Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flood Stories
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 56 (10055)
05-20-2002 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Percy
05-19-2002 8:46 PM


--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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 05-19-2002 8:46 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by edge, posted 05-30-2002 10:23 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 56 (10655)
05-30-2002 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by TrueCreation
05-18-2002 7:17 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by TrueCreation, posted 05-18-2002 7:17 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 48 of 56 (10683)
05-30-2002 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by TrueCreation
05-20-2002 6:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--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).
I don't know what you are getting at. 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. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence that is diagnostic of maistream geology and excludes the biblical flood scenario.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by TrueCreation, posted 05-20-2002 6:10 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by TrueCreation, posted 05-30-2002 11:38 PM edge has replied
 Message 51 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-31-2002 12:09 AM edge has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 56 (10693)
05-30-2002 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by edge
05-30-2002 10:23 PM


"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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by edge, posted 05-30-2002 10:23 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by edge, posted 05-31-2002 12:03 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 50 of 56 (10698)
05-31-2002 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by TrueCreation
05-30-2002 11:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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.
But what we have told you repeatedly that 'A' is not only evidence for a flood but is also evidence for mainstream interpretation. Therefor, 'A' is not 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.'
quote:
"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?
See above. If evidence does not discriminate between the two scenarios it is diagnostic evidence for neither.
quote:
"On the other hand there is plenty of evidence that is diagnostic of mainstream geology and excludes the biblical flood scenario."
--This evidence, I would like to see.
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.
quote:
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.
Or, more likely, something else. However, this has not happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by TrueCreation, posted 05-30-2002 11:38 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by TrueCreation, posted 06-01-2002 12:13 AM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 56 (10701)
05-31-2002 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by edge
05-30-2002 10:23 PM


Edge, I personally think the vast fast current epeiric sea deposits and layered non-marine deposits, that comprise the majority of the geological column, are diagnostic of the flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by edge, posted 05-30-2002 10:23 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by edge, posted 05-31-2002 12:34 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 52 of 56 (10707)
05-31-2002 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tranquility Base
05-31-2002 12:09 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, I personally think the vast fast current epeiric sea deposits and layered non-marine deposits, that comprise the majority of the geological column, are diagnostic of the flood.
Okay then, tell us how standard marine transgressions and regressions are ruled out. Enough with the assertions. Let's talk evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-31-2002 12:09 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-31-2002 1:17 AM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 56 (10715)
05-31-2002 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by edge
05-31-2002 12:34 AM


I'll read that stuff again but when I did read it last time I felt there is no reason it wouldn't apply to catastrophic transgressions/regressions. We actaully agree on a lot of this stuff.
You get sandstone/shale/limestone and then back to shale/sandstone I think due to the water depth. OK, I guess in our scenario we have to argue hydrodynamic sorting which is qualitatively different to your scenario?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by edge, posted 05-31-2002 12:34 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by edge, posted 05-31-2002 11:02 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 54 of 56 (10743)
05-31-2002 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Tranquility Base
05-31-2002 1:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'll read that stuff again but when I did read it last time I felt there is no reason it wouldn't apply to catastrophic transgressions/regressions. We actaully agree on a lot of this stuff.
Sure, it could (without looking at details), but it does not rule out standard geological explanations. You need diagnostic evidence.
quote:
You get sandstone/shale/limestone and then back to shale/sandstone I think due to the water depth. OK, I guess in our scenario we have to argue hydrodynamic sorting which is qualitatively different to your scenario?
Other than the fact that I don't know where your sandstone comes from in a flood scenario or how you can get pure limestones in a flood environment, I see no difference. However, those are pretty unforgiving details from your standpoint. As to hydrodynamic sorting, I'm not sure what you mean. Geologists have no problem with sorting of geological materials. I suspect that whatever your idea is, it will also fall apart when confronted with the details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-31-2002 1:17 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 56 (10776)
06-01-2002 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by edge
05-31-2002 12:03 AM


"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.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by edge, posted 05-31-2002 12:03 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by edge, posted 06-01-2002 1:33 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 56 of 56 (10779)
06-01-2002 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by TrueCreation
06-01-2002 12:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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.
Okay, from your viewpoint, 'A' is evidence for a flood. It is however also evidence of a standard marine transgression from our viewpoint. Therefore, it is not evidence that is diagnostic of a flood. Does this make it clearer for you?
quote:
"Therefor, 'A' is not evidence for a flood."
--You stated that '...is not only evidence for a flood...'?
Okay, 'evidence' in your parlance, that is, 'proof.' 'A' is not 'proof' of a flood. Does that help?
quote:
"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?
No, because they do not 'prove' anything. Besides the scientists are offering explanations not, evidence. Explanations are not evidence.
quote:
"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:
(You mean that you are done editing my hastily composed post?)
quote:
[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.
So where are you going to transport this soil from in the middle of a world-wide flood? How are you going to transport it? How are you going to maintain its compositional integrity? Nope. Too many moving parts on this one.
quote:
[2] - Erosional unconformities - Extrapolate on this point?
How do you get weathering and erosional surfaces under thousands of feet of water? Multiple times in a year?
quote:
[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.
A 'a stream of evaporites?' What the heck is that? As far as I know there were no midocean ridges in the Green River Basin. The Mediterranean is a good example, too. It was surrounded by land. Still reaching, TC.
quote:
[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.
Are you saying then that the flood was not global? Are you going to flow and ebb the flood at will whenever you see a dinosaur track or a raindrop impression? How many times will you do this in a year? Sorry, TC, still doesn't work.
quote:
[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.
There is a reason you have trouble with this. Your scenario is impossible. This is just one more thing that your scenario has to explain.
quote:
"Or, more likely, something else. However, this has not happened."
--Let us see what we can make of this.
If you have a viable alternative, I'd love to hear it. In the meantime your scenario does not stand up to the evidence. I think at this point you go on to ignore everything I have said above and simply assert in your next post that paleosoils are transported, that mid-ocean ridges boiled away the sea to form local evaporites, and there were multiple flood surges in between which dinosaurs made tracks. As to the angiosperms, well, just ignore them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by TrueCreation, posted 06-01-2002 12:13 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024