Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1544 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 271 of 304 (293984)
03-10-2006 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Faith
03-10-2006 12:10 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
Why? You mean, because we're motivated to find the holes in it? The impossibilities?
What leads you to believe that we don't approach our own models with the same goal in mind? We're far more critical about our own theories than we are about any of your flood nonsense. Even talking about it there's a number of flood inconsistencies that we simply ignore for your benefit. That's something we could never ever get away with in regards to actual scientific theories.
It's a little frustrating how blind you seem to be to how fair we are - more than fair, the deck is stacked far in your favor. That's how accurate the scientific side is; we're more than confident that we can prevail even with one hand tied behind our backs, as it were. If you think your ideas are being raked across the coals, know that this is nothing. This isn't even a hundreth-part of the kind of antagonism entirely legitimate scientific theories are required to withstand.
If you want to see skepticism that will make your eyeballs melt, look up some of Holmes's threads where he attacks what he sees as bad science. You should be thankful that he generally opts not to get involved in these discussions; what you've experienced so far is nothing at all compared to the holes he could find in your reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 12:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 12:29 PM crashfrog has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 272 of 304 (293987)
03-10-2006 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Dan Carroll
03-10-2006 12:16 PM


Re: No Christian geologists?
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.
Well, that does appear to be the case, doesn't it? It seems to me that the worldwide strata and staggering abundance of fossils contained therein are terrific evidence, but it does appear that one does need to have the idea of the Flood to see it that way. I see the Flood everywhere I go -- in the stratifications in the mountains, and certainly where they are sharply visible because of the deep erosion of huge quantities of water after they were laid down, as in the Southwest US, and even in the generally tumbled disorderly appearance of all the earth, for instance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-10-2006 12:16 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-10-2006 12:32 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 273 of 304 (293988)
03-10-2006 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by crashfrog
03-10-2006 12:21 PM


Re: No Christian geologists?
All I was saying was that geologists don't imagine the extent of the flood as YECs do, but always seem to come up with some version they can easily shoot down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by crashfrog, posted 03-10-2006 12:21 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by crashfrog, posted 03-10-2006 12:45 PM Faith has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1066 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 274 of 304 (293989)
03-10-2006 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Faith
03-10-2006 12:01 PM


Re: No Christian geologists?
Faith writes:
You simply imagine a different kind of flood than YECs do, something that behaved more like a local flood.
No, I don't think so. I've observed local floods and seen the damage they do. I've also seen the damage a megaflood can do (e.g., Missoula). The type of flood that would be caused by the amount of rain and water necessary to cover the entire globe with water is massive.
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.
I'm aware of the type of erosion that would occur. By dissolving and scouring so much of the surface, you are releasing tons and tons of heavy minerals that were trapped in consolidated sediment or rock, tranporting that material long distances, and depositing it someplace - either in oceanic or continental basins. Where is that horizon?
Also, at the time of the Flood the continents did not yet exist, but the undifferentiated land mass called "Pangaea."
What do you mean "undifferentiated?" We know there were mountains on Pangea because certain remnant mountain ranges, like the Appalachians, match up perfectly with mountain ranges in Africa and South America.
And from the image below, it's apparent the area of erosion was still large. LOTS of area to erode and sediment to re-deposit.
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.
We have the edge because we have evidence (matching mountain ranges) and can explain and expand upon our theories. We can explain most anything while flood theorists have problems with carbonate precipitation.
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-10-2006 01:37 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 277 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 12:59 PM roxrkool has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 304 (293990)
03-10-2006 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Faith
03-10-2006 12:26 PM


Re: No Christian geologists?
Shouldn't this perhaps say something? That it seems impossible for someone to just look at the Earth without assuming or knowing about the flood, and think, "Wow... looks like there was a great big worldwide flood here?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 12:26 PM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1544 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 276 of 304 (293995)
03-10-2006 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Faith
03-10-2006 12:29 PM


Re: No Christian geologists?
All I was saying was that geologists don't imagine the extent of the flood as YECs do, but always seem to come up with some version they can easily shoot down.
That's because every version of the Flood can be shot down, because it didn't happen. That's not my assumption (remember that I used to be a creationist), that's the conclusion from the fact that no Flood model has ever been defensible.
I'd ask you to present one that wasn't, if you knew of one, but you've already stated that it isn't your intention to actually defend the Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 12:29 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 277 of 304 (293999)
03-10-2006 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by roxrkool
03-10-2006 12:32 PM


