Flood Stories

--Welcome to the forum edVento."I always find it amazing to see Creationists proclaim the Flood story as a "truth" that helps proves creationism."
--Your missunderstood when you use the word 'proves', there can be no proof on any historical implication accept on the fact of existance in all technicallity."I find this amazing because the Biblical Flood story is taken from the Gilgamesh story of the flood. Which predates the Cananites by more than 500 years. In fact there are 4 known tablets that are KNOWN to be at least 500-600 years OLDER than any known Old Testimant writings that tell an almost identical story."
--Well thats nice, you can continue if you like? We are either parroting or we should be ready to show support and reason."The simple fact of the matter is that the Flood story, I would say all of the bible for that matter, is nothing more than a story early Jews used to explain THEIR god, and how they fit into the world. It is not meant to be a historical retelling of an actual worldwide event."
--Personal opinions are always fine, though don't assert is as if it is so confidently true."In fact there is no evidence of any such even ever taking place."
--And your support or basis for your assertion? What is it lacking evidence for, what do you think should be found?"The best they can come up with is Mt. Ararat, when the bible itself doesnt say that is where the Arc ended up... rather being purposly vauge with "the mountains of Ar'arat""
--I really am not sure what you are attempting to get at here. I don't know what support the Mountains of Arrarat will give to Flood Geology accept that they are volcanic and thus may have engulfed the Ark later after settlement."The only flood evidence we have is at the Black Sea, however there is no evidence that the survivors of that flood fled to the mesopatanian areas where the tablets, and the old testament came from."
--Under your pre-conceived information of Geologic deposition and uniformitarian processes, sure you would be right, but otherwize, nothing more than a major missconception."The flood story is just that a story, not a history lesson."
--I could exclaim the same for any Evolutionary idea, but it means nothing untill I give support, which you must do for your post to be relevent.------------------

"JM: For someone chiding people about providing details, we are still waiting for your explanation of your flood model."
--Sertaintly, and I would doubt that I will have the ability to come up with a conclusive model to explain what is seen in geology for some time, though it is well under way and progressing. Also, I believe there were some points we were getting into that were deleted out of some topics?------------------

"It should be clear to you that the word "prove" is being used in the creationist context. Just trying to make things easier for you to understand... I think you are reaching for arguments."
--I have shown (though it may have not been up to sufficient clarity) that the word 'proof' should not be used in almost any scenario when discussing past events, why do you think we have so many theories on various events in mainstream paleography and earth history? They are all possible though they are given various degrees of plausability, possibility and plausability are, on the contary to 'proof', well able to be used in these types of arguments."Now, how about some evidence for your assertions?"
--I have not made any assertions yet that are not self evident, my assertions assert simply that RedVento has not given me information to rebutte.------------------

"Ah I was wondering if anyone else had watched that program on TLC last night......
Oh and TC the lack of evidence refers to the lack of any geological evidence for a GLOBAL flood..."
--If you can tell me that strengthened turbity currents would not form massive subterranean canyons in the continental shelf assuming the framework of the flood (a young earth), or that global impact strikes would not produce any form of nuclear winter, etc. then you can say there is a lack of an ioda of evidence.------------------

"You misunderstand if you think you can prove the historical existence of something without resorting to implication."
--Assumption would be more appropriate, and that assumption would be that your mind is actually observing an existing universe."Unless, of course, when you say "in all technicallity" you mean that you are working with a specialist definition of "proof" which distinguishes in some way between implied historical existence and other historical implications. If so, let's have it."
--I think were missunderstood here. See my last comment and my post on another critique of this statment.------------------

"I really don't see how geologic depositional models and the concept of uniforitarianism has any bearing on the discussion of a migration of people."
--Yes, I was more refering to the segment of his statement that said 'The only flood evidence we have is at the Black Sea'."You seem to be dropping some random "big words" into your reply, to give it extra (albeit irrelevant) weight."
--Either that, or I just say in response to his whole post 'what is your support'."Care to bring your thoughts on uniformitarianism to the uniformitarianism topic I started? It's at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=54&p=5
--Sure, would you just like me to reply to your first post?-----------------

