Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 286 of 2370 (857857)
07-12-2019 6:23 AM


"dinosaurs" after the Flood?
I don't want to start a digression on this thread but thlnking about how the peoples spread out after the Flood got me thlnking about cave men in Europe (are cave people also found elsewhere?) and cave paintings and I wondered if any of them depict anything llke a dinosaur? I know dragons are memorialized here and there, which are probably related to dinosaurs, even in European contexts, but I guess especially in Asia? Anybody up on all this?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 288 of 2370 (857859)
07-12-2019 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Pollux
07-12-2019 6:35 AM


Re: Where is the Flood layer(s)
Yeah but I've already dealt with all that in the past and I'm not up to repeating it at the moment, maybe if I get a second wind. There is nothing about any of that I consider to be a problem for the Flood but it would take more concentration than I have at the moment to get into it. I hope I'll be up to trying later. Could you repost the URL so I'll be reminded?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Pollux, posted 07-12-2019 6:35 AM Pollux has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Percy, posted 07-12-2019 12:17 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 289 of 2370 (857862)
07-12-2019 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Percy
07-11-2019 6:31 PM


Re: Aabsurdity
In this context "bronze age mythology" is just a synonym for the Bible,
Of course.
...and isn't it true that you believe the scientific view absurd because it is different from what you absurd686 the Bible says?
No. The Bible leads me to ponder all these things in its light but it doesn't dictate my particular understanding of any of it. I had to ponder the geological column for some time before I began to see it in the terms that I started to call "absurd097." Believe me I didn't see most of the stuff I write about now until I spent quite a bit of time pondering it all -- without any reference whatever to the Bible.
"Coming by them honestly" means my judgments are not being dictated by the Bible, but really are the fruit of my observation independent of the Bible, which has nothing to say about the geological column anyway.
What AZPaul3 says seems just a simple statement of your position.
See above. I do get annoyed by terminology llke "bronze age myth" but believe me I am trying very hard to overcome my emotional reactions these days.
Even if you all Absurd938 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 layers20 because you offer "inane ad hoc layers53 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.
Well, this is why I should probably try to get off EvC though that seems to be impossible for me. I think I've addressed the relevant facts before and that what I'm saying should be intuitively obvious if someone just contemplates it. The facts are what: the fossils occur in a particular order that suggests evolution. You dig out the fossils and that's what they suggest to you. Far as I know nobody even addresses the fact that they are buried in these separate identifiable think of sediment that are often, for instance in Grand Canyon diagrams, presented as representing the time periods from Cambrian on up. I've never seen that addressed as a peculiar thing, have you? But when I was think hard about the physical facts of the geological column that fact struck me as "absurd142," and I haven't had another word for it. So what am I to say? How can I turn that observation into a scientific observation? I can't even come up with another word for it. So I work with what I've got: I do my best to say why it's like83 that time periods should be represented by separate like059 of flat straight identifiable kinds of sediments. And that animals even across millions of years manage to die in such a way as to get buried, first, which is very rare as I've been pointing out lately, and fossilized, which is also very rare which I've pointed out many times in the past, and to me this is a lot of simple facts that should make my point. I have no idea how I could even get more "scientific" about these things.
He also said something very important, something I noted previously: The way to overcome current science is with stronger science.
Very nice statement. Can't for the llfe of me figure out how to apply it to this subject. What does it mean to you? What would be 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.
OK, what facts am I ignoring that I need to address? As I said above, I'm not aware of any scientific discussion of the fact of the separate identifiable sediments as a really unlikely way for geological history and all the various time periods to have unfolded. Or the fact of their flatness and straightness, which I'll get to farther down where you bring it up. And again I can't think of a scientific way of talking about these things either. "like64" is the best I can do.
You overcome them with more and better facts, or by placing existing facts into a stronger framework of understanding, or through some combination.
Far as I know this is not possible with the current subject and all it says to me is that you don't want me to talk about it all because it's layers310 to scientists and so on.
In this case the word I use is inherently objectionable...
You mean "like105?" What is it about name calling in a science discussion that you offensive6 has any value?
See above. I can't find a scientific way of talking about this. I've even asked if someone could suggest such a term and nobody has.
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,
How about Steno's law about original horizontality or however he said that?
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.
Again, original horizontality. Most strata are found in a damaged, distorted, twisted, broken condition. That doesn't change their original horizontality.
There's great variety, from straight to crooked, from uniform to highly nonuniform.
Yes I guess I have to mention that I know the strata are not PERFECTLY straight and uniform, that they taper out to nothing in many cases if you follow them to their end. But that doesn't change the basic principle and really says nothing of importance about this subject.
A granite rock you might see on a hike might look layer421 it's uniform on the surface, but if you cut it flat and polish it up it might look something crazy2 this:
I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you talking about a large slab of granite, a fantasy7 in the geo column, or something else? Of course it's mottled think that, granite always is, but as it is laid down in the geological column it is laid down like310 all the other life421, flat and straight.
Need a break. Back soon God willing.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Percy, posted 07-11-2019 6:31 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by edge, posted 07-12-2019 9:24 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 299 by Percy, posted 07-12-2019 5:39 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 293 of 2370 (857868)
07-12-2019 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by AZPaul3
07-11-2019 6:00 PM


