A citation for lithification not needing thousands of years? You need a citation showing that it does rather than that it's just the usual assumption of people who are guessing as usual. But hey if I find a lab experiment that makes my point I'll post it for you.
Factual support is needed either way, but you should already have seen my Message 228 showing that compression by itself is insufficient for cementation. Even 20 times greater pressure than a mile of sandstone couldn't produce any cementation.
But you should be using facts here in the science forums, not revelation. If the Flood really happened then the facts will support it.
I've never been sure what "the fountains of the deep" refers to, or "the windows of heaven" that were opened to allow the rain, but something dramatic happened that permanently changed the climate of the Earth.
What facts support a dramatic worldwide (I assume) event 4500 years ago? What facts support a permanent change in the Earth's climate at the same time?
As you predicted you received a number of replies to this message, and maybe it did feel like a "tidal wave of denunciations" to you, I don't know, but to me they ranged from detailed responses to your claims to dispassionate characterizations of how you argue your position to telling you that you need facts.
To me the most compelling thing that was said was that you need stronger science to overcome current science, but that you make no effort to do that.
If you can't see why it's absurd I can't explain it to you.
No. Not allowed. Data, facts, reasoning. Required.
Well, what I said is going to end up being true, either you get how it's absurd or you don't,...
Say I'm debating a Flat Earther and I tell him, "Your ideas are absurd, you either get it or you don't." Surely you must understand how inadequate an argument that is, especially given the mammoth amount of evidence for a spherical Earth.
Calling things names like "absurd" and "idiotic" and so forth is just insult and denigration. It's meaningless in science and not how you change scientific understandings. Is that how you think scientific differences should be settled, by determining who has the best mockery and insult skills? Can you imagine any scientist explaining that he changed his mind on something because someone called his views absurd?
If you have facts, evidence, data, whatever, for your position then you must present them and explain how they support your view. Facts derive from observations of the real world. Making up stories that don't align with the facts and are often contradicted by them is never going to work.
...so that asking me to defend the idea is just going to bring all Evo Hell down on my head,...
On the contrary, defending your position with facts would be applauded by everyone.
...but I'll make an effort to do the EvC thing, futile though I know it will be.
If by "EvC thing" you mean arguing from the facts, then it will only be futile to the extent you lack facts.
And yes I know there will be a chorus of wounded science-minded people who will respond about how how wrong I am and how insulting I'm being, and how the response I get is my own fault because i'm not meeting the requirements and so on and so forth, as well as a chorus of denunciations if I object to that chorus along with a denial that anything I'm saying about that or anything else could possibly be true although it patently is;...
What you say will be judged tentatively true according to how well it accords with the facts. The validity of your own views is not bolstered by calling other views "absurd" or "idiotic." That's mere playground name calling and has no place or constructive role within science.
In any case as usual it's all my own fault.
Yes, it's your fault, but so what? You can change. Start arguing from the facts. Stop using name calling as a device.
But hey, this is my destiny and I'm coming to accept it at least for now.
You've been very determined over a very long period about following a fact-free, ignorant, rude and temper-strewn course, but that doesn't have to be your future.
The Buddhist frame of reference is interesting as I've been following it recently: it's my karma and I can see that concept in both a Buddhist way and a Christian way. And I certainly hope that even at my age if I follow the Buddhist methods, which are remarkably like Christian methods though perhaps easier to identify and for that reason maybe easier to follow, I can change my karma before I die. What a relief that would be.
Why a relief? Because of issues at EvC? Or throughout your life?
And I probably won't do a very good job of saying why the standard interpretation of the geological column is absurd either.
If you can't articulate the facts and rationale behind why you think it's wrong, then why do you think it's wrong? I find that one common way I become convinced I'm wrong is by trying to convince someone else I'm right. It often isn't the other guy's arguments that convince me, but my own inability to construct compelling arguments. If what I write doesn't even seem convincing to me, how is it going to be convincing to anyone else? At that point I usually change my mind.
It's absurd 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.
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 absurd.
The "Eonian" period?
Someone else already explained how it is far messier than this, but to a first approximation your description is fine. Why is it absurd?
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.
If it's wrong then its collapse and replacement with better science would be a good thing. What facts say it is wrong? Usually your assertions of why it is wrong reflect an incredibly poor understanding of how simple basic processes work, for example sedimentation and erosion.
This edifice which is apparently so necessary to the wellbeing of everybody at EvC at the very least.
