Noah's Flood and the Geologic Layers (was Noah's shallow sea)

quote:

---

Piltdown Nebraska, on and on. It's not opinion there were some forgeries. Deal with it

---

Scientists have already dealt with it. Science corrects itself, as it corrected these examples. Some of it was due to the press who was overeager to write a story before scientists had their full say, as is the case with Nebraska man. The moral of the story is that scientists found and corrected the mistake themselves without the help of creationists. Perhaps after you finish this thread we can talk about your problems with scientists, and perhaps I could also show you the dishonesty of almost every creationist claim.

My, my, my. You seem to be projecting your propensity to believe in dreamt up theories. Lets start from the top.

quote:

---

The general time frame is well known. As is how you assume many dreams as to what age is.

---

An old earth is supported by multiple lines of evidence. What evidence is there of a young earth? I mean data, not the dreams of Walt Brown.

quote:

---

I mentioned sea life high in mountains that were buried quickly,

---

How about the limestone layer containing sea shells in the MIDDLE of Mt. Everest? Not on top, but in the middle of the mountain. How does your theory attest to this problem. 3,000 meters of granite below the limestone and 2,000 meters of granite above the limestone. How does it add up?

quote:

---

As long as you consider the areas as zones or deposits of certain types of creatures, it is very plain. Now if we assume the sorts of fantastic scenarios trying to leave out the flood, then it becomes an interesting story. If we look at a process, after the fact, as it may be observed in today's much different world, we could not assume the same rates at the flood time, unless we assume there was no flood.

---

If you have to assume the premise to get to the conclusion, it is a logical fallacy. The premise must be supported by evidence, as modern radiometric dating is. A young earth is not evidenced in the geology of the earth. Are we missing something? Do you have evidence that processes occured at different rates in the past? If you don't, this is just an ad hoc hypothesis.

quote:

---

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Ro 1:22

---

This is what I think to myself every time I read a creationist web site.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 02-10-2004]

Sorry. I will refrain.

Simple,Maybe we all need to step back and look at the bigger picture. When forming hypotheses, and testing hypotheses, scientists ask themselves what they would expect to see if their theory is right. So maybe we could restart a little. Without ever looking at the geologic layers, what would you expect them to look like if they were laid down in a catastrophic world wide flood? What would you NOT expect to find (hence the falsibility of the theory)?[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 02-10-2004]

quote:

---

As an example, I would expect the little thingies from the sea that were very quickly buried in mud to be up there on a mountain. (Unless there was some reason that contradicted the known quantity, the time frame of the flood)-and I would expect someone who does not think so to tell me why the layer, in this case I think is (mid-cambrian?) could not possibly have been deposited in a flood scenario.

---

Ahhh, this is much more civil, wouldn't you agree? If you could please, could you be more specific on the type of animal/plant and possibly cite an actual deposit? Specifics, I think, are going to be important. BTW, I am not a geologist so others may feel free to jump in where my knowledge fails me. Hopefully we can all go over this one point at a time.

Simple,Ok, good. We have the positive example that you are looking for. Although some will say that it takes calm conditions and quick permineralization, we will tentatively take this as your positive evidence. The next important step in forming a theory is defining possible falsifying evidence. For example, if we are to test for an old earth we would not expect sediment layers to be ordered by particle size (gravel in the lowest layers, fine particles in the upper layers). What I need from you is the conditions in which your theory would be falsified. Without the possibility of falsification a theory is impossible to test. In other words, the theory is useless.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 02-11-2004]

quote:

---

Unless you can prove any layer was not a part of these events [global flood], I'll assume they are.

---

This is the problem I was trying to get you to discuss earlier. You have formed a theory: The earth is young. I got you to discuss what the positive evidence would be for a global flood and a young earth (quickly buried fossils) but you have yet to discuss the possible falsifying evidence. I could say just the opposite, unless you can prove that every layer is from the flood I will assume it is evidence for an old earth. This doesn't work either. You have to describe a mechanism that will describe the formation of sedimentary layers for all examples.For an old earth, ripple marks in sandstone are thought to be attributed to wind blown sand, and this is true in every case. Sediment made of fine particles (shales) are thought to have been deposited slowly over time, and this is true in every case. So, if we have windblown ripples in sandstone below a shale layer, we would expect a desert environment that may have led to a still water aquatic environment. What would falsify these mechanisms is great onrushes of water, say from a hurricane storm surge, that would create layers of sand with ripples that appear to be made from wind below a thick layer of very fine sediments. If we see deposition of layers thought to take hundreds of years in a matter of days, then the theory is shot. My theory can be falsified by collected data.You need to give us an example of how your theory, young earth and global flood, can be falsified by collected data. Without this, it is an ad hoc rationalization, a position that no scientist wants to put themselves into. For example, After watching "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" I could state that there are Everlasting Gobstoppers. To prove me wrong, you have to find every gobstopper in the world and prove that they are not everlasting. This is an unfair position and pushing the burden of proof away from the least tenable theory according to the experience of most candy eaters.Please give us an example of how the young earth/global flood theory can be falsified.

quote:

---

Now, if you had some documentation, like a book written by God, I would certainly take a serious look at it.

---

I don't take texts written by man as ultimate truth. I look at evidence that no man has control over, such as the rocks. Even if the Bible were God inspired, no one is claiming that God wrote it directly. So you still don't have a book written by God.

quote:

---

So I'm suppose to know how to let you know how to 'falsify' Noah's flood? You guy's have been at it for years, you tell me. I don't see how it can be, unless you can get rid of God. I accept it as a known quantity.

---

Then your theory of a young earth/global flood is meaningless. If any and all evidence can be twisted and contorted to fit a flood model, then NOTHING is evidence of the flood theory. I have given you examples of how an old earth theory could be falsified, and yet you make no such effort. Very dishonest of you.And yes, geologists have falsified the existence of a global flood. That isn't the point. It is you saying there is evidence FOR the flood in the face of counterevidence. For your theory to replace one already supported by evidence, you have to subject your theory to the same tests. That is what evidence supports the flood and what type of evidence would falsify the flood. Until you do so, your theory has no footing.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

We can realize the violence. The fact that we don't see the result of such violence in the geologic record brings us to the conclusion that the violence never occured. What would be the result of such violence, according to you? Finely separated sediments and hundreds of feet of limestone don't seem to support this.And also, your whole position that pre-flood rates were different rings very hollow. Do you have any evidence that the rates were different. Do you have proof that the rates were not SLOWER than they are now? The rates could have been slower, which would mean the earth is much older than we think. So if rates could have been slower in the past, can I make the argument that the earth MUST be 50 billion years old? I have just as much evidence for 50 billion years as you have for 6,000. Simply stating that rates were different is not enough, you must have evidence.