Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-20-2018 11:34 PM
194 online now:
Dr Adequate (1 member, 193 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,476 Year: 15,299/29,783 Month: 1,243/1,502 Week: 241/492 Day: 36/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
111112
113
114115
...
127NextFF
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 1681 of 1896 (717566)
01-29-2014 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1676 by Faith
01-29-2014 3:18 AM


Re: Underground canyon
Did you read the referenced article? Apparently not. Believe it or not I can understand this reticence on your part having gone through the experience myself.

quote:
I would see buried mountains which had experienced thousands of feet of erosion, which required time.

The flood carved underground canyons? And it built underground mountains too??

(I'll get to your other posts later.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1676 by Faith, posted 01-29-2014 3:18 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1685 by Faith, posted 01-29-2014 2:45 PM shalamabobbi has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19572
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 1682 of 1896 (717567)
01-29-2014 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1679 by frako
01-29-2014 5:15 AM


Re: dinosaur again
... but thats mainly because i have faith in human intelligence.

I lost that when schrubbia was re-elected.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1679 by frako, posted 01-29-2014 5:15 AM frako has not yet responded

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 922 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 1683 of 1896 (717568)
01-29-2014 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1677 by Faith
01-29-2014 3:35 AM


Re: dinosaur again
Just to be clear, I concede the point on the known evidence, I can't explain it myself. But it had to be buried in the Flood, there's no other possibility even if I can't say how that occurred. Possibly if I studied it for some time I'd come up with a better idea but I'm not likely to do that any time soon if ever. Sorry to disappoint you. But it would be nice if you'd remain easy to get along with anyway.

I am satisfied with getting a Floodist to concede that I have presented evidence that is not consistent with the Flood. I think it is irrational to maintain that it must be explained by the Flood anyway, but if you accept that the evidence I have presented doesn't support that then you are running on faith and it would not be productive to argue with that. If you believe the Flood account in the Bible then that is your prerogative. Although I would like you to answer this question:

If you or others did work at the problem and were unable to come up with a Flood-based explanation for how that brooding dinosaur got there, would you alter your beliefs about the Flood?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1677 by Faith, posted 01-29-2014 3:35 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1688 by Faith, posted 01-29-2014 3:14 PM Atheos canadensis has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17748
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1684 of 1896 (717577)
01-29-2014 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1676 by Faith
01-29-2014 3:18 AM


Re: Underground canyon
Faith writes:

Buried canyons are no more of a problem for the Flood than buried rivers. I don't know why you all have such trouble with these things. Just exercise a little scientific imagination.

You're not exercising scientific imagination. You're ignoring scientific facts and just making things up. Your "scientific" ideas are like historical novels, based only tangentially on real places and events. For example:

If water can flow underground, canyons can be cut underground. I'd expect it to have occurred in the last stages of the Flood myself.

You obviously didn't research this. Water *can* flow underground, but as Wikipedia tells us in the article on acquifers:

Wikipedia writes:

Groundwater may exist in underground rivers (e.g., caves where water flows freely underground). This may occur in eroded limestone areas known as karst topography, which make up only a small percentage of Earth's area. More usual is that the pore spaces of rocks in the subsurface are simply saturated with water like a kitchen sponge which can be pumped out for agricultural, industrial, or municipal uses.

The canyon in that image is obviously the product of a river system on the surface, not underground acquifers or caves. Morton is only stating the obvious when he says it would take a considerable time to excavate and erode the canyon through hard rock, including the evident slope retreat:

The canyon is not filled with material collapsed from the layers above. It's filled with sedimentary material, which would have taken an additional very long period of time.

