Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
36 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tanypteryx, vimesey (5 members, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,129 Year: 4,241/6,534 Month: 455/900 Week: 161/150 Day: 7/8 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 377 (620202)
06-14-2011 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Chuck77
06-14-2011 2:26 AM


Re: The Other POV
Chuck77 writes:

where is the flood layer? Maybe? . So, is it at all possible since most of the world is covered by water, a lot of the evidence of the flood could be barried under the ocean floors, if in fact we aren't finding any evidence on land? Or "enough" on land? Im sure almost everywhere in the world has been under water at some point in time and that there are areas that would say so but can it be certain it wasn't all at once at some point in time?

Chuck, from a creationist POV, two things:

    1. Since conventional science, espoused by creationist counterparts, does not calculate or interpret what is observed from a floodist POV, what is observed will not be interpreted the same by all researchers. s

    For example, most floodist researchers calculate that Noaic flood tectonics effected the faults, mountains volcanic action and much of the reformation of earth's surface, the earth's surface having shallower oceans and lower mountains before the flood catastrophe.

    2. If the above is true, the earth's atmosphere and elements on earth and in the atmosphere would skew the dating methodology applied by conventional science.

The credibility of the Biblical record depends heavily on how researchers interpret what is observed.

So Chuck, what I'm saying is, don't get snowed under by flood skeptics without consideration of the above. I suggest you go to some of the archived flood threads where some of these things have been debated, bearing in mind that creationists may have been limited some in science forums, creationism not being accepted as valid science for science forum airing.

ABE: To answer your question as to where the flood layer is, it's rather random, due to the sudden catastrophic breakup of it due to erosion, uplift, volcanic action, tsunamis, etc. Much of the tectonic and other activity would have continued after the rains stopped and even after they receeded. The activity would have tapered off rather gradually, post flood, due to the unstable condition of the newly formed earth crust.

For what it's worth, regarding the Great Flood, Psalms 104:8 ASV:

quote:
The mountains rose, the valleys sank down) Unto the place which thou hadst founded for them.

Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Add color so as to draw attention to the edit


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Chuck77, posted 06-14-2011 2:26 AM Chuck77 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by DrJones*, posted 06-14-2011 7:31 PM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 246 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2011 8:10 PM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 247 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-14-2011 9:51 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 249 by Boof, posted 06-14-2011 10:06 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2209
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 242 of 377 (620203)
06-14-2011 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Buzsaw
06-14-2011 7:22 PM


Re: The Other POV
If the above is true, the earth's atmosphere and elements on earth and in the atmosphere would skew the dating methodology applied by conventional science.

I'd like to point out that Buz has Never substantiated this claim.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Buzsaw, posted 06-14-2011 7:22 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by jar, posted 06-14-2011 7:36 PM DrJones* has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33890
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 243 of 377 (620204)
06-14-2011 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by DrJones*
06-14-2011 7:31 PM


Re: The Other POV
What is even funnier, we actually have samples of the atmosphere from long before the imagined Biblical Flood that show there is almost no differences, samples from amber, from ice cores, from inside rock, from chemical reactions.

Buz has been told all this many times but simply continues to post total falsehoods.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by DrJones*, posted 06-14-2011 7:31 PM DrJones* has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Buzsaw, posted 06-14-2011 7:44 PM jar has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 377 (620207)
06-14-2011 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by jar
06-14-2011 7:36 PM


Re: The Other POV
Jar writes:

What is even funnier, we actually have samples of the atmosphere from long before the imagined Biblical Flood that show there is almost no differences, samples from amber, from ice cores, from inside rock, from chemical reactions.

Assuming your conventional criteria and discounting the criteria alluded to above, that is.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by jar, posted 06-14-2011 7:36 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by jar, posted 06-14-2011 7:56 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33890
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 245 of 377 (620209)
06-14-2011 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Buzsaw
06-14-2011 7:44 PM


No Buz, assuming only realirty and honesty.
No Buz, once again what you post is simply another falsehood.

