Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noah's Flood and the Geologic Layers (was Noah's shallow sea)
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 196 of 213 (86633)
02-16-2004 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by IrishRockhound
02-16-2004 8:09 AM


Whats up with the Flood?
IrishRockHound has a valid point and assertion when he asks
There are too many unreasonable assumptions in flood 'geology', starting with the cast-iron premise that the flood MUST have happened.
As a believer, I now must ask myself the question of whether the flood actually happened or whether the idea of the meaning behind the flood story is true or not. Since I believe that the Bible contains essential absolute truth, I am naturally concerned with what it says.
I have not yet arrived at any conclusions but here is my thought pattern:
1) Is it possible that the story of the flood is a giant parable? That the truth of the parable is real, while the actual event may be a story?
2) Does God allow rational scientific processes to occur by natural law, or is it possible that He steps in to History and alters the natural laws? If He did that, it would seem as if He were tricking us. This argument has been expressed by others as saying something along the lines of "The Earth is 6000 years old and God made it that way 6000 years ago." I do not know if I believe that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by IrishRockhound, posted 02-16-2004 8:09 AM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by IrishRockhound, posted 02-16-2004 10:15 AM Phat has replied

IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 197 of 213 (86645)
02-16-2004 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Phat
02-16-2004 9:25 AM


Re: Whats up with the Flood?
Hey, I can't tell you what to believe - but I can tell you that if the flood happened, there was some serious miracle-making going on... I think it's just a parable. It is a pretty good one - interesting plot, which is more than I can say for a lot of the stuff I've read - but still just a parable.

"How can I believe in God? I answer to a higher power than him."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Phat, posted 02-16-2004 9:25 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Phat, posted 02-16-2004 11:15 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 198 of 213 (86656)
02-16-2004 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by IrishRockhound
02-16-2004 10:15 AM


Re: Whats up with the Flood?
I want to hear from some of you who believe that the flood actually happened. Do you believe it because the Bible said it or do you have another reason?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by IrishRockhound, posted 02-16-2004 10:15 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Joe Meert, posted 02-16-2004 1:59 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 200 by ThingsChange, posted 02-16-2004 2:03 PM Phat has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 199 of 213 (86684)
02-16-2004 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Phat
02-16-2004 11:15 AM


Re: Whats up with the Flood?
Some believe it because Walt Brown said it happened.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Phat, posted 02-16-2004 11:15 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by NosyNed, posted 02-16-2004 2:24 PM Joe Meert has not replied

ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 200 of 213 (86688)
02-16-2004 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Phat
02-16-2004 11:15 AM


Re: Whats up with the Flood?
Phatboy writes:
I want to hear from some of you who believe that the flood actually happened. Do you believe it because the Bible said it or do you have another reason?
And, when you reply to Phatboy's question, please explain the reasoning that led you to believe the Bible's words over what science has learned. One more thing: Did you believe the Bible before or after learning scientific arguments that support evolution? Oh, rats, one more thing: Did you learn about evolution from a creationist point of view?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Phat, posted 02-16-2004 11:15 AM Phat has not replied

alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 4289 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 201 of 213 (86691)
02-16-2004 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by simple
02-14-2004 8:48 PM


