Flood Stories

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I always find it amazing to see Creationists proclaim the Flood story as a "truth" that helps proves creationism."
--Your missunderstood when you use the word 'proves', there can be no proof on any historical implication accept on the fact of existance in all technicallity.

---

It should be clear to you that the word "prove" is being used in the creationist context. Just trying to make things easier for you to understand... I think you are reaching for arguments.Now, how about some evidence for your assertions?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"Ah I was wondering if anyone else had watched that program on TLC last night......
Oh and TC the lack of evidence refers to the lack of any geological evidence for a GLOBAL flood..."TC: If you can tell me that strengthened turbity currents would not form massive subterranean canyons in the continental shelf assuming the framework of the flood (a young earth), or that global impact strikes would not produce any form of nuclear winter, etc. then you can say there is a lack of an ioda of evidence.[/QUOTE]A couple of questions, TC. What is a "strengthened turbity (sic) current," and how did it get to be strengthened? Is there any evidence for such a phenomenon?What the heck is a subterranean canyon?Is an Ioda related to Yoda? On a serious note, you have a serious problem with your logic circuits. It is not possible to prove a negative hypothesis. I cannot prove that there never were "strenghtened turbidity currents." It would be impossible to do so. Neither can you prove that the earth was not given birth by a pink unicorn. In effect, you set the bar a little bit higher for evolutionists than for yourself and your fellow creationists in making this argument. Can you scientifically prove that evolution did NOT occur? Of course not, you only believe that it did not occur.I can, however, state that there is no evidence for "strengthened turbidity currents." We have never seen them, nor are there any landforms that we can attribute to them. Therefore, it is likely that they never have existed in any quantity.I realize that this is not a problem in a supernatural belief system where literally anything can happen, but if you want to play the science game, you have to play by the rules. You will find that if you force creationism to play by the same standards that you set for evolution, it will fail miserably.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 04-25-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"Where is your evidence that it happened TC, NOT a far fetched explanation of the current evidence that allows the possibility of a flood but evidence of the flood itself...."
--That is evidence of the flood, i just listed one, subterranean canyons.[/QUOTE]Submarine[/b] canyons are also evidence of lower sea levels, TC. Since we know that sea level has been significanly lower in the past, and there is no evidence for flood-related turbidity currents, which alternative is more likely? Your scenario is but wishful thinking rather than a scientific explanation.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 04-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Submarine canyons are also evidence of lower sea levels, TC. Since we know that sea level has been significanly lower in the past, and there is no evidence for flood-related turbidity currents, which alternative is more likely? Your scenario is but wishful thinking rather than a scientific explanation."

​

--You just used the same logic and denied it when considering an effect of the Flood, turbidly currents are well known to theoretically produce these massive canyons by the effects of a submarine land-slide or multiple ones. This is just what would happen as water would drain off of continents.

---

So, turbidity currents are "well known to theoretically produce..." Wow, if that isn't spin control, I don't know what it is. And creationist accuse evolutionist of speculating!If this is what happens when water drains off continents, then we should be seeing it today. After all, water is draining off the continents as we speak. If we see it today, why are we not in the midst of a global flood?You seem to think that if they exist they might have done such and such; but even if they did, it wouldn't necessarily mean a global flood. Try again TC.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by minnemooseus:
[B]There does not seem to be any good web pages on submarine canyon formation, but turbidity currents seem to be deemed the primary errosive force, in their formation.Turbidity currents happened in the Archean (I just got done looking at some turbidite deposit rocks, on Saturday). They've happened throughout geologic history, and they continue to happen in these modern times.Now, what does this have to do with the topic?[/QUOTE]Indeed, the point is that the presence of submarine canyons formed by turbidity currents does not necessarily imply a global flood. As you suggest, some present erosion of submarine canyons is attributed to turbidity currents and they may have been important in the past. However, the presence of submarine canyons was presented by TC as one of the pieces of evidence for the global flood. At least, I think it was. He also called upon "strengthened turbidity currents," whatever those are. What it has to do with the subject of the thread is not certain.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 04-29-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Indeed, the point is that the presence of submarine canyons formed by turbidity currents does not necessarily imply a global flood. As you suggest, some present erosion of submarine canyons is attributed to turbidity currents and they may have been important in the past. However, the presence of submarine canyons was presented by TC as one of the pieces of evidence for the global flood. At least, I think it was. He also called upon "strengthened turbidity currents," whatever those are. What it has to do with the subject of the thread is not certain."

​

--It is evidence for the Global Flood because in Flood Theory as I argue it, Cambrian --> Pleistocene sediments are flood deposited, and in this along with its very short time-scale for run-off to occur from the continents there should be evidence of this runoff.

---

The problem is that it is evidence for what is going on right now, as well. No flood is necessary. What about post-Pleistocene turbidity currents or Precambrain turbidity currents?

quote:

---

As minnemooseus cites in the definition of a turbidity current, they are 'laden with suspended sediment, move rapidly down continental slopes and spread out over the abyssal floor'.

---

I have no problem with the definition. I have no problem with erosion by turbidity currents. I have a problem with calling them and submarine canyons evidence for a flood.

quote:

---

After such sedimentary deposition higher deposited sediments would not have been lithified and thus large quantities would return to the oceans along with the abating water creating these 'strengthened' turbidity currents by its own force plowing through the continental shelf.

