quote: All I know is that things were different beforfe the Flood...
You donâ€™t know any such thing. For all you know most of it is just how they viewed the world. Which is far more likely.
quote: But whatever it means it's God's revelation and the later Bible writers believed that and treated it all as God's truth, including Jesus
So you assume. But I very much doubt that you can show that. We know that the authors of Luke and Matthew didnâ€™t take that attitude with Mark, for just one example.
quote: The Flood changed the climate, ppeople lived much much longer before than after and so on.
The Bible doesnâ€™t say anything about the climate changing. It doesnâ€™t even imply it. Thatâ€™s just something creationists made up. And you only assume that the ages are literally true - there is no reason they have to be.
quote: Well, what I said is going to end up being true, either you get how it's aabsurd or you don't,
quote: ...so that asking me to defend the idea is just going to bring all Eevo Hell down on my head, but I'll make an effort to do the EvC thing, futile though I know it will be.
Well you could make the effort to actually understand instead of inviting criticism by posting ill-informed nonsense in defence of an obvious falsehood.
quote: And I probably won't do a very good job of saying why the standard interpretation of the geological column is aabsurd either
Maybe you should consider the fact that criticism is an essential part of science and genuinely absurd ideas donâ€™t last.
quote: It's aabsurd just to look at it. Which can be seen most clearly in the Grand Canyon which exposes the whole column from the Great Unconformity, or at least the Tapeats sandstone, through the Permian time period or Kaibab limestone.
If it stops in the Permian itâ€™s hardly the whole (notional) column, is it ?
quote: There it is: the idea that time periods (Cambrian, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Eonian, etc) get expressed in the physical form of discreet separate layers of lithified sediments, often very specific sediments such as sandstone or limestone or shale and so on, that's what's aabsurd.
This is your usual misunderstanding. The association of the rocks with the time periods is simply due to the time when the original sediment was deposited. That obviously is not absurd.
The idea that the formations directly correspond to time periods is just wrong. In the Grand Canyon the Esplanade Sandstone, the Hermit Formation, the Coconino Sandstone and the Toroweap Formation - as well as the Kaibab Limestone - were all deposited in the Permian.
As for â€œoften very specific sedimentsâ€ there is no real correlation between periods and the types of sediment (the chalk beds of the Cretaceous are a bit of an exception but other sediments were deposited then, too). Strata are often impure and formations often include other types of rock. The Temple Butte formation is an example of that - and hardly unusual.
It is not even really true that the strata definitively mark the boundaries between periods - even in the case of continuous deposition.
The absurdity seems to be more in your erroneous ideas than in the reality.
quote: This linking of the time periods with the sedimentary rocks of the geological column is so completely and uncritically accepted (yes it is), so taken for granted, and so intimately connected to the Fossil Record which is a sacred tenet of the Theory of Evolution, if it is seriously questioned the whole edifice will not only be shaken but will probably collapse
As Christianity would collapse if the existence of Jesus as a historical person were seriously questioned ? But the evidence we have for the dating of the rocks - which is all you are really talking about - is rather stronger. But that is an advantage of science over history.
quote: This edifice which is apparently so necessary to the wellbeing of everybody at EvC at the very least.
Hardly. Really, do you expect people to change their minds just on your say-so ? When your objections are largely based on an ignorance that can only be wilful ?
quote: I don't have a martyr complex at all. Sometimes facts are just facts, there's no emotion attached to them.
Do we need to quote your ridiculous complaints about how youâ€™re so hard done by ? Itâ€™s obviously emotional and obviously not factual.
quote: I'd like to have a solution to this endless problem but I don't so for right now it is what it is.
Grow a thicker skin so you can take criticism. Stop working so hard to earn criticism. Get the facts right, use good reasoning, donâ€™t make up ridiculous nonsense. There is no other sensible solution.
quote: Actually it's because you all so aggressively always insist on misrepresenting me just as you are doing now.
I see more aggressive misrepresentation coming from you than heading your way.
quote: I'm pretty sure you know that, you just continue to delight in aggressively misrepresenting me,
No. I do not intentionally misrepresent you at all.
quote:...so perhaps instead of telling you why I want to strangle you I should have asked if you KNOW why I want to strangle you --according to ME and not according to YOU
Well no. I do know what I have done and I know you want to strangle me. And I do know that you object very strongly to people being unconvinced by your nonsense and saying so. Youâ€™ve complained about it often enough. Itâ€™s not hard to put things together.
quote: Or MAYBE you'd have said something close to my reason why but then you'd immediately take it back and repeat your misrepresentation about how I'm just so unfair because I want to strangle you because you aren't convinced by my nonnsense and are willing to say so. (which of course DOESN'T "say a lot" about me at all, which is more reason why I want to strangle you, but really does say a lot about you.)
