Evidence of the flood

In the way I use the word "honest", it has exactly the same meaning to me, to Faith, to everyone. When Faith says, "I already showed that," and she obviously hasn't, then she is not being honest. "I already showed that" and its variations ("I already explained that," etc.) seems to be Faith's favorite way of carrying out discussion lately.An honest statement is that Faith has no evidence for almost all her claims, that almost everything she has claimed has been immediately rebutted, and that she almost always abandons discussion before any issues are resolved.--Percy

Perhaps some believe that the existence of a global flood Had to have happened and therefore spend a lot of time and energy constructing alternate facts and scenarios. Personally, I would go bonkers trying to do this...But I have to hand it to Faith that she puts so much time into it. She once claimed that she no longer had the energy to do certain things, but the voluminous quantity of sentences that she puts out would compile several term papers per year!Again, in a larger context, this is also what is happening to us politically. There is always now an alternate view and another side to reality.Im still waiting for the alternate explanation of the evidence, however.

You don't have the patience to read the recent messages? Aw, that's such a shame. Here, let me help you out by providing a short summary of the high points.In Message 346 NoNukes wrote: In Message 352 PaulK wrote in reply to Stile: In Message 357 and Message 358 Taq wrote: In Message 362 Stile wrote: In Message 364 PaulK wrote: In Message 367 Stile wrote: You're welcome!I'll reply to the rest of your message in another post.--Percy

Evidence is something that can be shown to exist.For example Bible stories are evidence that at some time in the past someone collected, recorded and complied those stories. Bible stories are NOT evidence that they are true, reflect reality or are historical.Witness testimony is evidence that the witness claims to have knowledge of something, but it is not evidence that what is claimed is true or false.Faith's testimony that the strata and fossils are evidence of the flood is only evidence that Faith makes that claim, not that strata and fossils are evidence of the flood. For it to be evidence of the flood she needs to provide the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure for a flood to sort objects in the order found in reality AND be able to show that such sorting actually happens during floods.On the other hand, the claim that the Green River Varves are evidence of an old earth actually has outside support. The varves exist. We can see similar varves being produced at other locations even today. The varves count also is corroborated by other methods such as index fossils, radiometric dating as well as newer dating technologies.Faith's testimony is evidence but only evidence that she is making such a claim, not evidence of a flood or young earth.

Perhaps Faith has an alternative definition of evidence.

I can call an apple a butterbean but it is still an apple. Faith can make up whatever definitions she wants. That is called fantasy at best, dishonest in most cases.

Some of the Pastors that I know would likely claim that since the Bible is true, God by definition through Jesus is evident. They would then probably quote Romans.

quote:

---

Rom 1:18-20
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

---

Now I don't want to get too far off topic here...our discussion is on evidence, the definition of evidence and the Biblical Flood.If we can agree on what evidence is, maybe we can wrap this thread up.

quote:

---

RAZD, I HAVE NEVER EVER said the varves formed DURING THE FLOOD. I say only that the STRATA that make up the GEOLOGICAL COLUMN, on which the GEOLOGICAL TIME SCALE is based, were formed in the Flood, by waves and tides and precipitation.

---

Faith, you do realise that - as I pointed out earlier the Green River varves are rock - they are a part of the Green River formation, not sediment as in the other examples.So your claim here contradicts itself.

Yup, some would. But when they say silly stuff like that and fall back on quote mining and proof texts it is time to chuckle, pat them on the head, tell them that is interesting and send them back to the kiddie table.

keep in mind the possible audience that this thread attracts. If a young student who leaned towards creationism were to see that you insult their pastor, they might take offense.Perhaps my question is this: Is there more than one definition of evidence, and is it possible that reality is not what it seems?I may have mentioned my facebook exchange with one of my friends here in town.He says:

quote:

---

Climate change is a created catastrophe by HAARP & NASA! But the fact still remains its made up even if they have figured out how to mess with the weather because what's really going on right now is what the bible explains as the birth pains of the earth or the beginning of sorrows in matthew 24

---

My approach to him is not to insult him nor disparage his belief. (though it is tempting)There are some people who actually believe what Faith and my friend believe.In addition, they likely conflate belief as evidence.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^It's too bad more pastors are not insulted. They need to be insulted.