---

Can you document any "strengthened turbidity currents?" For all I know, they do exist, but I am skeptical that they are a construct that you have created for your flood mythology. I am trying to see just what you actually know about turbidity currents.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"The problem is that it is evidence for what is going on right now, as well. No flood is necessary. What about post-Pleistocene turbidity currents or Precambrain turbidity currents?"--Yes however they are not producing anything of the size of canyons 6 times the size of grand canyon. As for the latter. I would have to see topographically where these canyons and deposits are located.[/QUOTE]How do you know this? What is your evidence for your scenario? They are found in the same places.

quote:

---

"I have no problem with the definition. I have no problem with erosion by turbidity currents. I have a problem with calling them and submarine canyons evidence for a flood."

​

--I find no problem with them, however to be conclusive it would be right for both of us to be at least slightly speculative in the least for this question. See above.

---

Sorry, the canyons do not lead one to the exclusive conclusion that a flood formed them. On the other hand there is evidence that there has been plenty of geological time for them to be eroded by normal turbidity current activity.

quote:

---

"Can you document any "strengthened turbidity currents?" For all I know, they do exist, but I am skeptical that they are a construct that you have created for your flood mythology. I am trying to see just what you actually know about turbidity currents."

​

--? No we do not see these strengthened turbidly currents today at on the scale as would have happened during the flood scenario.

---

Hmm, that's convenient. So you cannot document any such phenomena, other than "they could'a been!" Give me some evidence! Throw me a line, TC, I'm drowning!

quote:

---

This is simply because we are not in a global flood and there is no where on the earth where 10 times the quantity of water as the Amazon is plowing its way for the oceans.

---

Yes, all that water eroding 1/100 the land mass from lower elevations. I don't see the additional sediment load as a must. Man, this is confusing. Elsewhere, I'm debating someone who says that Cretaceous chalk beds must have been deposited during the flood! And yet you tell me that massive submarine density currents are virtually covering the ocean floor with material eroded from the continental shelf! Could you please get on the same page!

quote:

---

This is the same logic as is to construct in mainstream scientific theory as planet formation, stellar evolution, mesa formation, or the K-T extinction.

---

You mean, other than the fact that they have independent lines of evidence to support them? What is your independent line of evidence that turbidites related to the flood formed submarine canyons; other thant "they could'a!"

quote:

---

They are both using the same logical scientific method. So I do not see how your question is relevant in the way you propose it's reason for validity.

---

No. Your model ignores too much other geological data. It is PURE speculation without independent evidence. It's like a crossword puzzle where the words don't cross. Give me a crossing word and I'll surrender.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"What is your evidence for your scenario?"

​

--How can I give evidence for the non-existent?

---

But you must have some reason for believing your scenario. It seems to me that you are saying you have no evidence.

quote:

---

"On the other hand there is evidence that there has been plenty of geological time for them to be eroded by normal turbidity current activity."

​

--Well of course, however this assumes that there actually have been these amounts of time, as well as mine assumes there was a global flood with these hydrodynamic effects. Both are on the same level of scientific hypothesis as far as has been drawn here.

---

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.

quote:

---

"Hmm, that's convenient. So you cannot document any such phenomena, other than "they could'a been!" Give me some evidence! Throw me a line, TC, I'm drowning!"

​

--As I state below in my last post and above in this post. It is using the same logic as is to construct a hypothesis in mainstream scientific theory as in planet formation, stellar evolution, mesa formation, or the K-T extinction. It is simply what will happen if infact these hydrodynamic actions were taking place, and thus these findings are evidence of this. This is of course confirmed as possible by the landslides which we find happen today at times by today's weak turbidity currents.

---

But, TC, we have established that there is evidence for those theories. You admit to having none.

quote:

---

"You mean, other than the fact that they have independent lines of evidence to support them?"

​

--Yes they do, as well as my hypothesis does.

---

Good, then you could give us your lines of evidence.

quote:

---

"What is your independent line of evidence that turbidites related to the flood formed submarine canyons; other thant "they could'a!"

​

--All of earth history is based upon theories which are 'coulda happened's'. See above, unless you would like to be more specific.

---

No, they are based on the fact that we see the same phenomena happening today and we see the expected effects in the geological record.

quote:

---

"No. Your model ignores too much other geological data.

​

--Well then I would like to see what I am ignoring, I am posting because I would like my hypothesis to be sharpened, so it should be able to explain and not be refuted by other evidences. What evidence have I not considered?

---

It seems to me that you denied the evidence for an old earth somewhere above. That was easy. Do you want to go on?

quote:

---

"It is PURE speculation without independent evidence. It's like a crossword puzzle where the words don't cross. Give me a crossing word and I'll surrender."

​

--See above unless you would like to be more specific on what I am missing evidence for exactly.

---

What I see is that you admit there is no evidence and that you have no observed phenomena and you have shown that you must ignore substantial parts of science to arrive at your theory.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 05-07-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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.

---

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.

quote:

---

"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.

---

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. To say that faster radioactive decay rates could have resulted in faster plate tectonic rates is not evidence. It is a story.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--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.

---

Exactly!!!!! Some methods do not tell us the age of the earth. They date other things. 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.

quote:

---

"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.

---

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. Sorry, but science is conservative.

quote:

---

"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.

---

A conclusion that is based on no real data. That is a story to me. Regardless, it is not evidence.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.