Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2019 9:46 AM
33 online now:
jar, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,007 Year: 15,043/19,786 Month: 1,766/3,058 Week: 140/404 Day: 27/113 Hour: 4/13


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20034
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1 of 5 (857899)
07-13-2019 8:22 AM


from Did the Flood really happen?, Message 298,

Percy writes:

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

From "Reports of the National Center For Science Education", Reports.NCSE.com, Issn 2159-9270, RNCSE 31.3, 1.1, May-June 2011

quote:
The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology
The ironic demonstration that there is no trace of the Genesis Flood in the geologic record.

Phil Senter

Introduction

According to the young-earth creationist (YEC) paradigm, the narratives recorded in the biblical book of Genesis are accurate historical records of actual events. Within that paradigm, the Flood of Noah is considered to have happened as described in chapters 7 and 8 of Genesis. According to the narrative, the rain of the Flood began in the second month of Noah’s 600th year. The rain lasted 40 days, at the end of which the water level was more than 6 meters above the height of the highest mountains. All humans and non-aquatic animals perished, except those that were on the Ark with Noah. The earth remained flooded for 150 days, but by the end of that period the waters had receded enough for the Ark to rest on the “mountains of Ararat” (not a single Mt Ararat, as is commonly but incorrectly assumed). About two and a half months after the Ark came to rest, the waters had receded enough to expose the tops of mountains. By the end of the second month of Noah’s 601st year, “the earth was completely dry” (Genesis 8:14, New International Version). The account therefore describes a flooding event in which water rose for 40 days and receded for the rest of a single year, during which recession the planet was completely submerged for 150 days.

In 1961 Whitcomb and Morris published The Genesis Flood. The authors presented the hypothesis that the Flood was responsible for the deposition of all Phanerozoic sedimentary strata stratigraphically below the Quaternary. They also questioned the validity of the stratigraphic principles upon which the geologic column—the sequence of time divisions to which geological deposits are assigned—is based (see Figure 1). Their publication was not the first to espouse these views but its popularity precipitated a deluge of Flood-related research by young-earth creationists in an attempt to find support for the book’s conclusions. Ironically, that outpouring of research has ultimately led to the falsification of most of the book’s geological interpretations.


Edited by RAZD, : +


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2019 10:21 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1917
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


(1)
Message 2 of 5 (857901)
07-13-2019 8:44 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
jar
Member
Posts: 31175
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 3 of 5 (857906)
07-13-2019 9:17 AM


Just as Flood Geology defeats Flood Geology, the actual contents of the Bible defeats Biblical Inerrancy.

Reality always defeats fantasy.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios � � My Website: My Website

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20034
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 4 of 5 (857913)
07-13-2019 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
07-13-2019 8:22 AM


the gorilla mindset
From the end of the article:

quote:
...
The continued denial of the implications of their own findings is an example of what I call the gorilla mindset: the attitude that if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but religious dogma says it is a gorilla, then it is a gorilla.

It is noteworthy that the gorilla mindset is steadily diminishing within the ranks of the practitioners of Flood Geology. Fewer and fewer researchers in that field deny the accumulated evidence of subaerial deposition or of deposition for longer than one year for large portions of the Phanerozoic column. As mentioned above, some have already rejected the hypothesis of a Phanerozoic Flood in favor of the hypothesis of a Precambrian Flood, despite the fact that such a hypothesis necessitates acceptance of a lack of sedimentary deposition by a Flood in the geologic record. In the words of Flood geologist Max Hunter (2009:88), “It is somewhat ironic...that, almost a half century after publication of The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris in 1961, the geologic record attributed to the Genesis Flood is currently being assailed on all sides by diluvialists...[and] there remains not one square kilometer of rock at the earth’s surface that is indisputably Flood deposited.”

Flood Geology began in order to find support for YEC doctrine but ironically it has now produced an impressive body of evidence against it. The defeat of Flood Geology by its own hand is a great example of how the practice of sound geology leads to correct geological conclusions.


The preponderance of contradictory evidence in layer after layer of sedimentary rocks shows that there was no flood.

We saw the same result from the RATE Group when they tried to disprove radiometric dating methods.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2019 8:22 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5322
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 5 of 5 (858088)
07-16-2019 10:27 AM


FYI the same author wrote Using creation science to demonstrate evolution: application of a creationist method for visualizing gaps in the fossil record to a phylogenetic study of coelurosaurian dinosaurs and Using creation science to demonstrate evolution 2: morphological continuity within Dinosauria. He as a new book coming out, Fire-Breathing Dinosaurs? The Hilarious History of Creationist Pseudoscience at Its Silliest which is reviewed at Fire-Breathing Dinosaurs?: A book review.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019