|
Author
|
Topic: The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence
|
Chuck77
Inactive Member
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
Dr Adequate writes: Oard et al have supplied no reason to suppose that the water that deposited the gravel was magical rather than non-magical in origin; and given the weight of evidence against a magical flood ever having taken place, and the general scarcity of magical events, it seems as though the non-magical explanation is to be preferred. Dr. Adequate, excuse me for this example as it's a flood article BUT when it's comes to the TOE evolutionists often/always say TOE deals with already EXISTING life and not it's origins. We are often refered to Abiogenesis if we want "answers"/guesses that deal with origins. When it comes to matters of Creation tho, that doesn't seem to jive with the evolutionists. Are we to dismiss all evidence of what we can actually see until we know exactly where the water came from?Or how it started? If the TOE did that there wouldn't even be a theory! The fact is that there are things that can't be explained properly if attributed to localized flooding(based on the articles I provided). "The distribution of quartzite gravel, cobbles and boulders on the mountaintops, ridges plateaus and valleys of northwestern USA and southwest Canada." I'd say it's more than enough "evidence" that suggests something BIG happened that isn't happening today and it wasn't due to anything local. I guess by dismissing the content of the article(s) and using the word "magical" is easy enough. I wish we were afforded that same luxury. Anyway, thanks for taking time to read the links I posted. Im not being difficult but making a point. I feel it deserves a little more respect than simply brushing it off as unreliable. They are dealing with certain specifics of the "flood" and not steps 1-900 in that order. If you can study/research/test/observe already existing life and form a theory I see no difference here. It's atleast worth exploring IMO. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
Chuck77
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 287 of 377 (621449)
06-26-2011 1:41 AM
|
Reply to: Message 283 by ZenMonkey
06-25-2011 12:18 PM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
ZenMonkey writes: You now have three forum participants - myself, angalgard, and RAZD himself - suggesting that you go read RAZD's Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread to get up to speed on the topic of dating methods and how they work. Zen, well now that there are THREE of you I have no choice. Thanks for suggesting it. Im on my way to read it right now, and yes, I will let you know what I think.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 283 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-25-2011 12:18 PM | | ZenMonkey has not replied |
|
Chuck77
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 288 of 377 (621450)
06-26-2011 1:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 279 by jar
06-25-2011 8:21 AM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
jar writes: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 God instructs Noah to: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7 we see similar (close but not the same) instructions: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We also find similar explanations of what will be destroyed in Genesis 6 it says: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earthmen and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the airfor I am grieved that I have made them." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and in Genesis 7: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry jar, this isn't the religious section. If I can't use the Bible as evidence for The flood (or anything for that matter) then you can't use it as evidence against it. If you want to go over to the religious section and discuss verse by verse exactly how the flood happened, what took place, how many "clean" and "unclean" animals were aboard etc etc. then ok.
jar writes: We also have examples of catastrophic events that would raise mountains, and guess what, such events leave evidence. jar, how do YOU know that the mountains we see today AREN'T evidence of a Catostrophic flood caused by CPT?
jar writes: Raise up a mass the size of even a small mountain ovr a year, ten years, one hundred year, even a thousand year period and I promise you it will leave evidence behind. Im not talking about already existing moutains being raised up due to flooding. Im talking about them being FORMED because of it. Are you following along?
