Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9030 total)
182 online now:
jar, PaulK (2 members, 180 visitors)
Newest Member: BodhitSLAVa
Post Volume: Total: 884,413 Year: 2,059/14,102 Month: 427/624 Week: 148/163 Day: 3/38 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does a flood ...
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 106 of 206 (781601)
04-05-2016 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by edge
04-05-2016 8:52 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
Actually not, particularly since we don't see any evidence for more recent lifeforms in older rocks. If there were one huge flood, the fossils would be all mixed up, lions next to trilobites. We don't see that.

But your whole notion of "older rocks" is just the OE theory. If the rocks aren't older then which lifeforms are found in them has nothing to do with the age of the rocks.

And this notion that the fossils would all be jumbled up is again just interpretation for which you have no specific evidence, it's just your own head trip. Since Walther's Law sorts sediments it apparently also sorted the dead creatures that were deposited with them. According to what principle I have no idea but obviously sorting occurred.

This entire discussion is of course always just one interpretation against another and yours are usually no better than the Flood interpretations. I think I've given killer evidence for the Flood many times but you'll never see it because of your OE tinted glasses.

One sediment per millions of years is ridiculous on the face of it. A slab of rock of one kind of sediment that spans a whole continent and even the entire world was simply not built up over millions of years, as if the surface of the earth were EVER composed of one sediment. Golly gee just look at the surface of the earth NOW and realize that those strata simply do NOT represent the surface of this planet in any time period whatever let alone for millions of years.

Problem is that we see it repeated over and over in the geological record, always recording a new set of fossil evidence. And we never see evidence that the entire planet was inundated.

You do not "see" this at all, you interpret this into the facts that are subject to other more reasonable interpretations.

The evidence I've given is sufficient.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by edge, posted 04-05-2016 8:52 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 04-05-2016 9:12 PM Faith has responded
 Message 112 by edge, posted 04-05-2016 10:22 PM Faith has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33284
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 107 of 206 (781602)
04-05-2016 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Faith
04-05-2016 9:06 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
Faith writes:

But your whole notion of "older rocks" is just the OE theory. If the rocks aren't older then which lifeforms are found in them has nothing to do with the age of the rocks.

But the rocks are older Faith despite your denial of reality.

But that is also irrelevant to this topic and you have already posted in this very thread that you cannot provide a satisfactory model, method, process, procedure or mechanism.

You have already fallen back on magic.

In Message 10 you posted, and I quote:

Faith writes:

I don't know, it just did.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Faith, posted 04-05-2016 9:06 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 04-05-2016 9:16 PM jar has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 108 of 206 (781604)
04-05-2016 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by jar
04-05-2016 9:12 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
OF course I don't know how the fossils were sorted and it's ridiciulous to expect that of a Floodist. The model doesn't have to account for how the creatures were sorted since one wouldn't expect a Flood to have a sorting method.

Percy agrees I've provided a model, and in fact I've provided a model many many times in the past.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 04-05-2016 9:12 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by jar, posted 04-05-2016 9:27 PM Faith has responded
 Message 110 by Coyote, posted 04-05-2016 9:49 PM Faith has responded
 Message 113 by edge, posted 04-05-2016 10:27 PM Faith has responded
 Message 117 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 12:48 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33284
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 109 of 206 (781607)
04-05-2016 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
04-05-2016 9:16 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
Percy agreed that you may have provided models but they have all be soundly refuted and nonsense.

BUT Faith, this topic is about flood a model, method, process, procedure or mechanism that can explain what is seen. Of course it is unreasonable to expect a floodist to ever support anything but that is what this thread is about.

And yes, the model, method, process, procedure or mechanism MUST, I repeat MUST account for all of the evidence seen.

That is why the concept of a Biblical flood was tossed away hundreds of years ago by all but the Christian Cult of Ignorance.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 04-05-2016 9:16 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 6:17 AM jar has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 945 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 110 of 206 (781608)
04-05-2016 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
04-05-2016 9:16 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
Percy agrees I've provided a model, and in fact I've provided a model many many times in the past.