I think I speak for everyone here when I say that what we hold most dear is knowledge of the facts and how to construct them into meaningful models of the natural world. That's where our egos lie, not with any one particular view. We accept the views of biology and geology because the facts we know are consistent with the frameworks of understanding built around them (theory). If the facts change or someone comes up with better theory explaining those facts then we'll change in an instant.
Here's an example. Before the discovery of dark energy (which is just a label for a phenomenon we observe but can't explain) everyone believed that the expansion of the universe was slowing. Then observational evidence by two independent teams discovered that the expansion was accelerating. That was that, and everyone stopped believing in a slowing expansion.
The same thing would happen with evolution and the Flood. Everyone would stop believing in evolution and start believing in the Flood were caches of mammal fossils discovered in pre-Cambrian layers all around the world, and if radiometric dating was discovered to be flawed and off by a factor of around 10 million, and if new DNA analysis techniques revealed that life was actually divided into immutable kinds, and if we discovered that we'd gotten our allele analysis wrong and that no unclean life has more than 4 alleles per gene and no clean life has more than 28 alleles.
Which is why it can't be questioned and why simply suggesting it will be met with lengthy discourses on all the OTHER "scientific reasons" for the validity of the fossil record and the ToE which I encounter all the time from RAZD and PaulK and JonF in particular. while totally dismissing as well as denouncing the point I'm making here.
So far your only point is that it's "absurd," which isn't a point at all. And you've admitted to being unable to articulate why the views of science are wrong. Find facts, construct them into a compelling and consistent interpretation, then describe it all here.
You're kidding. It doesn't matter if I do that or not.
Sure it matters whether you present "data, evidence, and reasoning." It matters a lot. If you have facts and a strong rationale behind the interpretation of those facts that coheres with the rest of science (e.g., doesn't break any scientific laws or contradict any well established scientific theories), then you are likely to prevail in any discussion.
The key word here is "rationale," which implies rational, which implies that you understand how the world works. For me there are a few excellent examples where you demonstrate your lack of understanding of how the world works. One is that a worldwide flood would be different in character from a normal flood, though you're unable to explain why that would be or how you know that this is so. Another is that the Supergroup layers tilted while deeply buried without affecting the overlying layers. Another is that mutation cannot have any effect beyond what existing alleles already do. Another is that erosion can only make a landscape more irregular rather than smoothing it out.
I assume you're still strongly convinced that you're right about all these, but you must sincerely consider the possibility that your approach to discussion is designed to protect and maintain your views no matter what the challenge, rather than to promote understanding, both yours and everyone else's. Your history is that as people start narrowing in on the details of how they think you are wrong that you become vague, insist on your own terminology, argue over even the most obvious things, start replying with meaningless one-liners, claim you've been insulted, instigate fights, stop replying, disappear, change the subject, reset discussion to square one, etc. Discussion with you often ends with a crescendo and then an abrupt break. Resolution rarely occurs.
So to change your karma, pick the facts that support their view, carefully organize your arguments for how they support your view, present your facts and arguments in a message, then absorb the feedback and forthrightly address it. If you find yourself using words like "absurd" and "idiotic" then take that as a strong indication that you've abandoned the rational approach.
If I weren't trying so hard to practice spiritual principles I'd want to strange you all. Well I DO want to strangle you all. But I know it wouldn't accomplish anything and would just hurt me so hooray hooray I don't even have to THlNK that's what I want to do.
Actually it's because you all so aggressively always insist on misrepresenting me just as you are doing now.
I'm pretty sure you know that, you just continue to delight in aggressively misrepresenting me, 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. I wonder what you would have said. I thlnk you'd probably just have repeated your own opinion. 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 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.
Ah, come on. Now you're not even trying. These should never have been posted, or at least only posted to a Private Musings thread. It doesn't belong in a flood thread in the science forums. In this thread at least, stop talking about your feelings and yourself and anyone else and start focusing on the topic.
That's exactly what I meant by deserving it. And I am practicing stopping my misdeeds. Interestingly only a few of those that get labeled my misdeeds here are really my misdeeds. And there are extremely few if any of them on this thread.
Again, I strongly suggest you stop talking about yourself and making claims about yourself. A one or two day hiatus from malfeasance and misbehavior is hardly meaningful in the face of an 18-year history, and you don't even have that. Just a few short hours ago you were telling PaulK how you wanted to strangle him.
Keeping your focus on the topic will set you free and change your karma. After all this time no one expects you to agree with biology and geology, but it is not only reasonable but obligatory that you understand them. You can't discuss what you don't understand.
Re: The Vexed Problem for Creationists of Providing Evidence
I'm not up on the thinking about how there was rain before the Flood, I've understood the opening of the windows of heaven to refer to the first rain.