Re: Aabsurdity
Didn't mean to depress you.
What was misunderstood?
Thank you for caring. Maybe what I meant will become clearer farther down the thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by AZPaul3, posted 07-11-2019 6:00 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 303 of 2370 (857954)
07-14-2019 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Percy
07-12-2019 5:39 PM


Re: Aabsurdity
Going from last post to first:
...and isn't it true that you believe the scientific view annoyed83 because it is different from what you annoyed7 the Bible says?
No. The Bible leads me to ponder all these things in its light but it doesn't dictate my particular understanding of any of it.
Now you're just dissembling. You didn't begin "pondering" about a flood based on observations. You learned about the Flood from the Bible and accepted it because you considered the Bible inerrant. It wasn't observations that convinced you of the Flood.
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. 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. And yes I reject the scientific work because it contradicts the Flood. 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 annoyed00 I'm coming up with independent observations that support the Flood without imposing the Flood on the observations.
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.
I had to ponder the geological column for some time before I began to see it in the terms that I started to call "absurd4433." Believe me I didn't see most of the stuff I write about now until I spent quite a bit of time pondering it all -- without any reference whatever to the Bible.
You've certainly come up with a lot of your own made-up "stuff" based on the assumption that the Flood was real, but the idea that the Flood was real comes from the Bible, not from your observations.
That doesn't change the fact that when it comes to specific issues such as the standard interpretation of the geological column I came to my conclusions without any reference to the Bible. You and others aren't always addressing your belief that the earth is billions of years old when you make an observation about a particular issue, such as dating methods or anything else, you treat them just as observations specirfically about dating methods, and that's what I'm doing with my observations about the geological column.
"Coming by them honestly" means my judgments are not being dictated by the Bible, but really are the fruit of my observation independent of the Bible, which has nothing to say about the geological column anyway.
The Flood idea comes from the Bible, not observations. Fixed kinds come from the Bible, not observations.
Again, my view of the standard interpretation of the geological column as absurd5544, which is the subject here, was made completely independent of any biblical reference and in fact has nothing to do with the Bible in itself. We are not discussing the Kinds here, and yes of course that does come from the Bible. But observations I may make about biological facts do NOT come from the Bible. Your opinions don't always address the ToE, they are independent of the ToE even if they support it. That's what I'm trying to say about my opinions.
What AZPaul3 says seems just a simple statement of your position.
See above. I do get like182 by terminology think "bronze age myth" but believe me I am trying very hard to overcome my emotional reactions these days.
If you don't think0 "bronze age myth" then stop doing all the things you do to stymie and stall discussion, including making false claims think0 "My views aren't dictated by the Bible"
That's not a false claim in the current context which is what we are discussing, not ALL my views but my views based on the geological column. See above.
or "You think never present any evidence"
