|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
purpledawn,
Firstly, I think my last post came across as being rude. It wasn't intentional, so please accept my apologies.
IMO, not if the thread was stated as a place to present your evidence and not a place to prove your evidence. Of course, Faith's statements weren't on the level of your example. "Prove" your evidence?
Then you should have specified your criteria for evidence, considering that you are asking for evidence concerning an event depicted in an ancient religious writing. My standard of evidence is as loose as it can be, it has to be consistent with a hypothesis, & be able to inform us that that hypothesis is a better explanation than any other. It should be obvious. For example, I have a stone in my garden & that is evidence of martians because that is how martians might place a stone in my garden. This is true, & should martians exist, then there's the facts are consistent with the hypothesis.This is what Faith is doing, & it's meaningless. This is what Faith means by making a "terrific" point. Nore are her arguments from incredulity evidence, nor are her ad hoc explanations. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Faith,
It included the statement that the slow accumulation interpretation of the strata is ridiculous, however, so I don't see why that is off topic here. Because it's ad hoc. You have to show it. Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
redseal,
Was the water kept turbulent enough for the gases to escape all the organisms, then turned off? What were the masses of the organisms? It is a hydrodynamic fact that the largest will hit the bottom first as the water motion slows. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 03-07-2006 04:37 AM There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Yes, but eventually the currents stopped and the waters calmed and then everything would be sorted by density, right? So why do we not find the entire fossil record sorted by density?
quote: But if everything was churned up in the flood, everything completely mixed by the incredible violence of it (so violent that the continents were racing around the globe), there is no reason that the lower strata should be mostly marine. Of course, you could explain it to me, but I'll bet you won't.
quote: If you're not willing to explain all the details, then I hope you will understand if I tend to go with the explanation that does explain all the details.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Faith, do you reject all forensic and historical science, then?
In addition, do you reject all inference-based science (which would be pretty much all of it)? This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-07-2006 06:27 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Of course it is testable. Outline what should be seen. Then we can look and see if that is what is found or if something else is seen. quote: Of course it's a test, Faith. It's called a falsifiable prediction, and is the basis of all science. "If X happened during an event, we should expect to find A, B, and C if we look at the evidence left behind by that event." It's just what criminal forensics investigators do at a crime scene. No, we cannot go back and replicate the actual event, but we can gather physical evidence at the scene, and this evidence can tell us a story about what happened and what didn't happen. Many a person has been convicted and also exonerated using the exact same methods YOU claim are "all subjective guesswork:, and an "exercize in imagination." Are you going to throw out all the convictions of the people shown to be guilty by the forensic evidence now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Percy in Message 144 writes: Now, what is the flood-scenario explanation for limestone deposits like the White Cliffs of Dover where the layers are two or three hundred meters thick? Faith writes: I do NOT need to know all the details to prove the Flood. Okay, that's fine. So far we have a flood scenario with no explanation for fossil distribution, no explanation for radiometric dating results, and no explanation for limestone deposits. So let's move on to the next question: What evidence convinces you that the fossils found around the world met their end in a flood? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Mark24,
While it might seem strange to disagree with the thread originator as to what and what isn't on-topic, in this case I'm going to stay with my original impression when I first read the thread proposal. The title of this thread is:
Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some And the OP concludes:
So where is this "staggering" evidence of a global flood? So I'm declaring this thread a place where Faith can present her evidence for a global thread, and not a place to compare flood scenario interpretations with modern geology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Modulous writes: ...sister thread I proposed... Can't find a sister thread proposal. Please point me at it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
heh, I see the source of confusion. What I (technically) meant was that I proposed that a thread get proposed. I am sorely tempted to do it now, but there are much better geologists who would write a better OP.
Whilst we are discussing proposals, and proposing them, might I propose a modified Message 190 as a good opening post in Proposed New Topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I have to disagree. While Faith's attempts to bash conventional geology without reference to the Flood are clearly off-topic comparisons with conventional geology are at the least useful for evaluating whether the supposed evidence is all that it is claimed to be.
If something can be explained as well or better by conventional geology then it cannot be considered to be "staggering" or even good evidence for the Flood. Conversely if the Flood did explain a particular feature of the geological record better than the conventional view, that should be considered evidence for the Flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Percy,
As you wish. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So I'm declaring this thread a place where Faith can present her evidence for a global thread, and not a place to compare flood scenario interpretations with modern geology. OK, it's good to have the purpose of the thread established, so it's clear I shouldn't have been posting here at all. I presented all the evidence I had in mind before the OP was written. PD summarized the evidence that I said was great evidence in her Message 74 and it remains great evidence. My original post was: #266, Define "Kind" thread I'm also not interested in debating the geo column part of my original statement. It too is good evidence for what it is evidence for. It appears people aren't content to acknowledge that good evidence is good evidence, they have to "prove" it's not good evidence. But it remains good evidence after all is said and done. As I proposed a long time ago, what is needed is a listing of the evidence on both sides. The creos do have good evidence. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-07-2006 09:41 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It appears people aren't content to acknowledge that good evidence is good evidence, they have to "prove" it's not good evidence.
I believe it was mentioned earlier in the thread that one of the dividing lines in this discussion is what constitutes 'good evidence'. I suppose that since you have presented your evidence, the remainder of this thread is left to discuss whether it is indeed 'good evidence'. There is of course, no obligation to participate this 'post mortem', but it would be nice if someone out there wanted to speak up for the Flood Theory's side.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I suppose that since you have presented your evidence, the remainder of this thread is left to discuss whether it is indeed 'good evidence'. I don't know what the thread is for. I simply shouldn't have participated as I didn't have any intent to debate my original statement, or discuss it. I said in the original statement that I know there are always alternative explanations to my evidence, but that it remains good evidence. Seems obvious to me.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024