Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The TRVE history of the Flood...
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 835 of 1352 (808391)
05-10-2017 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 834 by Faith
05-10-2017 1:48 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
quote:
This is really hilarious the way this obvious denial of reality is clung to by everybody here
The obvious reality is that the Flood cannot explain geology.
You have no viable explanation for the results of radiometric dating - or any of the other dating methods that might apply.
You have no viable explanation for the order of the fossil record.
You have no viable explanation for angular unconformities.
While you attempt to explain away evidence of buried terrain features they still kill your claim that such evidence does not exist. Massive monadnocks, buried canyons, river courses, forests.
That is reality and you are the one who denies it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 834 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 1:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 836 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 2:02 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 837 of 1352 (808394)
05-10-2017 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 836 by Faith
05-10-2017 2:02 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
The order of the fossil record is a major part of the reality of the fossils. Not something you can just discard because it proves you wrong. And there is much more to the starts than you will admit to - much of it again confirming old ages and disconfirmimg your Flood geology.
The reality of the strata and the fossils is not just cherry-picked impressions - it's all of it, everything that is actually there, even the things you want suppressed.
The reality of the strata and the fossils trumps your opinions. And THAT is why we disagree with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 836 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 2:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 838 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 2:20 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 840 of 1352 (808406)
05-10-2017 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 838 by Faith
05-10-2017 2:20 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
quote:
Righto, all the bits and pieces of this and that found within a layer of sedimentary rock tell you that the rock itself or a few layers of rock, were once a whole earth scenario of living things that collapsed down in the end to the rock spanning thousands of square miles on which nothing at all could live. That's SO reasonable.
Even your attempted parodies are no worse than some of your crazy rationalisations.
Let us first note that you are -again - ignoring the reality of buried terrain features.
Suppose I find an area of limestone cleared by quarrying, and it is full of small shells - and occasionally large ones - fragments of sea urchin spine and test, bits of crinoid stem sometimes even pieces of coral. Why should I assume that a flood created that, rather than normal deposition on a shallow sea bed ?
Or with the Yellowstone forests, why should we assume a flood when the burying material is volcanic and the trees appear to be rooted in - what was - a developing soil ?
Reality, Faith, trumps your opinions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 838 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 2:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 843 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 7:25 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 858 of 1352 (808461)
05-11-2017 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 843 by Faith
05-10-2017 7:25 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
quote:
That wasn't a parody, that was the plain truth.
It certainly isn't the truth.
quote:
I have no need to "ignore" what you call "buried terrain features since I've amply explained them.
It isn't true that you have adequately explained them. It certainly IS true that you keep ignoring them. Your "plain truth" doesn't admit to their existence, for one.
quote:
You should assume that THE Flood (not A flood) deposited that limestone because 1) it's a layer among layers stacked to a great depth and covering a great area, 2) it's not shallow it's humongous in most cases 3) some of those layers are interpreted as time periods in which land creatures lived, all of which supposedly collapsed down in the end to vast slabs of rock, in this case limestone, which is impossible; 3) The Flood would certainly have killed a lot of sea creatures and buried them in limestone; and 4) such a stack of layers is excellent evidence for a spectacularly huge worldwide water catastrophe and very BAD evidence for the standard interpretation.
It's hardly likely that a year-long Flood would produce the depth we see - and you don't know the extent of that formation. And limestone from a flood ? No. So your first reason is a bust.
Your second is just repeating the size claim.
Your first 3) is a silly misrepresentation - especially as this is seabed
Your second 3) is wrong (limestone again) and given the abundance of fossils this is a ecology that had been living at that location for some time, which seems a bit unlikely with the Flood killing everything and burying them multiple times before
And your 4) is just your opinion - which is the reverse of the truth.
So I guess that the only reason to assume the Flood is to avoid seeing how ridiculously false it is. And I don't care about that.
As for the rest, the Spirit Lake example does not give a good reason to reinterpret the Yellowstone forests. It relies on the roots becoming waterlogged - and the fact that they are buried in volcanic ash with their roots in the preceding material rather rules that out.
quote:
Being full of volcanic ash is evidence that it was a volcano that caused the whole scenario, not evidence that the trees are growing in the stuff.
They weren't growing in the ash, they were buried by the ash. That is why the situation is not the same.
quote:
And the trees are obviously dead, dead before they got stacked that way.
Evidence please.
quote:
Lots of good evidence to rethink the usual explanation. Reality, PK, Reality.
If you have good evidence then perhaps you should try mentioning it. Misrepresentation and ignoring inconvenient facts are not signs of a solid case. That is reality, Faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 843 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 7:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(4)
Message 870 of 1352 (808527)
05-11-2017 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 863 by CRR
05-11-2017 7:06 AM