Re: nothing new under son
Before:
[text=black]
do i think my post is proof, well its more proof than you have seen fit to show.listen youngster if god could make that much water appear out of nowhere than he could have made it appear on the earth without a storm just poof there,if god could make anything appear then disapppear like that(snap)he would have just made all that he didnt want to survive just go away!now reading your simple thought patterns and also walt paptrap of "how about this or that could of happen"(but showing no proof of said theory),god is an illusionist,god"i flooded the earth put there is no proof proves i did it(and please do not look behind the curtain)" you avoid the issue you know nothing about which is a really good indication of who you are and your level of education(how many errors in math on my part did i leave that you failed to notice ie 1992-20004 is 12yrs thats one)no knowledge of age progression no knowledge of layering.next time why dont you try to use intelligents to proof your idea not what ifs.i did not start by saying the flood never happened i asked for proof.no proof your just a young person trying to sound philisophical and failing at it once again no proof then its still just a myth as far as im concerned this is over you have nothing and you are trying to run everyone who disagrees with you in circles till they give up.news flash that is you losing the debate not people who see a kid who will continue to beat a did horse one last question simple
[/text]
Rewritten for grammar, spelling and punctuation:
[text=black]
Do I think my post is proof? Well, it's more proof than you have seen fit to show. Listen, youngster, if God could make that much water appear out of nowhere than he could have made it appear on the earth without a storm. Just poof, there, if God could make anything appear, then disappear, like that (snap) he would have just made all that he didn't want to survive just go away!
Now, reading your simple thought patterns and also your Walt paptrap of "How about this or that could of happened" (but showing no proof of said theory), God is an illusionist, God "I flooded the earth but there is no proof proves I did it (and please do not look behind the curtain)".
You avoid the issue you know nothing about, which is a really good indication of who you are and your level of education. (How many errors in math on my part did I leave that you failed to notice, ie, 1992-20004 is 12 yrs, that's one.) No knowledge of age progression, no knowledge of layering. Next time why don't you try to use intelligence to prove your idea, not "what ifs". I did not start by saying the flood never happened, I asked for proof. No proof you're just a young person trying to sound philosophical and failing at it. Once again no proof that it's still just a myth. As far as I'm concerned, this is over. You have nothing and you are trying to run everyone who disagrees with you in circles till they give up. News flash that it is you losing the debate, not people who see a kid who will continue to beat a dead horse. One last question, simple.
[/text]
[This message has been edited by Admin, 02-16-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by simple, posted 02-14-2004 8:48 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-16-2004 2:13 PM alacrity fitzhugh has replied
 Message 210 by simple, posted 02-16-2004 5:35 PM alacrity fitzhugh has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 202 of 213 (86692)
02-16-2004 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by alacrity fitzhugh
02-16-2004 2:08 PM


Attention Randy!
RANDY - PLEASE SEE "To Randy Feagley - Re: Writing Form"
Looking at the layout of your messages causes nausea.
AM
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-16-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 02-16-2004 2:08 PM alacrity fitzhugh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 02-16-2004 3:01 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 203 of 213 (86697)
02-16-2004 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Joe Meert
02-16-2004 1:59 PM


Re: Whats up with the Flood?
You'd have to be pretty simple to believe it based on that, wouldn't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Joe Meert, posted 02-16-2004 1:59 PM Joe Meert has not replied

alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 4289 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 204 of 213 (86704)
02-16-2004 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Adminnemooseus
02-16-2004 2:13 PM


Re: Attention Randy!
I humbly understand, this is truly my first chat room.I will try to be more respectful in the layout of the post Im typing.
[Check out the edit to your Message 201. --Admin]
[This message has been edited by Admin, 02-16-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-16-2004 2:13 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 213 (86718)
02-16-2004 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Joe Meert
02-15-2004 8:21 PM