jar writes: The idea that the Biblical Flood ever happened is quite simply idiotic. Your comments aren't exactly doing anything to add to that idea. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 279 by jar, posted 06-25-2011 8:21 AM | | jar has replied |
|
Chuck77
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 289 of 377 (621451)
06-26-2011 2:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 278 by Percy
06-25-2011 7:56 AM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
Percy writes: I gave a cursory look at your first link (it's kind of long, I don't have that kind of time right now), and it seems to me like a thread discussing it could be pretty interesting. The premise is that there are large Rocky Mountain quartzite rocks that have been violently transported up to a thousand miles by the flood. Why don't you create a thread proposal by writing a paragraph or two around the link over at Proposed New Topics. Thanks percy, for checking it out. I realize some of it is a little simplistic, but I don't feel all catostophic events need to be put under a microscope and examined to the very last itty bitty detail in order for there to be some agreement on the matter. Some things can just be observed and being well, catastophic in nature. The new thread is a good idea, and I'll consider it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 278 by Percy, posted 06-25-2011 7:56 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 291 by Percy, posted 06-26-2011 9:18 AM | | Chuck77 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 290 of 377 (621459)
06-26-2011 3:58 AM
|
Reply to: Message 286 by Chuck77
06-26-2011 1:36 AM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
When it comes to matters of Creation tho, that doesn't seem to jive with the evolutionists. Are we to dismiss all evidence of what we can actually see until we know exactly where the water came from?Or how it started? No, we shouldn't; and I said explicitly that we shouldn't in post #265, where I wrote:
Myself I don't think creationists need to try to hard to explain the how of the Flood, since your hypothesis involves a god with miraculous powers who can take care of these details. Happy?
I guess by dismissing the content of the article(s) and using the word "magical" is easy enough. Well, I wasn't dismissing it so much as describing it. The Flood is meant to be magical. Perhaps you would prefer the word "miraculous". Either way, it's meant to be an act of God using his godly powers, and not just a natural event where it just happened to rain a lot. The only thing I would say is that the onus of proof is always on someone who claims something has magical causes, because in our experience most things don't. But we should certainly not dismiss a magical explanation a priori. The question then is: have Oard et al presented sufficient proof that we are dealing with a magical event rather than a natural one? I say no.
"The distribution of quartzite gravel, cobbles and boulders on the mountaintops, ridges plateaus and valleys of northwestern USA and southwest Canada." I'd say it's more than enough "evidence" that suggests something BIG happened that isn't happening today and it wasn't due to anything local. Deposition of sediment by rivers, and geological uplift, are things that happen today. Oard et al admit, after all, that the gravel was deposited by rivers ("channelized" water, in their argot) and that it got to elevated positions such as mountaintops, ridges, and plateaus by a process of geological uplift after it was deposited. Well, so do I. So do Janicke et al. So the difference between Oard and the geologists is that Oard et al think that the water had a supernatural origin and that the uplift happened at a supernatural (or at least wildly abnormal) speed. But they have not supplied anything remotely verging on a clinching argument. Unless they can show that a normal river couldn't deposit the gravel (and normal rivers do deposit gravel) but that for some reason a river resulting from the Noachian flood could, then the gravel does not constitute evidence for the Flood any more than a hoofprint constitutes evidence for a unicorn. Meanwhile there is strong evidence (which we can discuss at your leisure) that the Flood didn't happen at all and so wasn't responsible for anything --- including the gravels of the Beaverhead Group. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 286 by Chuck77, posted 06-26-2011 1:36 AM | | Chuck77 has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 5.0
|
|
|
Message 291 of 377 (621472)
06-26-2011 9:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 289 by Chuck77
06-26-2011 2:03 AM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
Chuck77 writes: The new thread is a good idea, and I'll consider it. A new thread is probably no longer necessary. In Message 280 Dr Adequate examines some of the claims in that link and raises some serious issues that seem worth discussing. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 289 by Chuck77, posted 06-26-2011 2:03 AM | | Chuck77 has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 292 of 377 (621487)
06-26-2011 10:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 288 by Chuck77
06-26-2011 1:54 AM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
Sorry jar, this isn't the religious section. If I can't use the Bible as evidence for The flood (or anything for that matter) then you can't use it as evidence against it. If you want to go over to the religious section and discuss verse by verse exactly how the flood happened, what took place, how many "clean" and "unclean" animals were aboard etc etc. then ok. That comment makes it pretty obvious that either you did not read what I posted or were unable to understand what I posted. If it is the former, go back and actually read the quoted material again. If it is the latter then simply tell me and I'll try to explain it to you again.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 288 by Chuck77, posted 06-26-2011 1:54 AM | | Chuck77 has not replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
|
Message 293 of 377 (621538)
06-26-2011 7:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 288 by Chuck77
06-26-2011 1:54 AM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
Im not talking about already existing moutains being raised up due to flooding. Im talking about them being FORMED because of it. Are you following along?
