Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8751 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-27-2017 12:30 AM
121 online now:
Coyote, Dredge, DrJones*, ramoss (4 members, 117 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 809,075 Year: 13,681/21,208 Month: 3,163/3,605 Week: 505/933 Day: 3/40 Hour: 3/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Critique of AIG on the Grand Canyon
JonF
Member
Posts: 3535
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 1 of 46 (787025)
07-01-2016 8:56 AM


Flood Geology and the Grand Canyon: What Does the Evidence Really Say?

quote:
In a new book, The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth, eleven authors describe the geology of the canyon rocks and landforms and focus on the claims of flood geologists.[4] The authors are a mix of Christian and non-Christian professional earth scientists who are concerned about the impact of flood geology on public science literacy and, especially for the Christian authors, the negative impact of a gospel message associated with faulty scientific explanations. The four authors of this article all contributed to the book.

Using explanations and illustrations found in our book, we will address five of the top evidences offered for a global flood that are supposedly revealed in the Grand Canyon. These evidences are summarized on a poster from AiG (find it here). We will consider them in a different order than on the poster, adding some additional compelling evidences that are inconsistent with the flood model and rarely mentioned in their literature.



Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 07-07-2016 9:20 PM JonF has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-09-2016 2:35 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2 of 46 (787236)
07-07-2016 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JonF
07-01-2016 8:56 AM


Straw man Flood geology
Most of the pioneering natural scientists and geologists of the Renaissance and late modern era (1500 to 1815)—a group which included many pious Christians—expected that their field work would provide evidence of the biblical flood, reflecting a catastrophic event in earth’s history of only thousands of years.

This is true, but the sad fact is that the theories they came up with to demonstrate the Flood were pathetically unbiblical. It was therefore a straw man that was eventually overthrown by their continuing work. That fossils were rocks designed by God to look like living things was one such ridiculous idea that simply contradicts the character of God as presented in the Bible. All ideas of creation continuing to occur after the Creation Week of Genesis 1 are obvious violations of scripture, which clearly says God rested from His work on the seventh day. But that's biology, so I'll try to stick to the Flood.

However, as they discovered the interrelated, dynamic processes of the rock cycle and pieced together earth’s history from the vertical sequence of rock layers around the world, they concluded that the earth must be far older than thousands of years.

In fact they didn't "discover" anything, because it's all merely interpretation that can't be proven: they merely imagined the Old Earth into existence. Hutton made up a scenario to explain Siccar Point that would require such long ages, and thanks to Lyell his mere imaginings became enshrined as scientific fact, later supposedly validated by radiometric analysis, but that too is really only imagined into existence since there is absolutely no way to prove it, there being no witnesses from ancient history that confirm it, and at least one worthy witness that denies it.

Furthermore, they couldn’t identify a single layer of rock or sediment that fit with a global flood occurring early in human history.[2]

And here is that straw man: expecting that a "single layer" would demonstrate a Flood that covered the entire earth is a huge error, showing that they had no sense at all of the magnitude of such an event. The enormous geographical extent and the tremendous depth of the stacks of layers should have belied any notions of normal geological events. Their predominantly marine contents should likewise have suggested a single watery explanation for the whole shebang, rather than the silly rise-and-fall scenarios they came up with instead. Besides, their idea of "early in human history" is not the Bible's idea of early in human history. Everything in the Bible has to be fudged to bring it into accord with the sciences of the history of the earth.

By the early 20th century, most leading Christians accepted the great age of the planet earth. For example, notes in the popular Scofield Reference Bible published in 1909 provided an old-earth interpretation of Genesis 1.

May God forgive them, but the Bible clearly indicates a young earth and contradicts the Old Earth as well as evolution in many ways. It takes convoluted thinking to fit the sciences of the past into the Bible. If there's one thing the Bible teaches it's that we are to trust God and not man, so those who try to give biblical rationalizations for such clearly antibiblical science-based ideas are seriously at fault. The Bible calls it "fear of man," which is a great sin. We are to fear God alone.

More later, God willing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JonF, posted 07-01-2016 8:56 AM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 07-07-2016 10:31 PM Faith has responded
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2016 12:00 AM Faith has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5785
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 3 of 46 (787241)
07-07-2016 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Faith
07-07-2016 9:20 PM


Re: Straw man Flood geology
JonF writes:

Most of the pioneering natural scientists and geologists of the Renaissance and late modern era (1500 to 1815)—a group which included many pious Christians—expected that their field work would provide evidence of the biblical flood, reflecting a catastrophic event in earth’s history of only thousands of years.