A model is a simplification of reality, designed to test assumptions and hypotheses against evidence (reality).

It is possible, and actually very common, to have models that disagree with one another completely. Just because you have crafted a model does not mean it reflects reality. Creating a model is just an early step in the process.

Next you have to evaluate the predictions and necessary conclusions of the model against the real world. To the extent that those match the evidence from the real world the model, and its assumptions, are supported (not proved!). To the extent that the predictions and necessary conclusions of the model do not match the real world the model and its assumptions are disproved. Some models can be adjusted to better fit the evidence, while others may be hopelessly wrong and need to be scrapped.

So, it is good that you have formulated a model! That's a very good first step. But one can't just assume that a model is 100% accurate. It needs to be evaluated against reality.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

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

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 04-05-2016 9:16 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 04-05-2016 10:38 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33284
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 111 of 206 (781611)
04-05-2016 10:15 PM


world-wide events and local events
As pointed out above, world-wide events will leave world-wide evidence and must explain all of the things seen that were supposedly the result of that event.

Local events on the other hand need only explain local conditions.

The fact that the things that MUST be seen if there had been a world-wide flood during the existence of humans are not found, have never been found, does not mean that there could not have been local events.

There are many, many sites where there is evidence of local flooding, often repeated flooding.

As pointed out back in Message 92:

quote:
What do we know about the Biblical Flood myths.

Both claim a short duration. Both claim lots of life was wiped out with only very small samples (but here the two stories are mutually exclusive, if one is right the other much be wrong) of certain types of critters saved.

If either of those were true, what MUST we see in the evidence?

First, since the event was so short lived the evidence layer should be clear and unique. Almost all life on the earth must have died out with only very small populations left and in only one location in the world. There must be the genetic equivalent of the impact site. Modern Genetics and Morphology must all point to one single location.

What we must see is an environment pretty much as it is today but then an abrupt, sudden and total depopulation world-wide of all living critters. Above the event line we should see a gradual but slow return of life; there needs to be a wedge of no-life that is widest 180 degrees away from the grounding site of the ark and gradually narrowing as it gets closer to that site.

We know what the remains and aftermath of floods look like and no one has ever been able to provide a satisfactory flood model, method, process, procedure or mechanism to explain what is seen in reality, and nowhere has the event horizon described in the paragraph above been seen.


Pointing to examples where there was evidence of a flood simply does not provide evidence that there was a world-wide flood.

Even thousands of examples of floods does not provide evidence there was a world-wide flood.

Even thousands of examples of floods found all over the world does not provide evidence there was a world-wide flood.

I repeat for emphasis:

What we must see is an environment pretty much as it is today but then an abrupt, sudden and total depopulation world-wide of all living critters. Above the event line we should see a gradual but slow return of life; there needs to be a wedge of no-life that is widest 180 degrees away from the grounding site of the ark and gradually narrowing as it gets closer to that site.

We know what the remains and aftermath of floods look like and no one has ever been able to provide a satisfactory world-wide flood model, method, process, procedure or mechanism to explain what is seen in reality, and nowhere has the event horizon described in the paragraph above been seen..

Edited by jar, : fix link to prior post


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

  
edge
Member (Idle past 545 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 112 of 206 (781612)
04-05-2016 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Faith
04-05-2016 9:06 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
But your whole notion of "older rocks" is just the OE theory.

Theory backed up by numerous lines of evidence including relative dating techniques and known geological processes, further backed up by various dating methods.

If the rocks aren't older then which lifeforms are found in them has nothing to do with the age of the rocks.

But dating shows this not to be the case.

And this notion that the fossils would all be jumbled up is again just interpretation for which you have no specific evidence, it's just your own head trip.

Not necessarily 'jumbled up', but in the same age rocks. We should find large mammals with large dinosaur fossils but we do not.

Since Walther's Law sorts sediments it apparently also sorted the dead creatures that were deposited with them. According to what principle I have no idea but obviously sorting occurred.

Then we are correct in saying that you do not understand Walther's Law.

It explains why strata are time-transgressive but still have lateral continuity.

You do not "see" this at all, you interpret this into the facts that are subject to other more reasonable interpretations.

