|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,768 Year: 4,025/9,624 Month: 896/974 Week: 223/286 Day: 30/109 Hour: 3/3 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why the Flood Never Happened | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So the Flood would have had to lay down deposits up to Jurassic, then stop to erode the canyon, then add the later layers. Oh nonsense. No wonder you converted from YEC, you never understood YEC and you don't know how to think like a YEC and you have NO ability to imagine the Flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
I DO NOT DEAL WITH RADIOMETRIC DATING AND DO NOT CONSIDER IT EVIDENCE ANYWAY, BECAUSE THE METHOD CANNOT BE VERIFIED. We know why you don't deal with radiometric dating--because it disproves some of your religious beliefs. Unfortunately for you, that doesn't make these dating methods go away, and it doesn't make them unverifiable. You can stick your head in the sand all you want but that doesn't alter reality in any way. Reality is out there whether you say Yea or Nay.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1015 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined:
|
Oh my.
If water can flow underground, canyons can be cut underground. I'd expect it to have occurred in the last stages of the Flood myself. This is the most awesome statement of the entire thread! If this doesn't exemplify the sheer intellectual bankcruptcy of creationism, I don't know what does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
Hi Faith,
In "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Zaphod Beeblebrox had a pair of sunglasses that went opaque when there was any danger. You have something similar for contrary evidence. However there are usually 100+ visitors to this site and so we plug on for their benefit. Hi to the visitors,If you are new and interested in dating issues, check RAZD's Age Correlations thread in Dates and Dating, which outlines the evidence for an old Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Atheos canadensis Member (Idle past 3023 days) Posts: 141 Joined: |
No of course not. 1) I KNOW there was a worldwide Flood, most likely about 4350 years ago but not much longer in any case, there is never going to be any doubt about that. 2) Theories about HOW it occurred are always open to question because we are not given enough information in scripture, but the evidence for the Flood's creation of the strata seems to me to be at least about 95% certain So you accept on faith that the Flood unquestionably happened, but you think there is an approximately 5% chance that the rock record was not the product of that Flood. The next obvious question I guess is what sort of evidence from the rock record would convince you that it was not the product of the Flood? I would have thought unambiguous evidence of a terrestrial environment would be an example, but I would like to hear what you would consider to be such an example.
3) If the dinosaur fossil was formed some other way, I'd hope that could be figured out, but since the Flood would have provided the ideal conditions for fossilization, and clearly the fossils in the strata can be attributed to the Flood, I'd still be expecting that eventually the dinosaur would be explained in terms of the Flood as well. A couple things. First, that the Flood would be conducive to preserving fossils does not mean that it must necessarily have caused their preservation. A regular flood would be perfectly capable of providing conditions conducive to fossil preservation, as would various other ecological settings. Ukhaa Tolgod, the terrestrially-deposited area where the brooding dinosaur was found, is described as being
quote: And of course I have already shown you examples of mass drownings among modern animals (Message 776). I'm also assuming you are not of the erroneous opinion that preservation can only occur as the result of rapid burial, a contention some Floodists maintain despite the obvious evidence of prolonged exposure represented by scavenged remains that were nevertheless preserved in the fossil record. As I have said, the only solution I can see to the problem presented to your model by the brooding dinosaur is to refute the law of superposition. There are no signs that this is likely to happen. And I am compelled to point out that the fossil record can definitely not be attributed to the Flood. There is the fairly inconvenient fact that, apart from examples of unambiguously terrestrial deposits like the brooding dinosaur, the organization of the fossil record is not consistent with what we would expect from a global Flood. And when I say "we" I am including Floodists; the various mechanisms they propose (i.e. ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, differential escape) predict certain patterns that simply do not appear in the fossil record. But, while I think this line of discussion is of course pertinent in a thread about discussing evidence supporting or refuting the Flood, I think I would be correct in assuming that it is one of the topics you have consider to be a distraction from your preferred line of discussion. To summarize, while maintaining on faith that the Flood happened you accept that the evidence I have presented is not consistent with the Flood as far as can be currently discerned. Yes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So you accept on faith that the Flood unquestionably happened, I'd say I accept it on reliable witness testimony.
A couple things. First, that the Flood would be conducive to preserving fossils does not mean that it must necessarily have caused their preservation. A regular flood would be perfectly capable of providing conditions conducive to fossil preservation, as would various other ecological settings. But of course this is ridiculously out of scale. The number of fossils everywhere in the world found in stratified rock is so enormous the very idea of a "regular flood" being invoked to explain them is laughable. How many living things die in regular floods? Of those how many are buried in conditions conducive to fossil formation? How many such floods would be needed to account for the fossil record? You don't name the "various other ecological settings" but I assume you would have if any were of a magnitude to matter.