But you have far more fundamental problems. First and foremost, the layers of the Grand Canyon were obviously not laid down in a short period of time by a flood, because the material is not sorted top to bottom by size and density, with the heaviest and densest material on the bottom and the lightest and least dense on the top. The deeper the layer, the younger it is radiometrically, and the more different are fossils from modern forms. Nothing about any of the evidence hints of floods.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1676 by Faith, posted 01-29-2014 3:18 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1686 by Faith, posted 01-29-2014 2:52 PM Percy has responded
 Message 1689 by Faith, posted 01-29-2014 3:26 PM Percy has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29837
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1685 of 1896 (717604)
01-29-2014 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1681 by shalamabobbi
01-29-2014 7:50 AM


Re: Underground canyon
Why do you have a quote about buried mountains as if it were a quote from me, although it isn't? That is VERY bad debate form, I ask you please to attribute it properly.

I did read the article, but perhaps not all of it. ABE: Sorry, forgot which post this was. I didn't read any of it, it's off topic for me right now. /ABE.

My only "reticence" is from so despising the attitude of some here I can't stand reading them, it's not about the information, which is usually interesting. Please stop secondguessing me and putting words in my mouth. I am nothing like you.

The problem with the image of the "canyon" is that no facts are given about it, where it was made, how deep it is, what the terrain is like both above and below ground, how large the supposed canyon is. I took your word for it that it is enough canyon like to be called a canyon but it really needs a lot more facts to get a clear idea of it.

As for "buried mountains" I don't recall that being said, but then I'm only reading in bits and pieces at the moment. Let me guess: It's a lot of tilted strata seen at some depth? Again many specifics would be welcome, but of course I see no problem with tilted strata underground either.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1681 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-29-2014 7:50 AM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1690 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-29-2014 3:37 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29837
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1686 of 1896 (717605)
01-29-2014 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1684 by Percy
01-29-2014 10:00 AM


Re: Underground canyon
The canyon is not filled with material collapsed from the layers above. It's filled with sedimentary material, which would have taken an additional very long period of time.

Who said anything about material collapsed from the layers above? The way you attribute idiotic ideas to me makes you the most despicable of my opponents.

You simply recite the OE Creed about how it would have taken a long time, when in reality sediments were deposited rapidly in the Flood. So now that I have this new information it clearly isn't a canyon at all, it's apparently an impression in one layer filled in by sediment from the layer above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1684 by Percy, posted 01-29-2014 10:00 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1734 by Percy, posted 01-30-2014 9:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29837
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1687 of 1896 (717607)
01-29-2014 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1678 by Heathen
01-29-2014 5:11 AM


Re: dinosaur again
I've given lots of reasonable specifics in this discussion about many aspects of the argument. The idea that any nonscientist -- OR scientist -- creationist should try to answer every conceivable objection to the Flood is irrational. In the early part of any science you wouldn't expect that of someone studying it, but you seem to expect it of a creationist, and ANY creationist at that. Obviously I do not impute anything about the Flood to miracle. I'm trying to find physical explanations for it. Your objections are, as I said, irrational.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1678 by Heathen, posted 01-29-2014 5:11 AM Heathen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1719 by Heathen, posted 01-30-2014 2:24 AM Faith has responded
 Message 1735 by Percy, posted 01-30-2014 9:48 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1747 by JonF, posted 01-30-2014 1:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29837
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1688 of 1896 (717608)
01-29-2014 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1683 by Atheos canadensis
01-29-2014 8:02 AM


Re: dinosaur again
If you or others did work at the problem and were unable to come up with a Flood-based explanation for how that brooding dinosaur got there, would you alter your beliefs about the Flood?

No of course not.

1) I KNOW there was a worldwide Flood, most likely about 4350 years ago but not much longer in any case, there is never going to be any doubt about that.

2) Theories about HOW it occurred are always open to question because we are not given enough information in scripture, but the evidence for the Flood's creation of the strata seems to me to be at least about 95% certain. All other explanations for the strata are just plain ridiculous and the Flood had the power to do it. Again, understanding all the ways it occurred is the ongoing work of creation science, why should anyone be expected to understand all of it anyway? For me it's fun to think about. It's NOT fun to argue with nasty people about, but thinking about it IS fun, and despite the constant ridicule I still think I've made GOOD points here.

