Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

​

Fundamental to your world view is that the flood was an actual event, and this causes you to interpret evidence you find in terms of that event. Stones you find in Wisconsin become dropstones from the flood. Diatoms you find beneath those stones become marine diatoms from the inundation by the sea. You tie in geologic mysteries because you require cataclysmic events. It all makes sense to you, it seems impossible to you that it couldn't be so.

​

Evolutionists do somewhat the same thing, but with a significant difference: a firm evidentiary foundation. We look at the fossil record in the geologic column and conclude that it is rock solid () evidence that evolution has taken place, and so we interpret other evidence we find within an evolutionary framework. That many discoveries have been predicted by applying this framework makes clear the efficacy of having a firm evidentiary foundation.

​

Your approach diverges significantly from the scientific because of this lack of a firm evidentiary foundation. There is no evidence of a world-wide flood 10,000 years ago. The foundation of your theory is not evidence but a religious book. Without evidence of a world-wide flood your theory drifts upon the wind.

​

--Percy[/B]

---

JM: Actually, I'll quibble with you a bit on these comments. I think you are forgetting that geologists once viewed the world as wmscott did. The flood and catastrophism held sway until they decided to actually start cataloguing and examining the rock and fossil record. It quickly became apparent to them that the global flood model just did not fit any of the data in the rock record and so it was abandonded. For some reason, creationists never bother to read the history of the subject and therefore are doomed to make all the same mistakes as their predecessors 200+ years ago. The only difference between the old naturalists and the creationists of today is that the old naturalists were willing to adapt to new ideas when the evidence compelled them to do so. Creationists are not REALLY compelled to look for evidence since the conclusion is foregone (although incorrect). Thus, wmscott sees all these things as he wants them to be instead of as they really are.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:

​

Exactly, that is why you have failed. You have based our arguments on a great faith in orthodox theories. The absence of better explanations in your arguments shows your blind faith in the absolute correctness of orthodox science. To you I am a heretic, with apostate theories not wroth considering because I challenge what you believe is the one true faith. Like arrogant inquisitors you cite your orthodoxy as the final authority, when in reality it is the evidence that has the final say. When you can't over turn what I say, you claim I made it up or refer to your orthodoxy while failing to explain or provide evidence. When I make valid points about the effects of rain water and meltwater containing old carbon, you call it a 'wave of my hand' and ignore it, and insist on a total adherence to the absolute accuracy of carbon dating. You demand absolute compliance with the doctrines of your high priests, yet your blindly following and rejecting contrary ideas just because they are contrary to what you believe, goes against the spirit of what you claim to believe in. Science isn't suppose to be a orthodox religion, is should be open investigation of the evidence. If science rejected all new ideas and instead always based their arguments on the orthodoxy as you have been doing, scientists would still be preaching middle age science as fact. The pursuit of true science is to question and not to blindly believe because it is the accepted theory, for that reason I feel that I have been truer to the faith that you think you are defending. [/B]

---

JM: Umm, we had a brief e-mail discussion regarding this topic which you dropped. While you claim to be on the edge of a new discovery 'proving' a global flood, the evidence you have supplied through these pages is not coherent nor supportive of a global flood. What you have proposed, so far, is a series of 'what if' conjectures that are not woven coherently into a thesis. I'll make the same offer here as I did via e-mail. Put the story together in a coherent fashion (point-by-point) with field evidence (since you are proposing a global event, I would expect to see the evidence from around the globe). Submit it to me (I am an editor and a member of the editorial board of two journals). I will send it out for review and you can overturn science in the same manner as the rest of us. Your assertion that scientists are in blind agreement to an orthodoxy is a laughable caricature of science and scientists. Most of us spend our whole life trying to overturn orthodoxy and have our names forever etched in history. All of us are required to support our assertions with data and proper analysis. If you want your pet hypothesis to be heard, then this is not the place to do it nor is it the place to hurl unsupportable assertions about orthodoxical conspiracies against new ideas. You have to, like all the rest of us, support your assertions with testable data. Are you going to do that or not? If so, get busy writing---if not, quitcherbitchin.CheersJoe meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
See post 142 for a start, and I was referring to certain posters on this board, not to scientists.

---

JM: Post 142 is a brief synposis of certain points you are arguing. The problem is that most scientists don't cite (or note) works printed on discussion board cre-evo debate forums. I ask you again to formulate your thesis, provide data and submit it to an audience who will be able to evaluate and test your hypothesis. "The Great Debate" for all its interest, will not get you noticed by the scientific community. I'll say it again, if you want to overturn the orthodoxy, you must publish your analysis and allow the scientific community to evaluate it.CheersJoe Meert

wmscott,We've been through all your 'stuff' via e-mail. Basic story is that you are neglecting the evidence for ALL the earlier ice ages, you are neglecting physical evidence left by the most recent ice ages, you are neglecting evidence about sea level rise before, during and after the most recent glaciation, you are neglecting the evidence of creationist scholars from the 19th century (Aggasiz) who concluded that the evidence argued AGAINST a global flood, you are neglecting basic fundamental principles of geology, you are neglecting to publish your results in the proper literature and you are neglecting to fit the whole thing together into a coherent earth-history story. In short, you have nothing in your favor except for the fact that this is how you think things SHOULD HAVE happened. So, I ask you again to submit your ideas to a scientific journal. The proof is not how well you think you argue on a BB, it is how well you argue to geologists. I may well be a minority, but your argument for a global flood doesn't hold much water. Why not test it amongst other geologists?CheersJoe Meert

