|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The TRVE history of the Flood... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: It certainly isn't the truth.
quote: 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: 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: They weren't growing in the ash, they were buried by the ash. That is why the situation is not the same.
quote: Evidence please.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Would you like to explain that ? Starting with what "they" refers to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Your argument has been defeated every time you've tried it. So stop wasting time making assertions you can't adequately support.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
You do realise that your position is even more hopeless without changes to physical law ? Which negates your "straw man" accusation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
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".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024