Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
27 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, PaulK (3 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,616 Year: 16,652/19,786 Month: 777/2,598 Week: 23/251 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15370
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 151 of 1255 (857572)
07-09-2019 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Faith
07-09-2019 12:17 PM


quote:

They did not overturn it on any scientific grounds. It was James Hutton's wild speculations that started that ball rolling but it was only wild human speculation and did not deserve scientific standing.

In reality it wasn’t settled until Agassiz - the last creationist of any scientific stature - killed it off. And yes, Agassiz was doing science.

quote:

Also their interpretations of the Flood were just as silly as they are now. No sense of the magnitude of the thing for starters.

In other words they were more sensible and didn’t go in for the daft idea of attributing pretty much all the geological record to the Flood.

quote:

And they accepted what seems to me to be the utter abbsurdity that time periods of millions of years of earth's history are memorialized in slabs of rock or identifiable sedimentary content bearing a peculiarly distinct set of dead things in each time period, fossilized in a remarkably consistent way over hundreds of millions of years despite the fact that fossilization needs very specific conditions which are not all that easy to come by.

Of course the reality is not at all absurd. Even if we accept the characterisation of the strata as “slabs of rock” where else would buried remains end up ? In material that had become rock long ago ? In material that hadn’t been deposited yet ? Obviously they will be buried by material being deposited at the time they were buried. Saying anything else would be truly absurd.

Fossils are found in areas where the conditions are more likely to occur. We have few fossils of chimpanzees since they live in areas where acid soil destroys remains, but many of marine creatures. And rarity is relative. It only means that the proportion of individuals that end up as fossils is low. That doesn’t mean that it cannot occur many times given large populations and long periods of time.

I’d comment on the “consistency” but - as is often the case - it is completely unclear what you mean. If it is just the order then it should be consistent. There is nothing absurd about that. If it is anything else you haven’t said what it is.

quote:

This is a truly abbsurd science, sorry

Because we should totally believe that a really humongous Flood can do anything and therefore it did everything.

Again, if you react so badly to criticism why bring it upon yourself by posting obvious nonsense ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:17 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 1:13 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 152 of 1255 (857573)
07-09-2019 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Sarah Bellum
07-09-2019 12:40 PM


****** all over the world have seen lightning and volcanoes and floods. That doesn't mean it was the same lightning or volcano or flood each time.

Yeah but there isn't a universal lightning story or volcano story from all those cultures, as there is a flood story, a very specific story considered significant enough to be preserved. Despite the fact that lots of other floods happened all the time that they didn't feel needed to be preserved.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-09-2019 12:40 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by ringo, posted 07-09-2019 12:47 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 157 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-09-2019 1:00 PM Faith has responded
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 07-10-2019 11:12 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 413
Joined: 05-04-2019
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 153 of 1255 (857574)
07-09-2019 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Faith
07-09-2019 12:40 PM


But what you're describing is far more likely in a quiet little backwater with a lot of time for dirt and sand and debris and fossils to settle out slowly than in the aftermath of a catastrophic world-scouring maelstrom.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:40 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:48 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17276
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 154 of 1255 (857575)
07-09-2019 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
07-09-2019 12:42 PM


Faith writes:

... a very specific story considered significant enough to be preserved despite the fact that lots of other floods happened all the time that they didn't feel needed to be preserved.


Ever hear of science fiction? There are thousands of post-apocalyptic stories and they're all based on little apocalypses like the ones we see in the news every day. There has never been One Big Apocalypse that somebody felt the need to remember.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:42 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 155 of 1255 (857576)
07-09-2019 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Sarah Bellum
07-09-2019 12:44 PM


But what you're describing is far more likely in a quiet little backwater with a lot of time for dirt and sand and debris and fossils to settle out slowly than in the aftermath of a catastrophic world-scouring maelstrom.

Odd then that it isn't confined to a quiet little backwater but is found in some form all over the entire planet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-09-2019 12:44 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-09-2019 1:02 PM Faith has responded
 Message 160 by JonF, posted 07-09-2019 1:04 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15370
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 156 of 1255 (857579)
07-09-2019 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Faith
07-09-2019 12:40 PM


quote:

The other theory is what takes so much time, the aabsurd theory.

If you bothered to understand it instead if desperately trying to dismiss it maybe you would see that it isn’t absurd.

quote:

The sediments had to build up slowly in contant exposure to the elements...

As actually happens. There are places where deposition dominates over erosion today. It’s hardly absurd to suggest that was true in the past.

quote:

...and keep their straight flat form...

To the extent that they had it. But if you evenly sprinkle loose material over a surface, and then compress it, it would tend to be pretty flat.

quote:

...and fossils had to form in the same kind of very iffy conditions, an uncertain security of burial without compression, and subject to predators among other things...

