Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for a recent flood
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 61 of 404 (638100)
10-19-2011 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dr Adequate
10-19-2011 6:42 PM


Re: Whats expected?
ell, sure. It divides creationists into two classes. On the one hand, there are the creationists who take biblical chronology literally, and are wrong. On the other hand, there are the creationists who say that you might as well take Genesis 1 as a metaphor ... in which case they can join the rest of the Christians and admit that evolution happened.
And there is another class: those who try to take the account as it would have been understood by the original authors and audience. I believe these have the most scholarly basis for their claims.
But such interpretive issues are questions for a Bible study thread, not a science thread. In a science thread, Coyote is right to pick one particular interpretation for a scientific test. Just realize that we are only testing the veracity of that one particular interpretation of the Bible; we are not testing the veracity of the Bible itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2011 6:42 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2011 7:13 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 63 by jar, posted 10-19-2011 7:22 PM kbertsche has not replied

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


Message 62 of 404 (638102)
10-19-2011 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by kbertsche
10-19-2011 7:00 PM


Re: Whats expected?
And there is another class: those who try to take the account as it would have been understood by the original authors and audience.
Who would still end up on any particular point falling into one category or the other.
It is in fact true that no-one is consistently a literalist, they'll always find out that the Bible doesn't say that the Earth literally rests on pillars no matter how often the Bible says so and despite the total lack of indication that this is a metaphor.
But so long as you agree with Coyote that we should date Noah's Flood as though the Bible was true, then let's go from there. Anyone who thinks the Bible is false in this respect should stop being a creationist and accept evolution, 'cos why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by kbertsche, posted 10-19-2011 7:00 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by kbertsche, posted 10-19-2011 9:36 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 63 of 404 (638103)
10-19-2011 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by kbertsche
10-19-2011 7:00 PM


Re: Whats expected?
And there is another class: those who try to take the account as it would have been understood by the original authors and audience.
Is there any class that would support some factual world-wide flood at anytime that modern humans existed?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by kbertsche, posted 10-19-2011 7:00 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 64 of 404 (638106)
10-19-2011 8:47 PM


Am I missing something?
As far as I know there are YECs who will argue for a recent flood, OECs who will argue for a much older flood and there are Christians and non-Christians who don't believe a worldwide flood ever happened.
This topic is about looking for evidence of the recent flood, as described by YECs. That being the case, I'm strugging to follow ICANT's arguments. Am I missing something very basic here?

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Coragyps, posted 10-20-2011 8:57 AM Trixie has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 65 of 404 (638108)
10-19-2011 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Coragyps
10-17-2011 12:48 PM


Geologic impact of a 1 year flood
You well expressed the Bay of Fundy situation.
The water rising and falling once during your mythical Flud would have left a little silt behind. A little, that is, in the spots where it was 15 cubits deep. Quite a bit, though, in the places where it was deeper. Like all the silt off the high places......
Setting aside considerations of the massive impact on land based life...
My vision of the flood impact:
Heavy rains for 40 days and 40 nights would cause massive erosion. All the finer sediments would be stripped off and carried to the land/ocean margins of the time, to form massive deltas. The coarser sediments such as boulders might be left behind as lag deposits.
Beyond that, I don't envision much sediment deposition. As the waters rose, significant sediment WOULD NOT be brought back to be deposited at higher elevations. And what little that was deposited would tend to be eroded back off post-flood.
So, post flood, I'd expect to see a lot of barren bedrock with massive delta deposits at the margins.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Coragyps, posted 10-17-2011 12:48 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 10-19-2011 8:59 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 67 by Coyote, posted 10-19-2011 9:27 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 66 of 404 (638110)
10-19-2011 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Minnemooseus
10-19-2011 8:48 PM


Re: Geologic impact of a 1 year flood
If there was a one year long flood would it leave any evidence in places of human habitation that existed at that given time?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-19-2011 8:48 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 67 of 404 (638113)
10-19-2011 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Minnemooseus
10-19-2011 8:48 PM


