Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence of the flood
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 196 of 899 (819213)
09-07-2017 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by RAZD
09-07-2017 9:46 PM


Re: Utter lies from jar
The only reasonable explanation for the strata and fossils is the worldwide Flood.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2017 9:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2017 12:30 AM Faith has replied
 Message 204 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2017 8:02 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 197 of 899 (819214)
09-08-2017 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Faith
09-07-2017 11:31 PM


Re: Utter lies from jar
quote:
The only reasonable explanation for the strata and fossils is the worldwide Flood.
Provided the criteria for "reasonable" is "Faith likes it".
From a more rational perspective the Flood utterly fails to account for the strata and the fossils. That is why science has rejected Flood geology - it just doesn't work as an explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 09-07-2017 11:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 09-08-2017 12:41 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 198 of 899 (819215)
09-08-2017 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by PaulK
09-08-2017 12:30 AM


Only the Flood could possibly explain these things
Nothing else could reasonably account for the strata at such a depth and enormous horizontal extent, nor for such an amazing abundance of fossilized dead things which require special conditions to form, all met by the Flood. The standard accepted explanation is hardly even plausible; it's really amazing how it ever got accepted. Sure, a seeming order, but everything else says it's bogus. Even the fact that we know microevolution occurs in very short periods of time is an argument against it, and even the fossil record shows that, with its trilobites and coelacanths that show tiny changes from sedimentaqry layer to sedimentary layer, those layers that absurdly mark "time periods" of millions of years on the standard theory. Millions of years is ridiculous. And see my other recent posts for more reasons it's ridiculous that I'm not spelling out with every post.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2017 12:30 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2017 1:18 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 199 of 899 (819218)
09-08-2017 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Faith
09-08-2017 12:41 AM


Re: Only the Flood could possibly explain these things
quote:
Nothing else could reasonably account for the strata at such a depth and enormous horizontal extent
The depth is so obviously much better explained by slow accumulation over long periods of time that it isn't even funny.
The extent seems to be better explained by features like deserts (the Sahara being a modern example) or epeiric seas (not currently present but a good fit for the evidence - unlike the Flood)
quote:
nor for such an amazing abundance of fossilized dead things which require special conditions to form,
Because obviously you only get sandstorms during a Flood. (Yes, some fossils seem to have been buried by sandstorms).
Again, the Flood fails to explain the abundance (you have to assume a ridiculous abundance of - for instance - crinoids) or other features of the fossil like the pervasive order.
quote:
The standard accepted explanation is hardly even plausible; it's really amazing how it ever got accepted
The fact that it obviously better explains the evidence you put forward for the Flood is a rather convincing reason.
quote:
Sure, a seeming order, but everything else says it's bogus. Even the fact that we know microevolution occurs in very short periods of time is an argument against it, and even the fossil record shows that, with its trilobites and coelacanths that show tiny changes from sedimentaqry layer to sedimentary layer, those layers that absurdly mark "time periods" of millions of years on the standard theory
That something can happen in short periods of time does not mean that it always happens in short periods of time. And there are two major points that you are ignoring. First you have no good idea of the scale of changes involved in the fossil record, second you have failed for the time needed to spread out and become abundant. Your examples of fast microevolution (aside from other doubts) deal with small island populations that are still small island populations. Not something likely to show up in the fossil record.
quote:
Millions of years is ridiculous. And see my other recent posts for more reasons it's ridiculous that I'm not spelling out with every post.
You mean like the idiotic nonsense you made up in Message 154? That's "BO-gus"
Hardly a reason to believe you - just more evidence that you don't have a real case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 09-08-2017 12:41 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 09-08-2017 3:24 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 200 of 899 (819227)
09-08-2017 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by PaulK
09-08-2017 1:18 AM