But it isnâ€™t likely, is it ? I mean youâ€™ll probably complain about imaginary persecution and imagined offences.
quote: But again this is just my karma, which of course I deserve, and again although I wish I had a solution I don't but maybe I will eventually.
Of course. You post nonsense and then get angry that people donâ€™t agree with it and point out that itâ€™s nonsense. Weâ€™ve seen that. The solutions are obvious. Too bad you canâ€™t see them.
Re: The Vexed Problem for Creationists of Providing Evidence
quote: But of course I thlnk the evidence for the Flood itself is enormous and obvious wherever one looks around the Earth, including the strata and a general impression of a wrecked environment...
And you are completely wrong. The way to knowledge is to understand, not to make up excuses to pretend that Faith is right.
You look at these things very superficially and assume that the Flood did them, and that all the tectonic movement only started after the strata were all in place. But a deeper look - even a slightly deeper one - shoes that that is all wrong. You make up excuses to try to get around much of the evidence, you ignore large parts of it, and even that little you are willing to accept pays no part in your conclusion.
And that really is obvious. So how can you really believe that you have massive evidence ? Itâ€™s been shown that all the things you point to cannot be reasonably attributed to the Flood, that they point more to an ancient Earth, without any world-wide Flood. That is why geology takes that view. And that is why you donâ€™t have massive evidence.
quote: ...if that evidence isn't apparent to anyone else after all my arguments there's little hope in my mind that evidence for a climate difference would be apparent either.
You havenâ€™t really made much of an argument though. You have never produced evidence supporting the bizarre excuses you have invented to deny the evidence against you. You have tried to pretend that the evidence is weaker than it is to try to put your own opinions on a level with science - often making false claims, but never really dealing with the issues. But you have never made a case that stands up.
Donâ€™t blame us for your failure to find real evidence or your inability to defend your claims. Have the honesty to admit that you donâ€™t have a case that deserves to be believed.
quote: If I'm using God's word as the basis for my understanding of the age of the Earth, which is possible to calculate from the various time clues given throughout, starting with the pre-Flood patriarchs, then I'm not worried about the consequences of being wrong. I'd worry a lot more if I denied those calculations.
And if you are putting falsehoods in Godâ€™s mouth and demanding others believe them - and sinning in the name of doing so - shouldnâ€™t you be worried about that ? And there is a pretty good case that you are doing exactly that.
quote: I'm also convinced of the (word Percy won't let me use) of the interpretation of the geological column in terms of the ToE. I know the word sounds especially (another word Percy won't let me use) but I haven't come up with another one yet. Any ideas?
Since you obviously refuse to even understand the standard interpretation of the geological column, and the â€œabsurdityâ€ is in your misunderstanding the best idea would be for you to stop being so convinced of your ignorant opinions and get the facts right.
quote: Even if you all thlnk my views are indefensible, does it really help to assume I didn't come by them honestly? That is, I observe the situation and arrive at my view of it
It is obvious that you are extremely prejudiced in favour of the Flood. And your main evidence isnâ€™t even anything youâ€™ve really observed (nor has anyone). Indeed, the fact that you dismiss far stronger evidence out of hand only illustrates the degree of bias.
quote: But the idea should be pretty clear: the standard explanation of the geo column with its fossils violates any reasonable physical explanation, and I've said why many times:
And you are not only wrong, you have no problem entertaining ideas which do violate any reasonable physical explanation, like your idea that the Flood somehow sorted the fossil record.
quote: straight strata often of a single more-or-less single uniform rsediment, each assigned to a particular time period of millions of years, is far from the usual way things happen in reality
First, you exaggerate the straightness and the uniformity - and ignore the fact that you are talking about geological formations which contain many strata . Second, you have no understanding of the usual way things happen in reality. Such as your idea that regions of net deposition are barren wastelands.