3) If the dinosaur fossil was formed some other way, I'd hope that could be figured out, but since the Flood would have provided the ideal conditions for fossilization, and clearly the fossils in the strata can be attributed to the Flood, I'd still be expecting that eventually the dinosaur would be explained in terms of the Flood as well.

\

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1683 by Atheos canadensis, posted 01-29-2014 8:02 AM Atheos canadensis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1715 by Atheos canadensis, posted 01-29-2014 10:11 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1731 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2014 7:56 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1737 by Percy, posted 01-30-2014 10:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29837
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1689 of 1896 (717609)
01-29-2014 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1684 by Percy
01-29-2014 10:00 AM


Re: Underground canyon
The canyon in that image is obviously the product of a river system on the surface, not underground acquifers or caves. Morton is only stating the obvious when he says it would take a considerable time to excavate and erode the canyon through hard rock, including the evident slope retreat:

I would LOVE to ignore your posts but you keep raising such idiotic possibilities you have to be answered at least sometimes.

WHAT ARE THE DIMENSIONS OF THIS SUPPOSED CANYON ANYWAY? For supposedly scientific minds there's a strange lack of the usual necessary information for making any kind of reasonable judgment of a given subject. VERY BAD FORM.

Is it perchance in limestone? What is the evidence for slope retreat in that picture?

There is nothing OBVIOUS about a river's forming that shape on the surface. You'd need to give a lot more information to make such an idea plausible. If it formed in SOFT rock then the whole assumption that it would have taken time falls apart.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1684 by Percy, posted 01-29-2014 10:00 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1785 by Percy, posted 02-01-2014 9:06 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 1690 of 1896 (717610)
01-29-2014 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1685 by Faith
01-29-2014 2:45 PM


Re: Underground canyon
Why would you think that I attributed the quote about underground mountains to you when it is an argument against your model?
"The problem with the image of the canyon" is that it falsifies your model altogether regardless of where it is located, it's size, depth, or anything else.
And it's canyons and mountains, plural not singular.

I didn't read any of it, it's off topic for me right now.

Of course it is. Falsifications: off topic.

But here are the ten (off topic) sentences for the non-delusional lurkers:

quote:
This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood. I would see extremely thick (30,000 feet) sedimentary layers. One could follow these beds from the surface down to those depths where they were covered by vast thicknesses of sediment. I would see buried mountains which had experienced thousands of feet of erosion, which required time. Yet the sediments in those mountains had to have been deposited by the flood, if it was true. I would see faults that were active early but not late and faults that were active late but not early. I would see karsts and sinkholes (limestone erosion) which occurred during the middle of the sedimentary column (supposedly during the middle of the flood) yet the flood waters would have been saturated in limestone and incapable of dissolving lime. It became clear that more time was needed than the global flood would allow. One also finds erosional canyons buried in the earth. These canyons would require time to excavate, just like the time it takes to erode the Grand Canyon.

http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1685 by Faith, posted 01-29-2014 2:45 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1691 by Faith, posted 01-29-2014 4:12 PM shalamabobbi has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29837
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1691 of 1896 (717614)
01-29-2014 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1690 by shalamabobbi
01-29-2014 3:37 PM


Morton
It was "canyon," singular, in reference to the image you posted.

It's the way the quote is presented that makes it appear to be attributed to me. That's how I originally saw it and I still ask you to make it clearer that it's a quote from Morton.

That paragraph of Morton's is full of stuff that begs a ton of questions, but it's just typical stuff that delusional OE believers swallow whole.

First of all, as usual it's nothing but interpretation. Shouldn't science present what is actually observed, in enough detail for others to investigate the claims? You can't do laboratory experiments on such phenomena so at least you should be careful to give other researchers the information needed to come to their own conclusions. That seems to be a huge failure of evo and OE "science" in general, that it's nothing but imaginative interpretations presented as fact. That makes the claims to even BE science irrational.

