An attempt to let Flood supporters explain how things were created

Topic Mike.

I see you have a hard time as always understanding even the simplest basics but there is a topic to this thread.

How did some flood create the specific examples shown in this topic?

If you want to start a thread on your imagined anomalies then you are free to give it a try; assuming you would actually debate and respond and not just run away as is your norm.

BUT this thread is on the subject of how any flood might create the examples listed.

It really is that simple Mike.

I think the same can be done for long ages, I could cherry-pick the anomalies that don't fit and say, "let's put the focus on these anomolies".

I would love to see that, even one would be interesting.

mike the wiz writes: I think because there is no way to repeat the effects of a world-scale catastrophe, in some cases it would seem highly unlikely and unrealistic and a red-herring to say, "explain this specific thing for a flood".

If you can't explain Jar's specific examples from Message 1 in terms of the Flood, if you don't have even a general idea of the kinds of effects the Flood would have on geology, then how do you know the Flood was responsible?

If you don't know how the Flood created these geological structures:

Then by what chain of evidence and reasoning do you conclude the Flood was responsible? More generally, though off-topic, how does the Flood explain anything geologically?

--Percy

As I explained here, the key difference as with the Mt ST Helens example, is that the canyon that was caused on days, created effects caused by catastrophe which scientists would never have predicted could happen such as the laminated strata, and a canyon itself.

Actually, I would.

There are plenty of examples of rapid erosion from waves, rivers and ice. Here is an article about it from the people who know - engineering geologists.

https://www.aegweb.org/page/Erosion?

Of some interest is this observation:

quote:

---

"The result of such abrasion varies based the material being eroded. For example, a stream in soft sediments will erode more quickly than a stream through solid rock; the same is true for the erosion of a sandy beach versus that of a rocky coastline."

---

And soft, unconsolidated sediments (or volcanic ash, etc.) can erode with almost no resistance.

The point I am making is, with long ages and uniformity, ...

You need to stop right here. Your problem is that with long ages and uniformity there is no problem.

... the arguments are based on witnessed processes in the present, but with catastrophes which cause strange features, if that catastrophe has never been witnessed by anyone, then we can't predict all of it's effects, we can only wait until a similar catastrophe such as the canyon created at Mt St Helens, occurs, ...

What you are really telling us is that YEC actually doesn't know anything about its favorite geological event.

... then we can say, "wow look at these effects, who would have thought it."

Plenty of people.

Your position is a strawman argument.

CONCLUSION: Obviously to say before that canyon was made at St Helens, "these features can't be created quickly", ...

Well, considering that no one ever said that ...

... would have been a type of argued ignorance, because really they just didn't know how a catastrophe could cause those features.

Now you admit that you are arguing from ignorance because nobody knows what such an event would do. You don't know, do you?

So while I agree there are evidences which don't seem to fit all that well with a flood, I think basically it is to argue from ignorance to say it can't happen because we don't know how it could have.

The only people saying this seem to be on your side.

Human beings don't know a lot of things, but things that occur are not predicated on humans understanding those events, logically speaking.

And there are a lot of things that human beings DO know. Why should we ignore those things?

P.s. So bickering over these selective selections, would seem to me to be to take the bait a bit.

Ummm, sure. Avoid anything that might refute your position. Let's just declare all engineering geology off limits for this discussion. That way you can make up whatever you want.

Then to my mind the thread is based on a faulty premise, that being that we have to answer for those ten examples.

That is correct, you do not have to answer.

Now I am not against people trying to come up with an explanation ...

Then you are in luck. This thread gives you, or anyone else, the opportunity to explore possibilities.

... but I believe largely because we can't test a flood scenario and we can't test your conclusion, "ergo it is trash" then the topic itself is not so consequential, logically speaking.

This is, of course, very convenient for you. This way you can make up whatever you want. Don't complain.

But no, we can do thought experiments using what we DO ACTUALLY know. The problem is that we keep coming up with normal geological processes to give us what we see in the real world.