Faith writes:

This is true, but the sad fact is that the theories they came up with to demonstrate the Flood were pathetically unbiblical.

That's the way it goes when you follow the scientific method and the evidence.

You can't pre-ordain the results and call it science. To have a desired conclusion and fudge everything to support it--that's pretty much the definition of creation "science"--and pretty much the exact opposite of real science.

Faith writes:

It was therefore a straw man that was eventually overthrown by their continuing work. That fossils were rocks designed by God to look like living things was one such ridiculous idea that simply contradicts the character of God as presented in the Bible. All ideas of creation continuing to occur after the Creation Week of Genesis 1 are obvious violations of scripture, which clearly says God rested from His work on the seventh day. But that's biology, so I'll try to stick to the Flood.

Ummmm, you can either do religion or science. In this particular case you can't do both.

JonF writes:

However, as they discovered the interrelated, dynamic processes of the rock cycle and pieced together earth’s history from the vertical sequence of rock layers around the world, they concluded that the earth must be far older than thousands of years.

Faith writes:

In fact they didn't "discover" anything, because it's all merely interpretation that can't be proven: they merely imagined the Old Earth into existence. Hutton made up a scenario to explain Siccar Point that would require such long ages, and thanks to Lyell his mere imaginings became enshrined as scientific fact, later supposedly validated by radiometric analysis, but that too is really only imagined into existence since there is absolutely no way to prove it, there being no witnesses from ancient history that confirm it, and at least one worthy witness that denies it.

1) They did "discover" something because the understanding of their day was of a biblical flood, and they discovered that such a flood never happened. That rates as a discovery any day.

2) Your "imagined into existence" is silly. They followed the evidence rather than old myths.

3) And how many times do we have to tell you that science doesn't deal in proof? Science deals in facts and theories. Facts alone don't mean much, but a theory organizes them into a useful framework, and a powerful theory makes successful predictions. Theories must explain all relevant facts, and not be contradicted by any relevant facts. This is where creation "science" and YEC go wrong--they must ignore a huge number of facts and misrepresent most of the rest to reach the desired conclusions.

JonF writes:

By the early 20th century, most leading Christians accepted the great age of the planet earth. For example, notes in the popular Scofield Reference Bible published in 1909 provided an old-earth interpretation of Genesis 1.

Faith writes:

May God forgive them, but the Bible clearly indicates a young earth and contradicts the Old Earth as well as evolution in many ways. It takes convoluted thinking to fit the sciences of the past into the Bible.

I have to agree with you here. It takes very convoluted thinking to try to fit the sciences into the bible. And it is not scientists who are attempting to do that.

As a colleague pointed out: "Preachers are always complaining that 'scientists are playing God,' but all too often, their confusion is the result of preachers playing scientist" (courtesy of The Sensuous Curmudgeon).


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 07-07-2016 9:20 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 07-07-2016 10:55 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 3:52 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 4 of 46 (787242)
07-07-2016 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
07-07-2016 10:31 PM


Re: Straw man Flood geology
1) They did "discover" something because the understanding of their day was of a biblical flood, and they discovered that such a flood never happened. That rates as a discovery any day.

You didn't read very carefully. They "discovered" that their straw man version of the Flood was false. Evidence of the actual Flood stares us in the face all the time; amazing how it's overlooked.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 07-07-2016 10:31 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 07-07-2016 11:14 PM Faith has responded
 Message 12 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-08-2016 1:52 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5785
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 5 of 46 (787243)
07-07-2016 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
07-07-2016 10:55 PM


Re: Straw man Flood geology
1) They did "discover" something because the understanding of their day was of a biblical flood, and they discovered that such a flood never happened. That rates as a discovery any day.

You didn't read very carefully. They "discovered" that their straw man version of the Flood was false. Evidence of the actual Flood stares us in the face all the time; amazing how it's overlooked.

I have done a lot of archaeological investigations that span that time period, and, like the early geologists, have concluded that there was no flood at the time specified.