Thick layers. What EXACTLY is he seeing? We need DESCRIPTION. We need EVIDENCE. How extensive are these layers. How many has he seen, where has he seen them? First don't even call them "layers," just describe the actual facts as observed. That would be the scientific way to do it.

What exactly is he seeing that he's calling "mountains" and what does he mean by "erosion." We need careful description of the phenomena themselves, not his interpretations.

I see NOTHING in what he's said that requires time. What is the matter with you people that you can't see through this?

His remarks about faults lose me. What's the problem here?

Karsts are NOT a problem in limestone after the Flood has drained away. To think so is crazy.

"Erosional canyons." Can't you see this is nothing but interpretation? No wonder you were a pushover for the OE rationalizations. Just like Morton. Fallible intellect and not very sharp fallible intellect either.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1690 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-29-2014 3:37 PM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1699 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-29-2014 5:25 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29837
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1692 of 1896 (717615)
01-29-2014 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1680 by RAZD
01-29-2014 7:49 AM


Re: Underground canyon and other fantasies
You are jumping to a lot of conclusions about that supposed underground canyon. What is needed is good factual description. Start there and I may try to pay attention.

Where would you expect to see tunnels?

Why should v shaped channels be a problem. Or tributaries.

Again, the dimensions of this supposed canyon have never been given here. Do you have them? How deep, long, wide is it?

And what sediment{?} is it carved into? And what sediment(s) filled it?

No, I'm not lying, I know nothing about the other canyons so why should you assume I can't answer them too? The GC is of interest to creationists because of the great depth of exposed strata, as I said before you called me a liar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1680 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2014 7:49 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1709 by Pollux, posted 01-29-2014 7:21 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1736 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2014 9:59 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29837
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1693 of 1896 (717616)
01-29-2014 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1640 by Heathen
01-27-2014 2:31 AM


Re: the usual radiometric flimflam
No, you are blind as a bat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1640 by Heathen, posted 01-27-2014 2:31 AM Heathen has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29837
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1694 of 1896 (717617)
01-29-2014 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1645 by Drosophilla
01-27-2014 8:00 AM


Re: Erosion and the Leveling of Landscapes
Your post is nothing but the usual recitation of science lore. Why can't you just THINK about how evo science and OE science are a different kind of animal from REAL science?

Back to the topic....here's a challenge for you: You say we can't be sure of the long distant past ....so here's a statement for you:

We know with absolute certainty that the early Earth atmosphere could not possibly have contained more than a trace of oxygen (so no humans or any other oxygen breathing animals could possibly have survived then). How do we know this since we werent there? How are we so certain we are right?

Hint: Very basic chemistry.....if you can't figure it out you need to go back to school.

But you are talking about your own false belief of the early earth as millions of years old. How is that a challenge to me?

You have to THINK some here. I'm not saying you can't know some things, simple things like that. I'm talking about the INTERPRETATIONS THAT ARE PALMED OFF AS FACT about events in the past that you CANNOT know with that much certainty and that are open to other interpretations. Why can't you just grasp, for instance, that to impute huge eras of time to flat slabs of rock, and make up how the dead creatures within that rock lived during that supposed time, is just plain ludicrous? That's so obvious you really should just acknowledge it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1645 by Drosophilla, posted 01-27-2014 8:00 AM Drosophilla has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29837
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1695 of 1896 (717618)
01-29-2014 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1646 by JonF
01-27-2014 8:07 AM


Re: The nature of science, theory etc.
He's trying to argue that Geology is misunderstood, but his argument is crazy. The value of the article is that it shows that Geology is viewed as an interpretive and historical science, which it is. He's not questioning that, he's trying to make a virtue out of it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1646 by JonF, posted 01-27-2014 8:07 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1744 by JonF, posted 01-30-2014 12:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
111112
113
114115
...
127NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018