|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why the Flood Never Happened | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2871 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
Did you read the referenced article? Apparently not. Believe it or not I can understand this reticence on your part having gone through the experience myself.
quote: The flood carved underground canyons? And it built underground mountains too?? (I'll get to your other posts later.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... but thats mainly because i have faith in human intelligence. I lost that when schrubbia was re-elected. by our ability to understand Rebel American 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Atheos canadensis Member (Idle past 3020 days) Posts: 141 Joined: |
Just to be clear, I concede the point on the known evidence, I can't explain it myself. But it had to be buried in the Flood, there's no other possibility even if I can't say how that occurred. Possibly if I studied it for some time I'd come up with a better idea but I'm not likely to do that any time soon if ever. Sorry to disappoint you. But it would be nice if you'd remain easy to get along with anyway. I am satisfied with getting a Floodist to concede that I have presented evidence that is not consistent with the Flood. I think it is irrational to maintain that it must be explained by the Flood anyway, but if you accept that the evidence I have presented doesn't support that then you are running on faith and it would not be productive to argue with that. If you believe the Flood account in the Bible then that is your prerogative. Although I would like you to answer this question: If you or others did work at the problem and were unable to come up with a Flood-based explanation for how that brooding dinosaur got there, would you alter your beliefs about the Flood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Faith writes: Buried canyons are no more of a problem for the Flood than buried rivers. I don't know why you all have such trouble with these things. Just exercise a little scientific imagination. You're not exercising scientific imagination. You're ignoring scientific facts and just making things up. Your "scientific" ideas are like historical novels, based only tangentially on real places and events. For example:
If water can flow underground, canyons can be cut underground. I'd expect it to have occurred in the last stages of the Flood myself. You obviously didn't research this. Water *can* flow underground, but as Wikipedia tells us in the article on acquifers:
Wikipedia writes: Groundwater may exist in underground rivers (e.g., caves where water flows freely underground). This may occur in eroded limestone areas known as karst topography, which make up only a small percentage of Earth's area. More usual is that the pore spaces of rocks in the subsurface are simply saturated with water like a kitchen sponge which can be pumped out for agricultural, industrial, or municipal uses. The canyon in that image is obviously the product of a river system on the surface, not underground acquifers or caves. Morton is only stating the obvious when he says it would take a considerable time to excavate and erode the canyon through hard rock, including the evident slope retreat:
The canyon is not filled with material collapsed from the layers above. It's filled with sedimentary material, which would have taken an additional very long period of time. But you have far more fundamental problems. First and foremost, the layers of the Grand Canyon were obviously not laid down in a short period of time by a flood, because the material is not sorted top to bottom by size and density, with the heaviest and densest material on the bottom and the lightest and least dense on the top. The deeper the layer, the younger it is radiometrically, and the more different are fossils from modern forms. Nothing about any of the evidence hints of floods. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Why do you have a quote about buried mountains as if it were a quote from me, although it isn't? That is VERY bad debate form, I ask you please to attribute it properly.
My only "reticence" is from so despising the attitude of some here I can't stand reading them, it's not about the information, which is usually interesting. Please stop secondguessing me and putting words in my mouth. I am nothing like you. The problem with the image of the "canyon" is that no facts are given about it, where it was made, how deep it is, what the terrain is like both above and below ground, how large the supposed canyon is. I took your word for it that it is enough canyon like to be called a canyon but it really needs a lot more facts to get a clear idea of it. As for "buried mountains" I don't recall that being said, but then I'm only reading in bits and pieces at the moment. Let me guess: It's a lot of tilted strata seen at some depth? Again many specifics would be welcome, but of course I see no problem with tilted strata underground either. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The canyon is not filled with material collapsed from the layers above. It's filled with sedimentary material, which would have taken an additional very long period of time. Who said anything about material collapsed from the layers above? The way you attribute idiotic ideas to me makes you the most despicable of my opponents. You simply recite the OE Creed about how it would have taken a long time, when in reality sediments were deposited rapidly in the Flood. So now that I have this new information it clearly isn't a canyon at all, it's apparently an impression in one layer filled in by sediment from the layer above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I've given lots of reasonable specifics in this discussion about many aspects of the argument. The idea that any nonscientist -- OR scientist -- creationist should try to answer every conceivable objection to the Flood is irrational. In the early part of any science you wouldn't expect that of someone studying it, but you seem to expect it of a creationist, and ANY creationist at that. Obviously I do not impute anything about the Flood to miracle. I'm trying to find physical explanations for it. Your objections are, as I said, irrational.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If you or others did work at the problem and were unable to come up with a Flood-based explanation for how that brooding dinosaur got there, would you alter your beliefs about the Flood? No of course not. 1) I KNOW there was a worldwide Flood, most likely about 4350 years ago but not much longer in any case, there is never going to be any doubt about that. 2) Theories about HOW it occurred are always open to question because we are not given enough information in scripture, but the evidence for the Flood's creation of the strata seems to me to be at least about 95% certain. All other explanations for the strata are just plain ridiculous and the Flood had the power to do it. Again, understanding all the ways it occurred is the ongoing work of creation science, why should anyone be expected to understand all of it anyway? For me it's fun to think about. It's NOT fun to argue with nasty people about, but thinking about it IS fun, and despite the constant ridicule I still think I've made GOOD points here. 3) If the dinosaur fossil was formed some other way, I'd hope that could be figured out, but since the Flood would have provided the ideal conditions for fossilization, and clearly the fossils in the strata can be attributed to the Flood, I'd still be expecting that eventually the dinosaur would be explained in terms of the Flood as well. \ Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The canyon in that image is obviously the product of a river system on the surface, not underground acquifers or caves. Morton is only stating the obvious when he says it would take a considerable time to excavate and erode the canyon through hard rock, including the evident slope retreat: I would LOVE to ignore your posts but you keep raising such idiotic possibilities you have to be answered at least sometimes. WHAT ARE THE DIMENSIONS OF THIS SUPPOSED CANYON ANYWAY? For supposedly scientific minds there's a strange lack of the usual necessary information for making any kind of reasonable judgment of a given subject. VERY BAD FORM. Is it perchance in limestone? What is the evidence for slope retreat in that picture? There is nothing OBVIOUS about a river's forming that shape on the surface. You'd need to give a lot more information to make such an idea plausible. If it formed in SOFT rock then the whole assumption that it would have taken time falls apart.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2871 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
Why would you think that I attributed the quote about underground mountains to you when it is an argument against your model?