Suggesting that unusual events never happen would be the true absurdity.

quote:

and again all without the straight flat form of their peculiarly identifiable sedimentary gravebed maintaining its amazingly flat straight surface

When you say “identifiable” you mean that environmental changes affect the material deposited. And you think that is absurd ?
I’ve already dealt with the flat surface.

quote:

PaulK keeps trying to claim this doesn't describe ALL the strata. Fine, but it certainly describes the whole stack in the Grand Canyon and most in many other place

And here is another case of you embarrassing yourself by being careless of the facts. My example - the Temple Butte Limestone - is one of the strata at the Grand Canyon.

Edited by Admin, : Fix next to last quoted portion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:40 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 413
Joined: 05-04-2019
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 157 of 1255 (857580)
07-09-2019 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
07-09-2019 12:42 PM


Zeus, Thor, Indra, etc. Why should different cultures all have a thunderbolt-throwing god?

Big floods are life-changing events, from Johnstown to the great Mississippi flood of 1927 to Katrina. They go back far into history: the Nile floods, the monsoons in south Asia, the tsunamis of the Pacific ring of fire, the Lake Geneva flood of the year 563, the Yellow River is known as "China's Sorrow" for the catastrophic floods that killed millions and scoured the countryside, changing the very landscape. Water is life and people live near water.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:42 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 3:36 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 158 of 1255 (857581)
07-09-2019 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Faith
07-09-2019 12:40 PM


I thlnk the enormous weight of something like three miles depth of strata would have forced the water out of the lower layers and hardened them quite rapid

Alas, measurements of how fast water moves in rocks or lithifying sediments show the opposite. The pores through which the water must move are squashed down to being infinitesimal and water just cannot move through them quickly.

You are also forgetting that lithification involves chemical reactions which are not noticeably sped up by pressure.

Your second paragraph is all argument from your personal and ignorance-based incredulity. We work with evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:40 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 3:40 PM JonF has responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 413
Joined: 05-04-2019
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 159 of 1255 (857582)
07-09-2019 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
07-09-2019 12:48 PM


Your use of the word "backwater" just shows how people are so often living near water!

So they would all have stories about a flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:48 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 4:01 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 160 of 1255 (857583)
07-09-2019 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
07-09-2019 12:48 PM


People live near water.

Which floods.

And would appear as a global flood to people with no idea of the extent of the Earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:48 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 1:29 PM JonF has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 161 of 1255 (857584)
07-09-2019 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by PaulK
07-09-2019 12:41 PM


Of course the reality is not at all ******. Even if we accept the characterisation of the strata as “slabs of rock” where else would buried remains end up ?

Why would they have to "end up" anywhere? Excuse me if I get a little gruesome here, but I've been reading and watching a lot of stuff about mmurder cases in which bodies are often disposed of in mountains and forests, and even if the victims are buried it's never deep enough to keep animals from digging them up and destroying them. If they are just on the surface they are destroyed by insects and microorganisms as well as animals. If they are found at all they are often found strewn all over the landscape and it doesn't take much time before there is nothing but bare bones, certainly not fossilized or in any condition to ever be fossilzed.

Burial is not a natural thing that happens to dead things. You need special circumstances, and even if buried they aren't going to get fossilized without being saturated in mineral-bearing water and compression helps too, all conditions that are very rare in normal circumstances. But they are all conditions that would have been amply provided by the Flood.

The remarkably uniform conditions in which we find all the strata of the geologic column miles deep, both the fossils and their stratified gravebeds. is really impossible to explain on the basis of time periods of millions of years and typical conditions of burial.

material that had become rock long ago ?

Nothing gets buried in rock. What are you talking about?

In material that hadn’t been deposited yet ?

What????

Obviously they will be buried by material being deposited at the time they were buried.

Yeah but as I said just getting buried at all is far from something to be expected.

Saying anything else would be truly ******.
Fossils are found in areas where the conditions are more likely to occur.

Oh for sure, but isn't it odd then that they occur so regularly and consistently in such uniform conditions that stacked one on top of another with such neat contact lines in so many cases and such very specific sorted out corpses, all stacked one on top of another miles deep?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by PaulK, posted 07-09-2019 12:41 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 07-09-2019 1:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 162 of 1255 (857585)
07-09-2019 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Sarah Bellum
07-09-2019 11:49 AM


Sometimes somebody does come along and overturn the established wisdom.
In this case the "established wisdom" was the legend of the great Flood.

Back in 1990, I wrote up an informal compilation of geological evidence along with a bit of history on CompuServe. Since I created my web site in part to repost my CompuServe articles, that one is also there: GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF AN ANCIENT EARTH -- I used <PRE> tags to keep the original formatting of the CompuServe material. My creation/evolution links page is at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/links.html.

