren't "many possible" refutations - and in fact there are no plausible refutations.

quote:

---

. It's a matter of the preponderance of evidence in the end since we have no witness in the distant past to such things as the speed of varve formation or tree ring growth, and are stuck with making extrapolations from current conditions.

---

Strange you would say that when the correlations are themselves evidence that conditions in the past were the same - at least to the extent needed for the various dating methods to work. And that is just one reason why the preponderance of evidence is heavily in our favour.

quote:

---

But in this little side discussion I'm emphasizing that the Bible is regarded by biblical creationists as God's word which means everything else is judged by it.

---

Which is only an admission of bias on your part.

quote:

---

Meanwhile there is a lot of evidence FOR the Flood and against the ToE/OE that creationists focus on in most discussions.

---

And much of it is rubbish (how can the fact that we have sedimentary sequences that we would expect to be produced by slow changes in sea level - over many, many years - evidence for the Flood ?)

quote:

---

Again, nothing would ever convince you, there's just something about the grip the ToE/OE fantasy has on people's minds in these untestable unprovable historical sciences, that prevents the truth from getting through. Yes I do believe this

---

And yet it is the bias in your minds that stops you from seeing - or admitting to the obvious flaws in your arguments - and it is those flaws that are a major reason why you fail to convince us. You could convince us - some of us at least - if you had good arguments, but all too often they are appallingly bad. And need I point out the problems of boasting about your "good judgement" when you have demonstrated appallingly bad judgement.

quote:

---

So the debate is always about creationists trying to find the most convincing evidence, and the other side always coming up with outlandish objections to it

---

I think you would have to look very hard for a case where that was true.More often creationists are caught in misrepresentation, falsehood, making unverifiable assertions - and false accusations. Hardly "convincing evidence" for creationism.

quote:

---

I've put up a ton of good arguments in spite of occasional errors and all the rest of it. You'll never acknowledge that,

---

I would never tell such a ridiculous lie.

quote:

---

In my opinion the Flood has been proved many times over by now, so all that's left is this endless exchange of your negative opinion versus the creationist opinion.

---

Except that we still have the evidence and you don't.

quote:

---

I recently saw a video on Guy Berthault's flume experiments in sedimentology, inspired by Walther's observations, which show that moving water deposits layers simultaneously one on top of another, the number of layers depending on the velocity of the water.

---

Which doesn't actually challenge the Principle of Superposition. To really do that you would need to deposit a layer underneath a layer that had already been deposited. Good luck with that.

quote:

---

He concluded that this shows rapid deposition of the strata disproving the assumption of millions of years

---

How could it show it as more than a possibility - and then only if the experiment scaled up, and could do so without assuming unlikely conditions, and could explain actual sequences of strata.And even if it showed the possibility it would still be refuted by the other evidence of age.So, not a good argument - at least not yet.Consider also this critique of Berthault's claims written by a geologist.

Berthsult's experiments are certainly not adequate to prove that any strata were laid down by his methods - let alone all of them. And there is a lot of geological evidence that needs to be considered before you get anywhere close (e.g. the geological record includes lava flows laid down on the surface, but not under water)So, there is no rational way to even consider Bertault's experiments as evidence against radiometric dates.Or, more generally if you try to justify a claim that something be considered proof with a "it would be if..." you are wasting your time. Until the "if..." can be shown it isn't.

quote:

---

The point about superposition is about timing: if the layers are being deposited pretty much simultaneously then the upper is not younger than the lower which is the usual understanding of the principle of superposition.

---

Superposition is about the order of deposition. Timing is not really an issue.

And that is still true. Even if the time difference is only seconds. Is that so difficult to understand ?

Did you read the Wikipedia article Faith? ("Eustasy" is global sea level changes)Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

It obviously did not affect other continents to anything like the same extent. That is WHY it is concluded that sea level rise is not the only cause. That is what the quote says.

quote:

---

They are called SEA TRANSGRESSIONS, Paul. That is what...they...are...called.

---

Which does not change the facts that I pointed out.

quote:

---

So somebody noticed that golly gee we don't see this elsewhere so there MUST be some other reason than rising sea etc.

---

If it is only found on one continent, that is the sensible conclusion. And doesn't the fact that the other continents weren't affected as much blow a hole in your argument anyway ?

quote:

---

But my post nevertheless brings up difficult issues for any explanation other than Noah's Flood because the water had to rise a couple of miles to cover the uppermost strata, and there is no way that could possibly have happened without transgressing all the other continents.

---

Except that the evidence disagrees. If anyone should be accused of jumping to conclusions surely it should be those who ignore the evidence. It seems more likely to me that there was subsidence of the North American continent, so that the sea did not have to rise so far.

Again the evidence says otherwise. I have suggested an alternative that fits better with the evidence.Your opinion about what "must" have happened is just your opinion.

quote:

---

ABE: And that's not evidence, Paul, the fact that other continents don't show the same transgressions shows an error somewhere, it's not evidence of anything but error

---

And on what basis do you conclude that ? Isn't the most likely error your assumption that the other continents must be affected ?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Faith, your argument assumes an ever-increasing height of land, with sea level rise the only cause of the transgression. Why should we not discard that assumption in the face of the evidence ?

quote:

---

You kept saying you'd mentioned evidence and I saw no evidence.

---

The fact that the sequence isn't found on other continents. I know you insisted that it wasn't evidence because it contradicted your ideas of what "must" have happened but that is just begging the question.

quote:

---

First, shouldn't there be some evidence of subsidence?

---

How do you know that there isn't such evidence ?See this abstract

quote:

---

If the cause was subsidence then presumably the land would have subsided because of each deposition of strata or something like that? The weight being the cause?

---

That's a part of it. Glaciation can also have that effect (Britain is tilting as it recovers from the last Ice Age). And the fact that a continent can be tilted is quite possibly significant, as both the initial tilting and the recovery could produce transgressions - at different ends of the continent.

quote:

---

Such as for instance the fact that the Grand Canyon walls remain relatively intact. Or some clear disturbance in the Geological Column with every transgressive event. I dunno, those strata in the GC look pretty intact for most of its length.

---

I don't see why that should be the case. If the entire continent is slowly sinking into the mantle, for instance, I don't think it should be violent at all. (Let us remember that tectonic events are often slow)

quote:

---

Also don't other continents demonstrate the same original depth of strata, Europe at least, and Asia too? So they too should have experienced something like the same sequence of transgressions and the same degree of subsidence. But where is the evidence of either?

---

That's a big assumption. Even if the depth is the same (is it?), there could be less erosion, for instance on the other continents. However, the fact that we do not see the same transgressions on the other continents is good evidence that something different was going on around North America, so using it as the primary (or in fact only) evidence for a world-wide event requires you to show that the effect really was world wide, not assuming it.

quote:

---

Not according to Admin, when it's the foundational assumption for the arguments

---

That seems to be the opposite of what Admin said Message 433

quote:

---

Archeological and historical evidence has consistently confirmed the Bible is true. That is corroborating real world evidence

---

Nobody who is familiar with the subject would honestly make that claim. (Indeed, it suggests that their knowledge of the Bible is somewhat lacking)