Flood Stories

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
If you can tell me that strengthened turbity currents would not form massive subterranean canyons in the continental shelf assuming the framework of the flood (a young earth), or that global impact strikes would not produce any form of nuclear winter, etc. then you can say there is a lack of an ioda of evidence.

---

Where is your evidence that it happened TC, NOT a far fetched explanation of the current evidence that allows the possibility of a flood but evidence of the flood itself....If we were to see a lamb out in a field we would postulate that its sire and dam were both sheep, But I could propose a bunch of bizarre, incoherant pseudo Bio Chem arguments for its father and mother being crocodiles....Even if I were to somehow establish the croc sheep descent as a possibility this is a long way from producing the putative croc parents as evidence FOR my position....Do you get it?You have presented no evidence FOR the flood merely offered up crackpot ruminations on ways that it may remain a viable alternative to the current paradigm....The flood myth had its day as the ruling paradigm TC it was deposed in a classic case of survival of the fittest and untill you find NEW evidence that the Flood paradigm fits that invalidates current theories all your pseudo theorisation here will accomplish you nothing...

"Where is your evidence that it happened TC, NOT a far fetched explanation of the current evidence that allows the possibility of a flood but evidence of the flood itself...."
--That is evidence of the flood, i just listed one, subterranean canyons."If we were to see a lamb out in a field we would postulate that its sire and dam were both sheep, But I could propose a bunch of bizarre, incoherant pseudo Bio Chem arguments for its father and mother being crocodiles...."Even if I were to somehow establish the croc sheep descent as a possibility this is a long way from producing the putative croc parents as evidence FOR my position....Do you get it?"
--Yes, however, if you can show that this can actually happen in plausable conditions (even though it is a pretty horrible illustration) assume that it takes a flood for this decent to happen, this shows that these conditions are needed for this to happen in a given period of time."You have presented no evidence FOR the flood merely offered up crackpot ruminations on ways that it may remain a viable alternative to the current paradigm...."
--Then I have yet to see such evidence for any aspect of history at all, all my geology books must be irrlevent and not what should be looked for."The flood myth had its day as the ruling paradigm TC it was deposed in a classic case of survival of the fittest and untill you find NEW evidence that the Flood paradigm fits that invalidates current theories all your pseudo theorisation here will accomplish you nothing..."
--What evidence must I then show you?------------------

First let me start of by stating I am not a geologist, nor a scientist of any kind. I am a reasonable person open to the idea of creationism, but skeptical. The things I've mentioned, ie tablets and archeoligcal evidence, are dated using whatever dating method is accepted, based on that there has been nothing to substantiate some claims. Now I think I might have come to some realization, apparantly there is more than one creationist camp. I was unaware of such a division, thinking that there was simply creationists.. A different forum I've been told about has based all its arguments on the bible, ending today with the argument that the bible is right because the author says it is. I laughed out loud. This forum is the exact opposite in its dealings it now appears.TC I appologize for grouping you with the "crackpots" I have been dealing with.Unfortunatly I do not have the time to research the facts that are already accepted to be truth or close enough to truth. All I can do is use these "facts" as support against creationism until a creationists puts forth a theory that has enough evidence to support it so that I can be convinced. It is not my job to prove evolution, old earth, or the validity of the bible as a moral teaching but not a history book. It is your job to convince me they are wrong, to show me the error in the already presented evidence, to inform me of why the creationist view is correct. Perhaps I will have to wait until your theory is more fleshed out, gathered more of your own evidence. However as to date I have not seen anything to convince me that creationists are anything more than people desperate to explain their purpose in the universe. People who's base argument for wanting to validate creationism is to give them a purpose, God made me for a reason, my existance is not a chance event.

quote:

---

People who's base argument for wanting to validate creationism is to give them a purpose, God made me for a reason, my existance is not a chance event.