Re: Geologic impact of a 1 year flood
Heavy rains for 40 days and 40 nights would cause massive erosion. All the finer sediments would be stripped off and carried to the land/ocean margins of the time, to form massive deltas. The coarser sediments such as boulders might be left behind as lag deposits.
Beyond that, I don't envision much sediment deposition. As the waters rose, significant sediment WOULD NOT be brought back to be deposited at higher elevations. And what little that was deposited would tend to be eroded back off post-flood.
So, post flood, I'd expect to see a lot of barren bedrock with massive delta deposits at the margins.
I think perhaps you underestimate the fine clay sediments and their tendency to remain in suspension in moving waters, and to settle out only when the waters are calm.
What you are suggesting is that there would be evidence left in some places by a global flood that should be seen in the soils, either as erosion or deposition.
I would suggest that the evidence would be more widespread than you have posited. Certainly the erosion should be visible in a lot of areas.
But if the flood was worldwide, then the depositional evidence should be close to worldwide. If there was water some 29,000 feet above current sea levels, that increase and subsequent decrease would have to be accompanied by significant water movement. I don't believe that all evidence could be erased in just 4,000+ years. There should be fine sedimentary deposits close to worldwide dating to about 4,350 years ago.
We have the evidence from the channeled scablands of eastern Washington of earlier floods that we can use as a guide. Those post-glacial floods would have been much smaller than Noah's flood, yet we see evidence that allows us to track the paths of those floods, and to come up with approximate dates while we don't see the same evidence for Noah's flood--much larger in size and only a third the age.
There is something clearly lacking in the evidence for a recent global flood.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-19-2011 8:48 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 68 of 404 (638115)
10-19-2011 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Dr Adequate
10-19-2011 7:13 PM


Re: Whats expected?
But so long as you agree with Coyote that we should date Noah's Flood as though the Bible was true, then let's go from there. Anyone who thinks the Bible is false in this respect should stop being a creationist and accept evolution, 'cos why not?
I agree with Coyote that in a science thread we should pick a particular hypothesis to test. I agree with him that the hypothesis of a recent worldwide flood is a well-known biblical interpretation, and that it begs for scientific validation or disproof. And I agree with him that this interpretation roundly fails the test.
I do not agree that this recent worldwide flood interpretation is required if the Bible is posited as true, or that the failure of this interpretation proves the Bible false. And I do not agree that accepting evolution requires rejecting creation. But these are questions for a Bible study thread, not for a science thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2011 7:13 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Coyote, posted 10-19-2011 9:51 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 69 of 404 (638116)
10-19-2011 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by kbertsche
10-19-2011 9:36 PM


Re: Whats expected?
I agree with Coyote that in a science thread we should pick a particular hypothesis to test. I agree with him that the hypothesis of a recent worldwide flood is a well-known biblical interpretation, and that it begs for scientific validation or disproof. And I agree with him that this interpretation roundly fails the test.
I do not agree that this recent worldwide flood interpretation is required if the Bible is posited as true, or that the failure of this interpretation proves the Bible false. And I do not agree that accepting evolution requires rejecting creation. But these are questions for a Bible study thread, not for a science thread.
Good points.
But the flood had to occur at some time in the past. And that time had to include humans.
This would seem to eliminate the Cambrian and the K-T boundary, two time periods favored by posters here but millions of years before humans walked the earth.
What it comes down to is that flood has to be at some specific time--it can't always be "not here, over there!" -- which is what we get from many creationists.
That's the old shell game.
So at some point creationists should figure out when the flood occurred and let us all look for the evidence at that time.
Otherwise one might begin to think that it's all a myth.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by kbertsche, posted 10-19-2011 9:36 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by kbertsche, posted 10-20-2011 12:36 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 70 of 404 (638127)
10-20-2011 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Coyote
10-19-2011 9:51 PM


Re: Whats expected?
But the flood had to occur at some time in the past. And that time had to include humans.
This would seem to eliminate the Cambrian and the K-T boundary, two time periods favored by posters here but millions of years before humans walked the earth.
What it comes down to is that flood has to be at some specific time--it can't always be "not here, over there!" -- which is what we get from many creationists.
That's the old shell game.
So at some point creationists should figure out when the flood occurred and let us all look for the evidence at that time.
Otherwise one might begin to think that it's all a myth.
Yes, I agree. As you probably know, many evangelical scholars think that the biblical account is describing a local or regional flood, not a worldwide flood. Some (e.g. Dick Fischer) would put this recently, in the last 10,000 years. Others (e.g. Glenn Morton) would associate it with the infilling of the Mediterranean, and push it back much further. Still others (e.g. Paul Seely) would make it semi-mythical but based on a real, local flood.
But again, these various interpretations are the purview of Bible study, not science. You are right to restrict this science thread to a single, popular interpretation.
Where are all of the YEC Flood Geology advocates? Why aren't they here defending their views? I would have expected them to try to present some sort of evidence for their position (e.g. Sir Leonard Wooley's flood layers at Ur).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Coyote, posted 10-19-2011 9:51 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Pressie, posted 10-20-2011 4:01 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 72 by Granny Magda, posted 10-20-2011 8:51 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 71 of 404 (638135)
10-20-2011 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by kbertsche
10-20-2011 12:36 AM