So then, you reject Walther's Law.

You should have said so in the first place.

The evidence I've given is sufficient.

Only if you neglect surrounding data, such as relative dating methods and known geological processes.

This entire discussion is of course always just one interpretation against another and yours are usually no better than the Flood interpretations.

I'm sure you have studied these things as much as I have.

I think I've given killer evidence for the Flood many times but you'll never see it because of your OE tinted glasses.

You have given evidence for marine deposition, but not for a global flood.

Think about what a 'global flood' means. No land, no beaches, no swamps, no erosion; and yet there they all are in the geological record.

One sediment per millions of years is ridiculous on the face of it.

It is also a straw-man argument. No one says this but YECs.

A slab of rock of one kind of sediment that spans a whole continent and even the entire world was simply not built up over millions of years, ...

Why not? And please provide and example of a formation that is global.

...as if the surface of the earth were EVER composed of one sediment.

True, and one of the reasons is that there was always an emergent land mass to provide sediments of various nature.

Golly gee just look at the surface of the earth NOW and realize that those strata simply do NOT represent the surface of this planet in any time period whatever let alone for millions of years.

Why not?

Because it makes you uncomfortable?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Faith, posted 04-05-2016 9:06 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:32 AM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 545 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 113 of 206 (781613)
04-05-2016 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
04-05-2016 9:16 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
OF course I don't know how the fossils were sorted and it's ridiciulous to expect that of a Floodist.

Well, some of us do know and time is the most explanatory suspect.

For you to reject it based on your admitted ignorance is a bit arrogant.

The model doesn't have to account for how the creatures were sorted since one wouldn't expect a Flood to have a sorting method.

But that arrangement of fossils is data.

Your model needs to explain it.

We can't just ignore data because it doesn't fit a cherished model.

Percy agrees I've provided a model, and in fact I've provided a model many many times in the past.

He also says that your model failed its tests.

It should be rejected.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 04-05-2016 9:16 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 6:43 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 56 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 114 of 206 (781614)
04-05-2016 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
04-05-2016 8:52 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
Austin showed that the nautiloids are represented by individuals of all ages all mixed together, which wouldn't happen with normal deaths.

Of course it would. Are you nuts? An organism can die of non-magic-flood causes at any age.

You need to provide the evidence of your scavenger assertion and your multiple transgressions-regressions assertion.

It's clear that most fossils are not of suddenly buried organisms because if they were they would be intact.

Re transgressions and regressions, start here.

ABE: My guess is that the rising and falling of the tides would account for the latter

Tides don't rise and fall that high.

You should guess less often.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 04-05-2016 8:52 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 04-05-2016 10:52 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 115 of 206 (781615)
04-05-2016 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Coyote
04-05-2016 9:49 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
Jar keeps saying I don't have a model. The fact is I do, and that's all I'm required to answer at this point.

But when you say it has to be tested against reality, I will for the umpteen jillionth time say that what you regard as reality is really just OE/evolutionist interpretation of reality, not reality itself. I say the strata and their fossil contents are excellent evidence for a worldwide Flood and they are, just on the face of it they are, and the idea that a miles-deep stack of straight flat slabs of rock of different kinds of sediments could possibly represent the surface of this earth at different time periods is nutty, Coyote, just nutty. The only way anyone could hold onto that idea is by just not thinking about it, keeping their focus on the details and missing the big picture.

Why should there be time periods at all, let alone time periods marked by a particular kind of sediment with a particular kind of fossil contents? That alone makes no sense. You are NOT going to get anything like that out of the era WE live in. Look at the current surface of the earth. It is NOT going to flatten down to a slab of some particular kind of sediment that spans the world EVER. And no other "time period" ever did so either. The idea is nutty nutty nutty.

Just because years of piling on assumption after assumption after interpretation after interpretation seems to "prove" YOUR model by sheer accumulation of same doesn't make it so.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Coyote, posted 04-05-2016 9:49 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2016 11:51 AM Faith has responded
 Message 175 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-06-2016 7:04 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 116 of 206 (781617)
04-05-2016 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dr Adequate
04-05-2016 10:33 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
Of course it would. Are you nuts? An organism can die of non-magic-flood causes at any age.

