Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8965 total)
39 online now:
Faith, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 36 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,346 Year: 5,094/23,288 Month: 215/1,784 Week: 102/211 Day: 10/59 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some
mark24
Member (Idle past 3653 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 1 of 304 (291981)
03-04-2006 4:19 AM


I'm moving this here as it was OT here.

Faith,

There is so much evidence for a global flood it's staggering. It has to be a very strange blindness that keeps people from acknowledging it. Not even agreeing with it, just acknowledging that the amount of evidence is enormous. Just another case of flat out denial.

Stagger me, then.

The existence of fossils all over the earth in the great abundance they are found, everywhere, is fantastic evidence for a worldwide flood.

The existence of fossils worldwide is evidence that living things existed worldwide :rolleyes: . In no way can the global existence of fossils be considered evidence of the flood. In fact the localisation of fossil species argues against the flood. I suppose the global existence of extant life today is because of the flood, too?

Sure you can figure out how to explain this some other way if you have a mind to. But so what? The flood explanation is obviously adequate.

The flood explanation is utterly inadequate. The pattern of fossil forms is contradicted by hydrodynamics. In any flood, the smallest particles separate out last, the largest, first. This means all the large organisms first. What do we find at the bottom of the fossil record, bacteria. Where do we find large organisms? At the top. Exactly the opposite of what you would expect from the flood model. I could go on.

The existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is also great evidence for a worldwide flood.

Mountains are observed to rise, so no great shakes there.

The existence of the stratifications called the geological column, also found all over the world, is terrific evidence for a worldwide flood.

Again, the flood is utterly inconsistent with the pattern of stratification. Why does the bottom of the geologic column not consist of breccia, followed by gravels, sands, muds & claystones, in order of particle size, as it should do if the flood occurred?

The amount of disturbance of the surface of the planet that occurs in a few years is a strong clue that given millions of years not one of those strata could have survived intact.

Most of them don't exist on the surface. This also is irrelevant to flood evidence.

The presence of extinct forms of life in the fossil record is a clue to the enormous variety of life that inhabited the pre-Flood world.

Again, this is evidence of extinct forms, & in no way evidence of a global flood.

It's all consistent with the Flood story.

As you have learned, the fossil record & stratigraphy is all utterly inconsistent with the fossil record.

So where is this "staggering" evidence of a global flood?

Mark


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nator, posted 03-04-2006 7:27 AM mark24 has responded
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 03-04-2006 8:46 AM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 03-04-2006 12:10 PM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 10:35 AM mark24 has responded
 Message 192 by redseal, posted 03-07-2006 2:38 AM mark24 has responded
 Message 245 by Phat, posted 03-08-2006 9:26 AM mark24 has not yet responded

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 304 (292001)
03-04-2006 7:16 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

nator
Member (Idle past 628 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 3 of 304 (292005)
03-04-2006 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
03-04-2006 4:19 AM


I'd like to ask Faith if she thinks that grasses ran for higher ground in the Flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 03-04-2006 4:19 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 03-04-2006 7:43 AM nator has responded
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 03-04-2006 5:21 PM nator has not yet responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3653 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 4 of 304 (292008)
03-04-2006 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by nator
03-04-2006 7:27 AM


Schraf,

Of course not, the "higher ground" was too busy having marine fossils deposited on it by a 6 mile deep flood!

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by nator, posted 03-04-2006 7:27 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by nator, posted 03-04-2006 7:50 AM mark24 has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 628 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 5 of 304 (292010)
03-04-2006 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by mark24
03-04-2006 7:43 AM


they must have been magicked there, then
or maybe they flew?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 03-04-2006 7:43 AM mark24 has not yet responded

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 304 (292011)
03-04-2006 7:56 AM


okay, enough already

Let's try to stick to really discussing the issue of Evidence of the Great Flood.

In the OP some specific things were mentioned as supporting a Great World-Wide flood. If you believe you can suuport or refute any of those items, then please do so.


Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum

    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • Replies to this message:
     Message 7 by mark24, posted 03-04-2006 8:30 AM AdminJar has not yet responded

    mark24
    Member (Idle past 3653 days)
    Posts: 3857
    From: UK
    Joined: 12-01-2001


    Message 7 of 304 (292026)
    03-04-2006 8:30 AM
    Reply to: Message 6 by AdminJar
    03-04-2006 7:56 AM


    Re: okay, enough already
    Faith only has herself to blame, with the constant rhetorical subtitute for evidence. It's ridiculous, nonsense, you'll wake up, fairy tale, etc. etc.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by AdminJar, posted 03-04-2006 7:56 AM AdminJar has not yet responded

    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 19659
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 2.4


    Message 8 of 304 (292034)
    03-04-2006 8:46 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
    03-04-2006 4:19 AM


    Hi Mark,

    I think Faith thinks the evidence just cries out "flood" because she believes that floods can produce layers just like the ones geologists find. There have been at least several threads where someone has worked through the details with Faith for a sedimentation or fossil example, and my own view is that this type of focused approach has a better chance of success than a broader approach.