Trilobites
quote:
Why don't we find mammals underneath Trilobite bearing layers? Because Trilobites lived on the bottom of the ocean and very few mammals lived underneath them. The Trilobites were probably buried early in the flood where they lived so mammal fossils had no opportunity to form underneath them.
Let us refine the question a little more and ask why we find no trilobites after the end of the Permian.
Is it true that trilobites all lived "on the bottom of the ocean" ? (No)
The trilobites were a diverse and widespread group, so we should ask if it is true that we find no fossils from the seabed after the Permian. (Of course not)
And since the trilobites were a large, diverse and long-lived group - and commonly found as fossils we should also ask whether there is an order to the trilobite fossils. (Yes, there is)
Interested laymen should read Richard Fortey's Trlobite!: Eyewitness to Evolution - Fortey is one of the leading experts in trilobites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 863 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 7:06 AM CRR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 872 of 1352 (808540)
05-11-2017 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 871 by Faith
05-11-2017 12:36 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
quote:
Where did I say there were? What do you mean by "cover?" The four strata/time periods on the NA continent in the maps that HBD posted some time ago that I've linked to many times already on this thread cover a HUGE amount of the continent.
Can you please stop misrepresenting those diagrams ? All they show is that rocks of the appropriate age exist at those locations (and if they are at the surface).
They do NOT show the extent of any formation (let alone the extent of strata within that formation). That information is simply not present.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 871 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 12:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 873 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 12:47 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 874 of 1352 (808543)
05-11-2017 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 873 by Faith
05-11-2017 12:47 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
quote:
In that case they obviously cover MORE territory than the maps show.
Would you like to explain that ? Starting with what "they" refers to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 873 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 12:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 935 of 1352 (810475)
05-30-2017 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 934 by NoNukes
05-30-2017 3:33 AM


Re: True history of that shows there was never a Biblical Flood
I would suggest that "start making truthful statements" would be more accurately phrased as "stop disagreeing with the Bible"
In reality there is no good evidence that Moses wrote a word of the Flood story in Genesis, and its current form might easily be as late as the Babylonian Exile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 934 by NoNukes, posted 05-30-2017 3:33 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 936 by Tangle, posted 05-30-2017 5:19 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 940 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2017 12:25 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 941 of 1352 (810599)
05-31-2017 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 940 by NoNukes
05-31-2017 12:25 AM


Re: True history of that shows there was never a Biblical Flood
Since the Bible does not clearly say that Moses did NOT write the Torah, asserting that he DID is at least not obviously disagreeing with the Bible.
But then again, the internal evidence of the text is rather against that assertion, so there is a case that the Bible is against Mosaic authorship. But I'm prepared to grant Faith that one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 940 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2017 12:25 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 981 of 1352 (811914)
06-13-2017 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 978 by Faith
06-13-2017 10:23 AM


Re: Belief
quote:
No, evolution is impossible because it uses up genetic diversity.
Your argument has been defeated every time you've tried it. So stop wasting time making assertions you can't adequately support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 978 by Faith, posted 06-13-2017 10:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 998 of 1352 (812011)
06-14-2017 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 990 by Faith
06-13-2017 9:08 PM


Re: I've proved it a million times already
Tell me Faith, which is "better evidence"
All the evidence of time passing between the deposition of (some) strata, or your assertion that that evidence does not exist ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 990 by Faith, posted 06-13-2017 9:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 1033 of 1352 (812242)
06-15-2017 2:17 PM


It seems simple to me
The Flood can perfectly explain the evidence so long as we assume that the laws of physics were somehow different, so that the Flood would produce the evidence we see. We don't know how the laws of physics would have to differ, we don't know if there is any conceivable difference in the laws of physics that would be sufficient. And we certainly don't have any evidence that the laws of physics were different in the recent past.
The conclusion is obvious.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1034 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 5:06 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 1035 of 1352 (812278)
06-15-2017 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1034 by Faith
06-15-2017 5:06 PM


Re: It seems simple to me
It's your idea, not mine. And considering that you are talking about hydrodynamics working differently - as well as something that makes every single dating method give consistently wrong results, whether they are based on nuclear decays (and different elements with different decay properties at that) or annual or seasonal events or whatever - it is hard to imagine how even changes to physical law could do the trick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1034 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 5:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1036 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 5:26 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 1037 of 1352 (812287)
06-15-2017 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1036 by Faith
06-15-2017 5:26 PM


Re: It seems simple to me
You do realise that your position is even more hopeless without changes to physical law ? Which negates your "straw man" accusation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1036 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 5:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 1044 of 1352 (812317)
06-16-2017 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1043 by Faith
06-15-2017 11:14 PM


Re: It seems simple to me
Faith, radiometric dating methods are firmly based on the laws of physics as we know them. Likewise the dismissal of hydraulic sorting as an explanation for the order in the fossil record. If you don't want to argue for changes to the laws of physics you are not just arguing against historical science you are arguing against all the relevant science.
As I pointed out, arguing for changes in the laws of physics - desparate as it is - is actually your least bad option for "things were different".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1043 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 11:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1045 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 12:21 AM PaulK 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