Evidence of the "actual flood" does not "stare us in the face." Its simply not there at all. And all the belief there is will not make it appear. This has been the case for about 200 years.

You and other creationists have to contort, distort, misrepresent, and deny, and/or invent whole reams of evidence to try and make the flood show up--somewhere. Anywhere!

I have seen the flood, that is supposed to have occurred about 4,350 years ago, being placed 6,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, at the K-T Boundary 65 million years ago, and even back at the Cambrian, around 500 million years ago. It seems, anywhere we look the flood is somewhere else. That's apologetics, and dodging the issue, in an effort to hide the fact that the flood didn't occur.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 07-07-2016 10:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 07-07-2016 11:56 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 10 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-08-2016 12:17 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 6 of 46 (787244)
07-07-2016 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coyote
07-07-2016 11:14 PM


Re: Straw man Flood geology
I have done a lot of archaeological investigations that span that time period, and, like the early geologists, have concluded that there was no flood at the time specified.

The problem is that "that time period" as determined by human fallible projections onto the past that can't be proved, is a fiction.

Evidence of the "actual flood" does not "stare us in the face." Its simply not there at all. And all the belief there is will not make it appear. This has been the case for about 200 years. You and other creationists have to contort, distort, misrepresent, and deny, and/or invent whole reams of evidence to try and make the flood show up--somewhere. Anywhere!

Speaking only for myself, I haven't distorted anything. The strata are visible to all, the fossils are known to all, I've pointed out facts, I have not invented the evidence I've made use of. I've interpreted it differently and that's all. The Flood screams out from the evidence when you clear away the false interpretations of standard geology.

I have seen the flood, that is supposed to have occurred about 4,350 years ago, being placed 6,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, at the K-T Boundary 65 million years ago, and even back at the Cambrian, around 500 million years ago. It seems, anywhere we look the flood is somewhere else. That's apologetics, and dodging the issue, in an effort to hide the fact that the flood didn't occur.

Don't try to tell me the establishment interpretations haven't undergone similar guesses and errors because they certainly have. Errors in interpretation don't prove the main point wrong. I disagree with all those guesses myself, and even disagree with the most standard creationist YEC view since I think ALL the strata have to have been the result of the Flood whereas most of them confine it to the Paleozoic rocks and above.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 07-07-2016 11:14 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15929
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 7 of 46 (787245)
07-08-2016 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Faith
07-07-2016 9:20 PM


Re: Straw man Flood geology
This is true, but the sad fact is that the theories they came up with to demonstrate the Flood were pathetically unbiblical.

It has been pointed out to you --- repeatedly, with supporting quotations --- that the excuses early flood geologists had for the geological record are exactly the same as those that modern flood geologists put forward for the geological record. So please stop repeating this fatuous untruth.

In fact they didn't "discover" anything, because it's all merely interpretation that can't be proven: they merely imagined the Old Earth into existence. Hutton made up a scenario to explain Siccar Point that would require such long ages ...

Again, it has been pointed out to you, with extensive quotations, that the existence of Siccar Point was a prediction of Hutton's: he knew that something like that must exist and went looking for it.

---

I understand why you have to be wrong, it's that or give up on creationism, but could you at least contrive to be wrong about something new?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 07-07-2016 9:20 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 1:17 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 8 of 46 (787246)
07-08-2016 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dr Adequate
07-08-2016 12:00 AM


Re: Straw man Flood geology
How you get away with your empty stuff is beyond me but over and over all you do is make unsubstantiated accusations. Stop pretending you've told me this or that as if you'd proved something, because when I've challenged you it becomes clear you are inventing stuff, at the very least misrepresenting me or the whole exchange. You should be called on this by the mods. You owe the reader at least a link to the discussion you claim occurred but you NEVER give one unless pushed.

Original Flood geology was NOT the same as it is now: wherever it confined itself to one layer it misrepresents it, and the early ideas about fossils, which so clearly prove the Flood, were unbiblical silliness.

And according to a biography of Hutton he arrived at his Old Earth conclusions from looking at Siccar Point. It hardly matters whether he "predicted" his false idea or "discovered" it on site: it's wrong.

