Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic

Buddika made this claim in thread:http://EvC Forum: Creationist Fred Williams' Web Site Lies

quote:

---

The hypocritical thing here is that Williams uses this cheesy example to support Bible "science" but carefully tiptoes around the grotesque insanity of the flood story, which has the Bible claiming that we used to have several thousand feet of liquid water suspended above the Earth.

---

--This is a topic which I created for the sol interest of me and Buddika seeing as we have extensive disagreement on the Global Flood event. We can consider this a 'one on one debate', as was suggested by percipient some time ago. I would appreciate it if members not post in this thread, however, if they wish to make a parallel thread for displaying their ideas/suggestions that would be acceptable. My 'challenge' to buddika is that he present in this thread up to three & no more geologic examples of which he adequatelly understands and can carry in-depth discussion with, illustrating why the flood is not feasible, did not occur, is impossible, or whatever extream he chooses.--A similar challenge was issued in another thread, 'Buddika on the Genesis flood' of which he either chose to ignore or was not aware existed dispite its continued bumping due to postings. Edge asserted in the thread:

quote:

---

Sure. Ask someone who apparently dropped in for a quick comment and ignore the folks who have been asking you questions all along.

---

--However I am not in the forum to ignore anything and have enjoyably continued discussions on paleosols in another thread.--I welcome the input of moderators but would ask that we not abuse our athority given that invitation .--I hope this works out & somewhat enjoyable and productive discussion takes place in this thread.--I will be bumping this thread, Let er' rip Buddika------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-12-2002]

^Bump^------------------

^Bump^------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I would appreciate it if members not post in this thread...

---

Sorry bud but I think this may be a valid point I have coming up....

quote:

---

My 'challenge' to buddika is that he present in this thread up to three & no more geologic examples of which he adequatelly understands and can carry in-depth discussion with, illustrating why the flood is not feasible, did not occur, is impossible, or whatever extream he chooses.

---

Sounds an awfull lot like your asking him to try to prove a negative which which is usually regarded as an odd way of going about things.....Just a thought....Why don`t YOU post 3 geologic examples of evidence FOR the flood as an attempt to prove the positive....

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
^Bump^

​

---

Hi TrueCreation,
I have only seen Budikka posting in the Evolution forum recently. He may be unaware that you have issued this challenge. Perhaps you could direct him here from that forum to initiate the one on one debate.Cheers,
Mammuthus

"I have only seen Budikka posting in the Evolution forum recently. He may be unaware that you have issued this challenge. Perhaps you could direct him here from that forum to initiate the one on one debate."
--Yes I see, I had notified him via, e-mail a day after the initial post so I should hope he decides to join me.------------------

"Sounds an awfull lot like your asking him to try to prove a negative which which is usually regarded as an odd way of going about things.....Just a thought....Why don`t YOU post 3 geologic examples of evidence FOR the flood as an attempt to prove the positive...."
--I appreciate your comment, though please keep in mind what I wish for this thread, I think can tolerate minor discussion until/if Buddika arrives. Regarding your comment, I think it is much more effective, and I don't think I can agree that it is an 'odd way of going about things', that he attempt to 'prove' or at least indicate a negative. Evidence against a theory is much more effective at altering its merit than providing evidence for a theory. Of course I realize that there have been a few questions which have yet to be answered regarding flood geology and others which simply point against it, however I do not hold sufficient general understanding to then conclude that it is incorrect.
--Even if I had posted 3 geologic examples for the flood, this does not say that the flood happened in any way. This is analogous to you trying to indicate the ToE as completely true on the sol basis of finding that phylogenetic construction indicates that a two species are related.------------------

--Buddika: Bump.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Sounds an awfull lot like your asking him to try to prove a negative which which is usually regarded as an odd way of going about things.....

​

Just a thought....

​

Why don`t YOU post 3 geologic examples of evidence FOR the flood as an attempt to prove the positive....

