Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9072 total)
56 online now:
Dm14174, dwise1, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (7 members, 1 guest login, 48 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,119 Year: 4,231/6,534 Month: 445/900 Week: 151/150 Day: 5/16 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The TRVE history of the Flood...
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 15 of 85 (803953)
04-06-2017 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
04-05-2017 9:03 PM


quote:

The evidence for the Flood is gargantuan, worldwide, starting with the sedimentary strata that were laid down one on top of another across huge spans of geography, obviously deposited by water, showing very tight contacts between them, razor sharp in many cases.

And as we know from discussions here the strata were deposited over a long period of time and are certainly not the result of a single short-term event.

So that claim is false.

quote:

Then there was the amount of time erosion would have had since then to carve various figures out of the deposited sedimentary rock. 4500 years just about exactly the right amount of time to carve the hoodoos and the monuments and the Grand Staircase and so on.

And that's another false claim.

quote:

Lots of good evidence there. Against what, fallible artificial dating methods?

I fail to see how failed attempts to force-fit the evidence to the Flood should be considered evidence FOR the Flood, while multiple dating methods based on genuine evidence, all well-tested should be rejected out of hand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 04-05-2017 9:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 1:33 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 19 of 85 (803960)
04-06-2017 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
04-06-2017 1:33 AM


Re: No way the strata represent great eras of time
quote:

No you do not "know" any such thing. It's commonly believed here but the actual observed facts of the strata don't fit that long-term scenario but are best explained by rapid deposition.

On the contrary, the facts demonstrate that long time periods are required.

quote:

The strata are laid one on top of another quite straight and flat

In places, and rapid deposition is hardly required for that.

quote:

there is nothing about them to suggest there was ever anything like a normal earth surface to any of them

Except for things like riverbeds and embedded tree roots...

quote:

There couldn't have been any "time periods" of millions of years marked by any of them...

Maybe one day you will explain what you mean by that.

quote:

...they are just deposits of sediment, obviously by water, lying flat, containing the remains of dead life forms which must have died in the deluge.

Except that there are extensive deposits that were not laid down by water, plenty laid down in lakes and especially seas (and not by a flood) and no reason to attribute the vast majority of deaths to even a local deluge (the dominance of marine fossils being an obvious example)

quote:

The surface we have today was formed after all the strata were laid down.

Rather obviously, regardless of who's right.

quote:

They are folded and pushed up in blocks, showing the layers were already in place

And we have strata obviously laid on top of folded rock.

quote:

Canyons are cut into them to great depths, showing that cutting occurred after they were all in place.

We have buried canyons, which were obviously cut before they were filled in.

quote:

The strata from which the hoodoos form aren't being laid down any more, the strata have been there for thousands of years while erosion slowly carves away the softer parts leaving the characteristic hoodoo forms.

And when they are eroded away the surface will be flat.

quote:

Oh and they are all so clearly different from each other, sharply different layers from each other.

Not all. But they have to be distinct in some ways to be labelled as different strata.

quote:

Given millions of years how did that happen?

Which is more likely? That there would be many significant changes in conditions over millions of years or the same changes over just one ? Anyone who thinks seriously about the issue can see that you are being absurd. The sequences produced according Walther's law are an example - changes in sea level change the sort of sediment deposited at a location, in ways a flood would not be expected to mimic.

quote:

But it would be easily explained by their being carried in water and deposited one on top of another, one kind of sediment with a particular kind of living things in it on top of another, to very great depths, a mile in the case of the Grand Canyon.

No, it wouldn't. Where does all this sediment come from ? How was it sorted ? How were the living things sorted ? Why doesn't it look like a catastrophic flood deposit (e.g. the preservation of delicate features in some strata). It is much easier to explain it in terms of long periods of time

And this is just repeating points from previous discussion. As I said, we've established here that you don't have a viable case for the flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 1:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 3:13 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 23 of 85 (803978)
04-06-2017 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
04-06-2017 3:13 AM


Re: No way the strata represent great eras of time
To briefly answer your points

So you say that rapid despoliation is "the only realistic explanation" because in some places tectonic forces have distorted the strata. That doesn't exactly follow.

As you haven't examined any of the riverbeds in question I wonder how you can insist that they aren't riverbeds. And when we have in situ tree roots, I think we can say that they weren't moved around by the assumed flood.

Strata "represent" the time period in which they were deposited by providing evidence of the conditions in which they were deposited. I really don't see how you can object to that.

I can't think of a good reason why a flood would affect marine life worse than land life, and the terrestrial examples you refer to are not mass kill sites so your point remains obscure.

The fact that the current surface IS the surface is all we need to show that it was formed "today". So calling it an important point is odd. Besides we know that there ARE examples of buried topography so claiming that they don't exist doesn't work either.