quote: reality: when animals die they don't normally get buried at all but here there are all these neat burial arrangements, neat and straight and flat, originally miles deep;
The idea of â€œneat burial arrangementsâ€ seems to be something you made up. And of course you donâ€™t consider environmental conditions or even the fact that fossilisation is not the normal outcome.
quote: conditions for fossilization don't happen the way the explanation assumes either, and so on
Please explain how you know all the scientific research into fossilisation is wrong.
quote: It's *********, yes, but not false. I do understand why you have to smash any claim I might have to reasonable ******* of course, to avoid the ********* possibility. In any case, it's got nothing to do with my Christian belief, it's entirely my judgment from observation
Obviously it isnâ€™t. Indeed, as you once admitted your religious dogma compels you to believe that there must be evidence for the Flood. So when you try and force the evidence into the Flood story it is quite clear what is going on. The observed evidence is overwhelming. There is no desire to smash your claims, it is just that they are obviously untrue.
quote: The glib dismissiveness of so many posts on this subject doesn't invite response.
And yet you seem to prefer to answer those, rather than posts which raise serious points.
quote: No, but that isn't the particular topic I'm addressing here. I'm merely talking about how I came to my view of the geological column by thlnking about it without any Biblical input, and that really is true.
That is not very plausible. You just happen to reject the views of all the experts, without any serious consideration of the evidence and just happen to come up with the exact conclusion you say that you have to reach if your Biblical beliefs are true.
I admit that your â€œexplanationâ€ makes you look bad, but it would hardly be the first time you made yourself look bad to maintain a pretence.
quote: Yes I believe in the Flood because the Bible tells me there was a Flood, and I see that standard science rejects it so I'm looking at the facts myself.
But you obviously didnâ€™t look at a lot of the facts before jumping to the Flood conclusion and you maintain it despite those facts.
quote: But when I address a particular geological or biological example I'm just looking at that example, I'm not trying to make it fit the Bible. I really ****** I'm coming up with independent observations that support the Flood without imposing the Flood on the observations.
And yet your views on the age of the Earth are derived by adding up the ages of the Patriarch. Your â€œindependent observationsâ€ arenâ€™t really even observations. You try and force-fit the evidence to your beliefs even when it really doesnâ€™t fit.
quote: There are areas of science I put in the column in favor of the ToE and Old Earth because I can't answer them, such as tree rings and ice cores and dating methods. I am trying not to fudge them to make them fit the Flood although I may come up with an hypothesis toward that interpretation, but I really am trying to keep my observations as free of that kind of thing as I can. I can't yet explain the tree rings and dating methods, and a lot of other stuff, but as far as the standard view of the geological column goes I thoght about it and concluded it is impossible.
And yet you donâ€™t even understand the mainstream view - indeed, your ideas about it look more like a desperate attempt to find excuses to reject it. In fact some of the ideas you have put forward certainly fall into that category.
And you have certainly tried to fudge all the evidence of erosion between strata and of tectonic events while the geological column was forming and - of course - the order of the fossil record.
quote: Well you often don't. I have a bad habit of saying "never" when I'm only referring to recent posts, but I'll try to stop that.
Youâ€™ll even say â€œneverâ€ when the post you are replying to lists lines of evidence you refuse to address. Eg Message 627
quote: I sometimes/often encounter posts that are just denunciations of my lack of scientific evidence without giving any specific evidence on the current topics. I'm denounced for stuff I don't remember saying that isn't identified, just denounced. There's nothing to address, I have to ignore it.
And when evidence of your behaviour is produced you still ignore it.
Your refusal to admit to what you are doing hardly makes you any more endearing. Indeed your whole attitude seems to be that people who dare to tell the truth about you deserve to be smeared.
And having to deny or explain away the vast majority of the evidence to do it.
quote: I'm trying to honestly look at the evidence independently of my preconceptions.
I canâ€™t say that you are even trying to look at the evidence. Your main evidence is your ideas about the strata - and those are based on a very superficial view.
quote: I'm trying to prove the ToE wrong so if I look at that evidence it's to try to prove it wrong.
Your main argument against evolution is purely theoretical and ignores the evidence. You havenâ€™t even tried to gather the evidence youâ€™d need.
quote: But I'm trying to do it honestly, with observations that really DO prove it wrong.
But your main argument lacks any real observations. And you spend most of your time trying to deny observations, even to the point of denying that obvious mutations are mutations. Eg Message 117
quote: I can't address ALL the evidence because I don't understand ALL the evidence, I can only address what I believe I understand and try to make a case for it.
