flowering plants and the Flood

Hey TC,How about getting back to your flood model?CheersJoe Meert

"How about getting back to your flood model?"
--Very good idea, I hope we can progress and work out the many kinks in this hypothesis.------------------

OK, I am bumping this to the top pf the list to see if our newest Flood proponent can do anything with it.Enjoy, Tranq.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

Bumping again.

Hey there, Tranquility Base!Have you thought about this problem?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

Bump------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

another bump for TB

It's obviously something that we would want to see emerge out of simulations of surges and sorting of course. I agree I have no quick answer - I've confessed that elsewhere on this board on this same issue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
It's obviously something that we would want to see emerge out of simulations of surges and sorting of course. I agree I have no quick answer - I've confessed that elsewhere on this board on this same issue.

---

Whoaaaa, back up. You said that the gc was better explained by a flood than mainstrean uniformitarianism (words to that effect). If the nature of the fossil record can't be explained by a noachian flood NOW, then how did you reach your conclusion? Are you sure you're not taking the biblical flood as fact, then trying to make "facts" fit?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Whoaaaa, back up. You said that the gc was better explained by a flood than mainstrean uniformitarianism (words to that effect). If the nature of the fossil record can't be explained by a noachian flood NOW, then how did you reach your conclusion? Are you sure you're not taking the biblical flood as fact, then trying to make "facts" fit?

---

And what happened to the cyclothem argument? That one died rather quickly. In fact, all of TB's arguments have been shown to be either a dead-wrong recap of creationist websites, or comprised of an incomplete understanding of the mainstream literature. What do you say, TB?

All I conceeded Mark was that the flowering plant issues is not one that qualitatively pops out of our current scenario. We would hope a detailed study would show why. Currently, on the issue of flowering plants, the evoltuonary model is much better.If you think I am conceding defeat you are mistaken! On many other issues I maintain the flood model is better: flatness of marine continental

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
All I conceeded Mark was that the flowering plant issues is not one that qualitatively pops out of our current scenario. We would hope a detailed study would show why. Currently, on the issue of flowering plants, the evoltuonary model is much better.

​

If you think I am conceding defeat you are mistaken! On many other issues I maintain the flood model is better: flatness of marine continental

---

The point I am making is that you have said that the noachian flood better explains the gc than mainstrean uniformatarianism geology.But how can it, when it can't explain the nature of the fossil record yet? This alone means that mainstream geology explains the evidence better. Hoping a detailed study would explain it is hopeful, but it might just as easily not explain it. Meaning the flood model will have to be significantly altered (no longer noachian), or abandoned.My point is, you have grasped the flood model first, before seeing what the evidence supports.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
All I conceeded Mark was that the flowering plant issues is not one that qualitatively pops out of our current scenario.

---

TB, this is a pretty major problem for you. I am glad to see that you acknowledge it.

quote:

---

We would hope a detailed study would show why. Currently, on the issue of flowering plants, the evoltuonary model is much better.

---

But you will continue to maintain that creationism is superior? Even though it is incomplete? Even though you have not raised a single issue that we cannot answer with an evolutionist scenario?

quote:

---

If you think I am conceding defeat you are mistaken!

---

I can't speak for Mark, but I would presume no such thing. You have shown yourself to be rigidly dogmatic about accepting creationism despite the facts. We wouldn't want you to change.

quote:

---

On many other issues I maintain the flood model is better:

---

I presume you were going to give us some examples here, but your post was chopped. Before you proceed, keep in mind that your point regarding cyclothems was devastated. I hope these will be better.

quote:

---

... flatness of marine continental...

---

This is not an auspicious beginning, however...