Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,616 Year: 4,873/9,624 Month: 221/427 Week: 31/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4194 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 256 of 304 (293830)
03-10-2006 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Faith
03-10-2006 2:31 AM


Re: No Claims Faith?
I'm not really concerned about people talking over my head, but people being insistent on their own point of view and ignoring my perfectly reasonable alternative view. Unfortunately I joined this thread without having any real interest in it, as I'd said all I wanted to say on the previous thread that prompted it.
two things that struck me reading this faith, if your alternative view was reasonable you could answer peoples questions without problems, since you can't answer any of them they don't really seem that convencing.
the other is if you don't have any interest in debating this why are you still posting to this thread, no one is forcing you to, i know why you are namely some people want answers you don't want to give them and they are bringing it to the for front. mostly i think because you don't seem to want answer it but will use the same reasons in other threads.
if the arguments do not seem to be up to snuff maybe you should look to your arguments for why people keep asking for more answers
i have yet to find one yec argument to answer any of the questions that the geologic/evolutionary time scale answers.
yes you could say we are all bias but come on, is that reasonable or just a flailing tactic to distract?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 2:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 3:32 AM ReverendDG has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 257 of 304 (293839)
03-10-2006 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by ReverendDG
03-10-2006 3:17 AM


Re: No Claims Faith?
I still think the abundance of fossils is terrific evidence for the worldwide flood. I don't see any sensible reason why so many should exist otherwise. I also still think the layers can't be explained reasonably by buildup in tiny increments over millions of years, and that nobody has yet appreciated the implications of this though I've tried to explain it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by ReverendDG, posted 03-10-2006 3:17 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by PaulK, posted 03-10-2006 3:47 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 259 by ReverendDG, posted 03-10-2006 4:19 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 262 by Jazzns, posted 03-10-2006 8:39 AM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 258 of 304 (293847)
03-10-2006 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Faith
03-10-2006 3:32 AM


Re: No Claims Faith?
quote:
I still think the abundance of fossils is terrific evidence for the worldwide flood. I don't see any sensible reason why so many should exist otherwise
OK, but that is just a subjective personal opinion. In my view "terrific" evidence should be a little more objective.
In my view there is no obvious problem - fossils will naturally accumulate over time. In the case of the microfossils making up the White Cliffs of Dover this seems to be a mre reasonable explanation - as explained earlier in the thread.
So can you offer any good, objective, reason why the observed abundance is better explained by a single global Flood ?
quote:
I also still think the layers can't be explained reasonably by buildup in tiny increments over millions of years, and that nobody has yet appreciated the implications of this though I've tried to explain it.
I have already asked for further explanation - neither the evidence nor the problem have been explained in sufficient detail for me. So far as I can tell the evidence itself is misunderstood - strata often intergrade into each other or are deposited on older, eroded strata.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 3:32 AM Faith has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4194 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 259 of 304 (293851)
03-10-2006 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Faith
03-10-2006 3:32 AM


Re: No Claims Faith?
I still think the abundance of fossils is terrific evidence for the worldwide flood. I don't see any sensible reason why so many should exist otherwise. I also still think the layers can't be explained reasonably by buildup in tiny increments over millions of years, and that nobody has yet appreciated the implications of this though I've tried to explain it.
you see this is what i mean, you declare something but you don't explain anything, and you expect people to agree with you?
why is the terrific evidence?
i see another reason other than the flood, things dying over time naturally and being buried under sediments and over time the remains get replaced by minerals
why then? why can't the current geological view be reasonable in light of what we know about how rocks are formed?
by the way this is not really evidence for the flood is it?
this is attacking current theorys of geology, and you wonder why noone agrees?
This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-10-2006 04:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 3:32 AM Faith has not replied