It is NOT assuming anything.

The Biblical Flood has been totally refuted as you have been shown repeatedly.

The air bubbles caught in ice have been sampled and found to be not much different than today.

Specimens like Oetzi who would have been contemporary with Adam show that nothing was much different.

Your claims are simply repeated falsehoods.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Buzsaw, posted 06-14-2011 7:44 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1339 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 246 of 377 (620210)
06-14-2011 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Buzsaw
06-14-2011 7:22 PM


The Other POV ... is false
Buz, have you any comments on my post above, or are you just going to ignore the inconvenient evidence I posted?

Or will you just deny it?

What would probably be most appropriate would be for you to present evidence that my post is incorrect.

Posting that your belief contradicts it is not sufficient for inquiring minds. We like to see evidence, not dogma.

Have any evidence?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Buzsaw, posted 06-14-2011 7:22 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3743 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 247 of 377 (620214)
06-14-2011 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Buzsaw
06-14-2011 7:22 PM


Re: The Other POV
Buzsaw writes:

2. If the above is true, the earth's atmosphere and elements on earth and in the atmosphere would skew the dating methodology applied by conventional science.

This is what people are asking about, Buz. You have never provided any explanation of how rain and flooding can somehow alter the atomic structure of matter. Never mind providing evidence that such an alteration of reality ever happened. I'd like to just see the explanation, even if there's no evidence to support it.

Whether or not you realize it, what you're really saying, when you say that we can't make any assumptions about the pre-Flood world because the Flood somehow altered the atmosphere, is that rainwater has the magical power to alter the nature of matter itself. The only real "assumption" that the dating methods you don't believe in are making is that the carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. that we see today is the same thing as carbon, oxygen, hydrogen of 10,000 years ago, or 2 million years ago, or even 10 billion years ago.

I for one think that that's a pretty safe assumption to make.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Buzsaw, posted 06-14-2011 7:22 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Buzsaw, posted 06-14-2011 11:37 PM ZenMonkey has taken no action

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3879
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 248 of 377 (620215)
06-14-2011 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Minnemooseus
06-14-2011 2:11 AM


The geologic time scale (aka the "geologic column")
John Woodmorappe quotes Morris and Parker (Morris, H. and Parker, G., What is Creation Science? Master Books, El Cajon, 1982.):

quote:
...to see the standard geologic column. That’s in the textbook! ... almost any textbook, in fact, that deals with evolution or earth history. A typical textbook rendering of the standard column is shown in Figure 44. This standard column is supposed to be at least 100 miles [160 km] thick (some writers say up to 200 [320 km]),...

I would love to see that figure 44. It's not reproduced at the cited online source - Anyone have a copy of (Morris, H. and Parker, G., What is Creation Science? Master Books, El Cajon, 1982.), or able to find a reproduction online?

I think the following is probably their "standard geologic column":


Source

A way more detailed version can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...time_scale#Table_of_geologic_time

These are not rock columns (stratigraphic sections) . There are no rock types or thicknesses mentioned. It is a timeline.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-14-2011 2:11 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 1700 days)
Posts: 97
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


(1)
Message 249 of 377 (620219)
06-14-2011 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Buzsaw
06-14-2011 7:22 PM


Re: The Other POV
If the above is true, the earth's atmosphere and elements on earth and in the atmosphere would skew the dating methodology applied by conventional science.

But how do would these hypothetical events effect dating of moon rocks and meteorites, which have ages which correlate very well with the oldest terrestrial samples?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Buzsaw, posted 06-14-2011 7:22 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Buzsaw, posted 06-14-2011 11:28 PM Boof has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 250 of 377 (620221)
06-14-2011 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Coyote
06-14-2011 10:36 AM


Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
But we do find evidence of localized floods. The channeled scablands of eastern Washington state are a good example.