Ukhaa Tolgod, the terrestrially-deposited area where the brooding dinosaur was found, is described as being Link doesn't work for me by the way.one of the richest fossil sites ever found from the age of the dinosaurs ...More than 100 dinosaur skeletons include several specimens of the strange flightless bird Mononykus; an embryo of a theropod dinosaur; fossils of dinosaurs incubating their eggs, and there are many skulls and skeletons of otherwise rare mammals. More than 500 skulls of mammals, lizards and dinosaurs have been identified. http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/...yofLife/ukhaatolgod.html Sure sounds like a Flood deposit to me. Got any pictures? Are they all jumbled up together as in other places? Can't think of the name of that museum where there's a window onto the jumbled up bones in a hillside where they were actually buried, in Utah or Colorado or something like that. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
But of course this is ridiculously out of scale. The number of fossils everywhere in the world found in stratified rock is so enormous the very idea of a "regular flood" being invoked to explain them is laughable. This is wrong. You are trying to make us believe, as you obviously do, that all those fossils in stratified rock are the same age, that is, 4,350 years ago, and are attributable to the biblical flood. That is such a ridiculous idea for so many reasons that only someone who is totally oblivious to evidence could accept it.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But of course this is ridiculously out of scale. The number of fossils everywhere in the world found in stratified rock is so enormous the very idea of a "regular flood" being invoked to explain them is laughable.
You are trying to make us believe, as you obviously do, that all those fossils in stratified rock are the same age, that is, 4,350 years ago, and are attributable to the biblical flood. Yup.
That is such a ridiculous idea for so many reasons that only someone who is totally oblivious to evidence could accept it. Except those of course who very reasonably know that "the number of fossils everywhere in the world found in stratified rock is so enormous ... [any other cause] ... invoked to explain them is laughable." Plus the fact that you couldn't possibly tell there's any difference in age by looking at them, let alone the nundreds of millions of years' difference ascribed by conventional "science" or by looking at the rocks themselves either, which you'd think might show just a little difference in wear and tear over a few hundred million years. Sometime take a look at Siccar Point where the upper horizontal strata are said to be many millions of years younger than the lower vertical strata and where the whole formation has obviously been subjected to severe weathering. Funny, if anything the lower strata may look a bit less battered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1309 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined:
|
I've given lots of reasonable specifics in this discussion
You've said very little that could be considered "Reasonable"
The idea that any nonscientist -- OR scientist -- creationist should try to answer every conceivable objection to the Flood is irrational
if you could make a decent attempt at ONE it would be a start. But your idea of responding to a point is to say, "I don't know how, and I can't show it, but the flood has to be the only explanation" despite all the evidence telling you otherwise.
Obviously I do not impute anything about the Flood to miracle
Huh? so god, who decided he made an almighty balls-up when he created man, called forth a flood, with impossible amounts of water, violating the laws of physics, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics and many more. HE then made the flood dissappear(where?) and cleverly hid the genetic bottleneck that we should see, and apparently went out of his way to ensure that everything gave the impression of being millions of years old.and you say there's no miracles or miraculous occurances here? do you even have half a clue how utterly ridiculous your arguments are becoming? Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 331 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
We have the same observations of the past and we see do the Flood there, everywhere as I've said, as you should too, but you are seeing through your Theory, not with open eyes. I haven't claimed that you should see God in nature. yea but one should see the effects of the flood in nature and one should see those effects EVryWHErE ! No ice core sample anywhere shows that that area was flooded no sediments, no different oxygen isotopes, no fractures, nothing that one might expect. Conclusion those areas where not flooded. ergo no global flood. Coral reafs cn be dated by counting their daily growth rings, some are over 100 thousand years old, yet they could have never survived a flood of that magnitude, and they would show clear signs that there was a flooding disaster. But they provide no such evidence ergo there was no global flood. i can go on but its pointless as you will brush these off and go on babbling you mumbo jumbo magic theories while simultaneously bashing legitimate scientific fields. But even a child can see that the flood storey is just that a storey. If you cant see how it clashes with reality you are either a troll, mentally handicapped or so brainwashed that you reject reality and substitute your own. In either case a debate would be pointless. But on a side note can you answer how noah transported human exclusive parasites? Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
...do you even have half a clue how utterly ridiculous your arguments are becoming? To you who from your post clearly has no clue even what arguments I've made here? If they're ridiculous to you they were already ridiculous before you heard one word of them and will obviously remain ridiculous to you after you've not heard one word of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Have you ever heard even ONE creationist argument against any of your objections? Not just from me but from anyone? They aren't hard to answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
Can you point us to ONE Creationist attempt to SERIOUSLY address the consilience of C14 dating with tree rings and lake varves? Offhand statements like saying C14 has too many assumptions, and tree rings and varves may not be annual, do not come near coming to grips with the problem. Woodmorappe admitted tree ring counting was accurate to at least 8,000, but did not address the C14 consilience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 331 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
ok why wont you tell me why there is no evidence in ice core samples that would support a global flood?
Why is there no evidence in coral reefs that would support a global flood. Why are the polar caps still there a flood would brake them apart and they would take way more then 4000 years to reform. In this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Unless you can explain how a global flood missed every glacier known to man, missed the pole, missed all corral reefs ... And how can it be global even though it missed such large parts of the world. And you can also anwser how Noah managed to transport all those human exclusive parasites without his whole crew and him dying? To anyone with an iq of 70 or more that has not been brainwashed and can see reality for what it is the flood is nothing more then a story. But nothing can convince you not even a time machine would do it. If you feal this statement is wrong what kind of evidence do you think would convince you that there was no flood. What would fe have to find or not find to make you see reality? Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
Re-reading your post I see it is ambiguous. I would agree that Creationist arguments are indeed not hard to answer!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024