Ratel
Inactive Member


Message 260 of 304 (293859)
03-10-2006 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Faith
03-10-2006 2:31 AM


running grass
quote:
These puzzles are not of interest to me. How would I know why they sorted themselves as they did? How would anyone know? The Old Earth people don't have to work very hard. They can just decide, oh well this is proof that grasses evolved later, case closed.
  —Faith
Okay, fair enough. I find the history of life on earth fascinating, so I guess we have to part company here.
quote:
But what you are calling "land environments" already reflects the assumptions of the OE frame of reference. To a floodist these aren't "environments" of course. Floodists may think along lines of the layers' representing sediments and living things from different originating geographic areas that were conveyed in different water currents to their final location. In that frame of reference the grasses were carried in currents that finally deposited in the top layers. Why? I don't know. Creationists have ideas, but how would anyone know for sure?
  —Faith
Well, aside from the fact that some YE Creationists do believe that the various strata represent discrete environments, perhaps I should have said "strata in which the specimens all represent land dwelling flora and fauna". So that phrasing wouldn't presuppose OE, but I don't think the first did, either.
Alright, that's all I wanted to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 2:31 AM Faith has not replied

Mallon
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 304 (293895)
03-10-2006 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Faith
03-10-2006 2:31 AM


Re: No Claims Faith?
Faith said:
quote:
Floodists may think along lines of the layers' representing sediments and living things from different originating geographic areas that were conveyed in different water currents to their final location.
Here's a MAJOR problem with that line of thought: trace fossils. Can things like footprints, dinosaur nests, burrows, etc. be "conveyed" in a massive flood while still retaining their perfect shape? The answer is: no, they can't. The fossils are in situ. Of course, I don't expect Faith to answer to this since she doesn't care, but I'm just throwing this out there for some of our other creationist readers to mull over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 2:31 AM Faith has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3995 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 262 of 304 (293896)
03-10-2006 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Faith
03-10-2006 3:32 AM


Re: No Claims Faith?
I also still think the layers can't be explained reasonably by buildup in tiny increments over millions of years
Not all layers are built up in tiny increments over millions of years. It can't be said much simpler then that. All over all of these threads you keep saying this like it is actually something that geologists believe. The more you keep saying this the more you reenforce that you do not understand sedimentation.
There are places in the world where sediment does build up very slowly. These places are always extrodinarily calm such as deep lake or ocean. Other places bulid sediment comparitivly quickly. River deltas, deserts, basins, etc. Mudflows can drop dozens of feet worth of sediment in a matter of minutes which bury trees, houses, critters, etc.
The modern geologic principles that you keep calling absurd are actually only fantasies of your own ignorance. Of course if everywhere sediment only accumulated at millimeters a year there might be a problem for fossilization and/or weathering. But that scenario is only true in the world that exists in your own head.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 3:32 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Mallon, posted 03-10-2006 8:48 AM Jazzns has not replied

Mallon
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 304 (293903)
03-10-2006 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Jazzns
03-10-2006 8:39 AM


Re: No Claims Faith?
Jazzns brings up an excellent point. Just to reinforce: gradualism, as we use it today, is not the same as it was used 100+ years ago. When we refer to "the present as the key to the past" we mean that the processes we see in the world today were likely occurring in the world before we ever showed up. This includes instances of both rapid and slow sediment deposition. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of anyone who suggests otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Jazzns, posted 03-10-2006 8:39 AM Jazzns has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1072 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 264 of 304 (293968)
03-10-2006 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Buzsaw
03-09-2006 10:51 PM


Re: No Christian geologists?
IDist geologist? I've never heard of that. Is that the new term for YEC geologist?
Fact is, Buz, old earth geology works. It helps us find all of our natural resources, it helps solve our environmental problems, and helps us understand potential natural disasters. YEC theories do not to address these sorts of real-world issues because their theories, even after several hundred years of postulations, are too disjointed and have no predictive power whatsoever.
In one of my posts (#190?) I mentioned that had the flood actually occurred, we should be able to find horizons rich in heavy mineral concentrates. Water is the most efficient medium for eroding, transporting, and subsequently sorting unconsolidated material of varying specific gravities. That is why some rivers or come old river systems are targets for alluvial gold, platinum, diamond, etc. exploration.
The rains required by a Noah-type flood would result in the erosion of millions of square kilometers of surface area, producing millions of tons of material - on each continent. And within this eroded material would be many tons of heavy minerals. Where are they and why haven't we found those horizons? Are the YECs looking? Are they in the oceans, coastal areas (like maybe the San Joaquin Valley), or in the central portions of the continents?
The main problem with YECism is that a Noachic flood only makes sense if you generalize and divorce all the data from each other. But we all know the devil is in the details.
And the details found throughout the ENTIRE geologic record from the bottom to the top include ancient soil horizons (can't form soil underwater), evaporites with dessication cracks (can't dry out the salts underwater), carbonate precipitation (requires plenty of light, shallow depth, clear water, and a narrow range of water temperature), too many fossils (each environment can only support so much life), etc.
Without adequate explanations for these problems, flood theory remains incompatable with the data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Buzsaw, posted 03-09-2006 10:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 12:01 PM roxrkool has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 265 of 304 (293970)
03-10-2006 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by roxrkool
03-10-2006 11:54 AM


