Summations Only

What exactly isn't easy? Message 333 You asked: There were 5 replies to that message.
3 of those replies were polite and the other 2 were also polite, but showed an 'undertone' of frustration with you.But you did not post a single reply to any of those messages.
You ignored them and instead posted replies to 4 snarky messages.So what is it that you are finding difficult?
Because currently it looks like the only thing that is 'not easy' for you is debating the subject.

Its not easy to answer every reply. I have no intention of living in this forum.

There's a reason it's not easy. In order for there to have been a recent world-wide flood, generations of geologists and their research going back to the late 1700's would have to be wildly wrong. For so many geologists over so long a period of time to be so wrong would require the source of the error to be incredibly well hidden. It is unlikely to be found in a blender of dirt and water or anything else so simplistic.You're going to have an incredibly hard time becoming informed enough about geology to argue effectively in this thread. You're not here in this thread out of a love of geology but out of a love of God. The devotion and fascination required to study geology are just not there for you. You're doomed to forever troll the Internet for creationist websites with effective arguments, but those websites were put together by people who though they share your love of God also share your ignorance of geology.--Percy

There were 5 replies to your Message 333.
But you did not post a single reply to any of those messages.
Instead you replied to 4 snarky messages.You clearly have no problem finding the time to reply - but you appear unable to actually debate or support your claims. You also have no intention of debating else you would have ignored the snarky posts and instead addressed the polite ones.

It is really not easy when you are trying to defend a position that is not just false but one that is refuted by literally all of the evidence available.I understand that.But it is an opportunity for you to actually learn what reality tells us and what is actually supported by evidence.Your blender example is a great starting point for you to understand what is true.When we look at this world we find examples where there are layers just as you would expect from your blender example, but what we see is a whole series of those layers, heavy on the bottom, lighter above, that then repeat again and again, often hundreds of thousands of such layers, sometimes millions of such layers, one on top of another, turtles all the way down.If the layer was caused by a flood, then that flood did not happen once, but rather hundreds of thousands of times in the very same area, millions of times at that very location.But wait, there is more you can learn from your blender experiment. You can determine how long everything must sit still for particles of a given size to settle out. And guess what, scientists have done just that and found that the really really fine particles can take a long period to settle out.Using the knowledge gained from your blender experiment you too can prove that what is seen is NOT from one massive flood but rather from an annual cycle that repeated yearly for hundreds of thousands of years, often millions of years.This is a great opportunity for you and can be the first step towards throwing away the many falsehoods you've been taught and beginning your journey towards truth and reality.

You have made your job even harder by choosing a conclusion that is contradicted by literal mountains of evidence and 300 years of accumulated scientific knowledge. If someone gets up in the middle of science class and announces that the world is flat don't you think he will have a few questions asked of him?On top of that, you offer overly simplistic models that are not even analogous to real life evidence. Does the geologic column look anything like the results from your blender experiment? Did you even stop to consider this idea? Did you do any research to find out if the geologic column is sorted by particle density and size? Did you figure out how your blender model would sort igneous rocks so that the rocks on the bottom would just a little bit more Argon than the rocks at the top, like we see in the geologic column? Did you even consider how your blender experiment would sort fossils so that they always end up under rock with a specific ratio of Potassium and Argon such as we find in the geologic column (e.g. dinosaurs always end up below rocks with a ratio of Potassium and Argon consistent with 65 million years worth of decay, why is that according to flood geology?).It may not be intentional, but it is somewhat insulting for someone to claim that the blender experiment explains why the geologic column looks the way it does. Do you really think that geologists are that dumb?When all of this is pointed out, what is your response? "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause." Really? An inability to engage the evidence is a sign of a false theory. An inability to answer basic questions is a sign of a false theory. Perhaps you should focus on creationism before pointing any fingers.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

The only place that the geological column exists in its entirety with all 12 layers in order, is in the textbooks. It doesnt exist anywhere on planet earth. The only place that the fossil record is found as it is portrayed in charts, exists only in the textbooks. It doesnt exist anywhere on planet earth. Great question. Why dont geologists believe in the flood. If it was true then surely geologists would have discovered evidence for it. What was Charles Lyell's motivations for believing in millions of years of geological activity? Afterall, his theory came long before radiometric dating methods and other experiments to date rocks. Lyell's theory of millions of years had nothing to do with that. Lyell said in a letter that he wanted to "free science from Moses". In another letter he said, "I conceived the ideas five or six years ago, that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down or put aside without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch". In other words he wanted to rewrite the history of the past.So what is the evidence for a flood? The flood was not a gentle event, it was a violent, volcanic event. It involved lots of water churning and incredible amounts of sediment. You find massive fossil graveyards all over the earth. Thousands of dead animals buried and squashed together. Mass mortality. Fish fossilized by the trillions! Marine fossils found on continents, proving that conditions were different in the past. Fossils show signs of horrible, painful deaths. Drowning, choking and being crushed to death. Here is struthiomimus in a death pose. Drowning and gasping for air while being covered in sediment. Some type of catastrophic-extinction has occured. Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