Re: No Christian geologists?
Most pictures of Pangaea I've seen show it to be a much more consolidated land mass than your map does. And could you please reduce your map or link to it on another page as it is making this page hard to read.
Yes it is massive. I get the impression geologists don't appreciate HOW massive.
I have no idea how you are using the term "horizon."
Perhaps the minerals you are sure should exist in great quantities either never did exist in such great quantities or are so deeply buried that they can't be easily found.
The matching mountain ranges are part of my picture of things, not sure what you think that proves.
Forget carbonate precipitation. There is an explanation you simply haven't yet thought of and that I'm not in a position to think of.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-10-2006 01:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by roxrkool, posted 03-10-2006 12:32 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by DBlevins, posted 03-10-2006 1:11 PM Faith has replied
 Message 279 by roxrkool, posted 03-10-2006 1:36 PM Faith has replied
 Message 281 by jar, posted 03-10-2006 1:49 PM Faith has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3853 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 278 of 304 (294003)
03-10-2006 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Faith
03-10-2006 12:59 PM


Re: No Christian geologists?
The matching mountain ranges are part of my picture of things, not sure what you think that proves.
You implied earlier that there were no mountain ranges before the flood here post 104:
quote:
The mountains were raised after the flood, as I already said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 12:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 1:49 PM DBlevins has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1066 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 279 of 304 (294010)
03-10-2006 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Faith
03-10-2006 12:59 PM


Re: No Christian geologists?
Faith writes:
Most pictures of Pangaea I've seen show it to be a much more consolidated land mass than your map does.
That's because you have been looking at simplified and generalized versions of Pangea. And even the one I posted is simplified.
And could you please reduce your map or link to it on another page as it is making this page hard to read.
Sorry, I'll make it a thumbnail.
I have no idea how you are using the term "horizon."
Layer.
Perhaps the minerals you are sure should exist in great quantities either never did exist in such great quantities or are so deeply buried that they can't be easily found.
We have the technology to 'see' through the entire planet. We can see the changes in the Mantle, we've drilled holes in the ocean and on the continents. Strata is visible in the Grand Canyon, and still no heavy mineral rich layers. If anyone expected such a thing, they'd be looking for it, and yet, even the YECs are not wasting money on such an exploration project even though finding such a concentration of minerals would be the largest ore deposit EVER found in the history of the planet.
The matching mountain ranges are part of my picture of things, not sure what you think that proves.
As DBlevins stated. You earlier asserted there were no mountains prior to the flood.
Forget carbonate precipitation. There is an explanation you simply haven't yet thought of and that I'm not in a position to think of.
Why should I think of it and why should I forget about it? It's not my contention that the flood is capable of depositing carbonate. I can easily account for it using old earth models - you cannot and that's why you'd like to ignore it.
And maybe you should start thinking of it since the majority of the geologic column is composed of carbonate and your argument states the flood explains the data "better."
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-10-2006 01:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 12:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 2:04 PM roxrkool has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 280 of 304 (294014)
03-10-2006 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by DBlevins
03-10-2006 1:11 PM


Re: No Christian geologists?
Yes, the pre-flood world is usually thought to have had no high mountains and that all the mountain ranges were formed as a result of tectonic activity set in motion during the Flood.
But Pangaea broke up after the Flood and the mountains along the Atlantic coast rim were created then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by DBlevins, posted 03-10-2006 1:11 PM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Mallon, posted 03-10-2006 2:03 PM Faith has replied
 Message 284 by roxrkool, posted 03-10-2006 2:06 PM Faith has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 281 of 304 (294015)
03-10-2006 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Faith
03-10-2006 12:59 PM


Still waiting for some answers
To the questions raised in Message 47, Message 52 and Message 119.
If the flood happened, is what I described what you would expect to see? If it isn't, what exactly should we see?
Please outline what we should see related to grasses if the flood happened. Once you have done that we can then test your predictions against what is actually found. We have very few posts left and you still have not addressed issues from the very beginning.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 12:59 PM Faith has not replied