ABE: He was very familiar with the geology of Scotland, remembered seeing Siccar Point before and THEN went looking for it again because it illustrated his theory. Of course he GOT the theory from seeing it before anyway. If you look along the coast above Siccar Point, following drawings made by Lyell, you can see that this angular unconformity continues for some distance and was formed by the buckling of the lower strata beneath the upper horizontal strata. What would cause such even buckling but the resistance of the strata above? If the sections were in fact separated in time, when the upper were deposited why didn't they just fill in the spaces between the buckled segments? Why weren't the upper curves of those segments eroded away there as supposedly they were at Siccar Point? Obviously because the strata were already all there before the buckling occurred. Hutton's scenario is false.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2016 12:00 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Pressie, posted 07-08-2016 9:14 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2016 12:56 PM Faith has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1605
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 9 of 46 (787256)
07-08-2016 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
07-08-2016 1:17 AM


Re: Straw man Flood geology
This one is funny.

Faith writes:

Original Flood geology was NOT the same as it is now: wherever it confined itself to one layer it misrepresents it...

Tell that to "Flood geologists" such as Snelling and Austin and Peczkis. They keep on going about "The Cambrian Layer supposed to be so thick" and the "Ordivician layer supposed to be so thick" and "The Devonian layer supposed to be so thick", etc. They even tend to tell us in their "scientific" essays that most of "The Geological Column" is missing! And also that only 0.4% of the Geological Column exists!

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 1:17 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 10 of 46 (787264)
07-08-2016 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coyote
07-07-2016 11:14 PM


quote:

have seen the flood, that is supposed to have occurred about 4,350 years ago, being placed 6,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, at the K-T Boundary 65 million years ago, and even back at the Cambrian, around 500 million years ago. It seems, anywhere we look the flood is somewhere else. That's apologetics, and dodging the issue, in an effort to hide the fact that the flood didn't occur.

From what I have seen, the fold was either 2200 BCE if the Israelites were in Egypt 200 years or 2400 if the were in Egypt 430 years.

The NIV seems to take the 200 year in Egypt date because they added the relative pronoun "that" to the text to translate Exodus something like the total length of the journey of the Israelites THAT WERE in Egypt was 430 years. The family histories of ages and births in the Torah come to around 215 years I think. The NIV starts the 400 year period with Abraham was back in the earlier chapters of Genesis 12-50.

That would make the flood 2200 BCE.

There is no creationist position on the exact date of the flood it seems.

There was a guy at the ICR that fully accepted carbon dating and tree ring calibrations. His name was Gerald Aardsma or something. AIG disagrees with it.

ICR says the flood was perhaps 5000 to 10,000 years ago

AIG puts it in the 2200 to 2400 range.

They can't even agree on, or prove, much from the history of the 2nd millennium BCE either. I have (recent) read the works of Henry Morris and he seems to accept the conventional chronology of Egyptian history as the archaeologists and historians worked out. He sees the Ebla tablets as before the time of Abraham and the Amarna letters as just after the Conquest of Joshua. Shishak as the same named founder of the Egyptian 22 dynasty.

AIG puts the flood as just after or during the time of the Ebla tablets I suppose.

It's crazy that they (AIG) even worry about geology and earth history when recent archaeology and historical periods are ignored.

The leading creationist organizations have such differing dates for the flood that the dates in years BCE are literally double to triple from one organization to another.

It is crazy that they attack "secular preconceptions" when they have no reasonably coherent history of even the historical period to match to the Bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 07-07-2016 11:14 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 2:08 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15929
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 11 of 46 (787265)
07-08-2016 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
07-08-2016 1:17 AM


Re: Straw man Flood geology
How you get away with your empty stuff is beyond me but over and over all you do is make unsubstantiated accusations. Stop pretending you've told me this or that as if you'd proved something, because when I've challenged you it becomes clear you are inventing stuff ...

Can you please give us a link to an instance where I've claimed to have told you stuff but it turned out I had not? Thank you.

You owe the reader at least a link to the discussion you claim occurred but you NEVER give one unless pushed.

I will always supply one if asked politely. But I don't see why by default I should have to behave as though you are suffering from amnesia. If you are repeatedly presented with unequivocal evidence that you are wrong, at some point it becomes your responsibility to remember that.

ABE: He was very familiar with the geology of Scotland, remembered seeing Siccar Point before and THEN went looking for it again because it illustrated his theory. Of course he GOT the theory from seeing it before anyway.

Do you have any sort of evidence for this, or did you make it up?