I would think that a sensible explanation would be better than an absurd fantasy. The sensible explanation for angular uncomformities is that the strata above the uncomfority were deposited after the underlying strata were tilted.

Buried canyons were obviously filled AFTER they were cut, even in your "explanation" - so they still disprove your claim that all the rocks were deposited first.

I note that you still have provided no explanation of how your abrupt changes occur assuming sudden deposition. Contrary to your assertion mainstream geology does have such explanations. For instance if deposition were to stop and start again thousands of years later there is no reason to expect the new material to be the same as that last deposited (or uncovered by erosion in the interval)

The sequences of Walther's law depend on normal deposition - the huge amounts of sediment supposedly deposited by the flood have no reason to follow it. the flood is not a long-term change in sea level and your claims for it are quite at odds with any such idea.

Asking for details of your "easy explanation" is NOT changing the subject.

quote:

Don't know. But water is known to sort sediments into layers. And besides, it's even harder to explain how you'd get such neat sorting of sediments and creatures on the Geologic Time Scale model. At the least there should be more gradation of creatures than there is, not the highly segregated types that are actually found.

On the contrary, it is quite easy. Which is not "even harder" than "impossible"

And so we are left - yet again - with the fact that the flood makes no sense as an explanation of the geological record and even less sense as an explanation of the fossil record. That you refuse to accept these facts is your problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 3:13 AM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Davidjay, posted 04-06-2017 10:34 AM PaulK has taken no action

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 27 of 85 (803999)
04-06-2017 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Coyote
04-06-2017 10:48 AM


Re: Real world evidence
Please don't insult mathematical modelling. David's nutty numerology does not qualify.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Coyote, posted 04-06-2017 10:48 AM Coyote has seen this message

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 33 of 85 (804013)
04-06-2017 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
04-06-2017 1:04 PM


Re: Old earth models work
quote:

you'd think more living things from earlier "periods" (lower layers) would be represented in later "periods (higher layers) than there actually are;

And why would you think that ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 1:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 1:39 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 37 of 85 (804029)
04-06-2017 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
04-06-2017 1:39 PM


Re: Old earth models work
quote:

Because evolution isn't all that pat. Former variations/races from which the later supposedly evolved, don't just disappear, replaced by the evolved form -- as evolutionists themselves are always pointing out -- the previous apes didn't go away when the higher apes evolved from them. What happens is that the former type also evolves somewhat as well unless the population is very large where changes wouldn't be dramatic, and those would go on multiplying and show up in the "later" stages along with the evolved forms.

Generally it is the groups that continue, not species. The "lower apes" might still exist as a group, but the species that existed when the "higher apes" branched off almost certainly do not. And even the larger groups tend to thin out over time (as tour would expect). Especially when mass extinctions occur. But we still have some dinosaurs (birds) and crocodiles and Cephalopoda and even velvet worms alive today.

So, if you mean species you are quite definitely wrong, and if you mean larger taxonomic groups then you definitely need to provide some quantification.

quote:

But that doesn't seem to be the case, the "evolved" forms appear to have mostly or sompletely supplanted the forms from which they are supposed to have evolved, which simply are not represented in the "more recent" layers, not in the numbers one would expect for sure if at all, and in some cases not at all.

Without knowing what "unevolved" forms you are talking about and without numbers - and an argument for those numbers this is just hopelessly vague. If there is any basis for your assertion you haven't provided it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 1:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 1:58 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 41 of 85 (804033)
04-06-2017 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Faith
04-06-2017 1:58 PM


Re: Old earth models work
quote:

But what I said was that the earlier form might also have evolved somewhat depending on how large the population was, I didn't claim the species continued exactly as it formerly existed -- although again depending on the size of the population it could have continued fairly recognizable.l But perhaps not.

That depends on the time involved, and the selection pressures. The longer the time the more change you should expect.

quote:

It's not important to the point, which is that there is no reason to suppose the former, OR other population that also evolved from it, just disappeared, but that seems to be what is observed in the layers, which gives the false impression of a supposedly more primitive form no longer existing while the evolved form for some reason proliferates in the higher layer, apparently completely supplanting the earlier form.

Again this is just vague and without quantification. You don't even give any examples. You still haven't provided any support for your assertion.

quote:

I'm getting my impression from all kinds of discussions and graphic representations of the fossils found in various layers, which amounts to the observation that there seems to be surprisingly little overlap from one layer to another compared to what one would expect based on evolutionary theory itself.