---

JM: Even worse, such an effort truly undermines 'faith'.CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"Ah I was wondering if anyone else had watched that program on TLC last night......
Oh and TC the lack of evidence refers to the lack of any geological evidence for a GLOBAL flood..."TC: If you can tell me that strengthened turbity currents would not form massive subterranean canyons in the continental shelf assuming the framework of the flood (a young earth), or that global impact strikes would not produce any form of nuclear winter, etc. then you can say there is a lack of an ioda of evidence.[/QUOTE]A couple of questions, TC. What is a "strengthened turbity (sic) current," and how did it get to be strengthened? Is there any evidence for such a phenomenon?What the heck is a subterranean canyon?Is an Ioda related to Yoda? On a serious note, you have a serious problem with your logic circuits. It is not possible to prove a negative hypothesis. I cannot prove that there never were "strenghtened turbidity currents." It would be impossible to do so. Neither can you prove that the earth was not given birth by a pink unicorn. In effect, you set the bar a little bit higher for evolutionists than for yourself and your fellow creationists in making this argument. Can you scientifically prove that evolution did NOT occur? Of course not, you only believe that it did not occur.I can, however, state that there is no evidence for "strengthened turbidity currents." We have never seen them, nor are there any landforms that we can attribute to them. Therefore, it is likely that they never have existed in any quantity.I realize that this is not a problem in a supernatural belief system where literally anything can happen, but if you want to play the science game, you have to play by the rules. You will find that if you force creationism to play by the same standards that you set for evolution, it will fail miserably.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 04-25-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"Where is your evidence that it happened TC, NOT a far fetched explanation of the current evidence that allows the possibility of a flood but evidence of the flood itself...."
--That is evidence of the flood, i just listed one, subterranean canyons.[/QUOTE]Submarine[/b] canyons are also evidence of lower sea levels, TC. Since we know that sea level has been significanly lower in the past, and there is no evidence for flood-related turbidity currents, which alternative is more likely? Your scenario is but wishful thinking rather than a scientific explanation.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 04-25-2002]

"On a serious note, you have a serious problem with your logic circuits. It is not possible to prove a negative hypothesis. I cannot prove that there never were "strenghtened turbidity currents." It would be impossible to do so."
--Yes, though you can show (the word 'prove' probably should not be used) that there is evidence that there were."Neither can you prove that the earth was not given birth by a pink unicorn."
--Thats right."In effect, you set the bar a little bit higher for evolutionists than for yourself and your fellow creationists in making this argument."
--I don't think I have set the bar anywhere for the evolutionist, let alone higher, I am not arguing against your interperetation, but you are arguing against mine."Can you scientifically prove that evolution did NOT occur? Of course not, you only believe that it did not occur."
--Perfectly reasonable."I can, however, state that there is no evidence for "strengthened turbidity currents." We have never seen them, nor are there any landforms that we can attribute to them. Therefore, it is likely that they never have existed in any quantity."
--Assuming that 'everything as it happens today is how it has always happend'. Though of course uniformitarianism allows for catastrophic events, it seems it is relatively flexible here. I don't have to show that the same process is happening today as the prime cause for the formation (submarine canyons for instance). But I can show that this would be a direct result if such drainage were to happen. This is the same logic that is used to produce a theory for the mainstream K-T extinction, along with many other geologic/paleontologic observations."I realize that this is not a problem in a supernatural belief system where literally anything can happen, but if you want to play the science game, you have to play by the rules."
--I fully agree."You will find that if you force creationism to play by the same standards that you set for evolution, it will fail miserably. "
--I have only seen its advancement in this scenario, which is the way I play the 'game'.------------------

"Submarine canyons are also evidence of lower sea levels, TC. Since we know that sea level has been significanly lower in the past, and there is no evidence for flood-related turbidity currents, which alternative is more likely? Your scenario is but wishful thinking rather than a scientific explanation."
--You just used the same logic and denied it when considering an effect of the Flood, turbidly currents are well known to theoretically produce these massive canyons by the effects of a submarine land-slide or multiple ones. This is just what would happen as water would drain off of continents.(yes excuse me, 'submarine' canyons, I had recently watched a documentary about subterranean canyons and got the two confused)------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Submarine canyons are also evidence of lower sea levels, TC. Since we know that sea level has been significanly lower in the past, and there is no evidence for flood-related turbidity currents, which alternative is more likely? Your scenario is but wishful thinking rather than a scientific explanation."

​

--You just used the same logic and denied it when considering an effect of the Flood, turbidly currents are well known to theoretically produce these massive canyons by the effects of a submarine land-slide or multiple ones. This is just what would happen as water would drain off of continents.

---

So, turbidity currents are "well known to theoretically produce..." Wow, if that isn't spin control, I don't know what it is. And creationist accuse evolutionist of speculating!If this is what happens when water drains off continents, then we should be seeing it today. After all, water is draining off the continents as we speak. If we see it today, why are we not in the midst of a global flood?You seem to think that if they exist they might have done such and such; but even if they did, it wouldn't necessarily mean a global flood. Try again TC.

