|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Seashells on tops of mountains. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Aren't you assuming that conventional uniformitarian philosophy of geology is true? What's the alternative? Making stuff up just so we don't have to give up our most cherished myths? Assuming that the current laws of nature have worked in the past as they do today, and assuming that the processes we see today can give explain the features we see in geology leads to a consistent history of the earth. If the universe operated very differently from the past than it does today, then it seems unlikely that this "uniformitarian assumption" would lead to such a consistent picture of the past. In fact, if someone is going to propose that the universe was different in the past than it is today, then that someone is going to have to propose some specific ways in which it was different. But all the proposals that have been suggested, like accelerated radioactive decay or a changing speed of light, would have a lot of affects that we do not see in the geologic or astronomic record. In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Chiroptera writes: In fact, if someone is going to propose that the universe was different in the past than it is today, then that someone is going to have to propose some specific ways in which it was different. As per the thread topic, more important is whether a preflood planet earth as well as it's atmosphere would have been different than it is today. Imo that is the big question as to the accuracy of dating methodology. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4115 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
And how do you explain how life wasn't completely annihilated and scoured from the Earth after such a vapour canopy made having oxygen and nitrogen in one's blood toxic and the sheer amount of energy from releasing water from a mile under the mantle poaching everything?
The only things that could have survived such events could be thermophilic bacteria and organisms in completely sealed chambers with feet of insulation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4115 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
What evidence exists to support this?
Creationist grand claims against uniformity always lack a key argument: proof or evidence that things changed. Changing physics leaves evidence. As no such evidence exists, diluvial geology isn't a valid alternative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Buzsaw
Imo that is the big question as to the accuracy of dating methodology. I am going to ask you to clarify what effect you think a pre flood earth and its atmosphere could have upon dating methodologies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: ... the above series of texts indicates lower mountains/hills before the flood, taking less water to cover the earth than by the elevation of mountains which we observe. I don't see anything in the texts you cited about the mountains being lower before the flood. I don't see anything in Psalm 108 about mountains at all. (And by the way, it's Psalm 108 - singular, not plural. You're old enough to get that right.)
I'm applying logic and reason to the Biblical historical record.... Since you used the word "likely" six times, I'd suggest you're applying mostly speculation. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I like this term of yours "Flood sense". I think I'll use it.
So, Buz, your hypothesis is that all the worlds big mountain ranges (particularly those with shells in and on them) were formed during the Flood. Therefore, they should all the same age. Thus, they should all have the same types of fossils on/in them. And, those comprised of the same materials should show the exact same amount of erosion. Right? I mean, that all makes sense. I don't know if it makes "Flood sense"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Any particular reason you went translation shopping?
In the good ole KJV (the mainstay of most bible believing fundamentalist) it reads:
Psalm 104:8 writes:
They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. Which doesn't quite get the meaning you are try to twist from the text. So you pick the ASV translation. Your motivation is clear. Further the surround text does not support your conjecture that this is referring the flood. The next few passages....
Psalm 104:10-11 writes:
He sendeth the springs into the valleys, which run among the hills. They give drink to every beast of the field: the wild asses quench their thirst. This is not referring to a flood.... In this reference... http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1999/PSCF9-99Seely.html The author says
referenced source writes:
Of the twenty-eight commentaries on Ps. 104:6-9 (ranging from the sixteenth century to the present) which I consulted, all of them regarded Ps. 104:6-9 as referring to the third day of creation. Some of them explicitly denied that these verses referred to Noah’s flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Well if you had a plausible model of a pre-flood Earth that would affect dating methods and a model for how it could have changed and some evidence that the Earth actually was like that before the alleged Flood then it might be a big question. Last time I asked it was obvious that you had none of these. And strong evidence that modern dating methods do work has been presented in the threads dealing with the correlations between them. So it really isn't a big question. is it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I have been reading this thread as flood geology is fascinating for me, and it seems that what hasn't been brought up is that the flood doctrine usually states that mountains were formed after the flood. So this "flood doctrine" involves denying Genesis 7:19 and 8:4, both of which mention the existence of mountains?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
As per the thread topic, more important is whether a preflood planet earth as well as it's atmosphere would have been different than it is today. Imo that is the big question as to the accuracy of dating methodology. If you have any evidence that a different atmosphere would change the half-lives of radioactive isotopes, now would be a great time to present it. If you have any evidence for this different atmosphere, or for the flood, that would be nice too. If, on the other hand, all you have is a bunch of ad hoc arguments and wishful thinking --- then you might be a creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5869 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
TheWay
I have been reading this thread as flood geology is fascinating for me, and it seems that what hasn't been brought up is that the flood doctrine usually states that mountains were formed after the flood. Wouldn't this account for the seashells and wouldn't the water analogy be some form of logical fallacy as it doesn't really pertain to diluvial geology? Indeed you have spotted a logical fallacy. It's commonly called the "Straw man" fallacy, and it consists of creating a new position which is different than the real position of one's opponent, and then attacking it. You'll see plenty of it involving flood scenarios. A sure fire indicator is when they try to apply evolutionist "dating" techniques. The only time these could come into play would be in an OEC flood scenario, and those are hard to find. Most of the recent flood models incorporate continental plates moving during or soon after the flood, and this is frequently omitted when straw men are being constructed. Other distortions I've seen include requirements to form all land during the flood, assuming there were no seas before the flood, and a total lack of any floods after the big one. You've got to keep on your toes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
ctd writes: It's commonly called the "Straw man" fallacy, and it consists of creating a new position which is different than the real position of one's opponent, and then attacking it. I am glad you are aware of it as you used it on me tonight.
Message 201 ctd writes: Most of the recent flood models incorporate continental plates moving during or soon after the flood, and this is frequently omitted when straw men are being constructed. Now you are creating a straw man about others creating a straw man. Nice touch. So just how far are you proposing the continental plates moved during the flood year? Are you proposing that the present day mountains were lifted to their lofty heights during the flood year? Warning some questions concerning energy requirements and dissipation may follow depending on how you answer these questions.
CTD writes: Other distortions I've seen include requirements to form all land during the flood, assuming there were no seas before the flood, and a total lack of any floods after the big one. Please point out where these distortions and requirements were presented. Edited by iceage, : No reason given. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
King James says [6] Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.[7] At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. [8] They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. [9] Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth. Psalms 104: 6-9 I struggle to find anything in that which could be taken as meaning the mountains increased in size, or the valleys increased in depth. Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... likely the massive flood waters flowing to the lower thinner crust valleys caused a great amount of tectonic movement ... Just to be clear here, you are talking about water moving land around, not by erosion, but by pushing it. Ever seen this happen? Ever tried to push water? Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024