Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is your best arguments against a world wide flood.
Convince-me
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 47 (36585)
04-09-2003 12:52 PM


Hi Im new on this board "Geology and the Great Flood". I believe that God controlled an evolution because of DNA-similarities.
But creation-books have convinced me that it was a world wide flood. (I was a pure creationist from the beginning.) Ive actually never heard arguments from evolutionists against this flood. So I would like to hear the best arguments in this topic from you evolutionists.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Karl, posted 04-09-2003 1:26 PM Convince-me has replied
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 04-09-2003 1:33 PM Convince-me has not replied
 Message 11 by Budikka, posted 04-13-2003 1:54 PM Convince-me has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 47 (36588)
04-09-2003 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Convince-me
04-09-2003 12:52 PM


Simple enough.
There is no evidence for it.
There are continuous records by both the Chinese and the Egyptians through the period it was meant to occur.
There is no layer of flood deposits in the right age range that extends globally. There are lots of flood deposits - we know what they look like - but they are small and isolated incidents, compared to a putative "great flood"
There is no evidence of a genetic bottleneck in all species around that period.
Whatever Woodmaroppe may say, the Ark is not feasable. Just ask a zookeeper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Convince-me, posted 04-09-2003 12:52 PM Convince-me has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by some_guy, posted 04-09-2003 11:21 PM Karl has replied
 Message 8 by Convince-me, posted 04-10-2003 9:33 AM Karl has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 3 of 47 (36589)
04-09-2003 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Convince-me
04-09-2003 12:52 PM


This is like asking what the arguments are against pink dragons. There's no evidence for pink dragons, and there's no evidence for a world-wide flood. I would turn the question around and ask you what your best evidence is *for* a world-wide flood.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Convince-me, posted 04-09-2003 12:52 PM Convince-me has not replied

  
some_guy
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 47 (36642)
04-09-2003 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Karl
04-09-2003 1:26 PM


"There is no layer of flood deposits in the right age range that extends globally. There are lots of flood deposits - we know what they look like - but they are small and isolated incidents, compared to a putative "great flood"
I am not a geologist or have really looked into this but i am assuming you are using a dating system used by natuarlist which extends for billions of years. But when looking from a creationist's perspective where the earth is only a few thousand years old. So all of the layers in this "age range" only extend to about 6000 years. Lets say the flood took place 5000 years ago. If you go by an evolutionists dating system which extends to millions of years and then go back 5000 years in that system to when it took place ofcoarse you are going to not find and flood deposits, because if you go by creation acount the 5000 years down is really more like 5 million years down according to the evolutionists dating system.
I hope that makes sense. It like measure somthing in meters and kilometers and then comparing them simply by the number.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Karl, posted 04-09-2003 1:26 PM Karl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 04-09-2003 11:40 PM some_guy has not replied
 Message 7 by Karl, posted 04-10-2003 7:40 AM some_guy has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 5 of 47 (36644)
04-09-2003 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by some_guy
04-09-2003 11:21 PM


But when looking from a creationist's perspective where the earth is only a few thousand years old.
But it isn't a few thousand years old. It's been known since 1820 or so that it's a thousand or more times that old, and ALL scientific evidence confirms that - about 4,560,000,000 years old since it accreted from protoplanetary objects, to be more precise. And no matter what the dates say, there are no worldwide deposits all dating to any one event anywhere in the geologic record. A "great flood" in the last 5000, or 500,000, years would have left some trace. It's not there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by some_guy, posted 04-09-2003 11:21 PM some_guy has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 6 of 47 (36645)
04-10-2003 12:10 AM


Quote below (from message 4) added by edit:
quote:
I am not a geologist or have really looked into this but i am assuming you are using a dating system used by natuarlist which extends for billions of years. But when looking from a creationist's perspective where the earth is only a few thousand years old. So all of the layers in this "age range" only extend to about 6000 years.
Looks like a good place to insert a plug for an older topic I started.
YEC Geologic Column - Created with apparent age?
Moose
------------------
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-10-2003]

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 47 (36663)
04-10-2003 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by some_guy
04-09-2003 11:21 PM


But it doesn't matter how far you go down - there are no world-wide flood deposits anywhere.
If the entire column was only 6,000 years old, why are traces of human civilisation found only in the very top layers? Why no cities in what we call the Cretaceous? Why no prehistoric middens in the Triassic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by some_guy, posted 04-09-2003 11:21 PM some_guy has not replied

  
Convince-me
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 47 (36669)
04-10-2003 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Karl
04-09-2003 1:26 PM


And what is the explanation to Grand Canyon. It doesnt look like the river of Grand canyon have deposited the layers. The layers are spread many many miles, the same stonesize lie with eachother. It looks like great waves have deposited them. The river is rather created by an initial crack.
What about polystrata fossils and massive fossilgraves and the oil. You can argue that its AT LEAST large local catastrophies and not slow burying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Karl, posted 04-09-2003 1:26 PM Karl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 04-10-2003 10:02 AM Convince-me has not replied
 Message 10 by edge, posted 04-11-2003 2:08 PM Convince-me has not replied

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


Message 9 of 47 (36671)
04-10-2003 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Convince-me
04-10-2003 9:33 AM