"So, turbidity currents are "well known to theoretically produce..." Wow, if that isn't spin control, I don't know what it is. And creationist accuse evolutionist of speculating!"
--Speculation, now I would like to speak to anyone who said speculating (synonymous to thinking) about past events is not good science?"If this is what happens when water drains off continents, then we should be seeing it today. After all, water is draining off the continents as we speak. If we see it today, why are we not in the midst of a global flood?"
--Actually, we do see this happening today, check out any book on marine geology and look up turbidity currents. This is an effect that is known today to produce land slides at the mouths of rivers. This water is being drained off of continents as we speak and does produce submarine land-slides at the mouths of rivers though not at the extent of the canyons we see in the continental shelf 6 times the size of the grand canyon. The reason that we are not in the midst of a global flood because of todays topographical land-scape, and the obviousness that water drainage off of the continents either way hasn't anything to do with a global flood."You seem to think that if they exist they might have done such and such; but even if they did, it wouldn't necessarily mean a global flood. Try again TC."
--Feel free to discredit any thinking on the past on this very same basis, including the ToE, as it is using the same methed of science I am. I think it would be wise for you to refer back to where you were speaking of my 'Bar' being higher for the Old Earther rather than the YEC. They are on the same level working on the same level of science.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-28-2002]

There does not seem to be any good web pages on submarine canyon formation, but turbidity currents seem to be deemed the primary errosive force, in their formation.Turbidity currents happened in the Archean (I just got done looking at some turbidite deposit rocks, on Saturday). They've happened throughout geologic history, and they continue to happen in these modern times.Now, what does this have to do with the topic?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

[QUOTE]Originally posted by minnemooseus:
[B]There does not seem to be any good web pages on submarine canyon formation, but turbidity currents seem to be deemed the primary errosive force, in their formation.Turbidity currents happened in the Archean (I just got done looking at some turbidite deposit rocks, on Saturday). They've happened throughout geologic history, and they continue to happen in these modern times.Now, what does this have to do with the topic?[/QUOTE]Indeed, the point is that the presence of submarine canyons formed by turbidity currents does not necessarily imply a global flood. As you suggest, some present erosion of submarine canyons is attributed to turbidity currents and they may have been important in the past. However, the presence of submarine canyons was presented by TC as one of the pieces of evidence for the global flood. At least, I think it was. He also called upon "strengthened turbidity currents," whatever those are. What it has to do with the subject of the thread is not certain.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 04-29-2002]

From the geology glossary, of this site:Turbidity current - A current in air, water, or any other fluid caused by differences in the amount of suspended matter (such as mud, silt, or volcanic dust). Marine turbidity currents, laden with suspended sediment, move rapidly down continental slopes and spread out over the abyssal floor.Moose

"Indeed, the point is that the presence of submarine canyons formed by turbidity currents does not necessarily imply a global flood. As you suggest, some present erosion of submarine canyons is attributed to turbidity currents and they may have been important in the past. However, the presence of submarine canyons was presented by TC as one of the pieces of evidence for the global flood. At least, I think it was. He also called upon "strengthened turbidity currents," whatever those are. What it has to do with the subject of the thread is not certain."
--It is evidence for the Global Flood because in Flood Theory as I argue it, Cambrian --> Pleistocene sediments are flood deposited, and in this along with its very short time-scale for run-off to occur from the continents there should be evidence of this runoff. As minnemooseus cites in the definition of a turbidity current, they are 'laden with suspended sediment, move rapidly down continental slopes and spread out over the abyssal floor'. After such sedimentary deposition higher deposited sediments would not have been lithified and thus large quantities would return to the oceans along with the abating water creating these 'strengthened' turbidity currents by its own force plowing through the continental shelf.-------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-29-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Indeed, the point is that the presence of submarine canyons formed by turbidity currents does not necessarily imply a global flood. As you suggest, some present erosion of submarine canyons is attributed to turbidity currents and they may have been important in the past. However, the presence of submarine canyons was presented by TC as one of the pieces of evidence for the global flood. At least, I think it was. He also called upon "strengthened turbidity currents," whatever those are. What it has to do with the subject of the thread is not certain."

​

--It is evidence for the Global Flood because in Flood Theory as I argue it, Cambrian --> Pleistocene sediments are flood deposited, and in this along with its very short time-scale for run-off to occur from the continents there should be evidence of this runoff.

---

The problem is that it is evidence for what is going on right now, as well. No flood is necessary. What about post-Pleistocene turbidity currents or Precambrain turbidity currents?

quote:

---

As minnemooseus cites in the definition of a turbidity current, they are 'laden with suspended sediment, move rapidly down continental slopes and spread out over the abyssal floor'.

---

I have no problem with the definition. I have no problem with erosion by turbidity currents. I have a problem with calling them and submarine canyons evidence for a flood.

quote:

---

After such sedimentary deposition higher deposited sediments would not have been lithified and thus large quantities would return to the oceans along with the abating water creating these 'strengthened' turbidity currents by its own force plowing through the continental shelf.

---

Can you document any "strengthened turbidity currents?" For all I know, they do exist, but I am skeptical that they are a construct that you have created for your flood mythology. I am trying to see just what you actually know about turbidity currents.