Re: No Christian geologists?
The rains required by a Noah-type flood would result in the erosion of millions of square kilometers of surface area, producing millions of tons of material - on each continent. And within this eroded material would be many tons of heavy minerals. Where are they and why haven't we found those horizons?
You simply imagine a different kind of flood than YECs do, something that behaved more like a local flood. The Flood wouldn't merely "erode" the surface, it pretty much would have dissolved probably a lot more of the surface area than you have in mind, absolutely scoured some areas down to bedrock, as well as moving a lot of it around, perhaps from distant parts of the globe to other parts. Some of what had been in the oceans ended up as dry land and vice versa I would think.
Also, at the time of the Flood the continents did not yet exist, but the undifferentiated land mass called "Pangaea."
This is the problem with these discussions. It's all a contest of imagination and I see no reason why geologists would have an edge on imagining the Flood, but in fact a handicap because of basic disbelief in it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-10-2006 12:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by roxrkool, posted 03-10-2006 11:54 AM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by crashfrog, posted 03-10-2006 12:05 PM Faith has replied
 Message 274 by roxrkool, posted 03-10-2006 12:32 PM Faith has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 266 of 304 (293972)
03-10-2006 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Faith
03-10-2006 12:01 PM


Re: No Christian geologists?
You simply imagine a different kind of flood than YECs do, something that behaved more like a local flood.
That's funny, because the flood YEC's imagine behaves exactly like a local flood:
1) Water comes in from somewhere else.
2) Water goes away to somewhere else.
Which are the two things a "global flood" could not do. By all means, think through the consequences of a deluge being a global event; but recognize that such a flood would not operate the way as described in the Bible.
It's all a contest of imagination
If you were of the opinion that science doesn't take imagination, you were quite mistaken. Imagination is required to devise experiment and observation to test theory. That's what we're doing, here - using our imaginations on two competing models to figure out what we can go observe in order to test them.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-10-2006 12:07 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 12:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 12:08 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 12:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 267 of 304 (293975)
03-10-2006 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by crashfrog
03-10-2006 12:05 PM


Re: No Christian geologists?
If you don't start from what the Bible says you will never get a picture of the Flood and never be able to make intelligent guesses about what it left. That's the handicap nonbelievers operate under.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by crashfrog, posted 03-10-2006 12:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by crashfrog, posted 03-10-2006 12:16 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 270 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-10-2006 12:16 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 268 of 304 (293976)
03-10-2006 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by crashfrog
03-10-2006 12:05 PM


Re: No Christian geologists?
Of course science takes imagination but since unbelievers reject the Biblical record their imaginations about the Flood are not going to be trustworthy, and in fact most of what they imagine about it is ridiculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by crashfrog, posted 03-10-2006 12:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by crashfrog, posted 03-10-2006 12:21 PM Faith has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 269 of 304 (293981)
03-10-2006 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Faith
03-10-2006 12:08 PM


Re: No Christian geologists?
If you don't start from what the Bible says you will never get a picture of the Flood and never be able to make intelligent guesses about what it left.
But you don't even start from what the Bible says. You start from what you've been told the Bible says. Unless you read Hebrew?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 12:08 PM Faith has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 270 of 304 (293982)
03-10-2006 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Faith
03-10-2006 12:08 PM


Re: No Christian geologists?
If you don't start from what the Bible says you will never get a picture of the Flood and never be able to make intelligent guesses about what it left. That's the handicap nonbelievers operate under.
You know, it sounds like you're saying that if we don't assume ahead of time that the flood occurred, there's no way the evidence would lead us to it on its own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 12:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 12:26 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024