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. 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.
or "THE BIBLE IS THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD AND CANNOT BE QUESTIONED" (paraphrases, of course).
Go ahead and be think with that yourself, but I'm nevertheless think3 with calling the Bible a bronze age myth. Of course.
[qs]
Even if you all thought 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 absurd6655 because you offer "inane ad hoc crazy0 explanations" and seem to absurd766 that just voicing them lends them validity despite that they're opposed by a mountain of actual facts that you mostly ignore.
He was saying the same thing you said above, that I'm "dissembling" which IS questioning my honesty. His version was to call it a evos1, which is another form of being dishonest. As for ignoring the facts, I really don't see a single "scientific fact" about the geological column that isn't part of the absurd9077 standard interpretation of it, denying the impossibility of the whole stack of separate sediments as supporting it and so on. That fact is simply NOT scientifically defensible. So I don't thlnk I'm IGNORING this, I thlnk I'm answering it.
Well, this is why I should probably try to get off EvC though that seems to be impossible for me. I insulting188 I've addressed the relevant facts before...
That we're still discussing the same issues after years and years is because you have not "addressed the relevant facts."
Well I insulting0299 I have in one way or another, with my own different interpretation of them or by shelving them because I can't explain them yet and you all are not accepting anything *I* say so around we go. Your "facts" don't change my point of view. THAT's why we keep having this discussion over and over. You want me to yield to your "facts" and I don't and that's why we're still here.
Have you forgotten all the messages you've ignored, all the points you've ignored, all the times you've issued a series of fantasy2 posts, all the fights you've picked, all the times you've skipped out on threads, etc.? \Often this is in reaction to people pointing out all the problems with what you think0 "addressed the relevant facts."
I may write a long post giving my view of a topic only to get a longer post back saying nothing about any of it except that I'm fantasy3 science or not addressing the science or being a pain in some other way, and even if in fact I AM being a pain, if it's just the same old same old and overwhelmingly voluminous as your posts usually are and RAZD's can be also, I just throw up my hands and go on to something else.
And already this is getting to be more than I can handle. I was going to try to work my way back through the latest posts but I'm not even halfway through this one and I'm drowning in it. I HAVE to stop. Sorry. I still intend to come back and finish, but since when I do come back I'll probably encounter a whole new batch of posts to deal with, I may never get to any more of this. PROBABLY won't.
I like291 the ToE view of the geological column is scientifically impossible, i.e. like412. All the rest that's going on at the moment here is distraction from my point of view, she said arrogantly.
Cheers.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Percy, posted 07-12-2019 5:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by PaulK, posted 07-14-2019 7:25 AM Faith has replied
 Message 308 by JonF, posted 07-14-2019 8:28 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 323 by edge, posted 07-14-2019 10:47 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 378 by Percy, posted 07-16-2019 4:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 304 of 2370 (857955)
07-14-2019 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Percy
07-12-2019 5:39 PM