---

I think TC is correct here, joz. The usual party line here at the WWEC (world-wide evilutionist conspiracy) headquarters is that Flud Geology was conclusively falsified about 150 years ago. So what TC is basically asking is for us to re-falsify it for him again. This should be a relatively simple task, depending on how much data can be snuck past TC's Mortondemon.With just a quick scan of the SEPPs (standard evilutionist propaganda points), I can see the following easy-slam-dunk falsifications:1. Heat sufficient to boil Noah. Compressing all the processes evident in the geologic record into 15 months releases enough heat to boil the oceans many times over. Some of these processes are:

2. Concordant dating methods from a wide variety of sources, not just radiometric:

3. Aragonite-calcite transition4. Contact metamorphism in sheeted dikes in ocean crust5. Implausibility of Flood sorting various index fossils with 100% accuracy worldwide.6. Paleosols7. Paleokarst (and all karst, for that matter)8. Evaporites with obvious evidence of pollen and dust layers9. The Messinian salinity crisis10. Impossibility of cramming all the known fossils into the pre-Flood ecosystem (a.k.a. the Karoo and crinoid problem)

--Wehappyfew, I love your list, it is very attractive . Though in considering the subject of the thread. Maybe make a new one in the hopes that I might tackle some of the substance? In my time in this forum I have addressed the subjects: et impacts, geo/paleomagnetic reversals, ice cores<, dendrochronology, varves<, evaporites. At least those are the ones included in your list which I am sure of. The ones with the less than signature, indicate topics of discussion which took place in my more vernal time here at evcforum. Paleosols are of course a current topic of interest. Isotopic heating is also something I am working on now, though I am waiting for Joe Meert to return, he is assisting me with my analysis. I also believe that in that at least the format for which you have worded it, 'Implausibility of Flood sorting various index fossils with 100% accuracy worldwide.' is a fallacious argument.-------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
... I also believe that in that at least the format for which you have worded it, 'Implausibility of Flood sorting various index fossils with 100% accuracy worldwide.' is a fallacious argument.

---

Why is that? You have made a statement, so how about supporting it? You have never responded to this argument by evolutionists except to mutter some vaguely worded statement including 'hydrologic sorting', 'ecological domains' or some such nonsense. You have never explained any of these processes nor rebutted this argument against the flood. You can assert that it is wrong all you want, but that will not make it so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wehappyfew:
I think TC is correct here, joz. The usual party line here at the WWEC (world-wide evilutionist conspiracy) headquarters is that Flud Geology was conclusively falsified about 150 years ago. So what TC is basically asking is for us to re-falsify it for him again. This should be a relatively simple task, depending on how much data can be snuck past TC's Mortondemon.

---

I know bud it was merely a (not so) cunning ploy to get TC to tell us which bits of evidence we missed so that we on the EEC DTBC (Disprove the bible committee) could polish things off...I mean surely he must have some....

^Buddika, you know you want to take a stab at the teen YEC, just another easily refutable Creationist blabbermouth right?------------------

Until the creationists have made a serious scientific case for the Genesis flood, there is nothing to refute. The evidence developed since long before Darwin utterly refutes young-Earth creationism (YEC) and science has been unable to find any evidence supporting the Genesis global flood story.The story is more than adequately refuted by an ex-young Earth creationist, Glenn Morton, at this site:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fld.htm
Glenn Morton left YEC because the evidence failed to support it, and he was able to do this without giving up God. Why other creationists have such difficulty facing the facts, I have no idea.The global flood is also refuted by these other pages:
Vente de Maillot de Foot Pas Cher 2022 2023
The Talk.Origins Archive: Flood Geology FAQs
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: April 2002
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/flood.html
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.htmlIt is also refuted by this book:
"Creationism's Upside-Down Pyramid: How Science Refutes Fundamentalism", by Lee TiffinYou are a real joker thinking you can run from a thread I began because you are unable to deal with the issues in it and then come over here and open another thread that asks *me* to start the thread! if you want to debate the flood, *you* make a case for it. Post your ten best arguments here and let me know when you're done, otherwise, I will not waste any more time with you.Budikka

"You are a real joker thinking you can run from a thread I began because you are unable to deal with the issues in it and then come over here and open another thread that asks *me* to start the thread! if you want to debate the flood, *you* make a case for it. Post your ten best arguments here and let me know when you're done, otherwise, I will not waste any more time with you."
--I explained in post #7 why this is ineffective. Wehappy, a very intelligent individual also agreed with my critique. My post #1 explains a more reasonable direction of discussion. The rest of your post apparently illustrates your attempt at doing this. I must, however, be left to wonder why you reference me to others work? Why don't you put it into your own words and ask me to refute it. Or give me a brief segment of the articles you've listed rather than spouting off a bunch of articles and thinking that 'that should do it, he's been refuted'. Most of the articles you've listed I've read through more than once.[Edit] - And the Vapor Canopy theory? you just ask me what I feel about the vapor canopy theory and I'll give you a nice little summary.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-18-2002]