Flood Stories

"But then I have evidence for those long periods of time, whereas you say you have no evidence. So we are not on the same level."
--Apparently this is where you are pointing to. What evidence would you like for me to show that these evidences of long periods of time are explainable with short periods of time.------------------

"Pick any of your favorites and explain why it doesn't show
old age for the earth."
--Besides the fact that this should be every method of dating. Not too sure, Dendrochronology is most likely the most misunderstood. Other relative dating, or at least indications of Old age should be considered in the question. Geologic formations and such."Hydrostatic sorting doesn't hold up for the fossil record by
the way ... works on density so all creatures of the same
density should be in the same layers ... they're not."
--Not sure how many times I've stated it, though Hydrologic sorting is not our mechanism for fossil deposition and sorting, if at all, it is highly minute."Oh, and we want evidence, not your opinion. You can gives us
your interpretation of some evidence, but just saying 'I reckon
this coulda happened.' will not do."
--Funny how this is all we can say about the past, 'this could have happened'. What leads you up to this conclusion of the 'this could have happened', reasoning and methodology is something that should be dealt with though.------------------

"I have read this statement 4 times and I still don't know what you are saying. Peter asked you to pick a favorite method and present your data."
--I don't really have a 'favorite' method. I indicated that I thought Dendrochronology is often misunderstood as a thought. I also made the assertion that every dating methods should not conclusively show an old age for the earth. Geologic formations are ones that I'll usually revolve around in a relative dating method argument. I would rather not give my data until I can be more specific by getting a further response."In an absolutist sense you are correct. However, it is possible to make basic assumptions that most people would accept as reasonable. For instance we might say that since a rock unit is identical to another on the other side of a fault, that they have been offset by that fault a certain distance. This would be considered evidence."
--Right, though assumptions and indications of 'time' are usually more or less difficult or at least give a wider variation depending on other assumptions."To say that faster radioactive decay rates could have resulted in faster plate tectonic rates is not evidence. It is a story."
--Well not a 'story', but a conclusion, what this conclusion is based on and how reasonable it is is something I have left to study.------------------

"Exactly!!!!! Some methods do not tell us the age of the earth. They date other things."
--Right."The problem is that most of these other dates are younger, including all(?) of the creationist clocks. They date something other than the age of the earth.
"
--Younger?"I can accept the basic assumptions of radiometric dating, along with most scientists. If you cannot, that is fine. Just remember that you are 'swimming against the current' and that to support you point, you must work that much harder."
--I also have less research to go by this assertion. Sure I may be 'swimming against the current', however, this does not mean I am incorrect. Also, what I may possibly want to look for if I am going to ever use this, is evidence that decay rates may have infact been faster in the past, not that they could have been."Sorry, but science is conservative."
--I have no problem with this."A conclusion that is based on no real data. That is a story to me. Regardless, it is not evidence."
--I was not aware that you have done in-depth studies on the implications of accelerated decay. And yes, in the way that you put it, it wouldn't be evidence.Also, this went unanswered:"What evidence would you like for me to show that these evidences [whatever this may be] of long periods of time are explainable with short periods of time."------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-18-2002]

--Maybe I should have said what 'type' of evidence. My statement is easily misunderstood without that in there I think. I would like to compare and contrast something that we find and discuss its merits and why it is evidence for this and not that with good reason. With this I can figure what I am missing.
--Other than that, I think that according to what I have observed in my spectatorship of the EvC and related debate is that every line of evidence is argued as if it is all connected. And so you must either show that everything is evidence of a particular view or it isn't. (E.G. most likely when discussing dating, everything may lead right down until you get to radioisotopic dating).------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-20-2002]

Bump, edge?------------------

"I don't know what you are getting at."
--Let me illustrate. I can show you that 'A' is evidence of a Flood because 'A' would have happened. But perhaps you would like to argue against 'A' and try to show that 'B' shows that 'A' could not have happened in the Flood scenario and only 'C' can explain 'A', so now I have to explain 'C' for 'B' and 'A' and on it goes."Some evidence is non-diagnostic some is exclusive. The problem is that there is no diagnostic evidence for a flood. In other words, there is always the mainstream possibility."
--There is no evidence for the Flood because the mainstream has also has a possible explanation? Would you like to rephrase that?"On the other hand there is plenty of evidence that is diagnostic of maistream geology and excludes the biblical flood scenario."
--This evidence, I would like to see. Also, I think it may be reasonable to say that if it is shown that your evidence against it is shown to be incorrect and that the Flood does have an explanation for the observation, this is evidence favorable to my interpretation.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-30-2002]

"But what we have told you repeatedly that 'A' is not only evidence for a flood but is also evidence for mainstream interpretation."
--Oh, so there is evidence for the flood now? What happened to the 'there is not a single evidence of the flood' assertions? If you would like to make a transition into what is the better or 'diagnostic' evidence, argument should be directed more in this direction."Therefor, 'A' is not evidence for a flood."
--You stated that '...is not only evidence for a flood...'?"Later on you come back and say 'A' is evidence for flood. Then I say 'no because it is also evidence for mainstream geology.'"
--I think this may be a bit of an arbitrary line of logic here. There are plenty of mainstream explanations for hundreds of formations and observations throughout earth history, which one is accepted as the process by which the observation is explained varies by the scientist. But I guess none of them are evidence since they all explain the same observation, right?"Well, we could start with paleosoils, erosional unconformities, evaporites, dinosaur tracks, etc., all found in the middle of your flood. How do you explain this? Then we could go to how your flood so effectively sorted gymnosperms and angiosperms."
--All right Lets take a look-see:
[1] - Paleosoils - I've seen you argue with Tranquillity on this, though haven't followed through the posts regarding the implications of paleosoils all too much, however, I would tend to go with either their deposition/transportation or possibly formation during the flood settings. I would make a small prediction that paleosoils may indicate a geologic setting in which water had abated from the area. However, this may not bee all too helpful as a prediction as it may vary greatly by whether it was formed or deposited/transported.[2] - Erosional unconformities - Extrapolate on this point?[3] - Evaporites - No question immense streams of evaporites would be formed, such as is found abundant in the Mediterranean, it may have entirely (or close to) evaporated once or more as is considerably well supported in the flood scenario. A spreading ridge is right down the center, thus, lots of heat.[4] - Dinosaur tracks - As is analogous to all the other paleoformations such as raindrops, paleocurrents, etc. There is no question these would have been formed. However another small prediction could be made that where these paleoformations are found, it would indicate a decrease or refrain in sedimentation, most likely due to water abating from the area. I believe Tranquillity would like to argue that these tracks must or have been shown to be amphibian. This I do not believe is needed.[5] - Gymnosperms and Angiosperms - I've always had trouble with this, however this isn't very much into geology and more getting into the biomechanics and environmental reactions of vegetation. I would not know this, however I would make the prediction that this is where the argument would be directed toward."Or, more likely, something else. However, this has not happened."
--Let us see what we can make of this.------------------