Gpsh it's amazing how many billions of creatures of all ages did so all at once and got themselves buried in a particular kind of sediment. An epidemic among the nautiloids perhaps that offed a few billion of them all at one time? And just happened to bury them in a wet sediment that covered thousands of square miles of land and offered the perfect conditions for fossilizing all billions of them? Which scenario was of course repeated for all kinds of creatures found in the geologic record. Interesting collection of merely accidental normal causes of the deaths of billions of creatures in the same layer of sediment. Seems to me you need to rethink which model is the magic one,

Suddenly buried organisms would be intact you say? What an odd idea. These were apparently carried along in the rising ocean water before being deposited. Some tossing about going on there no doubt, as well as probably getting munched on by various sea creatures that continued to be alive at the moment.

No ready linky. Give the explanation in your own words please.

Abe: Tides NORMALLY don't rise that high, but we're talking about a one-time worldwide catastrophic rising of all the water in the oceans.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2016 10:33 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 12:58 AM Faith has responded
 Message 155 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2016 11:44 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16775
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 117 of 206 (781619)
04-06-2016 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
04-05-2016 9:16 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
quote:

OF course I don't know how the fossils were sorted and it's ridiciulous to expect that of a Floodist. The model doesn't have to account for how the creatures were sorted since one wouldn't expect a Flood to have a sorting method.

On the contrary, it is your objection that is ridiculous. The purpose of the model is to account for the evidence. If it cannot account for such a major piece of evidence then the model is hopelessly deficient and should be rejected.

from a rational standpoint you are admitting that the order of the fossil record disproves the Flood. Which is the position you are meant to be arguing against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 04-05-2016 9:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16775
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 118 of 206 (781620)
04-06-2016 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Faith
04-05-2016 10:52 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
quote:

Gpsh it's amazing how many billions of creatures of all ages did so all at once and got themselves buried in a particular kind of sediment.

It probably sounds amazing because it isn't true.

quote:

Which scenario was of course repeated for all kinds of creatures found in the geologic record.

And we know that's not true. The nautilus were singled out because there was evidence suggesting a mass kill - and that is NOT the case for the majority of fossils. So, no. Most fossils were not the product of mass kills, let alone a single mass kill.

Making up "evidence" will not convince us that your position is true. It may well convince us that your position is a lie.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 04-05-2016 10:52 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 6:06 AM PaulK has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 119 of 206 (781622)
04-06-2016 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by PaulK
04-06-2016 12:58 AM


Austin's Redwall nautiloids
What isn't true? The billions or what? THIS SITE Says "millions in the canyon alone," but the bed extends well beyond the canyon, into all the surrounding states as I recall, and I remember billions being Austin's estimate. As usual I'll have to go find the book.

No, its being obviously a mass kill event was not likely the reason for his choosing the nautiloids to study, but the fact that they are found in the walls of the canyon where they are visible to the naked eye and countable from simple observation, not all being buried out of sight.

"Most fossils" are found buried willy-nilly in their sedimentary beds, as they would have been by the Flood.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 12:58 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 6:17 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 120 of 206 (781623)
04-06-2016 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by jar
04-05-2016 9:27 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
And yes, the model, method, process, procedure or mechanism MUST, I repeat MUST account for all of the evidence seen.

Which is a ridiculously draconian requirement of an amateur creationist in a message board discussion, or any creationist at all for that matter, considering that the model hasn't yet been fully developed. The only point of such a requirement is to shut up the creationists.

There are as many different versions of how the Flood occurred, mostly on small or secondary points of course, as there are creationists. All I can do is present my own version, and I don't expect to do more than muster the best evidence that a Flood explains the facts better than the OE explanation, which I believe is not at all hard to do. I believe I've done it many times over at EvC and that other creationists with different views have done it as well. You don't have to account for ALL the facts to do that much.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by jar, posted 04-05-2016 9:27 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by jar, posted 04-06-2016 8:44 AM Faith has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021