You haven't paid attention to anything anyone has said. I'd reply in more detail, but I fear I'd again be wasting my time.Just repeating your errors at greater length and with pictures won't get you anywhere. Why don't you quote something someone has said about why you're wrong about what flood evidence looks like, and then respond to that.--Percy

You guys and girls are funny. I reply to a post I get criticised. I dont reply to a post I get criticised. I get insulted, yet if I reply to an insult I get criticised.

Naturally. Why do you mention it? No, it came from studying sedimentology, you know, that thing you know nothing about?The fact that from his limited data he was able to come to a conclusion which would be later confirmed by sciences he couldn't even imagine is not a reason to cast aspersions on him but rather to hail him as a visionary and a genius. Yes, he managed to infer an old earth before radiometric dating existed. What a man! Yes. Because the history which had been written was wrong. These fish ... they were drowned in the flood, were they? But not showing that there was a magic flood. Er ... how do you know what a struthiomimus looks like when it's drowned as opposed to dying in some other way?Oh, right, you made it up.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hi Portillo,We can tell from your last post that you still believe the geologic record is consistent with a flood, but you ignored all the posts explaining why a flood doesn't deposit sediments in ways that resemble the layers of the geologic record. How much credit do you think you deserve for ignoring all this information? If what we post to you doesn't matter, why should we bother?While there are some people who will always be snarky , even normally polite people will become snarky when ignored.Debate isn't you talk, I talk, you talk, I talk. Debate is you talk, I react to what you say, you react to what I say, etc. What you've got going here is you talk, we react to what you say, you talk, we react to what you say, you talk, etc. How about responding to the information you've been provided?--Percy

I posted evidence against the flood upthread, Message 355, and pointed out evidence that you would have to have if there was a flood (evidence that we don't find). You ignored my post.I'll try again.You cite, "Thousands of dead animals buried and squashed together. Mass mortality." This might be more convincing if all of these events occurred at the same time. Unfortunately, they are spread over tens to hundreds of millions of years.You claim, "Marine fossils found on continents, proving that conditions were different in the past." We know conditions were different in the past. But, ignoring the stray ice age or two, they were not sufficiently different during the time humans have been cavorting around, some 200,000 years, to have anything to do with fossils on mountains. My favorite of these is the gaper clam, Tresus capax. They obviously died a horrible death, gasping for a last breath!But seriously, you are posting things that are simply not true. There is no evidence for a global flood about 4,350 years ago in what you are writing. And if you want a different date for the flood, you first have to argue the issue out with the biblical scholars, who generally agree on that approximate date. It might also help if you could find evidence at that time period of such a flood. I have already pointed out the fact that archaeologists (myself included) explore that time period regularly and we don't find evidence of that flood. A global flood at that recent time would leave massive evidence, but those who actually look for it are unable to find it. This includes the creationist geologists who set out to prove the flood. They gave up just about 200 years ago.Before you post another mass of inconsistent and long-since disproved claims, how about addressing the points I and other posters have made here?

You are mistaken. Glenn Morton, a former YEC, documented 25 places around the world where all the post-Vendian layers have been cored in one go. He goes into great detail about the column in North Dakota:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/Give it a read, at your own pace. Then let's discuss.

It depends what one means. Strictly speaking, those are layers from each geological period deposited one on top of the other, they aren't the geological column. Again, strictly speaking, that is something found in textbooks in the same way as the periodic table is, it's a summary of knowledge, it's not a thing that someone keeps somewhere that you can go and look at.But it depends what it is Portillo's trying to say. If when he talks of "the geological column [...] in its entirety with all 12 layers in order" what he means by "the geological column in its entirety" is the "12 layers in order", then you are right and he's wrong.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

As far as I've ever read, there is no evidence of any kind for a worldwide flood at any time.The typical interpretation of the biblical timeline, though, remains entirely problematic.

There was entirely too much going on in 2348 BC (Ussher date for the Flood)

Three years after this date, according to some Egyptologists, the sixth dynasty started. Three years is entirely too little time for Noah's family to give birth to all of those Egyptian citizens.Likewise, thirteen years is entirely too little time for Noah's family to give birth to Sargon and all the lands he conquered, from Sumer and the surrounding regions. And I kinda think Sargon was more than 13 years old.