"Yes, that program on TLC was very interesting. And seemed quite unbiased. Which is the kind of information I like to see."
--Wish I saw it, might there be a re-run and whats the topic the program discusses?"There is no geologic evidence of any worldwide flood event."
--Strong claim there, lets see if you give any support."However if you take into consideration that to the early civilizations the "world" consisted of the places they knew about I am sure there were localized floods all the time."
--If infact the earth is old, sure I could agree with you."As to the argument that the story of Gilgamesh and the other stories were taken from the early Jews that would be fine except that there is no historical or archeoligal evidence of that."
--Looks like I would be in trouble if this was my view."The earliest known Old Testament was written at the earliest 500 years after these tablets were created.
--Don't know too much bible history, mabye w_fortenberry would have some incite on this one, he seems very knowledgable on bible history. Also, what was the means of obtaining this date?"That is fact, not conjecture. You can have the opinion that they infact borrowed and wrote down the story after hearing it from cananites, but that opinion is just that opinion. I will have to go with what has been shown to be true rather than hold out on a possible truth. A truth that is needed to validate an opinion on the purpose of the Bible."
--I don't hold this view."I mentioned Mt. Ararat because that is the supposed resting place of the Arc. The place that holds the "evidence" of the validity of the story as told by the Bible."
--I find nothing that can be found for such a validation accept what can be found in any other mountain range of the world."In fact the bible never states that is where it is, it is purposly vauge."
--The mountains of Arrarat, purposefully vague sure, I see no problem in this however."Why I would ask is that? If they were recording literal history would they not want to be as exact as possible?"
--Obviously it was irrlevent at the time, your lucky to get such a resting place either way."That is what I was alluding to. Basically what I have seen from creationists is an attempt to validate the historical nature of the bible using the bible as a reference. I can make my own bible and accomplish the same feat and you would be powerless to refute my claims."
--If you resort to all supernatural explinations, however, in my many hundreds of posts on this board, not once have I illuded to the bible being my evidence."The circular reasoning I have witnessed is astonishing."
--I see the same in an abundance of Evolutionists I have spoken to, luckly I have found intelligence in this forum."The bible is right because the bible says its right, that is the crux of the arguments I have seen."
--I guess its time for a new one then isn't it?"I HAVE seen the supposed use of scientific reasoning to disprove evolution however."
--Personally, I would take a good momment to chuckle at anyone 'dis"proving"' Evolution (theres that word 'proof' again). Though someone to argue against its plausability or whether it is the right explination for observed geologic and paleontological findings, I am willing to listen and argue the same."Yet whenever that same logic is applied to the bible it doesn't seem to fly. Odd."
--Yes it is odd, I pitty them, but now back to your assertion of a complete lack of evidence. Now what would you expect to be found?------------------

"Where is your evidence that it happened TC, NOT a far fetched explanation of the current evidence that allows the possibility of a flood but evidence of the flood itself...."
--That is evidence of the flood, i just listed one, subterranean canyons."If we were to see a lamb out in a field we would postulate that its sire and dam were both sheep, But I could propose a bunch of bizarre, incoherant pseudo Bio Chem arguments for its father and mother being crocodiles...."Even if I were to somehow establish the croc sheep descent as a possibility this is a long way from producing the putative croc parents as evidence FOR my position....Do you get it?"
--Yes, however, if you can show that this can actually happen in plausable conditions (even though it is a pretty horrible illustration) assume that it takes a flood for this decent to happen, this shows that these conditions are needed for this to happen in a given period of time."You have presented no evidence FOR the flood merely offered up crackpot ruminations on ways that it may remain a viable alternative to the current paradigm...."
--Then I have yet to see such evidence for any aspect of history at all, all my geology books must be irrlevent and not what should be looked for."The flood myth had its day as the ruling paradigm TC it was deposed in a classic case of survival of the fittest and untill you find NEW evidence that the Flood paradigm fits that invalidates current theories all your pseudo theorisation here will accomplish you nothing..."
--What evidence must I then show you?------------------

"On a serious note, you have a serious problem with your logic circuits. It is not possible to prove a negative hypothesis. I cannot prove that there never were "strenghtened turbidity currents." It would be impossible to do so."
--Yes, though you can show (the word 'prove' probably should not be used) that there is evidence that there were."Neither can you prove that the earth was not given birth by a pink unicorn."
--Thats right."In effect, you set the bar a little bit higher for evolutionists than for yourself and your fellow creationists in making this argument."
--I don't think I have set the bar anywhere for the evolutionist, let alone higher, I am not arguing against your interperetation, but you are arguing against mine."Can you scientifically prove that evolution did NOT occur? Of course not, you only believe that it did not occur."
--Perfectly reasonable."I can, however, state that there is no evidence for "strengthened turbidity currents." We have never seen them, nor are there any landforms that we can attribute to them. Therefore, it is likely that they never have existed in any quantity."
--Assuming that 'everything as it happens today is how it has always happend'. Though of course uniformitarianism allows for catastrophic events, it seems it is relatively flexible here. I don't have to show that the same process is happening today as the prime cause for the formation (submarine canyons for instance). But I can show that this would be a direct result if such drainage were to happen. This is the same logic that is used to produce a theory for the mainstream K-T extinction, along with many other geologic/paleontologic observations."I realize that this is not a problem in a supernatural belief system where literally anything can happen, but if you want to play the science game, you have to play by the rules."
--I fully agree."You will find that if you force creationism to play by the same standards that you set for evolution, it will fail miserably. "
--I have only seen its advancement in this scenario, which is the way I play the 'game'.------------------

