|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence of the flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Because you are obviously wrong to say so.
quote: Of course it isn't always the case, there are examples where we have evidence of transport (and sometimes even if fossils being eroded out of earlier rocks and incorporated into newer rocks). But why not ? If we find a collection of bones buried under a landslide, for instance, why should we not think that the bones are those of creatures killed and buried by the landslide ?
quote: Then come up with one that is objectively better. The Flood certainly isn't it.
quote: We can certainly look at what occurs today and see how that fits with what we see in the rocks. We can run simple experiments too. And we can widen the search for evidence. The results are, of course, that mainstream geology does well, while the Flood does very, very badly. To give just one example, the order in the fossil record has been known for two hundred years. And Flood geology still has no explanation. That alone is enough to rule the Flood out of contention. And no calling the order an "illusion" - whatever you mean by that - is hardly going to work without some substantial argument. A finding that has stood for two hundred years, with evidence coming in throughout that time is not at all likely to be an illusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
riVeRraT writes:
People who "find Christ" tend to be anything but open-minded. Open-minded doesn't mean gullible; it doesn't mean receptive to woo. If you were really open-minded you'd be open to the idea that Christ doesn't exist, that He never existed. What this is about is being able to be open minded enough so you won't be held back from finding Christ. You can find Bigfoot without believing he exists. You have to be open to the evidence. There is no evidence that the Flood ever happened. There is no evidence that animals flock to humans for aid in times of adversity. And there is less evidence for Christ than there is for Bigfoot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
riVeRrat writes:
Yes it is. It's a proposed explanation based on limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. What did you think a hypothesis was?
ringo writes:
No it isn't. You said that it was evidence OF the flood. That is a hypothesis of sorts. riVeRraT writes:
So you admit that it is a hypothesis after all.
ringo writes:
No it doesn't. So your hypothesis fails. riVeRraT writes:
Animals seeking shelter does not in any way support the Flood myth. You might as well have said that Harvey the Hawk is evidence of Bigfoot.
Because animals seek shelter in other situations does negate that they seek shelter in a flood, or biblical flood. It is only in addition too. riVeRraT writes:
I'm not ignoring it. I'm pointing out that it's nonsense. If you choose to believe nonsense, it's on you.
If you choose to ignore it, then its on you. riVeRraT writes:
Nope, after He rose from the dead:
ringo writes:
Yep, before He died and gave us the Holt Spirit. Jesus Himself encouraged Thomas to use objective evidence.quote:Hint: the wounds weren't there until after the crucifixion. Jesus was advocating faith based on evidence: Look at the evidence and then have faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: There's plenty of evidence of the global Flood, Phat, as I keep saying: the strata and the abundance of fossils cannot reasonably be explained by anything else. How does a flood sort igneous rocks and fossils so that we get a correlation between the ratios of isotopes in rocks and the fossils found below them? For example, no dinosaur fossil is found above igneous rocks that have a 40K/40Ar ratio of 27.47 and a 238U/207Pb ratio of 15.22. How does your model explain this? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: As you said, I'm talking about Christians who accept science that contradicts the Bible. None of those things contradict the Bible, in fact we consider them God's blessings;... You're missing the contradiction. Things like computers and refrigerators and solar cells and TVs and MRIs and eyeglasses are the products of science, but you don't call accepting them capitulating to science. In fact, you don't question them at all. But you do call it capitulation to science when it contradicts the Bible, despite that they are just as much products of science.
But the sciences of the unrecorded past, Evolution and an Old Earth, do [contradict the Bible]. You mean science that examines evidence to reconstruct what happened in the past? Like the forensics program you enjoyed so much?
No, it's guts, guts to defend the faith. The meek shall inherit the Earth, not Christian soldiers like yourself whose every act mocks the principles of Christianity. All it takes is faith, simple faith.
You can have faith and keep it to yourself, but when you stick with the Bible... You're not following the Bible. You're making up your own stuff.
...in the teeth of the kind of arguments, ridicule and insults one gets here for instance, that's guts. You are your own worst enemy. You've been provided all the correct information but instead insist on the illogical and ridiculous, thereby inviting ridicule. You behave with deceit. And the insults invariable start with you.
