Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8927 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2019 9:54 AM
32 online now:
Faith, JonF, Percy (Admin), PurpleYouko, RAZD, Theodoric (6 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,271 Year: 15,307/19,786 Month: 2,030/3,058 Week: 404/404 Day: 8/63 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
2122
...
84NextFF
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
Faith
Member
Posts: 32711
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 286 of 1255 (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.


    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 287 of 1255 (857858)
07-12-2019 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Faith
07-12-2019 4:39 AM


Where is the Flood layer(s)
Faith, the point of the article I mentioned is that between them Flood geologists produce all the reasons why NO part of the geological record could be the Flood. The various reasons they put forward - between them, not necessarily any one saying all - show objections to every level. The reasons include, but not only, continental basalts, dino nests, animal tracks, aeolian deposits, palaeosols, and raindrop imprints. Any of these things in the geological record show that that particular geol level could not be laid down in the Flood. Usually each writer has their own preferred level, but for each level some other Flood geologist (what an oxymoron that term is) has a reason why it could not be.

No one seems to think the entire geol record is the Flood for the reasons I listed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 07-12-2019 4:39 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 07-12-2019 7:17 AM Pollux has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32711
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 288 of 1255 (857859)
07-12-2019 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Pollux
07-12-2019 6:35 AM


Re: Where is the Flood *******)
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 yet responded

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

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32711
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 289 of 1255 (857862)
07-12-2019 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Percy
07-11-2019 6:31 PM


Re: **********
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 ****** because it is different from what you ********6 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 "********7." 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 ******* 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 ********8 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 ******** because you offer "inane ad hoc ******** explanations" and seem to ***** 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 ***** 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 ***** 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 ***** hard about the physical facts of the geological column that fact struck me as "********2," 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 *****3 that time periods should be represented by separate ******9 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 ***** of a scientific way of talking about these things either. "*****4" 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 ********0 to scientists and so on.

In this case the word I use is inherently objectionable...

You mean "******5?" 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 *******1 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 ***** that, granite always is, but as it is laid down in the geological column it is laid down ******0 all the other ******1, 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 responded

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

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18805
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 290 of 1255 (857865)
07-12-2019 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Faith
07-11-2019 4:36 PM


Re: What if all the physical evidence was destroyed?
Faith writes:

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...

Because?

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?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Faith, posted 07-11-2019 4:36 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 291 of 1255 (857866)
07-12-2019 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Faith
07-12-2019 8:49 AM


Re: Aabsurdity
Percy:
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.

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 ***** that, granite always is, but as it is laid down in the geological column it is laid down ******0 all the other ******1, flat and straight.


Well, obviously not all strata are straight and uniform, although I'm pretty sure you have said so at various times in the past. The real question is 'how does the biblical flood lay down sediments in such 'straight and flat' layers' that are 'pure' and have regional extent.

You have never explained this, nor has anyone else even though one after another professional YEC has told you that it MUST be so. Citing Steno is irrelevant since he simply made an observation of the geometry of rock layers without making any reference to a mechanism. That would be up to you since you hold fast to this argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 07-12-2019 8:49 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18805
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 292 of 1255 (857867)
07-12-2019 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Faith
07-11-2019 5:32 PM


Re: Aabsurdity
Faith writes:

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.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 07-11-2019 5:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32711
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 293 of 1255 (857868)
07-12-2019 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by AZPaul3
07-11-2019 6:00 PM


Re: **********
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 acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18805
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 294 of 1255 (857873)
07-12-2019 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Pollux
07-11-2019 9:17 PM


Re: Lithification
I actually found it on page 52 (PDF page 53 because of an unnumbered cover page) of Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary Strata Compared with Young-Earth Creationist Writings. The URL should open to the exact right page. Thanks.

That paragraph's about limestone, and it mentions the restricted flow of water that would slow cementation, just as JonF explained earlier in posts like Message 179.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Pollux, posted 07-11-2019 9:17 PM Pollux has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18805
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 295 of 1255 (857875)
07-12-2019 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Pollux
07-11-2019 9:34 PM


Re: Where is the Flood layer?
Pollux writes:

www.csun.edu The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology

Something for Faith to read and ponder.

Here's a link to the actual article should Faith decide to read it: The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Pollux, posted 07-11-2019 9:34 PM Pollux has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18805
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 296 of 1255 (857877)
07-12-2019 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Faith
07-12-2019 3:59 AM


Re: What if all the physical evidence was destroyed?
Faith writes:

Good grief, man, all I meant was that there's no way to reconstruct the completely different circumstances before the Flood because as we look around this world now we don't see any evidence of it because it was all wiped out.

How do you know that 4500 years ago all existing stratigraphic layers were swept away in a global flood?

I may be more inclined to this view because I live on a desert of course, but I thlnk what we see overall is a wrecked planet which is evidence of the catastrophe,...