The rock strata of the canyon were deposited in varying conditions over hundreds of millions of years. The river is responsible for eroding the canyon, not supplying the sediment.
Perhaps it would be better to ask the YECs how all this rock got there with so little time ? And then how it was eroded ? I've yet to see an answer that stood up to proper examination - taking into account the different types of rock, the fossils and the erosion between strata.
There are no polystrate fossils in the sense used by YECs.
Massive fossil graves can be explained by local catastrophes. Many fossils are the result of quick burial - geology doesn't insist on a constant rate of deposition at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Convince-me, posted 04-10-2003 9:33 AM Convince-me has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 10 of 47 (36757)
04-11-2003 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Convince-me
04-10-2003 9:33 AM


quote:
And what is the explanation to Grand Canyon. It doesnt look like the river of Grand canyon have deposited the layers.
Who said that it did?
quote:
The layers are spread many many miles, the same stonesize lie with eachother.
Yep, just like modern depositional environments.
quote:
It looks like great waves have deposited them. The river is rather created by an initial crack.
You'll have to clear this with your favorite professional creationist. According to many, there were no cracks in the soft sediment of the GC sequence.
quote:
What about polystrata fossils and massive fossilgraves and the oil.
What about them? Do you really think that geologists haven't thought about these things? That they were discovered by creationists?
quote:
You can argue that its AT LEAST large local catastrophies and not slow burying.
Large local catastophes do not help you. They are still local. There are still many of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Convince-me, posted 04-10-2003 9:33 AM Convince-me has not replied

  
Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 47 (36899)
04-13-2003 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Convince-me
04-09-2003 12:52 PM


I started a thread on these boards called "50 Ways to Leave Your Flooder" which was not allowed to proceed (I guess because it was too tough for the creationists to think in numbers over what they can count on their fingers and toes).
This thread did exactly what it said - it listed 50 reasons why there could not have been a global flood, and in a subsequent stripped-down thread, not a single one of those 50 topics originally listed was refuted or even an attempt made on it by any creationist.
This ought to prove to you that creationists on these boards cannot support the blather that they so readily purvey.
The 50 reasons were posted in alt.atheism a month or so ago, and again, not a single creationist could offer any sort of refutation of even one of them.
I am not going to post them here, but I will happily email you the original text if you email me at Budikka1@netscape.net.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Convince-me, posted 04-09-2003 12:52 PM Convince-me has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 04-13-2003 2:03 PM Budikka has not replied
 Message 13 by Admin, posted 04-13-2003 8:37 PM Budikka has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 12 of 47 (36901)
04-13-2003 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Budikka
04-13-2003 1:54 PM


50 ways
I captured that when it was posted. Thanks for compiling it.
I may not think they are all equally telling or well stated, but it is a long list to be dealt with. thanks again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Budikka, posted 04-13-2003 1:54 PM Budikka has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 13 of 47 (36915)
04-13-2003 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Budikka
04-13-2003 1:54 PM


Budikka writes:
I started a thread on these boards called "50 Ways to Leave Your Flooder" which was not allowed to proceed (I guess because it was too tough for the creationists to think in numbers over what they can count on their fingers and toes).
Please keep the debate impersonal and focused on topic.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Budikka, posted 04-13-2003 1:54 PM Budikka has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 1:25 AM Admin has not replied

  
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 47 (37509)
04-22-2003 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Admin
04-13-2003 8:37 PM


Okay, but if there was no evidence of a flood, why do we have 1 third of the Himalayas covered with seashells?
Why was a whale's skeleton found on a 3000-foot mountaintop?
Why was Pillow Lava Found on a 15000-foot mountain (pillow lava forms ONLY underwater)?
Study astronomy and geology: the earth is tilted on its axis. However, stonehenge and the Ramses star-map of Egypt do not line up well as how they should. In fact, if you mapped out how the earth's axis is 'wobbly' you'll find that it is behaving like a spinning top that was struck forcefully about 4.5 thousand years ago (4500 y.a.) That is about the same time as the flood of Noah, according to the Bible. Interesting.
The Smithsonian is responsible for hiding much evidence that goes against evolution, so i've heard (that sounds bias on their part). Many musuems I have BEEN TO will hide the fact that there exist polystrate fossils and human remains that were found "out of place" in the geologic column. Seriously, the only place that the geologic column really exists is in the textbook (much of the fossils found in the rock layers do not 'support' their theory, so they simply disregard the evidence for the flood).
Do not believe that there is NO evidence for the flood--there is more evidence FOR it... but evolutionists, from my experience, are very good at covering up or making you believe there is no evidence.
Here are my sources, for the skeptics out there:
Dr. Comninellis, Nichollas "Creative Defense: Evidence AGAINST Evolution"
Dinosaur Adventure Land
http://www.projectcreation.org
Evolution-Facts | Fakta & Evolusi Ilmiah

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Admin, posted 04-13-2003 8:37 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by AdminPamboli, posted 04-22-2003 2:20 AM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2003 2:21 AM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 17 by Bill Birkeland, posted 04-22-2003 1:07 PM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 18 by Coragyps, posted 04-22-2003 1:26 PM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 04-22-2003 11:32 PM booboocruise has replied

  
AdminPamboli
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 47 (37517)
04-22-2003 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 1:25 AM


Booboocruise not posting in good faith
As Admin pointed out here http://EvC Forum: Thermodynamics and entropy -->EvC Forum: Thermodynamics and entropy you have many posts to reply to on issues you have already raised.
You are simply not participating in good faith. Please follow up on the topics that you yourself started before involving yourself in other topics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 1:25 AM booboocruise 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