Absolutely there's more than one definition of evidence.
That is, in the sense that there's more than one definition for every word.Jar's point stands though.
It doesn't matter how many definitions exist for evidence.The idea is to have a word to describe objective, verifiable (against reality) information that can be relied upon to make tentative conclusions.
Things that have been tested.
Things that work for you, me and everyone or anyone.The word originally intended for this sort of idea, and used by scientists everywhere, is "evidence."However, colloquial usage of the word in everyday contexts has sort of shifted it slightly more to the realm of "anything that supports an intended goal."That is, Joe Blow might say that gum on his shoe is evidence that he's having a bad day.
Where a scientist would say that gum on his shoe is evidence that he stepped in gum earlier.Regardless of the bastardized everyday usage of the word, though... when we're talking about something like the possibility of the flood, and you're trying to understand the reality behind something... the word evidence really should only be used in the scientific sense.If not, it only adds confusion, and now we need another word to mean "objective, verifiable (against reality) information that can be relied upon to make tentative conclusions."The word 'evidence' itself (like most words) is merely a placeholder short-form for a specific idea.It's the idea that's important. It's just much more efficient to say the word "evidence" then writing all that out every time.
Alternative definitions for the word 'evidence' are irrelevant.
There is no "alternative idea" that replaces "objective, verifiable (against reality) information that can be relied upon to make tentative conclusions" which is the best way we have currently been able to come up with to understand reality as best we can.Any prolonged contention about the definition of "evidence" is really a discussion about the method in which we use to understand reality as best we can. If you think "science" is second place to... anything... in this sense, then the computer you're using to read this says hi.

Observable facts ?

quote:

---

The trilobite and coelacanth fossils further support my argument by showing only microevolutionary changes on the typical order of varieties and races over what the standard theory says are hundreds of millions of years.

---

The scientists who have actually studied the fossils disagree. Without further argument, taking into account the actual observed variations this must be classed as just an opinion. No observable facts to support it are mentioned.

quote:

---

These are the only fossils that occur in so many different strata up the geological column and they do not support the OE/ToE at all, which is fabricated out of the great "leaps" supposed between major groups such as reptiles and mammals.

---

No great leap is proposed, so this claim must be dismissed as a fabrication.

quote:

---

And there is also the absurdity of associating a time period with a huge flat sedimentary rock, let alone ALL the time periods. The very idea of a time period so clearly demarcated from others is absurd to begin with, and having them marked by sedimentary deposits is eyerolling absurdity.

---

This is just another ignorant fabrication - misrepresenting mainstream geology.

quote:

---

And the other absurdity of trying to claim the Geoloigical Column is continuing in lakebeds and seafloor. I've explained this sufficiently in my previous post on this subject.

---

I think the claim is more that the varves indicate - at least - tens of thousands of years of continuous deposition with no sign of the Flood. However we do find such deposits as rock in the Green River formation and if they were deposited in the same way - as the evidence indicates (and you seem to have conceded as much, but perhaps without understanding that) - then it would be rather odd to insist that modern deposits couldn't be added to the geological column in the same way.

quote:

---

So what is that, four separate arguments based on observable facts that show millions of years to be absurd and rapid deposition to be the only reasonable interpretation of the actual form of the strata.

---

Three ignorant opinions - two of them strawmen - and a confused argument which is contradicted by evidence you claim to accept (even if that was a mistake).Not a case worth mentioning.

Evidence of Allah is the Koran.

Actually not. The Bible gives evidence galore throughout, historical accounts of God's doings in the world, as witnessed by many people who are named, and much of the gospels describes Jesus' miraculous doings to verify His deity; but the Koran just assumes the existence of Allah and doesn't give one iota of evidence.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.