    --Percy


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by mark24, posted 03-04-2006 4:19 AM mark24 has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by subbie, posted 03-04-2006 12:01 PM Percy has not yet responded
     Message 13 by Faith, posted 03-04-2006 5:27 PM Percy has not yet responded

    subbie
    Member (Idle past 202 days)
    Posts: 3509
    Joined: 02-26-2006


    Message 9 of 304 (292087)
    03-04-2006 12:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
    03-04-2006 8:46 AM


    No approach has even the least likelihood of success
    Faith made her position as clear as she possibly can to anyone who speaks english. If the bible says it happened, it happened. Faith's starting and ending point in any search for truth is the bible. All other things are interpreted in the light of what the bible says.

    Facts readily observable to any other person are simply consistent with whatever is in the bible. If science says that sedimentation doesn't work that way, and the fossil record is inconsistent with a flood, then science is wrong, not the bible.

    Real world evidence is irrelevant. If there is something that seems to be in conflict with what the bible says, the problem in with science, not the bible. Or, the problem is with our understanding of science and, eventually, it will become clear to all.


    Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Percy, posted 03-04-2006 8:46 AM Percy has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 11 by wj, posted 03-04-2006 4:55 PM subbie has not yet responded
     Message 16 by Faith, posted 03-04-2006 5:40 PM subbie has not yet responded

    Chiroptera
    Member
    Posts: 6910
    From: Oklahoma
    Joined: 09-28-2003
    Member Rating: 4.0


    Message 10 of 304 (292088)
    03-04-2006 12:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
    03-04-2006 4:19 AM


    quote:
    Mountains are observed to rise, so no great shakes there.

    Literally:

    (Images from this website.)

    Edited to cut down the number of superfluous images.

    This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 04-Mar-2006 05:15 PM


    "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by mark24, posted 03-04-2006 4:19 AM mark24 has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by Faith, posted 03-04-2006 5:30 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded
     Message 17 by Faith, posted 03-04-2006 5:43 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

    wj
    Inactive Member


    Message 11 of 304 (292164)
    03-04-2006 4:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 9 by subbie
    03-04-2006 12:01 PM


    Re: No approach has even the least likelihood of success
    Subbie, you have stated faith's position perfectly. She is immune to any evidence or logic which she suspects might be contrary to her interpretation of her bible. If, however, there is something so patently obvious that it was known by a bronze age goat herding culture and mentioned in their religious text then faith will claim that as evidence for the accuracy of her bible.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by subbie, posted 03-04-2006 12:01 PM subbie has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by Faith, posted 03-04-2006 5:28 PM wj has responded

    Faith
    Member
    Posts: 35156
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 12 of 304 (292169)
    03-04-2006 5:21 PM
    Reply to: Message 3 by nator
    03-04-2006 7:27 AM


    Grasses
    I think that grasses were already on the land and the land flora and fauna are what were preserved in the upper strata laid down by the Flood. The lower strata preserved the marine life.

    Since it was all inundated, marine life also ended up in the higher strata.

    This message has been edited by Faith, 03-04-2006 05:22 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by nator, posted 03-04-2006 7:27 AM nator has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 47 by jar, posted 03-05-2006 2:55 PM Faith has responded
     Message 51 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2006 3:10 PM Faith has not yet responded

    Faith
    Member
    Posts: 35156
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 13 of 304 (292173)
    03-04-2006 5:27 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
    03-04-2006 8:46 AM


    I think Faith thinks the evidence just cries out "flood" because she believes that floods can produce layers just like the ones geologists find. There have been at least several threads where someone has worked through the details with Faith for a sedimentation or fossil example, and my own view is that this type of focused approach has a better chance of success than a broader approach.

    I don't think the effects of a worldwide Flood can be fairly compared to a limited flood.

    But my main concern about the layers is not so much that I understand how the Flood could have created them (although I've read the hydraulic theory and think it reasonable), but that they are NOT compatible with the idea of slow deposition over millennia. And I think OBVIOUSLY not, I think LAUGHABLY not. Particular sediments laid down in succession with particular fossil life entombed within them, supposely all laid down increment by increment over enormous swaths of time -- even underwater (at least they have the sense to realize that it WOULD take water to produce such a phenomenon) -- the thing is absurd.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Percy, posted 03-04-2006 8:46 AM Percy has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 19 by sidelined, posted 03-04-2006 6:30 PM Faith has responded
     Message 45 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2006 2:39 PM Faith has responded

    Faith
    Member
    Posts: 35156
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 14 of 304 (292174)
    03-04-2006 5:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 11 by wj
    03-04-2006 4:55 PM


    Hey Admins
    I would simply point out that wj's post is nothing but an ad hominem. If you care. I don't really.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by wj, posted 03-04-2006 4:55 PM wj has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 18 by wj, posted 03-04-2006 6:14 PM Faith has not yet responded

    Faith
    Member
    Posts: 35156
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 15 of 304 (292175)
    03-04-2006 5:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 10 by Chiroptera
    03-04-2006 12:10 PM


    Mountains are indeed observed to rise. Laden with fossilized marine life. The Flood is the most elegant explanation for this -- absolutely universal -- phenomenon. The theories about local effects are klutzy by comparison.

    Similarly you can give a local explanation for the abundance of marine fossils in the deserts - they are found in clumps, found everywhere. Yes, it was all once under water, of course. There are also seagulls that hang out in the Nevada desert. Sure, it was once under water. The Flood waters. Most parsimonious explanation. All the other explanations are inelegant.

    This message has been edited by Faith, 03-04-2006 05:35 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 03-04-2006 12:10 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020