"The problem with the image of the canyon" is that it falsifies your model altogether regardless of where it is located, it's size, depth, or anything else. And it's canyons and mountains, plural not singular. I didn't read any of it, it's off topic for me right now.
Of course it is. Falsifications: off topic. But here are the ten (off topic) sentences for the non-delusional lurkers:
quote:Old Earth Creation Science Testimony - Why I Left Young Earth Creationism, by Glenn Morton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It was "canyon," singular, in reference to the image you posted.
It's the way the quote is presented that makes it appear to be attributed to me. That's how I originally saw it and I still ask you to make it clearer that it's a quote from Morton. That paragraph of Morton's is full of stuff that begs a ton of questions, but it's just typical stuff that delusional OE believers swallow whole. First of all, as usual it's nothing but interpretation. Shouldn't science present what is actually observed, in enough detail for others to investigate the claims? You can't do laboratory experiments on such phenomena so at least you should be careful to give other researchers the information needed to come to their own conclusions. That seems to be a huge failure of evo and OE "science" in general, that it's nothing but imaginative interpretations presented as fact. That makes the claims to even BE science irrational. Thick layers. What EXACTLY is he seeing? We need DESCRIPTION. We need EVIDENCE. How extensive are these layers. How many has he seen, where has he seen them? First don't even call them "layers," just describe the actual facts as observed. That would be the scientific way to do it. What exactly is he seeing that he's calling "mountains" and what does he mean by "erosion." We need careful description of the phenomena themselves, not his interpretations. I see NOTHING in what he's said that requires time. What is the matter with you people that you can't see through this? His remarks about faults lose me. What's the problem here? Karsts are NOT a problem in limestone after the Flood has drained away. To think so is crazy. "Erosional canyons." Can't you see this is nothing but interpretation? No wonder you were a pushover for the OE rationalizations. Just like Morton. Fallible intellect and not very sharp fallible intellect either. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are jumping to a lot of conclusions about that supposed underground canyon. What is needed is good factual description. Start there and I may try to pay attention.
Where would you expect to see tunnels? Why should v shaped channels be a problem. Or tributaries. Again, the dimensions of this supposed canyon have never been given here. Do you have them? How deep, long, wide is it? And what sediment{?} is it carved into? And what sediment(s) filled it? No, I'm not lying, I know nothing about the other canyons so why should you assume I can't answer them too? The GC is of interest to creationists because of the great depth of exposed strata, as I said before you called me a liar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, you are blind as a bat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Your post is nothing but the usual recitation of science lore. Why can't you just THINK about how evo science and OE science are a different kind of animal from REAL science?
Back to the topic....here's a challenge for you: You say we can't be sure of the long distant past ....so here's a statement for you: We know with absolute certainty that the early Earth atmosphere could not possibly have contained more than a trace of oxygen (so no humans or any other oxygen breathing animals could possibly have survived then). How do we know this since we weren’t there? How are we so certain we are right? Hint: Very basic chemistry.....if you can't figure it out you need to go back to school.
But you are talking about your own false belief of the early earth as millions of years old. How is that a challenge to me? You have to THINK some here. I'm not saying you can't know some things, simple things like that. I'm talking about the INTERPRETATIONS THAT ARE PALMED OFF AS FACT about events in the past that you CANNOT know with that much certainty and that are open to other interpretations. Why can't you just grasp, for instance, that to impute huge eras of time to flat slabs of rock, and make up how the dead creatures within that rock lived during that supposed time, is just plain ludicrous? That's so obvious you really should just acknowledge it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
He's trying to argue that Geology is misunderstood, but his argument is crazy. The value of the article is that it shows that Geology is viewed as an interpretive and historical science, which it is. He's not questioning that, he's trying to make a virtue out of it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024