What constitutes a "wrecked planet"? Aside from the environmental damage since the industrial revolution this planet seems pretty lush and intact. Here's the image of the woods outside my house again and nothing looks desolate or wrecked:

...but it's all simply taken for granted as the way things are and always were,...

What, specifically, do you think is being assumed or taken for granted for which there is no evidence?

...and the wreckage is not recognized as wreckage.

Well, then, suppose you explain to us just how you recognize something is wrecked, which would require you to have evidence of what it looked like before it was wrecked.

So the catastrophe that caused it is not recognized. Looking at the wreckage it's impossible to reconstruct a formerly perfect lush green world.

If it's impossible to "reconstruct a formerly perfect lush green world", then how did you reconstruct it within your mind to know it ever existed? And again, how do you know this "formerly perfect lush green world" is any different than the lush green world we have right now?

I do agree that all those things preserved in the strata are evidence of that antediluvian world, however, but it's a pretty paltry record.

Are you referring to the paleosols that you claim the Flood moved intact? Along with their burrows and worm holes and so forth? Isn't this where you would look for evidence of a formerly much more lush world? What does the evidence of these paleosols say about that?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Faith, posted 07-12-2019 3:59 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18805
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 297 of 1255 (857880)
07-12-2019 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Faith
07-12-2019 4:39 AM


Re: What if all the physical evidence was destroyed?
Faith writes:

Several civilizations even fail to note the passing of the greatest calamity to have ever struck the planet.

The civilizations didn't exist at the time of the Flood, they were built up afterward.

What is your evidence that, say, the Sumerian and Egyptian civilizations did not exist until after 4500 years ago?

There were only eight people on the ark, who disembarked into a thoroughly wrecked planet.

Why are you including Biblical references when you previously insisted that your views were based on observations independent of the Bible. You said as much in your Message 268:

Faith in Message 268 writes:

In any case, it's got nothing to do with my Christian belief, it's entirely my judgment from observation.

And you repeated it again in your Message 289:

Faith in Message 289 writes:

...my judgments are not being dictated by the Bible, but really are the fruit of my observation independent of the Bible...

And you've said the same thing in other places. Now you're saying the opposite. You wouldn't be lying to us, would you?

Nevertheless their own strength and longevity that characterized all living things in the antediluvian world, including the plant world, enabled them in a fairly short period to grow food and build houses, make pottery and so on. Their progeny spread out over the entire planet during the ensuing years and built settlements and then civilizations. Nimrod was "a mighty man in the earth" who built cities for instance. The various races were formed because families split off to settle different parts of the world in isolation from each other. Civilization grew up mostly in the Middle East and the Far East. Our European ancestors were a pretty uncivilized bunch until the Roman Empire, and then of course Christianity, tamed them. But I digress.

You do more than digress. You give arkloads of proof that your views are Bible-based, not observation-based.

The flood stories we find in various cultures are apparently all that remains of the memories of the Flood from the ancestors of those who built the civilizations.

Which specific flood stories are you referring to, and what facts tell us that they aren't merely myths?

The Bible also reveals that idolatrous religions grew up rapidly too, a major one around the hero Nimrod that spread out over the world according to the book The Two Babylons, and since the world was ruled by Satan and his demon horde...etc...etc...etc...

Now you're just into pure religion. If you can base your arguments in fact then please do so. The Biblical stuff doesn't belong in a science thread.

And now you tell us that such a maelstrom of flood waters is the only way to lay down regionally extensive 'straight and flat' strata? Miles thick?

Yes, I think it could only have been formed by the Flood, which would have been fairly quiet and not a "maelstrom," over some months of its covering the planet. I see Pollux is quoting an article which apparently considers the idea that just a layer or some few specific layers represent the Flood, but that's such a paltry idea for what a worldwide inundation would have done. It had to build the WHOLE stack because it covered EVERYTHING.

Do you have any actual data for any of this?

Sorry, Faith, but this doesn't even reach the level of snake oil. I truly fret that people can prostitute their religion to this extent.

I'm sorry I'm not doing a better job of getting across my view of it, including my understanding of the "Bible story."

Again, your understanding of the "Bible Story" isn't relevant here. You keep telling us your views are based upon observation. Your discussion should focus on describing the observations you've made that support the claims you're making.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 07-12-2019 4:39 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 07-15-2019 7:45 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18805
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 298 of 1255 (857881)
07-12-2019 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Faith
07-12-2019 7:17 AM


Re: Where is the Flood layer(s)
Faith writes:

Yeah but I've already dealt with all that in the past...

This is untrue. You rarely deal with anything, instead employing a variety of distractive or evasive tactics. One common one is to claim you've already dealt with it.

...and I'm not up to repeating it at the moment,...

No, of course you aren't. You never are.

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?

Here ya go: The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 07-12-2019 7:17 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2019 8:02 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 352 by Faith, posted 07-15-2019 7:32 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18805
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 299 of 1255 (857892)
07-12-2019 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Faith
07-12-2019 8:49 AM


Re: Aabsurdity
...and isn't it true that you believe the scientific view absurd because it is different from what you think 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.