Re: Whats expected?
Hi Dr Bertsche
Yes, I would love to talk to them, too. The problem here is that not even one of the YEC's here have any geology training at all.
I would love to see one of the handful YEC's with geological training in the world (maybe ten?), to come and defend their positions. My only guess is that they don't want to try it on forums like this, because they know they will get slaughtered. They just want to preach to novices!
I do know that Dr. John Baumgardner tried to do it once on a similar forum. The problem with him is that he has no geological training, but is an Engineer with a Ph.D. in Geophysics. Boy, did he get slaughtered! In the end he tried outright untruths (like referring to a real expert on dating methods as a "self-styled specialist"). Then he mentioned something about "no respect for the Word of God" (or something to that effect) and then he disappeared from the forum.
I guess we won't get anything better than that. That's all they have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by kbertsche, posted 10-20-2011 12:36 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 72 of 404 (638144)
10-20-2011 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by kbertsche
10-20-2011 12:36 AM


Re: Whats expected?
Hi kbertsche,
As you probably know, many evangelical scholars think that the biblical account is describing a local or regional flood, not a worldwide flood. Some (e.g. Dick Fischer) would put this recently, in the last 10,000 years. Others (e.g. Glenn Morton) would associate it with the infilling of the Mediterranean, and push it back much further. Still others (e.g. Paul Seely) would make it semi-mythical but based on a real, local flood.
That's fine and dandy, but you can't entirely blame the YECs for taking the text to mean a global flood. I mean, if I were attempting to describe a local flood, I wouldn't choose the phrase "and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.". That sounds pretty global to me. Further, the text specifically describes Mt. Ararat as being submerged. Given that Ararat is the forty-eighth highest peak in the world, that can only mean a flood of global - if not quite total - proportions. A flood that leaves all of, say, Australia under water is one heck of big local flood.
It may in fact be true that the flood story is based loosely upon a real flood, but I think that anyone promoting this view is compelled to accept that the text is either a very inaccurate or largely mythic description of a real event or that it was never intended to describe a real event at all. No literalist or inerrantist interpretation makes sense of the text within the framework of a local flood.
Where are all of the YEC Flood Geology advocates? Why aren't they here defending their views?
What can I say? I guess that defending the indefensible must get tiring after a while.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by kbertsche, posted 10-20-2011 12:36 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 73 of 404 (638145)
10-20-2011 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Trixie
10-19-2011 8:47 PM


Hi, Trixie!!!!!!!!
We missed you!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Trixie, posted 10-19-2011 8:47 PM Trixie has not replied

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 74 of 404 (638590)
10-24-2011 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dr Adequate
10-16-2011 7:26 AM


quote:
Why? Is mass fossilization the usual sequel in the locale of a localized non-magical flood? Please provide evidence that this is the case.
If not, then I would have no such expectation.
Thats exactly what happens when a flood occurs. Have you ever wondered why we dont find fossils of animals today, only the past? Thats because to be fossilised, an animal has to be laid down by water and buried quickly.

And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-16-2011 7:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-24-2011 4:42 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 76 by Panda, posted 10-24-2011 6:31 AM Portillo has replied
 Message 79 by Pressie, posted 10-24-2011 8:20 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 80 by Meddle, posted 10-24-2011 8:38 PM Portillo has not replied

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


(1)
Message 75 of 404 (638591)
10-24-2011 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Portillo
10-24-2011 4:21 AM


Thats exactly what happens when a flood occurs.
You know how I asked for evidence? That was assertion.
Thats because to be fossilised, an animal has to be laid down by water and buried quickly.
And that was more assertion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Portillo, posted 10-24-2011 4:21 AM Portillo 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