|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
\ Repeatable does not mean that the events are repeatable. We can not repeat the destruction of the World trade Center but we can be very sure that it did happen. I listed a number of criteria that I believe make it possible for there to be scientific knowledge about something. Repeatability is an important one, but I also listed "witnesses" referring to events that have been seen by many or reported in writing, which certainly describes the WTC event. My point is that the geological phenomena that are PREHISTORIC, meaning without any sort of witness evidence, and ONE-TIME events, meaning unrepeatable, are not testable science, and although by comparison with other similar phenomena we may know SOME things about them, the accepted theory about the strata and the fossils is a wild interpretation that has no testability and I believe yields to the interpretation of the Flood as the far better explanation. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I did not mention the people on the ark and a one time event is pretty much the definition of nonrepeatability.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Do you have ANY idea what I've said about ANY of this or are you making it all up off the top of your head?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't trust your memory. You need to quote me. And since you are writing in the context of THIS thread quoting what I've said HERE would be the fair place to start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You don't have to "wade" through anything, just stop pretending you are quoting me when you may be misremembering what I said and probably didn't understand it in the first place. Your negative attitude toward what you think I said is good enough reason for you to be extra careful about what you impute to me instead of just tossing it out as you do. I have not mentioned anything about witnesses on the ark on this thread and your talking about them takes us off topic anyway.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Seems to me such a sandwich would show the fossil order idea to be a crock. Either it progresses from marine to land or it doesn't progress at all. The Flood has no problem with any motley collection of sediments and fossils, it's you guys who insist there is an order that we have to explain. But we don't. Really there isn't any such thing anyway as marine or land sediments, maybe fossils but not sediments. Or if they originated in one or the other location why would it matter since the water would carry them willynilly wherever it willed anyway.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If the event isn't repeatable then you have no science and that is the problem with the one-time events of Prehistory. Hisotrical events on the other hand often have witneses which may be written records or even monuments in some cases. I was merely tryihng to list the criteria I think allow for scientific knowledge. Repeatability is one, the famous one of laboratory sciences where you can do experiments over and over to test them in various ways. Witness evidence is another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I thought that marine life preceded land life in the "fossil order" that's all. What's the big deal? If you have marine sediments presumably they contain the fossils of marine creatures, and land sediments contain fossils of land creatures. What is the problem?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Love how you guys rewrite your theory every time it's challenged.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Facts? Na. Purely imaginative conjurings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But of course. In reality there are NO "land" sediments or fossils since all were transported in the Flood waters, and therefore marine creatures were carried all the way through the whole fossil record. But alternating marine and land sediments? Doesn't compute.l
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, all that is what is assumed, based only on the ToE. If you believe against all reason that each layer of sediment represents a time period of millions of years then of course you are going to interpret some of it in terms of their land origin. In reality they were all deposited by the Flood water no matter what their original location.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes they do represent time periods. Just look at the model in the Grand Canyon office. Just look at any illustration. Yes they do. The time is measured on the rocks. So don't give me that. And if all you mean is there is some overlap you've got the same problem of getting from a time period to a rock anyway. The whole thing is a miserable failure but we have to make the ToE work no matter what, don't we? Can't let some stupid creationist tell us we're wrong.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It doesn't matter when the sediments were deposited within the time period though you are all bending over backwards to pretend it makes a difference. You still have the problem wthat it makes a huge rock that ends up in the geological column that would prevent anything from living on that spot for that part of the time period and that means nothing is evolving from anything because nothing is even living where that rock is. So you think the creatures lived on top of it and died and got buried in it? This is too tiresome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You're missing the point, RAZD. The kind of rock doesn't matter, the problem is that there is a rock there at all where supposedly there was once a place where there were living things.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024