How does that happen?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 288 by Chuck77, posted 06-26-2011 1:54 AM | | Chuck77 has not replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
|
Message 294 of 377 (621542)
06-26-2011 8:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 286 by Chuck77
06-26-2011 1:36 AM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
When it comes to matters of Creation tho, that doesn't seem to jive with the evolutionists. Are we to dismiss all evidence of what we can actually see until we know exactly where the water came from? Or how it started?
I'm not sure what you see. But yes, if you want to defend a position, it's always good to have some ammunition.
If the TOE did that there wouldn't even be a theory! The fact is that there are things that can't be explained properly if attributed to localized flooding(based on the articles I provided).
Not really. There are plenty of people who would say that the origin of life is supernatural, but what happened afterward was not. Now, if you want to say that the origin of the water was supernatural, fine. But we've got more questions...
quote:
"The distribution of quartzite gravel, cobbles and boulders on the mountaintops, ridges plateaus and valleys of northwestern USA and southwest Canada."
Well, there's part of the problem. These deposits are not just on the mountains, but they make up the mountains as well. We know how they formed and when.
quote:
I'd say it's more than enough "evidence" that suggests something BIG happened that isn't happening today...
Well, yes, I'd say the uplift of the Rocky Mtn's was a big event, but it sure wasn't global. And actually, it is going on today. There are ongoing orogenies and concurrent sediments being deposited.
quote:
... and it wasn't due to anything local.
Act locally, but think globally... When the Appalachians were rising the Rocky Mtns. simply didn't exist. The Canadian Shield is eroding, but the crust of the Pacific Coast is still forming. Those are pretty major events. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 286 by Chuck77, posted 06-26-2011 1:36 AM | | Chuck77 has not replied |
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4215 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
|
|
Message 295 of 377 (621547)
06-26-2011 8:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 288 by Chuck77
06-26-2011 1:54 AM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
It is not that the Bible can't be used in a science topic, but that it can't be used as evidence. It can be used with evidence to enforce or contrast the premise. This is what Jar has done. If the Biblical stories were correct, there would be a gigantic biological bottleneck at the time, to which the evidence shows was not.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 288 by Chuck77, posted 06-26-2011 1:54 AM | | Chuck77 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
If the Biblical stories were correct, there would be a gigantic biological bottleneck ... You are the winner of this week's Poor Choice Of Adjectives Award.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 295 by bluescat48, posted 06-26-2011 8:48 PM | | bluescat48 has not replied |
|
Pressie
Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: 06-18-2010
|
|
|
Message 297 of 377 (621591)
06-27-2011 6:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 272 by Chuck77
06-25-2011 2:36 AM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
Chuck, your references are just so unbelievably idiotic. Your first reference Flood transported quartzites: Part 1east of the Rocky Mountains - creation.com :
Oard, et al writes: Flood transported quartziteseast of the Rocky Mountains by Michael Oard, John Hergenrather and Peter Klevberg Well-rounded gravel, cobbles and boulders of quartzite have been transported over 1,000 km to the east of their Rocky Mountain source areas. They are found at the tops of mountains, ridges and plateaus, as well as at the bottom of valleys, and are found in deposits ranging in thickness from a thin veneer, or lag, to 5,000 m. Percussion and pressure solution marks are commonly found on the clasts. All of these evidences point to catastrophic, powerful erosion and transport on a subcontinental scale, suggesting that these deposits formed during the Flood. Well-rounded gravel, cobbles and boulders of quartzite with percussion and pressure solution marks are very often found in glacial deposits as well as river systems, etc. No catastrophe necessary. No flood necessary. It even forms today right in front of our own eyes. Coupled with the fact that those conglomerates are part of the mountains, not on the mountains, it certainly points away from a flood. This was so ridiculous that I went to have a look at the authors. Oard is a Meteorologist. While he was studying weather patterns, geologists actually studied rocks. Oard wouldn’t have a clue about geology. Hergenrather is a Geographer. While he was studying towns, geologists were actually studying rocks. Hergenrather wouldn’t have a clue about geology. Klevberg is a Civil Engineer. While he was studying how to build supermarkets, geologists were actually studying rocks. Klevberg wouldn’t have a clue about geology. I mean, how wrong can you actually be about a subject and then some people still think you know it all? The only way for them is to be taken seriously bycreationists who don't know what science is. Edited by Pressie, : Altered a few sentences to clarify Edited by Pressie, : Removed a full-stop