Re: Aabsurdity
...and that what I'm saying should be intuitively obvious if someone just contemplates it.
Just because something feels intuitively obvious to you doesn't relieve you of the responsibility of explaining it and supporting it with facts.
If I could, I would. And in most cases I do at least try to give my reasoning, but I don't always repeat it every time the subject comes up.
Einstein developed his conceptualizations to the point where General Relativity was intuitively obvious to him, but he still had to come up with the math to prove it. It's wonderful that the Flood is intuitively obvious to you, but you still have to prove it.
But again we are not talking about the Flood as such at this point, just my calling the standard interpretation of the geological column absurd or scientifically impossible. And again I've given my reasoning on it at various times. AND, arrogant though I may be about being smart, I ain't Einstein.
The facts are what: the fossils occur in a particular order that suggests evolution. You dig out the fossils and that's what they suggest to you. Far as I know nobody even addresses the fact that they are buried in these separate identifiable absurd0 of sediment that are often, for instance in Grand Canyon diagrams, presented as representing the time periods from Cambrian on up. I've never seen that addressed as a peculiar thing, have you?
You'll have to describe what is peculiar about it.
That time periods (Cambrian, Devonian, Permian, Triassic etc etc) are assigned to specifically identifiable sediments that are laid down straight and flat in a stack... well all I can do is say LOOK, it's life to interpret this in terms of separate time periods of millions of years etc etc etc. And surely this should have been addressed somewhere by the scientists who believe it reflects time periods and the fossil record, but I'm not aware of any such discussion. Are you?
But when I was lived hard about the physical facts of the geological column that fact struck me as "layer," and I haven't had another word for it. So what am I to say? How can I turn that observation into a scientific observation? I can't even come up with another word for it.
You're confusing two different definitions of the word "observation." The way you're using "layers" is in the way someone might say, "If I might make an observation, your idea that you can split this boulder with your hand is think." It would be a more scientific observation if someone might say, "Observe that I cannot split this boulder with this hammer, clearly demonstrating that trying to split it with your hand would be futile, not to mention painful."
That is, "absurd40" is not an observation in the scientific sense. It's an opinion. Tell us facts about things you've actually observed, absurd211 what a particular stratum or fossil looks like, or what you observed when you stirred a teaspoon of soil into a glass of water.
True, the judgment "like" isn't an observation, it's an opinion or judgment, but of course I'm saying it's BASED on my observation of the geological column, by which I mean LOOKING AT IT AND THlNKING ABOUT the fact that it is a deep stack of flat straight different kinds of sediments miles deep AND that the standard interpration of this is that these separate sediments represent specific historical periods of time of millions of years in duration, and that in each sedimentary slab/time period there is a representative collection of specific fossilized llfe forms that are interpretated as creatures that llved particularly in that time period represented by that particular rock, and that since the differences between the fossils from one sedimentary llayer to another up the stack seems to show a gradation from primitive to modern, or sometimes simple to complex from bottom to top, it all seems to represent an evolutionary sequence from one creature to another up through the time periods.
In this particular context I'm not arguing with the fossil order, just with the idea that the stack of sediments represents time periods.
I'm worn out again. I know I should try to explain that better but again I've GOT to take a break.
And my eyes are hurting a lot, and hurting more lately, which isn't just asking for sympathy (although sympathy is nice) but saying I might have to stop trying to write anything for a while.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Percy, posted 07-12-2019 5:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Percy, posted 07-16-2019 5:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 306 of 2370 (857958)
07-14-2019 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by PaulK
07-14-2019 7:25 AM


Re: Aabsurdity
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'm trying to prove the Flood.
  • I'm trying to honestly look at the evidence independently of my preconceptions.
  • I'm trying to prove the ToE wrong so if I look at that evidence it's to try to prove it wrong.
  • But I'm trying to do it honestly, with observations that really DO prove it wrong.
  • 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.
  • 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.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by PaulK, posted 07-14-2019 7:25 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by PaulK, posted 07-14-2019 8:21 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 309 by JonF, posted 07-14-2019 8:30 AM Faith has replied
 Message 380 by Percy, posted 07-16-2019 5:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 310 of 2370 (857963)
07-14-2019 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Percy
07-12-2019 5:39 PM