It would be just as unfair to open a thread with all of the anomalies for eons of age and say, "you can't discuss any evidence that fits with eons of age".

No one is saying that you can't use your 'creation science', just that you need to defend it.

The real problem is that no one has ever done so.

All these years of YEC science and nothing to show for it.

"You cannot be serious". - John McEnroe.

Unfortunately, YEC cognition trails YEC seriousness by light-years.

No matter how reasonable I am willing to be, it seems to me you're only willing to fire off the same spin-filled assertions, and repeat your contentless burnt offerings, in your familiar style. Good day Sir, and I can only hope if there are any reasonable/neutral readers, they will see your behaviour very clearly. I suggest you would only repeat the same spin no matter what facts I shown and no matter how much my argument made sense.

Hey Mike, I'm on your side, I don't know how many other "neutral" people you'll ever find at EvC, jar hardly ever gets caught out on his devious tactics, but there's always me to share the frustration, and I know we don't even agree on everything (I could never take your "tentative" stance about whether the Flood actually occurred, it's so obvious from the Bible that it did). But I'm enjoying your posts on this thread.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Changed my mind. I don't want to participate on this thread.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's also rhetorical spin, because you're basically saying, "this is what mike said, means, it means creationist song and dance" but I think my points were actually very good ones based on a true example of a scientific event at Mt St Helens where a canyon was created.

The problem is that you have left out the science part of your scientific event. Have you ever studied erosion, volcanism or sedimentation?

How familiar are you with MSH? Have you been there? Have you read anything but creationist sources?

I'm not trying to be mean here. But your statements do not really connect with reality. For instance, no geologist has ever said that all deposits occur slowly. Nor has any ever said that all erosion occurs slowly.

Don't get me wrong, YECs say it all the time. They know you will believe them.

This is geology 101 stuff. And yet, you say it as a fact. It simply isn't so, but it you have a direct quote (in context) of any mainstream geologist saying so, please provide it and we can have a discussion. You've really got to get away from YEC sources.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Faith replying to mike the wiz writes: ...and I know we don't even agree on everything...

Given what Mike's said in this thread, you two don't agree on much. From Mike's Message 54:

mike the wiz in Message 54 writes: I think because there is no way to repeat the effects of a world-scale catastrophe, in some cases it would seem highly unlikely and unrealistic and a red-herring to say, "explain this specific thing for a flood".

So Mike looks at Jar's images:

And says he has no answers, that to him they are anomalies the Flood can't explain. He goes on:

mike the wiz writes: ...when confronted with a peculiar geologic feature, for often the convolutions of the flood don't leave us with any easy way to imagine how it could have happened but that very reason is why it may well be a good reason to believe a flood did do it, because such a world-scale catastrophe would almost be 100% bound to throw up some very strange, unprecedented and convoluted geological activities never witnessed in the present.

Yet you claim the Flood explains everything geological and fossilogical and burrowlogical and reeflogical and nestological and canyonlogical and on and on. When pressed to explain how a flood could ever do such a thing you invent fantasies, make evidence-free declarations, ignore posts, pick a fight or pull a disappearing act. EvC is strewn with discussions you've abandoned. And what do you know - reading your next message I see you've set a new record and abandoned this thread after a mere two posts:

Faith in Message 67 writes: Changed my mind. I don't want to participate on this thread.

This thread is about education. Mike's position forces him to argue for replacing the teaching of theories underpinned with mountains of evidence with ideas that have no evidence and explain nothing.

--Percy

“(Mike) says he has no answers, that to him they are anomalies the Flood can't explain.”

Steps in acquiring knowledge:
1) Admit ignorance (which Mike appears to be doing)
2) Gather observations,
3) Apply relevant scientific principles,
4) Draw and share conclusions.
5) If they’re challenged, either provide more evidence to support them or amend them to take new factors into account, or be prepared to abandon them.

I wonder, Mike, are you interested in acquiring knowledge, or is it your position that the Bible tells us everything we need to know about everything we need to know - that if the Bible doesn’t cover it, then we don’t need to know about it?