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 272 by Chuck77, posted 06-25-2011 2:36 AM | | Chuck77 has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10070 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.2
|
|
|
Message 298 of 377 (621645)
06-27-2011 4:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 272 by Chuck77
06-25-2011 2:36 AM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
What type of geologic formation would demonstrate that plate tectonics didn't happen to cause the mountains to rise up? Or that the flood didn't happen?
A lack of magentic striping in the seafloor. A break in the Antarctic and Greenland ice cores. A break in the Lake Suigetsu varve record. A break in the German Oak record. Tons of geologic and biological records should show a disruption during this period, but none do. At a bare minimum, we should find a worldwide flood layer containing organic matter from terrestrial organisms with the same carbon isotope ratios, but we don't.
To make a long story short, it's senseless for me to try to hypothesize without being able to provide evidence. Then how were you able to conclude that there was a recent global flood?
Creation Scientists' are working on flood theorys all the time. The problem is that the models are unfalsifiable. There is no potential observation that would falsify them in the eyes of creationists. That is why I keep asking you for observations that, if made, would falsify a recent global flood. Your hesitancy is making my point for me.
Regarding taqs' questions and everyone elses, I don't mean to brush off questions, but I also don't wish to look like a fool explaining things im not prepared to backup with reliable evidence that would satisfy anyone here. I can understand your position. I only hope that our discussions prompt some healthy skepticism when reading creationist websites.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 272 by Chuck77, posted 06-25-2011 2:36 AM | | Chuck77 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 299 by jar, posted 06-27-2011 5:08 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 299 of 377 (621647)
06-27-2011 5:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 298 by Taq
06-27-2011 4:58 PM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
One thing he should remember is that it was folk that believed in the Biblical Flood that finally totally refuted it. The idea that there was a Biblical Flood simply became totally untenable over 200 years ago.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 298 by Taq, posted 06-27-2011 4:58 PM | | Taq has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 300 by Taq, posted 06-27-2011 5:34 PM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10070 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.2
|
|
|
Message 300 of 377 (621649)
06-27-2011 5:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 299 by jar
06-27-2011 5:08 PM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
One thing he should remember is that it was folk that believed in the Biblical Flood that finally totally refuted it.
The idea that there was a Biblical Flood simply became totally untenable over 200 years ago. Adam Sedgwick said it best. This is part of the speech he gave as he vacated his chairmanship of the Geologic Society of London (the most prestigious society of its kind at the time):
quote:
Bearing upon this difficult question, there is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion, when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth. We saw the clearest traces of diluvial action, and we had, in our sacred histories, the record of a general deluge. On this double testimony it was, that we gave a unity to a vast succession of phenomena, not one of which we perfectly comprehended, and under the name diluvium, classed them all together. To seek the light of physical truth by reasoning of this kind, is, in the language of Bacon, to seek the living among the dead, and will ever end in erroneous induction. Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation. We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood....
(Sedgwick, 1831)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 299 by jar, posted 06-27-2011 5:08 PM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 301 by edge, posted 06-27-2011 8:45 PM | | Taq has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2