Arguably they're not a good example of what creationists should be looking for, since they were caused by a natural dam breaking and a sheet of water sweeping laterally across the landscape.

The question is, what results would Noah's flood have had if it had happened? I think not very much (in geological terms, biogeography is a whole other question).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2011 10:36 AM Coyote has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by edge, posted 06-21-2011 10:16 PM Dr Adequate has taken no action

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 377 (620236)
06-14-2011 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Boof
06-14-2011 10:06 PM


Re: The Other POV
Boof writes:

But how do would these hypothetical events effect dating of moon rocks and meteorites, which have ages which correlate very well with the oldest terrestrial samples?

Hi Boof. Welcome to EvC town. Most know my unique position on the age of the sun and moon. It is that the Biblical record does not give a time line for the age of the celestial bodies or the earth. The only time line indicated is for things created after day four.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Boof, posted 06-14-2011 10:06 PM Boof has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Boof, posted 06-15-2011 12:19 AM Buzsaw has taken no action

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 252 of 377 (620239)
06-14-2011 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by ZenMonkey
06-14-2011 9:51 PM


Re: The Other POV
Zen Monkey writes:

This is what people are asking about, Buz. You have never provided any explanation of how rain and flooding can somehow alter the atomic structure of matter. Never mind providing evidence that such an alteration of reality ever happened. I'd like to just see the explanation, even if there's no evidence to support it.

Whether or not you realize it, what you're really saying, when you say that we can't make any assumptions about the pre-Flood world because the Flood somehow altered the atmosphere, is that rainwater has the magical power to alter the nature of matter itself. The only real "assumption" that the dating methods you don't believe in are making is that the carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. that we see today is the same thing as carbon, oxygen, hydrogen of 10,000 years ago, or 2 million years ago, or even 10 billion years ago.

I for one think that that's a pretty safe assumption to make.

Zen, my position has never been that the rain or flood skewed the dating. It has always been that the implications of the make-up of the pre-flood planet and atmosphere would be the reason for skewing the conclusions reached via research methodology of conventional science.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-14-2011 9:51 PM ZenMonkey has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by DrJones*, posted 06-14-2011 11:50 PM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 256 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2011 1:21 AM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 257 by Admin, posted 06-15-2011 2:45 AM Buzsaw has taken no action

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2209
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 253 of 377 (620240)
06-14-2011 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Buzsaw
06-14-2011 11:37 PM


Re: The Other POV
It has always been that the implications of the make-up of the pre-flood planet and atmosphere would be the reason for skewing the conclusions reached via research methodology of conventional science.

Which is another claim you have never substantiated. You have provided no evidence that the "pre-flood" world was any different from the current. Nor have you ever been able to explain what would cause all the dating methodologies to be incorrect and yet still agree wit heach other.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Buzsaw, posted 06-14-2011 11:37 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 1700 days)
Posts: 97
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


Message 254 of 377 (620243)
06-15-2011 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Buzsaw
06-14-2011 11:28 PM


Re: The Other POV
Buz writes:

Most know my unique position on the age of the sun and moon

So your thesis is that the moon and the asteroids (and presumably most of the other bodies of our sloar system) were created significantly before earth (billions of years?), and that the atmospheric conditions of a much younger earth somehow modified the dates from all known dating methods to coincidentally match those from the moon etc?

God must be ROFLing!

Edited by Boof, : Changed 'the flood' to 'atmospheric conditions' as per Buzsaw model


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Buzsaw, posted 06-14-2011 11:28 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-15-2011 12:28 AM Boof has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3879
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 255 of 377 (620246)
06-15-2011 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Boof
06-15-2011 12:19 AM


Buz's old Earth/young life perspective - A topic elsewhere
I got a "Great Debate" with Buz, vaguely plodding along at What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only).

I could there use a reply from Buz.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Boof, posted 06-15-2011 12:19 AM Boof has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Boof, posted 06-15-2011 11:23 PM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022