geo ruling in.
This assumes there was a 'pre-flood' world
And you assume there was none, apparently. Your proposed theoretical geo-illogical column, and other reasoning all have the same problem. Funny you should bring up circular reasoning! I guess you have to assume God is a circular reasoner too. Here are a few snips from c.s. sites, regarding your theorized column. You could question some numbers perhaps, but when the dust settles, it is a very un-universal and 'life evoled from itself' hypothetical concept. As you can see it is rejected as well. Thrown out of court as it were! Not able to be used as evidence whatsoever of time.
"The geologic column is an abstract, conceptual tool that gives order to the overall geologic record. It's like a yearbook with the pictures of all the 9th graders in it. No one expects that every one of those 9th graders will belong to a particular club or show up for a particular dance! Neither does the geologist expect that every locality will exhibit all the known strata. The point is that the earth's strata has a very definite chronological order to it, and that overall, ideal order, physically represented by all the known strata, is usually what is meant when one refers to the geologic column. Different localities will, to varying degrees of completeness and perfection, illustrate that ideal order.
Dave Matson Young Earth Geologic Column Fictitious » Internet Infidels
Creationists have shown that the geological column presents no problem to Flood geology. It is nothing more than a hypothetical classification scheme based on selected rock outcrops in Europe, and used flexibly to classify rocks around the world.[1],[2] Anti-creationists have responded that the column is valid, having been built up in a thoroughly logical way long before the theory of evolution was invented, and that many of those who contributed to its building were creationists.[3] One unanswerable argument for the hypothetical character of the column is that nowhere in the world does the complete column exist. The majority of the geological periods are missing in the field. Although anti-creationists usually have not disputed that the column is mostly missing, they have argued that we should not expect the entire column to exist in the field. Erosion, they argue, is why the complete column is never found.3 Hence they claim that rocks deposited during one period would be eroded away during a later period. So, while those defending the column have invented ad hoc reasons to explain the missing geologic periods, they did not deny the hypothetical nature of the column.
Now what does all this mean? Common sense teaches us that 16 miles (at most) which exists, out of a total of 100 or 200 miles, is a very incomplete column! It remains primarily an invention of the uniformitarian imagination, and a textbook orthodoxy. So, although there are places where lithologies referable to all ten of the Phanerozoic systems can actually be seen superposed, creationists remain more than justified in highlighting the essential non-existence of the standard geologic column. And we have not even touched such matters as overlapping fossil ranges, non-superposed index fossils, and many other things, which expose the non-reality of the geologic column. That is, most fossils found are for only one geologic system (e.g. Devonian), and most index fossils do not actually superpose at the same locality. In other words, most locations with Devonian fishes are not overlain by rocks bearing Cretaceous ammonites, and most locations with Cretaceous ammonites do not overlie localities with Devonian fishes. The same can be said for all the index fossils of all of the geologic systems.
But where does Morton get his information? He cites as his source the work of the Robertson Group, a London-based oil-consulting company. I have been unable to secure a copy of this work, as it is not listed in either WorldCat or GEOREF. Thus I cannot comment on the accuracy of this source of information, nor discern whether or not its portrayal of sedimentary basins is overly schematic. Evidently, Morton is citing a proprietary source not subject to public scrutiny. But let us, for the sake of argument, grant the complete validity of what the Robertson Group states, as represented by Morton. Even then the claims are overly generalised. For example, Morton’s does not say how given strata had been ‘dated’. Which ‘geologic ages’ had been identified according to the faunal content of the strata, and which had simply been ‘guesstimated’ according to lithological similarity and/or comparable stratigraphic position with faunally-dated sedimentary formations at adjacent locations? All this is moot, however. As noted earlier, since most of the sediment is missing, Morton’s arguments are completely specious even if the Robertson Group work is thoroughly accurate and not excessively schematic in its depiction of the world’s sedimentary basins.
There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8—16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field.
Secondly, those locations where it has been possible to assign all ten periods represent less than 0.4% of the earth’s surface, or 1% if the ocean basins are excluded. Obviously it is the exception, rather than the rule, to be able to assign all of the ten Phanerozoic periods to the sedimentary pile in any one location on the earth. It does not engender confidence in the reality of the geological column when it is absent 99% of the time.
Thirdly, even where the ten periods have been assigned, the way in which they were assigned can be quite subjective. It is a well known fact, for example, that many unfossiliferous Permian rocks are ‘dated’ as such solely because they happen to be sandwiched between faunally-dated Carboniferous and faunally-dated Triassic rocks. Without closer examination, it is impossible to determine how many of the ‘ten Phanerozoic systems superposed’ have been assigned on the basis of index fossils (by which each of the Phanerozoic systems have been defined) and how many have been assigned by indirect methods such as lithological similarity, comparable stratigraphic level, and schematic depictions. Clearly, if the periods in these locations were assigned by assuming that the geological column was real, then it is circular reasoning to use the assigned ten periods to argue the reality of the column.
Finally, the geological column is a hypothetical concept that can always be rescued by special pleading. A number of standard explanations are used to account for missing geological periods, including erosion and non-deposition. Clear field evidence, such as unconformities, is not necessarily needed before these explanations are invoked. Similarly a range of standard explanations is used to account for the fossils when their order is beyond what the column would predict. These include reworking, stratigraphic leaking, and long-range fossils. Even if all ten periods of the column had never been assigned to one local stratigraphic section anywhere on the earth, the concept of the geological column would still be accepted as fact by conventional uniformitarian geologists.
To the diluviologist this means, of course, that only the local succession has to be explained by Flood-related processes. Very seldom do all ten geologic systems have to be accounted for in terms of Flood deposition.
There is no escaping the fact that the Phanerozoic geologic column remains essentially non-existent. It should be obvious, to all but the most biased observers, that it is the anti-creationists who misrepresent the geologic facts. The geologic column does not exist to any substantive extent, and scientific creationists are correct to point this out
The zeal with which this evolutionary circle of reasoning is guarded is seen clearly in the approach taken with respect to its problems and contradictions. When radioactive mineral age determinations conflict with the paleontology dating (as they frequently do), they are abandoned as having been somehow altered since deposition. When, in a given location, a formation of a certain age rests conformably and naturally on a formation of a much earlier age, with all the intervening ages omitted (and this kind of thing is found almost everywhere), then it is assumed that these missing ages were ages of uplift and erosion rather than deposition, even if no evidence of this exists. When fossils from different ages are found together in the same formation (as does happen with some frequency), then it is assumed that earlier deposits have been re-worked and mixed together. And when (as very often is the case) formations with ancient fossils are found lying conformably on top of formations with recent fossils, then great earth movements and overthrusts must be invoked to get the column out of its proper evolutionary order, even though in many cases there is no evidence of such movements and even though there is no adequate physical mechanism which could produce them!
http://www.csinfo.org/Dino_Fossils.htm
http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp
the masters of circular reasoning try to point a finger?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Joe Meert, posted 02-15-2004 8:21 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Joe Meert, posted 02-16-2004 4:32 PM simple has replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 206 of 213 (86719)
02-16-2004 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by simple
02-16-2004 4:18 PM