I had to ponder the geological column for some time before I began to see it in the terms that I started to call "absurd." 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.

"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.

What AZPaul3 says seems just a simple statement of your position.

See above. I do get annoyed by terminology like "bronze age myth" but believe me I am trying very hard to overcome my emotional reactions these days.

If you don't like "bronze age myth" then stop doing all the things you do to stymie and stall discussion, including making false claims like "My views aren't dictated by the Bible" or "You evos never present any evidence" or "THE BIBLE IS THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD AND CANNOT BE QUESTIONED" (paraphrases, of course).

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.

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...

That we're still discussing the same issues after years and years is because you have not "addressed the relevant facts." Have you forgotten all the messages you've ignored, all the points you've ignored, all the times you've issued a series of insulting 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 thought "addressed the relevant facts."

...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. 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.

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 layers 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.

But when I was think hard about the physical facts of the geological column that fact struck me as "absurd," 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 "absurd" 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 absurd." 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, "absurd" is not an observation in the scientific sense. It's an opinion. Tell us facts about things you've actually observed, like what a particular stratum or fossil looks like, or what you observed when you stirred a teaspoon of soil into a glass of water.

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 layers of flat straight identifiable kinds of sediments.

Yes, you must provide the facts and explanations for why it's absurd. Merely calling it absurd is just ad hominem.

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?

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 think this.

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?

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.

What facts make it seem unlikely to you?

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. "Absurd" is the best I can do.

Then maybe you need to go find some facts.

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 crazy to scientists and so on.

No, now you're misrepresenting what AZPaul3 said earlier, that thinking that just giving voice to your ideas lent them validity was crazy. See his Message 208.

If you cannot muster more and/or better facts, or if you can't find a better interpretational framework, or some combination, then overcoming existing theory won't be possible. This isn't because of any prejudice against you. It's just the reality of science, which would never replace an existing theory with a weaker one.

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.

Oh, come off it. The way to convince anyone of anything on a factual level is obvious. You just say, "The facts are fact1, fact2 and fact3, and taken together they mean conclusion1 and conclusion2." Watch or read any murder mystery, you'll get the idea.

What you need to do is find the facts that make the Flood a more rational explanation than "the present is the key to the past" explanations. So far all you've been able to do is come up with some real humdingers, like that the Supergroup layers tilted while still buried and without disturbing overlying layers, not to mention getting hundreds of cubic miles of sedimentary rock to pull a Houdini.

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?

Edge already commented on this, so I'll just say that you've already been presented many images of strata that were
not straight. And I just presented you an image of a slab of polished granite that is definitely not uniform in composition. Of course granite is not a sedimentary rock, but sandstone is, so here's some polished sandstone. Does this look straight or uniform to you?

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.

You originally said "straight strata often of a single more-or-less single uniform sediment", not Steno's Law and original horizontality, but in any case, original horizontality is only what happens under many circumstances, not all. Steno's Law has been modified by more recent science, something else you reject. But obviously water encroaching onto land that is gradually increasing in elevation could not deposit sediments horizontally.

Whether such strata are seen as tilted or not depends upon what angle you view them from. If you take a vertical cross section parallel to the shoreline then the strata boundaries will appear horizontal. If you take a vertical cross section perpendicular to the shoreline then the strata boundaries will be tilted, dipping down toward the sea along with the land they were deposited upon.

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.

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 layers is most likely tectonic, and that's not what to focus on. Look at the irregular boundaries between many layers, and the varying thicknesses of many layers. That is, many of the layer boundaries are not straight and were never horizontal.

Given your observation-based approach, please describe how you looked at stratigraphy like the above and concluded a global flood did it.

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 and it might look something like this:

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you talking about a large slab of granite, a layer 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 like all the other layers, 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 like this one:

On the surface the granite looks uniform, but slice off a flat slab and polish it up it might look something like this:

So what observational evidence and what criteria are you using to judge uniformity?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Edited by Percy, : Clarify my 2nd para, fix a minor grammatical error, "cross section" => "vertical cross section".

Edited by Percy, : Provide improved image.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 07-12-2019 8:49 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by JonF, posted 07-12-2019 6:06 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 303 by Faith, posted 07-14-2019 6:33 AM Percy has responded
 Message 304 by Faith, posted 07-14-2019 7:24 AM Percy has responded
 Message 310 by Faith, posted 07-14-2019 8:53 AM Percy has responded
 Message 314 by Faith, posted 07-14-2019 9:55 AM Percy has responded
 Message 344 by Faith, posted 07-14-2019 7:41 PM Percy has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5359
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 300 of 1255 (857893)
07-12-2019 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by Percy
07-12-2019 5:39 PM


Re: Aabsurdity
Her choice of the word "pondered" rather than any active verb is interesting. To me it strongly implies sitting at home making stuff up.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Percy, posted 07-12-2019 5:39 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2019 8:00 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
2122
...
84NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019