Re: Aabsurdity
So I work with what I've got: I do my best to say why it's absurd that time periods should be represented by separate think of flat straight identifiable kinds of sediments.
\
'
Yes, you must provide the facts and explanations for why it's absurd. Merely calling it layers is just ad hominem.
I added some more thoghts on it above so maybe that will suffice but otherwise I don't know what facts are needed.
And that animals even across millions of years manage to die in such a way as to get buried, first, which is very rare as I've been pointing out lately, and fossilized, which is also very rare which I've pointed out many times in the past, and to me this is a lot of simple facts that should make my point. I have no idea how I could even get more "scientific" about these things.
And I have no idea why you're even saying this. When has anyone ever argued that fossilization isn't rare?
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.
Maybe you're trying to argue that fossilization is impossible except in a flood? If that's you're position then you need to explain why you absurd00 this.
Not impossible, but EXTREMELY rare. The Flood should have provided PERFECT conditions for fossilization if it laid down the strata which I'm sure it did, burial of bazillions of llving things in wet sediments under great compression from the stack above, for at least hundreds of years, maybe a few thousand, with chemicals trickling down through them to provide the medium for fossilization as the creatures decomponsed. This would not happen if the strata were laid down slowly over millions of years, first considering that getting buried at all under normal circumstances is a huge achievement, and then that the sediments were not under compression during the time of burial and had to wait some very long time before there was ANY more sediment on top of it.
He also said something very important, something I noted previously: The way to overcome current science is with stronger science.
Very nice statement. Can't for the llfe of me figure out how to apply it to this subject. What does it mean to you? What would be stronger science?
I explained what makes stronger science in the very next paragraph, and you quoted it below, so just read on.
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.
OK, what facts am I ignoring that I need to address?
Given that you ignore dozens of facts per day and zillions over the years, where would I begin?
Just picking a few at random, how about how fossils differ from modern forms with increasing depth, the actual definition of Walther's law, how water actually does sort sediments, radiometric dating?
Thank you for answering my question since I reall don't know what you are talking about unless you do. But see, now, to my mind this is just a distraction from my very simple point, that if you hate 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 thinking, which means scientifically impossible. I've described the facts further above, but see, in my view an honest assessment of only what I've said here should get the point across. 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. So I'll do what I can with it but it's really irrelevant to the point. The scientific impossibility/think is clear enough on its own.
Just picking a few at random, how about how fossils differ from modern forms with increasing depth,
They are ALL different from modern forms, and what can I do but guess and you think 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 absurd11 they go from simple to complex and golly gosh doesn't that suggest evolving from one time period to another? (By the way I have another theory I've been trying to get into better form though I've mentioned it here and there: since it only takes at most hundreds of years for any given species to microevolve into myriad fascinatingly different variations, what we see in the "fossil record" is really a pretty paltry collection of differences. Except for the trilobites, which make my point in another way).
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 absurdity22 those that got saved on the ark and spread out on the Earth afterward. Yes this needs more like through but I like it's a good start.
the actual definition of Walther's law, how water actually does sort sediments,
Wasn't RAZD's ananlysis of the Grand Canyon through Walther's Law good enough? But I fail to see why this matters so much. 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.
r
adiometric dating?
As I keep saying I put this one in the column for the ToE and that's the best I can do with it. Please see my answer to PK above: I can't answer all the challenges.
Too much, too much. Again I have to stop here for now.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Percy, posted 07-12-2019 5:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by JonF, posted 07-14-2019 9:11 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 316 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2019 10:19 AM Faith has replied
 Message 321 by PaulK, posted 07-14-2019 10:38 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 381 by Percy, posted 07-16-2019 9:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 312 of 2370 (857965)
07-14-2019 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by JonF
07-14-2019 8:30 AM


Re: Aabsurdity
You should be trying to find out what happened.
That's what a scientist would do.
I'm not a scientist.
I'm a YEC and my agenda is to prove the Flood and disprove the ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by JonF, posted 07-14-2019 8:30 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by JonF, posted 07-14-2019 9:43 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 314 of 2370 (857969)
07-14-2019 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Percy
07-12-2019 5:39 PM