Off topic post
Nice cut and paste. No answers, but a nice cut and paste. What does the existence/non-existence of the geological column have to do with 'proving' that a flood took place? You could be right that the ages we assign to the geological column are all wrong and that the column is completely fictitious. Even so, that would not prove that a flood took place. The geologic record that we do have, no matter how complete/incomplete it is, does not show evidence for a global flood. Why not search again for a relevant answer. BY the way here's my answer to your off topic post (Paleosols)
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by simple, posted 02-16-2004 4:18 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by simple, posted 02-16-2004 5:19 PM Joe Meert has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 213 (86725)
02-16-2004 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by IrishRockhound
02-16-2004 8:09 AM


it's stompin time!
: So far, we have no reason to assume that geological processes in the past were radically different to those that we see today
Only if you assume the old world was no different, which, really in effect is assuming there was no old pre flood world. Of course it would have been different.
sufficient evidence to suggest that those processes were, in fact, quite similar
Of course some things would be very similar. Also, these "sedimentary structures, volcanic layers" are you imagining them as pre flood?
In Ireland, we see a huge variety of environments changing over time, representing (in conventional geology) millions of years of climate change
Not surprising. Can you tell me almost anything in the convention flood denial so called geology that isn't millions of years old?
There are simply too many changing environments, not to mention later deformation and faulting that juxtaposed the beds
when you look at it from what had been conventional evolutionary tinted glasses, everything only fits without God's flood. Assuming a flood, we simply have to expand our minds to realize the scale of violence that must have occured. Stop looking at the geoillogical column as some order of self creation, and it may be a start.
In summary, one year is just not enough
Actally, tou have I think a few extra weeks, if we want to get technical! A 'global end of life one great year' geology is one I propose that is better at accounting foe what we see, than the passe way it has tried to be explained by the common ancestor suppositions theories.
Simple, there is no evidence of a pre-flood world, or of a flood for that matter. Where is the boundary? What formations should I be looking at? Can creationists pinpoint ANYWHERE in the world where the flood boundary is seen
Noah lived I think about 5 hundred years in the old world, as did his sons for some time as well. Then he lived somewhere around 3 hundred years in our new world as well. So why would I say he was insane, or a liar? When we rule out what happened, and assume a self made order, we are incapable of seeing the 'writing on the wall' (or rocks in this case). Boundry? Where could we safely say that the world ending event did not effect? Tell me, and we'll talk about some 'boundry'. In effect trying to put up a boundry to the effects of the flood seems like trying to put up a barrier and limit it's effect. Especially if one is to look at similar looking creatures, then go on and assume they evolved into each other, and use that anti creation logic to project an imagined old age as a concequence to this desired evolving.
Get your facts straight, no matter how rare they might be
I could buy a 'missing link' with a fact and still have more than enough left to trounce your old world, old age, old hat theory.
But thanks for keeping it short, it was well condensed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by IrishRockhound, posted 02-16-2004 8:09 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Loudmouth, posted 02-16-2004 5:36 PM simple has not replied
 Message 212 by Admin, posted 02-16-2004 6:02 PM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 213 (86728)
02-16-2004 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Joe Meert
02-16-2004 4:32 PM