Towards the end of the geology page, I briefly cover the history:

quote:
    In _Science Held Hostage:  What's Wrong with Creation Science AND
Evolutionism_, creationist Davis A. Young evaluates "scientific-creationist"
geology and presents four conclusions about it (pp 116-124):

1. Major distinctive scientific-creationist claims about geology betray
a glaring lack of familiarity with relevant professional literature.
2. The flood model entails a lack of external consistency with relevant
bodies of knowledge.
3. The flood model lacks internal coherence.
4. The flood model lacks predictive accuracy.

Another thing to remember is that Flood Geologists are not catastrophists.
Catastrophism was prevalent in the early 19th century as an opposing view to
uniformitarianism. Both camps agreed that the earth is very old and that the
strata were laid down over a very long time. Where they did disagree was over
the role of violent events in the earth's history; the catastrophists
maintained that only extremely violent events could account for the folding and
tilting of the earth's strata while the uniformitarianists maintained that
gradual sustained processes would have sufficed. Both groups avoided mixing
science and religion and would argue for "day-age" or gap theories if pressed
to reconcile geology with Genesis.
A third group, the Scriptural Geologists, or "diluvialists", was not so
reluctant. This group got their start from the 1820's work of William Buckland
and Adam Sedgwick in which they argued that river valleys and certain other
sedimentary deposits were the results of a recent worldwide flood. In a few
years, however, Buckland's own field work started undermining diluvialism and
then, with the publication of Lyell's _Principles of Geology_, both Buckland
and Sedgwick abandoned diluvialism.
But the Scriptural Geologists continued writing their views, which were
hardly distinguishable from modern Flood Geologists, from the 1820's into the
late 19th century. They were highly critical of catastrophists,
uniformitarians, and the very founders of diluvialism alike, and Buckland and
Sedgwick returned the favor with devastating rebuttals.
Then in the 1920's and 1930's, George McCready Price revived Scriptural
Geology and called it "catastrophism" even though he knew better: "The theory
of 'catastrophism' as held a hundred years ago, had no resemblance to the
theory here discussed, except in name." (_The Geological Ages Hoax_, George
McCready Price, 1931, Fleming H. Revell Co., pg 101)
Later in 1960, Henry Morris again popularized Scriptural Geology with _The
Genesis Flood_, for which he had apparently drawn most of his ideas from Price.
The main question now is whether Morris does not know that his stuff is not
catastrophism and that the true catastrophists of the 19th century had rejected
it, or whether he does know better but finds it politically expedient to avoid
admitting that his Flood Geology is traditionally known as Scriptural Geology.


So the first opponents of diluvialism were the diluvialists themselves who had gone out looking for geological evidence of Noah's Flood and not only could not find any such evidence, but also found evidence refuting that idea.

In other writings in which I try to figure out the creationist mindset, I constructed some classification categories for different types of creationists and what tends to happen to them. One category is the honest creationist who honestly believes creationist claims, so he naïvely uses them or studies more science to understand them better, etc, and quickly learns that they are false. That can lead to rejection of creationism (plus possibly some parts of religious beliefs tied to creationism) -- I understand that several members here are former YECs -- or transitioning into a dishonest creationist. I would submit that Sedgwick and Buckland were examples of honest creationists.

Share and enjoy!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-09-2019 11:49 AM Sarah Bellum has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 163 of 1255 (857586)
07-09-2019 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by JonF
07-09-2019 1:04 PM


Ppeople who "live near water" have no reason to treat it as something significant in itself, or even periodic local floods that they could easily escape. It would have to be something of a huge magnitude they couldn't escape except by being on a boat, which wouldn't be needed if it was just a local flood. There's be no reason to memorialize anything less. And they didn't need to understand the extent of the Flood beyond their own experience to have handed down stories of something so catastrophic and inescapable they had to preserve its memory. They clearly didn't understand much but they knew that water once covered everything around their ancestors who could only be saved on a boat.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by JonF, posted 07-09-2019 1:04 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by JonF, posted 07-09-2019 1:36 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 166 by ringo, posted 07-09-2019 1:42 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 174 by Coragyps, posted 07-09-2019 3:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 164 of 1255 (857589)
07-09-2019 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Faith
07-09-2019 1:29 PM


Lots of local floods require escape by boat.

They clearly didn't understand much but they knew that water once covered everything around them.

My point exactly. Water covering everything around them is several orders of magnitude short of water covering everything.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 1:29 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12620
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 165 of 1255 (857590)
07-09-2019 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Faith
07-07-2019 11:14 AM


Re: Losing message because of bracket poroblem
Bracket problem is, [ as they say, fixed.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 07-07-2019 11:14 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 1:43 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019