Humanity has been around far longer than 6000 years

One of my older references (published in the 70's) states that Homo sapiens has been around for 50,000 years. More recent references on the web state 200,000 years as humanity's current age. The case is looking worse and worse for biblical literalists.

Alternate Approach

If the Flood was a real event and the Bible contains a timeline that we can use, then it must be hidden; i.e. it must need a code or factor to make it compatible with those of science.Let's face it. Science has a pretty good bead on reality. Scientists get a little too cocky at times (everyone has ego), but reality is what it is. It's not going away, and ignoring reality is so very close to delusion.I am a Christian who trusts science (yes, even evolution). I also trust people to be people; some of them are dishonest. Even some scientists do this. For instance, ridicule is not compatible with scientific method; it reeks of subjective bias. But biblical literalists also seem guilty of subjective bias. There are plenty of conflicting interpretations and only one (or none!) can be right. Both scientists and the faithful need to remain humble in order to find answers.Perhaps the Flood represents a real worldwide inundation, or perhaps it is symbolic for something that could not easily be explained in their vocabulary. So much of ancient myth may fall into this category.If the Bible has a compatible timeline, it needs to have clues which call attention to themselves as clues for the specific purpose of modifying the timeline. They cannot be numbers plucked at random or for convenience.I have found many such clues and have a new biblical timeline compatible with those of science.Just some of the clues:

• Genesis 5:2. Adam was both male and female (a "them," not a "him").
  
• The seemingly outrageous longevity of the early patriarchs is obviously too short to reach the current 200,000 years for the age of humanity. But like Adam, the ages might not be for the individual patriarchs, but for the eponymous tribes.
  
• Genesis 6:3. The years of man shall be 120. This is all well and good, but clearly this did not happen right away in Genesis, if we're talking about the longevity of the patriarchs.
  
• One patriarch lived to exactly 120 years; Moses himself.
  
• Using Jewish ancient tradition concerning thirds of one's life (first for parents; second for spouse and your own family; third for God), a "generation," in the case of Moses is 40 years.
  

Using forty as a factor back from Moses yields a Flood date of 27,970 BC. What's fascinating is that one other Christian had already given us the approximate date of 28,000 BC for the Flood; Edgar Cayce in the first half of the 20th century. Merely an interesting coincidence? Perhaps.

What Was the Big Deal?

Genesis 6 describes the situation prior to the Flood. It talks about violence, wickedness and a corruption of flesh as reasons for the Flood.Logic time: Genesis describes God as satisfied with the results of the Flood. He said that He would never again use the Flood (whatever that event really symbolizes). But when in the last 30,000 years has humanity not suffered from some form of wickedness and violence? Clearly, something very specific ticked off the Big Guy and moved Him to act. What was that "crime?"First of all, we need to understand God's purpose. It seems that His children had become lost (Genesis 3) and perhaps Homo sapiens were evolved/created for the purpose of rescuing His children. Genesis 1:26 suggests that His children are non-physical, spiritual and immortal sources of creation (created in His image). Genesis 2:7 suggests that man is a physical being (Homo sapiens). So, God's children are immortal spirit wrapped in Homo sapiens flesh (a dual nature). Beyond the purpose of rescue, the bodies don't mean squat. Big revelation there.So, something jeopardized the rescue mission. Homo sapiens supposedly played a big part in this. Why? Intelligent speech and the ability to invent civilization?In Genesis 6, the crime seems to involve the "daughters of men" who the "sons of God" found to be hot so they tied the knot.If the "sons" were immortal spirit wrapped in Homo sapiens flesh, then the "daughters" must've been a different species.Bingo! By general consensus, the bulk of Homo neanderthalensis died out about 28,000 BC.If indeed, Neanderthal was wiped out 30,000 years ago, then they may well have been the target of the Flood. Why?Current scientific consensus remains that Neanderthal could speak, but not nearly as well as Homo sapiens. Could Neanderthal have preferred violence to negotiation? Could they and their hybrid (half-human) offspring have been incapable of producing civilization? Could this have been sufficient reason to have them wiped out--muddying the human gene pool?One thing is for certain: Homo sapiens can never again commit the "crime" (if it was one) of sexual procreation with Homo neanderthalensis. The "Flood" event did its job well.Edited by Admin, : Update sig.Edited by Lone77Star, : Cleaning up signature (newbie mistake, sorry).