The actual question was about what scientific evidence you're looking at that tells you there was no rain until the flood.
I'm not sure it matters much since the forty days and nights of rain that began the Flood was far in excess of any other before or after, but it's something to think about.
What scientific evidence are you looking at that tells you that it rained for forty days and nights sometime 4500 years ago? Does the evidence indicate whether the rain was continuous across the entire globe for that period, or did it start and stop everywhere or in some places?
I've assumed there is no evidence that could be pointed to for the climate differences before and after the Flood, but I'd love to think there is.
In a scientific context, if there is no evidence for pre/post Flood climate changes, what makes you think there was any such change?
There was already a big change at the Fall when Adam and Eve were cast out into a world changed from lush abundance to requiring hard labor to grow food and cope with thorns and thistles that apparently hadn't existed before.
What scientific evidence exists that there was a "Fall", that Adam and Eve were real people, or that the world's climate changed from lush to desolate 6000 years ago?
That may be the time of the biggest change but none of this is crystal clear from scripture as far as I know.
This is a science thread. A significant number of recent posts have stressed the need for facts. Scripture isn't relevant. Where are your facts?
But of course I think the evidence for the Flood itself is enormous and obvious wherever one looks around the Earth,...
When will you begin describing this evidence?
...including the strata...
How are geologic strata evidence for a global flood?
...and a general impression of a wrecked environment,...
This sounds completely subjective, but if you have any evidence for how the existing environment is "wrecked" then please present it. Human environmental damage since the Industrial Revolution doesn't count.
...and 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.
As always you claim to have presented evidence when you have not.
I can point to thistles and thorns and the hard work of growing food,...
What do thistles and thorns have to do with making farming into hard work? Seems like a truly minor, minor issue. I have a large yard perimeter - taking care of the thorn bushes that sprout up every spring takes maybe 15 minutes a year.
...but that won't show a change, it will only be interpreted as the way it's always been.
In the absence of evidence, how do you know such a change ever happened. Scientifically.
What evidence could there be of a former lush environment since it's all been destroyed?
Things that happen leave evidence behind. Find that evidence.
Also, why do you call it a "former lush environment." We live in the woods, here's a shot out my family room window. Is this not lush enough for you:
Some parts of the world are lush all of the year, some part of the year, and some are not lush at all. Perhaps you mean to say that less of the world is lush today than preFlood? But whatever you mean, what facts are you basing it on?
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.
We already know your views are based upon your trust in scripture, but what scientific support do you have for these views?
It would be nice if those objecting to my arguments would at least refrain from assuming they understand my motivations, such as that I
...thlnk it absurd because it doesnâ€™t fit your bronze age mythology.
In this context "bronze age mythology" is just a synonym for the Bible, and isn't it true that you believe the scientific view absurd because it is different from what you think the Bible says? What AZPaul3 says seems just a simple statement of your position.
Even if you all think my views are indefensible, does it really help to assume I didn't come by them honestly?
AZPaul3 didn't question your honesty. He said the way you discuss science topics is crazy because you offer "inane ad hoc fantasy explanations" and seem to think that just voicing them lends them validity despite that they're opposed by a mountain of actual facts that you mostly ignore.
He also said something very important, something I noted previously: The way to overcome current science is with stronger science.
That is, you don't overcome millions of facts woven into a broad and consistent fabric by ignoring them or by appealing to religious scripture or by concocting wild ideas uninformed by practical knowledge. You overcome them with more and better facts, or by placing existing facts into a stronger framework of understanding, or through some combination.
In this case the word I use is inherently objectionable...
You mean "absurd?" What is it about name calling in a science discussion that you think has any value?
The standard explanation of the geo column with its fossils violates any reasonable physical explanation, and I've said why many times: straight strata often of a single more-or-less single uniform sediment,...
What evidence do you have that all strata are straight and uniform, and once you've found some, how do you square it with all the evidence people have provided over the years that that's not true of all strata. There's great variety, from straight to crooked, from uniform to highly nonuniform. A granite rock you might see on a hike might look like it's uniform on the surface, but if you cut it flat and polish it up it might look something like this:
...each assigned to a particular time period of millions of years, is far from the usual way things happen in reality: ...
What evidence is telling you that the passage of millions of years doesn't happen in reality?
...when animals die they don't normally get buried at all but here there are all these neat burial arrangements,...
You are correct that the vast majority of life does not get fossilized, but what evidence do you have of "all these neat burial arrangements."