And I have still no idea how you get that impression. You offer no basis for working out how many "should" be found or how many are found. Or even clearly stating what it is that you are (supposedly) counting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 1:58 PM Faith has taken no action

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 61 of 85 (804098)
04-07-2017 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Davidjay
04-07-2017 12:36 AM


Re: FIRST ABSOLUTE EXACT PROOF
While there is not even an attempt to offer evidence for the Flood here never mind anything that deserves to be called an "exact proof" I thought I would correct the numbers since they seem to be important to you.

First, the data given lacks the precision to provide an exact year.

Second, making reasonable assumptions, the time given by the text is in the range of 1655-1662 years. Possibly longer - the predominance of multiples of 5 suggests that the figures may be even less precise than I assumed, increasing the uncertainty.

Third, the Septuagint and Samaritan texts offer quite different ages so the above result only applies to the Masoretic text.

No need to thank me, this is very simple mathematics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Davidjay, posted 04-07-2017 12:36 AM Davidjay has taken no action

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 68 of 85 (804140)
04-07-2017 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Davidjay
04-07-2017 10:14 AM


Re: Re:Step 1 Confirmed
quote:

As no one above could or can differ with the exact number of years Genesis gives. The Math is correct, the total addition product is 1656 according to Biblical references exactly.

If it was wrong, the above math types would have stated such. But the MATH IS CORRECT.


I did state as such Message 61

And I note that you originally claimed it was 1646 years.


How many years until the Flood ..... 1646 years. Thats your product RIGHT ? RIGHT ? The genesis or Biblical history says that exactly 1646 years after Creation there was a worldwide flood.

Now dont throw a fit and start writing the words, myth, lies etc etc...

Mathematically you cant deny the addition of these years. Its easy, its a basic, a cornerstone, its EXACT. Its not billions and trillions of years, changed with every new theory of a new theory of an old theory. Its a standard.

The number of years is 1646.

So, if your "correct" math gave 1646 years why are you now saying it is 1656 years.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Davidjay, posted 04-07-2017 10:14 AM Davidjay has taken no action

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 73 of 85 (804154)
04-07-2017 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Davidjay
04-07-2017 10:22 AM


Re: Re:Step 2 Corelating 1656 Years to Time Units
quote:

For at that time of the solar year, it was equal day and night as mentioned in Genesis 1. This meaning the month Nissan was at the
equinox in April 21st

Which was it ? April 21st or the Equinox ? And how would you know ?

quote:

Therefore the Lord literally gave the Earth and its inhabitants ONE Day of 86,400 seconds before He send and recreated its surfaces
via His worldwide flood.

While such a figure is within the range of possible dates it is hardly established as correct. And even if it were it would only be a feature of the story.

So, still no evidence of the Flood at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Davidjay, posted 04-07-2017 10:22 AM Davidjay has taken no action

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 82 of 85 (804224)
04-08-2017 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Davidjay
04-07-2017 11:53 PM


Re: Re:Step 2 Corelating 1656 Years to Time Units
quote:

Its now agreed that my math was correct !!! IE that Genesis Bible account with no missing links adds up exactly to 1656 years.

No, it is not agreed, because it is not true. I don't know how you can think you can get away with lying like this. The Genesis account does not add up to any exact number of years because it does not give the information necessary.

And can you make up your mind please. First you said it was 1646 years from creation to the start of the Flood, then it was 1656 years and now it seems to be 1656 years until Noah left the ark - which is more than a year later than the start. Funny how the "exact" figure keeps changing.

quote:

Now STEP 2, is easily confirmed mathematically that there was exactly 84, 400 weeks before Adam set forth on dry ground, this being exactly the number of seconds in a day. 86,400 seconds.

No, it is not - you don't have the exact numbers you would need. There is just no way to know the exact number of weeks

quote:

In a denying mind this means nothing, as it booggles the unthinking mind that a Creator could be so exact, and DESIGN HISTORY so exactly. At the very least it should make thinking people demand more proofs and want to search more mathematical so called coincidences of time in world HISTORY.

Whether the story is in fact history is what you are supposed to be proving - so even if you weren't telling obvious lies you would be begging the question. All you could hope to prove is that the story was carefully designed, something which is within human capability and no use to you at all.

So any actual thinking person will tell you to stop wasting time with stupid lies and actually start doing what you said you would do - if you can. (Which is an extraordinarily generous appraisal since you can't)

quote:

So lets move on to STEP 3 Confirmation before the Conclusion and wrap up even though there are a multiple of other connections I can give.

Is Step 3 going to actual going to offer any valid argument for the Flood or is it going to be another stupid waste of time ? Your step 1 was wrong, your step 2 relied on the erroneous step 1 and could only prove a clever bit of numerology built into the story even if it step 1 was correct.

quote:

But already I and we are light years ahead of evolutionists because they have no math, no viable history just theory on theory.

Funny how creationists think that they can completely reverse reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Davidjay, posted 04-07-2017 11:53 PM Davidjay has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022