|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
My argument is that your words about farce are not substantiated. We do not know what processes are formed by sedimentary rocks, we judge of it only by analogy to modern processes, and they can be very different from those that were in the Earth's history. Therefore the claim that flood geology is a farce at least has no reason. My approach to this question is slightly different than most. Instead of arguing back and forth about this sediment or that, I prefer to get to the meat of the issue. There is simply no evidence that can falsify the YEC flood models. The evidence doesn't matter when talking to someone who supports the flood model. Their mind was already made up BEFORE they saw the evidence. How do I know this? All you need to do is ask a very simple question: What features must a geologic formation have in order to falsify a recent globa flood? I have yet to find a YEC who can answer this, and that is why YEC flood models are a farce. They are unfalsifiable. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I do not like an ideological disputes. I want to understand the facts. It is a scientific dispute, not an ideological one. If these flood models are scientific then they need to be falsifiable. If we want to understand the facts then we need a scientific model. So what facts would you need to see in order to conclude that a recent global flood did not occur? How would you go about answering that question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
In the one is found Carboniferous fossils, in the other , Permian fossils. Why don't we find modern species in either of these deposits? Why can't we find modern wading birds or modern mammals in these deposits? We can't even find flowering plants in either of those deposits. Why is that? How does a flood sort fossils in a way that reflects post flood survival? Why is it that those buried deepest in the fossil record had the least chance of living after the flood?
Small plants can sink quickly, suspended silt would sink too. It is only logical that the fossilisation or coalification would be in layers as the flood waters settled and the sediment settled and the various categories of dead organic material sank to the bottom. As you say, this is observed in the layering of the Permian deposits. Surely some of those plants would include flowering plants, would they not? Why can't we find any?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
It would have been refreshing to see your arguments against compressing everything from the early Triassic through to current , into 4500 years? It would be very refreshing to see the evidence that these layers were laid down by a global flood. All we have so far is empty assertions that start with "I believe . . .". Where is the evidence?
I have tried to show you evidence for dinosaurs being concurrent with human civilizations and I am prepared to answer any further discrepancies you may pick up. What we don't have is humans and dinosaurs in the same strata. Why is that? We can find humans and bison together. We can find humans and mammoths together. So why not humans and dinosaurs in the same strata?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
The reason I joined this thread is not to prove the flood, but just out of curiousity if my theory can be disproved. A lack of contrary evidence strengthens a theory. Can you disprove a global flood at the P-T boundary?
That is the great question about creationism. Is it falsifiable? In other words, is it scientific? We can make this much more general than just the P/T boundary. In your opinion, what features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify a recent global flood? How is flood geology falsifiable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
By looking at the geology. For example the current flood model would have to explain why there are various layers of land formed basalt in the flood layers. Would have to explain isotopic changes between early layers and later layers reflecting differing atmospheres in early so-called flood layers compared to later so-called flood layers. There are many ways to attack a theory. The burden of proof is on the one who says a global flood is impossible at any given point to back up their position. So what features would a geologic feature need in order to falsify a recent global flood? How is flood geology falsifiable.
The burden of proof is on the one who says a global flood is impossible at any given point to back up their position.
No one here is saying that a global flood is impossible in principle. What we are saying is that the evidence does not support a recent global flood. Those are two different things. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Its illogical to keep looking at the fossils in carboniferous coal (swamp environment forms peat) and assume those were the only fauna flora around. Where can we find a single flowering plant in the Carboniferous, swamp land or not? Why can't we find a single modern mammal in Carboniferous deposits? Why can't we find a single bird species in Carboniferous deposits?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Percy, you seem to disregard the evidence I showed of a major marine transgression, and major worldwide flooding in flood plains at the PT boundary. There are floods in modern flood plains right now, but there is obviously no global flood. Why would you need a global flood to have floods on floodplains? What about terrestrial deposits at the P/T boundary? Why are they there? If what you claim is true, then we should not find terrestrial deposits on both sides of the P/T boundary, and yet we do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
I have put forward evidence , not proof, but some evidence for widespread flooding at the PT boundary in my posts to Percy. That could be said about every geologic age since aquatic environments produce sediments. Finding aquatic sediments ine one place does not indicate a GLOBAL flood. We also have terrestrial deposits at the P/T boundary, both above and below. Doesn't that clearly falsify a global flood at the P/T boundary?
So we had the mechanism for flooding, and the evidence for flooding.
There is flooding in the Bahamas today due to a hurricane. Does that mean it is flooding everywhere on Earth today?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
A burst of sedimentation covered floodplains in every continent at the same time. Where do you have evidence of this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I believe all civilizations we see now are post-flood. What evidence led you to that belief? Wouldn't the humans present before the flood also leave evidence that we can find in sediments? Shouldn't we be able to find pre-flood arroheads or stone tools at least? Potshards?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Not at all, the flood was only one year long. that's all. Of course before and after you would have other conditions. What do you think? So what observations would falsify a flood at the P/T boundary? Or does it even matter what the evidence is? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
What more do you want , I already quoted from a link concerning a Russian discovery of angiosperms in the carboniferous.
Angiosperms are just the tip of the iceberg. The entire fossil record in the Carboniferous is a major problem. There are simply no modern species including no mammals, no birds, no reptiles, etc.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024