There is no point in arguing what OE science claims after I've said that. Agreed. If you're not here to discuss the evidence behind scientific views, then you shouldn't be here. So dwise can argue for Christians capitulating to Old Earth science and I can't answer him that to do so is not merely to reject Creation Science but the Bible itself as Bible-believing Christians see it? Why is that? Seems to me that all the defense of "fundie" Christianity I post on this thread is in response to this sort of assertion. I'm not allowed to disagree? Your goal appears to be to sow chaos in this thread so that no discussion of the topic takes place. You just declared you wouldn't discuss scientific views of the flood in a thread titled Evidence of the flood. It's as if your goal is to throw this thread as far off course as you possibly can. If you don't want to discuss evidence of the flood, you really should find some other thread. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: There's plenty of evidence of the global Flood, Phat, as I keep saying: the strata and the abundance of fossils cannot reasonably be explained by anything else. As someone else put it so well, if the context demands that you restate your position, then the context also demands that you discuss and defend that position. The order and composition of the strata make the Flood an impossible explanation. Floods do not sort strata by composition, radiometric age, and fossil content. The tilting of buried strata without disturbing the strata above is physically impossible. Rocks do not form by drying but by pressure and time. A huge global flood would not have any of the special qualities you claim (and which you made up) - it would be a lot like the oceans, which cover around 3/4 of the Earth. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: I understand that it is persuasive but I think in the end it will be shown to be superficial and wrong, an illusion. But you don't think that on the basis of any evidence. It's just something you wish were true.
"Let all men be liars but God be true" is scripture though I'd have to go look it up. Pretty close. From KJV:
quote: This is arguing that though God's message is true, men are imperfect interpreters, and so sinners should not be given over to certainty. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: You fail to recognize that what you call the "real" geology of the strata and the fossils is what I've over and over pointed out is a screaming absurdity: the fossil contents made to represent things that once lived where that layer of sediment they are buried in now is, how impossible that is physically, how it's like reading tea leaves more than any kind of objective science. As has been pointed out in this thread twice already, you are glaringly wrong and have abandoned discussion on this topic on at least two separate occasions. You are repeating bald assertions that display a gross ignorance of how strata formed and are still forming today. Stile's last post on this topic was Message 1312 in the The TRVE history of the Flood... thread. Before you can repeat your declarations with any integrity you must complete discussion on the topic.
The evidence for sequential shallow seas is likewise open to better interpretations, a theory concocted out of a few circumstantial facts. Are you finally going to explain how a flood could deposit fine limestone strata interspersed with other types of strata?
And none of this can be tested to be confirmed or disconfirmed. The same processes are taking place today before our very eyes. Every lakebed and seafloor is accumulating sediments. For example, there are many limestone-forming environments in the world today, most in shallow seas within a couple thousand miles of the equator. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You may not believe it but we even have floods today and can actually examine the evidence a flood leaves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
It looks to me like He was saying that believing without evidence is also acceptable. Jesus talked about faith enough, that your interpretation can readily be seen as unlikely. Jesus did not make his remark out of thin air. Doubting Thomas came in second here. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Young Turks posting about changing demographics
Update Your Browser | Facebook The first take-away is that white Christians are now in the minority -- 43% This is the beginning of the end of white christian privilege. This is the beginning of the end of white christian influence on science and schools. May you live in interesting times ... Enjoy ps -- 2nd take-away: this may be a reaction to evangelical support for Trumpby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Not ignorance, dear Percy, rejection because they are nothing like the geological column. Lakebeds and seafloor are obviously not how the geological column formed, not to mention that to BE part of the geological column strata would have to deposit on the existing column and look exactly like the other strata, which are all the same in their physical characteristics except for the different sediments and different amounts. The strata are flat as a pancake, none of them has anything like the shape of lake bottom or seafloor. The flat and extremely extensive form of the strata all say "Flood."
The Flood would have deposited any layering you like of whatever sediments were suspended in the water, there's no problem there. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The evidence A flood leaves, a local flood, would so obviously be different from what a worldwide Flood would leave it's a ridiculous comparison. THE Flood would have torn up the entire planet and rearranged all of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: The evidence A flood leaves, a local flood, would so obviously be different from what a worldwide Flood would leave it's a ridiculous comparison. THE Flood would have torn up the entire planet and rearranged all of it. Then I'm sure you can present the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that would explain how your flood could do any of the things we see in reality. Actually and honestly I'm sure you can't and won't and will never do so since the idea that there was a world-wide flood at any time that humans existed has been refuted and no honest person can possibly believe such nonsense. The only way people believe such utter crap is by being willfully ignorant and willfully dishonest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
THE Flood would have torn up the entire planet and rearranged all of it. Yup. And that's precisely what we don't see. We do see order and properties incompatible with tearing up and rearranging. Your unsupported assertions born of ignorance notwithstanding.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024