Re: Only the Flood could possibly explain these things
the depth is easily explained by all the dirt that was stirred up by the forty days and nights of heavy worldwide rain, on land and in the oceans. That's a lot of dirt to get sorted into sediments and redeposited. That's another thing: the "time period" explanation really can't explain the different separated sediments in the Geo Column, a gigantic sandstone, a gigantic limestone etc etc.;....
The extent seems to be better explained by features like deserts
Well some of the layers span an entire continent and even reach across the ocean to another continent. And it's hard to reconcile, say, a limestone slab with a desert. In any case, it's easy to explain a Flood that covered the entire world making layer after layer of different sediments and, really, nothing else can.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2017 1:18 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2017 3:44 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 202 by Pressie, posted 09-08-2017 6:28 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 203 by jar, posted 09-08-2017 7:18 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2017 8:27 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 201 of 899 (819229)
09-08-2017 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Faith
09-08-2017 3:24 AM


Re: Only the Flood could possibly explain these things
quote:
the depth is easily explained by all the dirt that was stirred up by the forty days and nights of heavy worldwide rain, on land and in the oceans. That's a lot of dirt to get sorted into sediments and redeposited.
That's an opinion. But it should be obviously true that long term gradual accumulation can eventually overwhelm any any single event.
quote:
That's another thing: the "time period" explanation really can't explain the different separated sediments in the Geo Column, a gigantic sandstone, a gigantic limestone etc etc.;....
By which you mean that it obviously CAN explain it and the Flood obviously can't.
Different sediment from different sources because of different conditions at different times works. "The Flood sorted it" doesn't work.
quote:
Well some of the layers span an entire continent and even reach across the ocean to another continent.
Misleading. Where the same strata are found on different continents it's because they were together when the strata were deposited.
quote:
And it's hard to reconcile, say, a limestone slab with a desert
Nobody says that limestone is deposited in deserts. That's just silly, whether it's ignorance or dishonesty.
quote:
In any case, it's easy to explain a Flood that covered the entire world making layer after layer of different sediments and, really, nothing else can.
If it's so easy go ahead and do it. I'll stick with the explanations that fit the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 09-08-2017 3:24 AM Faith has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 202 of 899 (819235)
09-08-2017 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Faith
09-08-2017 3:24 AM


Re: Only the Flood could possibly explain these things
Faith writes:
Well some of the layers span an entire continent....
Really? Can you name one?
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 09-08-2017 3:24 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 203 of 899 (819237)
09-08-2017 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Faith
09-08-2017 3:24 AM


Re: Only the Flood could possibly explain these things
Faith writes:
In any case, it's easy to explain a Flood that covered the entire world making layer after layer of different sediments and, really, nothing else can.
So you claim.
Please explain how your flood deposits millions of recurring and repeating layers of fine silt covered by coarser silt.
Present the model, method, process, mechanism, procedure Faith.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 09-08-2017 3:24 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 204 of 899 (819241)
09-08-2017 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Faith
09-07-2017 11:31 PM


Re: Utter lies from jar
The only reasonable explanation for the strata and fossils is the worldwide Flood.
Except that it does not explain the fossils
Except that it does not explain radioactive isotopes in the strata
Except that it does not explain the tree rings
Except that it does not explain the Lake Suigetsu fresh water varves
Except that it does not explain the Cariaco Basin marine varves
Except that it does not explain the radiometric dating of the 14C samples
Except that it does not explain the Grand Canyon
Except that it does not explain all the evidence of an old earth
Etc
Etc
Etc
ad nauseum
You never confront the evidence faith. You are incapable of being reasonable if you don't confront the evidence.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 196 by Faith, posted 09-07-2017 11:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 205 of 899 (819245)
09-08-2017 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Faith
09-08-2017 3:24 AM