If you look along the coast above Siccar Point, following drawings made by Lyell, you can see that this angular unconformity continues for some distance and was formed by the buckling of the lower strata beneath the upper horizontal strata. What would cause such even buckling but the resistance of the strata above? If the sections were in fact separated in time, when the upper were deposited why didn't they just fill in the spaces between the buckled segments? Why weren't the upper curves of those segments eroded away there as supposedly they were at Siccar Point?

If this is meant to convey some sort of mental picture, it is not doing so. Could you maybe present it as an actual picture?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 1:17 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 3:01 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 12 of 46 (787266)
07-08-2016 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
07-07-2016 10:55 PM


Question for Faith
Did you ever read the books of catastrophist (he has a physics degree or something like that) Charles Ginenthal?

He has a book on the extinction of the mammoth for example.

His books are just loaded with quotes. Most (like 55% I would say) of the text makes up quotes from books, journals, etc. His books are simply massive.

I have physical copies of his Carl Sagan book, Pillars of the Past 1, and Stephen Jay Gould book. Most of them are massive.

Anyway, all of his 12 or so books can be read for free (on PDF and some are in plain internet explored type text). Amazingly.

http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/

His work is far superior to any creationist (he is not that though) work I have read.

It is so full of quotes that you should have quite a bit of material to debate others with.

I think the material would suit your arguments. (hopefully Percy can go easy on you if you choose to quote things)

(also. Ginenthal used to have a phone number where he could be reached for questions. He returned phone calls to me multiple times. Only he and Kent Hovind were like 100% easy to call and debate, question, etc. I don't know if he still does.)

I just noticed he has a book titled "The Flood" and it is in plain text (not PDF!)
http://bearfabrique.org/History/floods/mfloods.html

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 07-07-2016 10:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 13 of 46 (787267)
07-08-2016 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by LamarkNewAge
07-08-2016 12:17 PM


ABE: Rewrite for clarity:

You give TWO different estimates by creationist organizations of the date of the Flood, AIG's 2200 to 2400 BC, which is based on the Bible, and ICR's 5000 to 10,000 years ago, which makes use of extrabiblical science. We "fundamentalists" generally accept the Bible-based date that AIG also accepts.

Although there are only two different views given in your post you keep trying to inflate them into something bigger than that. A Bible-based date and a science-based date shouldn't be compared at all.

You include a lot of undated extrabiblical information, as well as some incoherent references to the NIV, but none of that changes the numbers given above. 2200 to 2400 BC is pretty standard dating for the Flood among us "fundamentalists" who consider the Bible to be the final authority. There is really no great discrepancy as you keep trying to pretend, there's Bible-based dating and there's extrabiblical dating. The Biblical dating is quite consistent, putting the Flood somewhere around 4300 to 4500 years ago.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-08-2016 12:17 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-08-2016 2:50 PM Faith has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 14 of 46 (787270)
07-08-2016 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
07-08-2016 2:08 PM


O.k.
When did the ice age end then?

You hold to a 2400 (ish) date for the end of the flood it seems.

I still havn't seen a creationist make any reasonable argument for lowering the chronology of the ancient world. The historical period starts at about 3000 BCE.

Ginenthal has like 4000 pages in his Pillars of the Past series attacking all things related to science, archaeology, geology, etc. He places the flood 1500 to 1200 BCE and I think the ice age he ends around 1000 to 800 BCE. (I think he leaves out astronomy and physics in that series though. He mentions Sothic dating, and Mesopotamian astronomical dates though. I only read the first volume.)

He is like 10,000 times more sophisticated and comprehensive than any creationist.

I gave up on creationists offering anything to back up their claims and I spent a lot of time on AIG, ICR, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 2:08 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 3:20 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 15 of 46 (787271)
07-08-2016 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dr Adequate
07-08-2016 12:56 PM


Re: Straw man Flood geology
Can't find post where I successfully challenged one of your accusations along these lines.

Turns out Lyell's drawing doesn't prove what I thought it proved so I withdraw that statement. My memory is really not good these days. Nevertheless I would continue to argue that where the strata bend or buckle there must have been a weight above that provided resistance or they would simply have broken instead.

I have to find the book about Hutton to check my memory about how he arrived at Siccar Point for his argument.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2016 12:56 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2016 4:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017