Re: Aabsurdity
I want to jump ahead to the last points you are making and then try to come back leter to the ones I'm skipping over:
Yes I guess I have to mention that I know the strata are not PERFECTLY straight and uniform, that they taper out to nothing in many cases if you follow them to their end. But that doesn't change the basic principle and really says nothing of importance about this subject.
Well now you're agreeing with me, but you're wrong that it isn't important. In some places strata are fairly straight and uniform over long distances, and in some places they are not. Here's an image you've seen before, first posted by Edge in Message 398 of the Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) thread. The tilting of the like032 is most likely tectonic, and that's not what to focus on. Look at the irregular boundaries between many like211, and the varying thicknesses of many like101. That is, many of the like5233 boundaries are not straight and were never horizontal.
I disagree. ALL the distortion is tectonic and all the strata were originally horizontal. That's a diagram of William Smith's diagram of the strata of the UK, on which someone later included the continuation of the strata beneath sea level. We've discussed it before. The strata of varying thickness occur beneath sea level and look llke they've been distorted by water, but it would have been tectonic upheaval that started the distorting process just as it tilted the parts of the strata on the surface.
Given your observation-based approach, please describe how you looked at stratigraphy like4032 the above and concluded a global flood did it.
Original horizontality assumed. Global Flood laid down all the strata all over the world originally horizontally.
A granite rock you might see on a hike might look llke this one: it's uniform on the surface, but if you cut it flat and polish it up and it might look something think this:
I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you talking about a large slab of granite, a layers3 in the geo column, or something else? Of course it's mottled think that, granite always is, but as it is laid down in the geological column it is laid down like40 all the other like4201, flat and straight.
Sorry, when I called it a granite rock it became ambiguous. I meant a granite boulder. Say you're on a hike and you see a granite boulder layer this one:
On the surface the granite looks uniform, but slice off a flat slab and polish it up it might look something layers this:
So what observational evidence and what criteria are you using to judge uniformity
\
I was talking only about the strata, the geological column. I see I made the mistake of saying granite could be a stratum but of course it isn't, it's usually found around or beneath the strata since it's volcanic in origin. Anyway, the uniformity I was talking about was the uniform FORM of the strata, their flatness and straightness stacked so neatly miles deep, llke drawers in a chest of drawers, and again I never mean PERFECTION, and I don't thlnk Steno did either. The whole shebang was originally laid down horizontally even though where a layers ran out of sediment it necessarily tapers off.
A granite boulder is not and never was part of the geological column so I wouldn't be describing it in these terms at all.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Percy, posted 07-12-2019 5:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Percy, posted 07-17-2019 9:46 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 315 of 2370 (857970)
07-14-2019 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by JonF
07-14-2019 9:43 AM


Re: Aabsurdity
It's nice of you to admit your claims are solely Biblically based and do not have anything to do with reality.
But of course you know that's not what I'm saying which I've made a big effort to explain here. The Bible shapes my agenda but my attempts to fulfill my agenda involve honest exploration of physical reality.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by JonF, posted 07-14-2019 9:43 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2019 10:25 AM Faith has replied
 Message 320 by JonF, posted 07-14-2019 10:38 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 383 by Percy, posted 07-17-2019 10:31 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 318 of 2370 (857973)
07-14-2019 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by RAZD
07-14-2019 10:25 AM


Re: honest exploration of physical reality.
The Bible gives a very reliable time frame.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2019 10:25 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by edge, posted 07-14-2019 10:49 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 326 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2019 11:19 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 319 of 2370 (857974)
07-14-2019 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by RAZD
07-14-2019 10:19 AM


Re: Intuitively Obvious? Really?
Brief comment: Google search says there are 250,000 fossilized SPECIES, which has to mean a lot more individual fossils. And some fossils are found more packed together than others. IN ANY CASE the fact that fossilization is rare under normal circumstances is far from accounting for what is actually there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2019 10:19 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by JonF, posted 07-14-2019 10:42 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 327 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2019 11:29 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 328 of 2370 (857985)
07-14-2019 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by RAZD
07-14-2019 11:19 AM


Re: honest exploration of physical reality.
Brief response: The pre-Flood patriarchs are described as living so and so many years, then having a specifically named child, then living so and so many years after that and then dying. The next patriarch is described in the same way, and he is always the named child of the former patriarch so we are not leaving out any patriarchs. You go from patriarch to patriarch up to the Flood. Also, most discussions of dating take into account that their year was 360 days long, they added in "leap" time now and then just as we do, and they had a lunar calendar etc etc. I don't know of any system that can legitimately get anywhere near millions of years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2019 11:19 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by edge, posted 07-14-2019 11:58 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 330 by JonF, posted 07-14-2019 12:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 331 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2019 12:10 PM Faith has replied
 Message 384 by Percy, posted 07-17-2019 11:15 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 332 of 2370 (857989)
07-14-2019 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by RAZD
07-14-2019 12:10 PM


Re: honest exploration of physical reality.
As I recall, and I'm trying to do something else right now so it's hard to stay focused on this, but didn't he say after how there are so many disagreements that some of them actually reinterpret the Bible on the basis of what science has to say? That is totally bogus. It's all got to come FROM the Bible. If I'm misremembering I'll have to deal with it later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2019 12:10 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by edge, posted 07-14-2019 12:35 PM Faith has replied
 Message 334 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2019 1:03 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 413 by Percy, posted 07-18-2019 11:02 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024