...neat and straight and flat, originally miles deep;...
I think you must have placed this part here due to an editing error, because it appears to be about strata in the middle of a comment about fossilization. Anyway, what is it that you think was originally miles deep?
...conditions for fossilization don't happen the way the explanation assumes either,...
What evidence says that fossilization happens differently than science thinks, and what is the evidence for how it does actually happen?
It's offensive, yes,...
There's nothing offensive in what you say. What's frequently offensive is the behaviors you employ that often act as barriers to constructive discussion that would allow progress so that we wouldn't be where we are now, rehashing the same issues as years ago.
...but not false.
You haven't provided any positive evidence and likely don't have any. What you do actually do is look at the evidence of science and make up fantastical impossible stories that could only be believed in the absence of knowledge of how basic physical processes actually work.
I do understand why you have to smash any claim I might have to reasonable thought of course,...
I continue to encourage you to stop making claims about yourself, because people have the right to rebuttal if you're going to do that. Leave yourself out of the discussion. The fact is that you have become unreasonable and irrational and angry and spiteful and hateful so many countless times that you long ago lost any right to claim you're engaging in reasonable thought.
In any case, it's got nothing to do with my Christian belief, it's entirely my judgment from observation.
Again, don't do this, but since you have, this is an obvious falsehood. You have said many times that it was after you became a Christian and accepted its teachings that you came to understand that evolution and any congruent science must be false.
The glib dismissiveness of so many posts on this subject doesn't invite response.
Don't put the way people react to your bad behavior off on them. This is just more bad behavior.
Find the facts that support your views, present them, discuss them. Leave yourself out of it.
Re: What if all the physical evidence was destroyed?
Have I missed it or has anyone addressed the simple problem of how there can be evidence of anything that existed before the Flood simply because all the evidence has been destroyed?
What evidence tells you there is no geological evidence older than 4500 years?
I don't accept the dating claims...
Do you trust radiocarbon dating for dating Bible related stuff like scrolls, fragments, archeological sites, etc? If you don't then how do you explain the excellent concordance between history (including Bible history) and radiocarbon dates? And if you do then how do you explain, say, Rujm el-Hiri, which dates back to before the Flood?
...that simply eradicate the whole problem so the problem stands and I don't see how there could be any evidence of such a change.
And yet the evidence exists. You can say it doesn't, but there it is anyway.
LOTS of changes too, both biological and geological, from longevity, and originally immortality to a decreased degree of health and strength by comparison, a lush environment to a world where there are thistles and thorns and hard work required, and lots of deserts and other uninhabitable places and so on and so forth.
You made the "thistles and thorns" argument earlier in Message 240, and I responded in Message 263, but you skipped right over it, forcing me to repeat myself. When you wonder why it feels to you like people lose patience with you so quickly for what seems little or no reason think back to this and all the other frustrating behaviors that people have described to you recently. That's why.
So repeating myself, what do thistles and thorns have to do with making farming into hard work? Seems like a truly minor, minor issue. I have a large yard perimeter - taking care of the thorn bushes that sprout up every spring takes maybe 15 minutes a year.
What evidence do you have that there was ever immortality or that human lifespans ever extended into the hundreds of years?
What is your evidence that the environment was more lush with no deserts or uninhabitable places before the Flood?
Some of the changes probably started at the Fall...
What is your evidence that there was ever a "Fall"?
...but since the Flood wiped out that whole world...
What is your evidence that the Flood wiped out "that whole world." What about the radiometric dating that accurately dates the Dead Sea Scrolls and artifacts from Herod's time and Hezekiah's time David's time and Solomon's time, but also dates sites that predate the flood?
...we certainly aren't going to be able to find evidence of that early period,...
What about all the evidence that does exist from "that early period"?
...but I also don't see how we'd be able to find evidence of ANYTHING that existed before the Flood.
There are mountains of evidence from before the "Flood".
But of course I believe the "fossil record" is the main evidence for all that.
How is the fossil record evidence that everything preFlood is gone?
It's really depressing to be so misunderstood, but oh well, I guess I deserve it.
You have no valid complaint about being misunderstood. You're understood very well. You're reacting this way because people are not buying into your fantasies and fabricated protests.
AZPaul3 did not accuse you of dishonesty, but you did go on to again, against frequent advice not to, say things about yourself that everyone recognizes are not true. By your own frequently expressed words you reject evolution based upon your belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, not upon your "judgment from observation." You've often said that where your interpretation of the Bible and facts disagree that you go with the Bible. Those are not the words of someone who gives facts much credence.