Re: Off topic post
You could be right that the ages we assign to the geological column are all wrong and that the column is completely fictitious
Coming from you, I'm going to save these words.
Even so, that would not prove that a flood took place. The geologic record that we do have, no matter how complete/incomplete it is, does not show evidence for a global flood. Well, you feel all the fossils then were not from the flood. I'll say some of them may not have been. But why the zeal to dash this pillar of faith we call Noah's flood?
BY the way here's my answer to your off topic post
Thanks for the reply. It was a big article, which part of it would I be directed to as some potential answer to the 'off topic' post?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Joe Meert, posted 02-16-2004 4:32 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 213 (86735)
02-16-2004 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by simple
02-14-2004 2:27 AM


Re: Geology explained
quote:
So then, if I could prove it false you would be inclined to believe it? But since it is true and neither of us can prove it false, you say it's meaningless! By that standard, I can see why you would tend to gravitate to the theory than can be 'falsified'. So I'm getting emty rhetoric here, instead of answers. Hmmm. OK, I'll give it just a while longer and see what substance surfaces.
What I want is a situation by which the flood could be falsified. For example, an old earth assumption would be falsified by a geologic column that is COMPLETELY sorted by particle size, heavy particles on bottom and fine particles on top, with gradations of particle size in the middle. Also, if all fossils were jumbled up within the geologic column, and not sorted, then this would also falsify an old earth assumption. What I want is proposed evidence that would falsify the flood, just as I have posted for the old world, no flood assumption. What would falsify global flood theory. This is my third time asking and you have yet to answer me. If the flood theory is unfalsifiable by any data, then the theory is ad hoc.
And yes, I do gravitate towards theories that can be falsified. This is a requirement for all scientific theories, including the old earth theory, evolutionary theory, and special relativity. I move away from theories that are not falsifiable. These theories explain nothing, except the ability of the holder to do mental gymnastics while trying to prop up a belief that has no evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by simple, posted 02-14-2004 2:27 AM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 213 (86736)
02-16-2004 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by alacrity fitzhugh
02-16-2004 2:08 PM


2nd try was at least readable
Well, it's more proof than you have seen fit to show. Listen, youngster
You folks can get presumptous. Perhaps the simple concepts are for your benefit?
God is an illusionist
So you know Him then? There are cases, for example in His book where He did hide things from those who thought they were wise, and removed any such illusion for the 'babes' (simple). Or, with prophesy, where things were hid from some ('none of the wicked shall understand'). So, inasmuch as some things cannot be seen by some, perhaps He is at times, somewhat of s delusionist.
How many errors in math on my part did I leave that you failed to notice, ie, 1992-20004 is 12 yrs, that's one
No proof you're just a young person trying to sound philosophical and failing at it
True, you've no proof I'm failing, or that I'm young!
"reveals an intelligence of such superiority that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 02-16-2004 2:08 PM alacrity fitzhugh 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