Re: Only the Flood could possibly explain these things
the depth is easily explained by all the dirt that was stirred up by the forty days and nights of heavy worldwide rain, on land and in the oceans. That's a lot of dirt to get sorted into sediments and redeposited. ...
And that doesn't explain the alternating layers of diatoms and clay silt in Lake Suigetsu ... and can't.
And that doesn't explain the alternating layers of foramins and silt in the Cariaco Basin (salt water) ... and can't
... That's another thing: the "time period" explanation really can't explain the different separated sediments in the Geo Column, a gigantic sandstone, a gigantic limestone etc etc.;....
And that doesn't explain the sorting of radioactive isotopes by age and depth. If it was "stirred up" the would be evenly distributed throughout the sediment layers.
And that doesn't explain uranium halos or any of the mountains of evidence for an old earth.
It doesn't explain the Grand Canyon horseshoe bend formation or the different ages of speleothems in the canyon caves.
It doesn't explain squat.
... . In any case, it's easy to explain a Flood that covered the entire world making layer after layer of different sediments and, really, nothing else can.
Except the actual geological processes that we continue to observe going on today.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 200 by Faith, posted 09-08-2017 3:24 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(4)
Message 206 of 899 (819247)
09-08-2017 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Faith
09-07-2017 8:18 PM


Re: Utter lies from jar
Faith writes:
My participation on this thread has been cursory at best,...
Your participation in most threads is cursory at best. Voluble, but cursory.
Strata and fossils. Works a lot better as evidence for the Flood than for your OE and evolution, LOTS better.
But all you can do is say this, you can never show it. The reality is that strata and fossils as evidence for the flood fails so badly that it was abandoned a couple centuries ago.
Ridiculous really, the idea of time periods sandwiched between slabs of rock, physically impossible for it to happen that way...
The strata of the geological record are the same in character as the strata being deposited today. What we see happening before our very eyes in the present is the same thing that happened in the past and formed those ancient strata. A large flood could not sort strata of different composition, particle size, fossil content, radiometric age, and containing tracks and burrows.
...which all managed somehow to get smushed down into the sediments, a bit of flora and scattered fauna and no other evidence that such a scenario ever actually existed on that spot...
Now you're mentioning another discussion you abandoned in thread The TRVE history of the Flood.... Stile's last post on this topic was Message 1312. You replied in Message 1320, "I've lost all interest, sorry."
And that wasn't the first time you abandoned this topic. You did so in The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock, replying to Stile's Message 1144, "I do intend to get back to this; just needed a break," and then you never got back to it.
And that's just a couple examples. The truth is that you've abandoned defense of your various claims dozens and dozens of times. Later you just repeat them as if you've experienced complete amnesia about how poorly they fared previously, as if you can't remember a single explanation for why they're impossible.
Here are your last few posts from the The TRVE history of the Flood... thread showing how you abandoned discussion there:
Faith in the TRVE history of the Flood... thread writes:
Rather you pick the conjob of your own fallen intellect over the revelation of the God who made it all.
...
All I need is the Bible for the timing. God's word you know. I give other kinds of evidence where there is no Biblical information.
...
The last dozen or so posts I've put up on this thread are all the evidence needed for the Flood and against the Geo Time Scale. Sorry, but you and your EvC army of evos are just blowing smoke.
...
Ha ha. The case has been made. Sorry.
...
It's been discussed to death over the last few years. You lost.
...
Convincing the brainwashed isn't the right criterion. The case has been made logically though denied by the local gang of evos. Sorry.
...
I've given all the evidence needed to prove the Flood. Sorry.
...
I've made the case so there is no need to address all the other stuff.
...
I've made my point, I proved it, that's all there is to say.
Not a shred of substance in any of that, and you're continuing the "no substance" theme in this thread.
...not to mention the simple absurdity of expecting a time period to have any kind of neat physical demarcations at all, let alone a whole series of them over hundreds of millions of years.
The geologists of 200 and 300 years ago were expecting evidence supporting the Biblical account, but they accepted the evidence as they found it and followed it where it led. Which was to an ancient Earth.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 09-07-2017 8:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 09-08-2017 3:28 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 207 of 899 (819251)
09-08-2017 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by riVeRraT
09-07-2017 9:33 PM