Percy,You are correct. If wmscott submitted his paper, it would be rejected. Wnscott would think it was rejected for political rather than scientific reasons and would then parade forth with "Brilliant men are persecuted" arguments. This happens a lot with people, even reasonable scientists. Behe declared his IC idea on par with Einstein, Pasteur etc (usually its peers who laud great ideas, but Behe couldn't wait). He now claims his ideas are stifled in the literature. Gentry is doing the same thing. It's actually a good strategy because we've been conditioned to give 'everyone a fair shake' and 'equal time'. Science is actually a harsh enterprise where bad ideas are called 'bad ideas' and there are no apologies made. Such a harsh attitude means that scientists must develop a tough skin to survive, but the evidence shows that harsh criticism works! Creationists won't ever understand that.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

​

I have taken your advice about submitting my ideas to a scientific journal which is why I have cut back on my posting here. I am using the extra time to get ahead on my other projects so I can work on an article to submit to a scientific journal later in the year. On arguing to geologists, you are a geologist. So I am starting to reach geologists by posting on a BB. I have already anticipated the possible problems I will have in submitting to scientific journals, and will attempt to get pass their knee-jerk radar, which will affect how and what I can say. Which is one of the main reasons I self published first, for the freedom and precedence. Now I can take my time and publish the bits and pieces that taken together will point to a deluge.

---

JM: I appreciate that you are doing geology 'the right way' by submitting your work for review. At the same time, most reviewers are not 'knee-jerk' activists. They will carefully consider your ideas and if they have merit, they will be published. There are several geologists on this board and I suspect the grief you are getting from them is based on their knowledge of science rather than knee-jerk opposition to your ideas. If your ideas are not well received here, have you ever thought that they might be (a) wrong or (b) not well argued? There is no need to send me your book or for me to buy it at this time as you are writing it up for a scientific journal which will require more rigour than a self-published book. When your paper is finished, I'd be happy to look through a draft.CheersJoe Meert

Don't forget our own Brad McFall!!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

I would suggest you read up on the history of science. Plate tectonics when first introduced was very much in conflict with the then current theories and yet as history has shown, it is in harmony with what we know about the earth. Each new major idea is always in conflict with current theories, that is what makes them important if they turn out to be correct.

---

JM: This is a fallacious argument you are making here. It's common to many pseudosciences. The argument is that good ideas are persecuted and therefore since your idea is persecuted, it must be good. Wegener was criticized because he had no feasible mechanism to power the drift although his geologic evidence was very strong. He had some very strong scientific support from du Toit, Carey and Holmes. He took his case to the scientific community rather than to the general public. He amassed volumes of field observations to go along with his ideas. You'll need to do the same meticulous documentation and publish your results. You'll need to attend scientific meetings and argue your case before other scientists. In short, you are not going to convince anyone here with your mish-mash of ideas. The criticisms you are receiving here are mild compared to what you will get if you argue as poorly in writing as you do on here. Your arguments will be criticized unless you amass volumes of field observations that support your hypothesis. In short, you've got a lot to do and comparing yourself to Wegener is not one of them!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

"Considering the fact that Wagner's theories were accepted for years in Europe before they were in America, this still seems to be a sore spot with American scientists.

---

JM: I thought Wagner was a musician favored by Hitler! I think you are rewriting history here if you are speaking of Wegener. Wegener's ideas were not particularly well received in Europe. Sir Harold Jeffrey's was a powerful and outspoken critic of continental drift. Wegener had sympathetic followers of Alex du Toit (S. Africa) and Sam Carey (Australia) because his evidence was most obvious to Gondwana geologists. Of the Europeans, it was Holmes who was most intrigued by it and proposed that mantle convection could drive the motion. If you are talking about plate tectonics, then it was the Europeans who led the way, but there were also plenty of US scientists on the bandwagon (including the guy in the office next to me!). I don't know of any American's who think of this as a 'sore spot', but maybe you can name them?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
Joe Meert

​

Hi Joe, pardon my bad spelling on referring to the wrong Wegener (my spell checker only knows the other one). My knowledge of the history of the acceptance of the continental Drift theory is based on reading the following book which may paint a different picture than what the guy in the next office has been telling you.

​

"The Rejection of Continental Drift : Theory and Method in American Earth Science" by Naomi Oreskes

​

Book description- In the early 20th century, American earth scientists vociferously opposed the new--and highly radical--notion of continental drift. Yet 50 years later the same idea was heralded as a major scientific breakthrough, and today continental drift is accepted as a scientific fact. This insightful book, based on archival sources, looks at why American geologists initially rejected the idea so adamantly while their counterparts in Europe were relatively receptive.

​

While there were individuals who accepted the new theory, American geologists in general rejected it long after it had gained wide acceptance in other parts of the world. As for sore American scientists, I was making a little joke about perhaps that was why you seemed a little put out, in your last post. (LOL)

---

JM: Well, considering that the guy in the office next to me lived through the plate tectonic revolution and was instrumental (from the American side) for providing data to support it, I'll trust a compendium of history in place of your single source. Please read my original post where I stated that Europe led the way in acceptance of plate tectonics which is different than continental drift. I will also note that my colleague had the benefit of being trained in the British system by Keith Runcorn. If you are speaking solely of continental drift as envisioned by Wegener, it was rejected on both sides of the ocean (with some notable exceptions that I mentioned above). In fact, it was rejected most vociferously by a Brit named Jeffrey's.CheersJoe Meert