Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Seashells on tops of mountains.
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 343 (425722)
10-03-2007 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by TheWay
10-03-2007 7:17 PM


Re: hi, first post
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by TheWay, posted 10-03-2007 7:17 PM TheWay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 10-03-2007 10:47 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 343 (425735)
10-03-2007 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Chiroptera
10-03-2007 9:56 PM


Re: Uniformitarian
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Chiroptera, posted 10-03-2007 9:56 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by sidelined, posted 10-03-2007 11:30 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 10-04-2007 2:09 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-04-2007 2:41 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 10-04-2007 7:23 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 33 of 343 (425745)
10-03-2007 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object
10-03-2007 9:03 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-03-2007 9:03 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 34 of 343 (425746)
10-03-2007 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by TheWay
10-03-2007 7:17 PM


Re: hi, first post
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by TheWay, posted 10-03-2007 7:17 PM TheWay has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 35 of 343 (425752)
10-03-2007 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Buzsaw
10-03-2007 10:47 PM


Re: Uniformitarian
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 10-03-2007 10:47 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2007 8:17 PM sidelined has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 36 of 343 (425784)
10-04-2007 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Buzsaw
10-03-2007 8:51 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 10-03-2007 8:51 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2007 8:27 PM ringo has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 37 of 343 (425787)
10-04-2007 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
10-03-2007 9:10 PM


"Flood sense"
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"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 10-03-2007 9:10 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2007 9:21 PM Nuggin has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 38 of 343 (425788)
10-04-2007 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Buzsaw
10-03-2007 8:51 PM


Translation Shopping
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 10-03-2007 8:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 39 of 343 (425791)
10-04-2007 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Buzsaw
10-03-2007 10:47 PM


Re: Uniformitarian
quote:
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.
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 10-03-2007 10:47 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 40 of 343 (425793)
10-04-2007 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by TheWay
10-03-2007 6:51 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by TheWay, posted 10-03-2007 6:51 PM TheWay has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 41 of 343 (425795)
10-04-2007 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Buzsaw
10-03-2007 10:47 PM


Re: Uniformitarian
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 10-03-2007 10:47 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 42 of 343 (425822)
10-04-2007 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by TheWay
10-03-2007 6:51 PM


Greetings
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by TheWay, posted 10-03-2007 6:51 PM TheWay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by iceage, posted 10-04-2007 5:16 AM CTD has not replied
 Message 48 by Admin, posted 10-04-2007 7:38 AM CTD has not replied
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 10-04-2007 7:39 AM CTD has not replied
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-05-2007 5:34 AM CTD has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 43 of 343 (425823)
10-04-2007 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by CTD
10-04-2007 4:54 AM


Straw man construction....
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by CTD, posted 10-04-2007 4:54 AM CTD has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 44 of 343 (425824)
10-04-2007 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Buzsaw
10-03-2007 9:19 PM


Re: moutains
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 10-03-2007 9:19 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 343 (425828)
10-04-2007 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
10-03-2007 9:10 PM


Re: Tectonic Plate Movement
... 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.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 10-03-2007 9:10 PM Buzsaw 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