Mallon
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 304 (294018)
03-10-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Faith
03-10-2006 1:49 PM


Re: No Christian geologists?
Faith said:
quote:
Yes, the pre-flood world is usually thought to have had no high mountains and that all the mountain ranges were formed as a result of tectonic activity set in motion during the Flood.
This is contrary to the Bible. See Genesis 7:19.
Your "theory" is internally inconsistent and therefore refutes itself. Read Kosso's "Reading the Book of Nature."
This message has been edited by Mallon, Mar-10-2006 02:03 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 1:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 2:07 PM Mallon has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 283 of 304 (294020)
03-10-2006 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by roxrkool
03-10-2006 1:36 PM


Re: No Christian geologists?
Faith writes:
Most pictures of Pangaea I've seen show it to be a much more consolidated land mass than your map does.
=======
That's because you have been looking at simplified and generalized versions of Pangea.
Could be but I've seen a number of them online that are animated to show how the land mass moved apart into the various continents. Their features were certainly simplified as the aim was to demonstrate this movement. Your map appears to show an intermediate stage of separation compared to some of those I've seen, but unfortunately it wouldn't be easy to find the sites as it's been some time.
I have no idea how you are using the term "horizon."
====
Layer.
Of course. Funny.
Perhaps the minerals you are sure should exist in great quantities either never did exist in such great quantities or are so deeply buried that they can't be easily found.
=========
We have the technology to 'see' through the entire planet. We can see the changes in the Mantle, we've drilled holes in the ocean and on the continents. Strata is visible in the Grand Canyon, and still no heavy mineral rich layers. If anyone expected such a thing, they'd be looking for it, and yet, even the YECs are not wasting money on such an exploration project even though finding such a concentration of minerals would be the largest ore deposit EVER found in the history of the planet.
YECs tend to be an otherworldly bunch I suppose. Or the idea that the minerals would be so concentrated isn't necessarily all that solidly supported.
Forget carbonate precipitation. There is an explanation you simply haven't yet thought of and that I'm not in a position to think of.
========
Why should I think of it and why should I forget about it? It's not my contention that the flood is capable of depositing carbonate. I can easily account for it using old earth models - you cannot and that's why you'd like to ignore it.
That is true, I can't answer it, as I just said above. There is no point in arguing with me about such things, it is merely snowjobbing and an irritation that you do. I am content to know that the Flood occurred and that there is therefore a reasonable explanation for the carbonate deposits in keeping with the Flood that you have no motivation to discover and I have no ability to discover.
And maybe you should start thinking of it since the majority of the geologic column is composed of carbonate and your argument states the flood explains the data "better."
I don't worry about these things unless I have a good idea about them. The mere facts of the worldwide strata and bazillions of fossils is enough evidence of the Flood for me, along with the obvious absurdity of the idea of a very slow buildup of the strata over millions of years. This is why I try to avoid debate about the Flood.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-10-2006 02:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by roxrkool, posted 03-10-2006 1:36 PM roxrkool has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1066 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 284 of 304 (294021)
03-10-2006 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Faith
03-10-2006 1:49 PM


Re: No Christian geologists?
Faith, if the mountains were formed after Pangea broke up, why do they align with each other perfectly in North America, Africa, and South America? The mountain ranges are highly deformed and the shape of the ranges conform to the outlines of the continents, suggesting they were formed during continent-continent collisions.
In other words, the ranges formed as continents collided during the formation of Pangea. Pangea itself is an amalgamation of various other older microcontinents.
In addition, if there are no mountains in the pre-flood world, where did all the sediment come from that forms the thousands of feet rocks found in the geologic column?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 1:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 2:08 PM roxrkool has not replied
 Message 287 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 2:09 PM roxrkool has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 285 of 304 (294022)
03-10-2006 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Mallon
03-10-2006 2:03 PM


Re: No Christian geologists?
It is rude of you to give a reference without quoting it or linking it, but I assume that the Bible quote most likely refers to the landing of the ark on Ararat. Well the height of Ararat is not described, it was simply the highest point in the neighborhood. I didn't say there were NO mountains, the idea is taht the very high mountains, even the Appalachians, were formed after the Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Mallon, posted 03-10-2006 2:03 PM Mallon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Mallon, posted 03-10-2006 2:10 PM Faith 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