It seems that the order of the fossil record is easy enough to understand. Yet you have called it an â€œillusionâ€ and more recently claimed that the Flood somehow sorted the fossils despite the obvious problems of such a claim.
quote: Of course I have an agenda. I'm not a scientist. I'm specifically looking for evidence for the Flood and against the ToE but I thlnk there really IS such evidence and I'm trying to show it.
And there is your bias in action. Me, Iâ€™m not a scientist but I care about the truth. And there is no real evidence for the Flood, and thatâ€™s a fact. See The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology and the linked pdf for a strong case.
quote: I'm saying that the enormous abundance of fossils that we find in the geological column, even in any particular stratum, far exceeds what we should expect, and although it's acknowledge that fossilization is rare it is NOT acknowledged that it is way too rare to explain the abundance that actually exists. No I can't give statistics but as usual I would thlnk it intuitively obvious, and if statistics are necessary it will have to wait.
Itâ€™s not at all obvious. Thatâ€™s just your bias speaking. Yes, actual statistics would be needed. That should be obvious if you were actually interested in honestly examining the evidence.
Indeed, I would say that you fail to appreciate the magnitude of the time available and the population numbers involved.
Just as an illustration, 1 in a billion is rare, but if 1 in a billion people ended up as fossils 7 or more people alive today would end up as fossils. Imagine that over a timescale of millions of years.
quote: But see, now, to my mind this is just a distraction from my very simple point, that if you **** about the simple facts of the geological column as I've described them, the separate sediments so neatly and straightly and flatly stacked miles deep, you should have to admit that the standard interpretation is ********, which means scientifically impossible.
Aside from the fact that they arenâ€™t as neat as you assume, donâ€™t the sequences produced by transgression and regression provide a neat refutation? Arenâ€™t they clearly possible and actually found ?
quote: Throwing a whole bunch of OTHER stuff at me and demanding that I explain it all before you'll even consider this simple fact is only a distraction.
I.e. you donâ€™t want us to look at other highly relevant evidence until we agree with your opinion.
What is more you actually asked Percy to give examples of facts you were ignoring.
quote: They are ALL different from modern forms, and what can I do but guess and you ***** my guesses, but that's really all the whole fossil record interpretation is, a guess because it can't be proved, it's just human beings thlnking how much it sure enough looks *******1 they go from simple to complex and golly gosh doesn't that suggest evolving from one time period to another?
Trying to attack an opposing view with falsehood and misrepresentation is hardly dealing honestly with the evidence.
quote: The whole "fossil record" is a record of the more ancient forms of llfe that llved before the Flood, even the more modern ones in the upper strata. My guess would be that the deeper you go the more we see forms that are now extinct, totally annihilated in the Flood, while the "modern" forms are more **********2 those that got saved on the ark and spread out on the Earth afterward. Yes this needs more **** through but I **** it's a good start.
That makes no sense. If the Flood created the fossil record then every fossil must be a pre-Flood life form. But, if you are arguing that a substantial part of the fossil record is post-Flood - and created in only a few thousand years at most (more likely a few hundred) then you would contradict your whole argument against the mainstream view.
Another case where you make up excuses without thinking it through.
quote: Wasn't RAZD's ananlysis of the Grand Canyon through Walther's Law good enough?
That isnâ€™t really about Waltherâ€™s Law - and you obviously donâ€™t accept it anyway.
quote: To my mind it's evidence that rising sea water DOES sort the same sediments we find in the geological column. I can also point to river deltas where sediments are similarly sorted on a smaller scale. And along the edges of the continents too for that matter.
In other words you can see evidence refuting your claims that only the Flood could produce the strata as they are actually seen.
quote: Both are true, edge. My whole agenda, including the timing, comes from the Bible, and I thlnk I've said before that science does not judge the Bible, the Bible judges science.
Which in practice means that you put your interpretation of the Bible ahead of science.
quote: It's also true that I put the Bible aside when I thlnk about the physical and biological facts, such as the geological column
That doesnâ€™t seem to be the case. It looks far more like you take a cursory look at the facts in the hope of finding something to prop up your beliefs.
Certainly you donâ€™t look at the evidence in anything like enough depth to produce decent arguments, let alone a coherent view that actually fits the evidence. Thatâ€™s why you have no real case for the Flood, just biased opinions that you call â€œobviousâ€.