riVeRraT writes:
Percy writes:
What you *do* try to do is be absurdly contrary and argumentative at every opportunity, which is actually a good strategy for those with no support for their position.
Wait a sec, did you just call me a scientist? Are you accusing me of using the scientific method?
There you go, putting words in my mouth. I never offered a hypotheses. I
Well what do you know, contrary and argumentative with no support for your position. Again.
I just offered evidence. As I stated earlier, it was because I am tired of hearing the phrase "there is no evidence".
A hawk seeking shelter is not evidence of a Biblical myth.
There is evidence, you just choose to ignore it based on other evidence.
"Hey, hawk's in the car, it's raining, must be evidence that the Flood of the Bible was a real event." Good show!
You must believe in God by faith.
If you must, you must.
In order for that statement to be true, you cannot use objective evidence to believe in God. That's my hypothesis, based on John 3:16 and many other verses.
But you're interpreting objective evidence (hawk seeks shelter in car, something that was observed to have really happened) as evidence of the Flood, a Biblical myth supporting your belief in God.
More irrelevant nonsense. You're arguing that a hawk in a car is evidence for a Biblical myth.
What does that have to do with the fact that the evidence found me? I wasn't looking for evidence, it just happened, and as I watched it I felt the Holy Spirit telling me this is the way God designed animals.
Yep, sounds like you've got an open and shut case there - the evidence sought you out, then voices in your head told you God designed animals to seek out cars (which by the way don't resemble an ark) for shelter.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2017 9:33 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by riVeRraT, posted 09-10-2017 5:08 PM Percy has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 208 of 899 (819262)
09-08-2017 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by riVeRraT
09-07-2017 6:48 PM


riVeRraT writes:
Liek I prefer not to be called a Christian. Disciple is better, because I am always learning.
A disciple of Christ would be somebody who follows the teachings of Christ. You'd learn more by broadening your scope. Right now, your belief in Christ seems to be holding your learning back - e.g. you can't seem to learn that the Flood never happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2017 6:48 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by riVeRraT, posted 09-10-2017 5:10 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 209 of 899 (819263)
09-08-2017 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by riVeRraT
09-07-2017 9:33 PM


riVeRraT writes:
I never offered a hypotheses. I just offered evidence.
Read the topic title. You said that it was evidence OF the flood. That is a hypothesis of sorts. But does your evidence support the flood story? Do animals seek shelter in non-flood situations? Yes. So your hypothesis fails.
riVeRraT writes:
There is evidence, you just choose to ignore it based on other evidence.
Nobody is ignoring your evidence. They're ignoring your interpretation of the evidence - because it's nonsensical.
riVeRraT writes:
You must believe in God by faith.
In order for that statement to be true, you cannot use objective evidence to believe in God.
That statement isn't true. Jesus Himself encouraged Thomas to use objective evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2017 9:33 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by NoNukes, posted 09-08-2017 3:47 PM ringo has replied
 Message 277 by riVeRraT, posted 09-10-2017 5:15 PM ringo has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 210 of 899 (819272)
09-08-2017 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Percy
09-08-2017 9:18 AM


Re: Utter lies from jar
The standard theory can't be known either. And it's so utterly absurd I would hope some people would soon wake up and see it.
Yes I know early geologists expected geology to confirm the Bible but their imagination was too limited to see that it really does; that's why they went with the so-called evidence of an ancient earth, which hardly deserves the term "evidence" at all, since until radiometric dating methods came along it was just a lot of stuff like Hutton's assessment of Siccar Point "Oh that must have taken a LONG time." He was wrong, it wasn't formed in stages, it was formed all at once in the Flood, and the unconformity occurred after all the strata were laid down, just as similar formations occurred elsewhere after the Flood.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 09-08-2017 9:18 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by jar, posted 09-08-2017 4:36 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 215 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2017 7:46 PM Faith has replied
 Message 227 by Percy, posted 09-09-2017 7:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024