"Submarine canyons are also evidence of lower sea levels, TC. Since we know that sea level has been significanly lower in the past, and there is no evidence for flood-related turbidity currents, which alternative is more likely? Your scenario is but wishful thinking rather than a scientific explanation."
--You just used the same logic and denied it when considering an effect of the Flood, turbidly currents are well known to theoretically produce these massive canyons by the effects of a submarine land-slide or multiple ones. This is just what would happen as water would drain off of continents.(yes excuse me, 'submarine' canyons, I had recently watched a documentary about subterranean canyons and got the two confused)------------------

"So, turbidity currents are "well known to theoretically produce..." Wow, if that isn't spin control, I don't know what it is. And creationist accuse evolutionist of speculating!"
--Speculation, now I would like to speak to anyone who said speculating (synonymous to thinking) about past events is not good science?"If this is what happens when water drains off continents, then we should be seeing it today. After all, water is draining off the continents as we speak. If we see it today, why are we not in the midst of a global flood?"
--Actually, we do see this happening today, check out any book on marine geology and look up turbidity currents. This is an effect that is known today to produce land slides at the mouths of rivers. This water is being drained off of continents as we speak and does produce submarine land-slides at the mouths of rivers though not at the extent of the canyons we see in the continental shelf 6 times the size of the grand canyon. The reason that we are not in the midst of a global flood because of todays topographical land-scape, and the obviousness that water drainage off of the continents either way hasn't anything to do with a global flood."You seem to think that if they exist they might have done such and such; but even if they did, it wouldn't necessarily mean a global flood. Try again TC."
--Feel free to discredit any thinking on the past on this very same basis, including the ToE, as it is using the same methed of science I am. I think it would be wise for you to refer back to where you were speaking of my 'Bar' being higher for the Old Earther rather than the YEC. They are on the same level working on the same level of science.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-28-2002]

"Indeed, the point is that the presence of submarine canyons formed by turbidity currents does not necessarily imply a global flood. As you suggest, some present erosion of submarine canyons is attributed to turbidity currents and they may have been important in the past. However, the presence of submarine canyons was presented by TC as one of the pieces of evidence for the global flood. At least, I think it was. He also called upon "strengthened turbidity currents," whatever those are. What it has to do with the subject of the thread is not certain."
--It is evidence for the Global Flood because in Flood Theory as I argue it, Cambrian --> Pleistocene sediments are flood deposited, and in this along with its very short time-scale for run-off to occur from the continents there should be evidence of this runoff. As minnemooseus cites in the definition of a turbidity current, they are 'laden with suspended sediment, move rapidly down continental slopes and spread out over the abyssal floor'. After such sedimentary deposition higher deposited sediments would not have been lithified and thus large quantities would return to the oceans along with the abating water creating these 'strengthened' turbidity currents by its own force plowing through the continental shelf.-------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-29-2002]

"The problem is that it is evidence for what is going on right now, as well. No flood is necessary. What about post-Pleistocene turbidity currents or Precambrain turbidity currents?"
--Yes however they are not producing anything of the size of canyons 6 times the size of grand canyon. As for the latter. I would have to see topographically where these canyons and deposits are located."I have no problem with the definition. I have no problem with erosion by turbidity currents. I have a problem with calling them and submarine canyons evidence for a flood."
--I find no problem with them, however to be conclusive it would be right for both of us to be at least slightly speculative in the least for this question. See above."Can you document any "strengthened turbidity currents?" For all I know, they do exist, but I am skeptical that they are a construct that you have created for your flood mythology. I am trying to see just what you actually know about turbidity currents."
--? No we do not see these strengthened turbidly currents today at on the scale as would have happened during the flood scenario. This is simply because we are not in a global flood and there is no where on the earth where 10 times the quantity of water as the Amazon is plowing its way for the oceans. This is the same logic as is to construct in mainstream scientific theory as planet formation, stellar evolution, mesa formation, or the K-T extinction. They are both using the same logical scientific method. So I do not see how your question is relevant in the way you propose it's reason for validity.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-29-2002]

"How do you know this?"
--Because the ones that are able to be pointed out are not of this size according to my readings on continental shelf canyon formation by turbidity currents (and thus submarine land-slides)."What is your evidence for your scenario?"
--How can I give evidence for the non-existent?"They are found in the same places."
--Where are these places topographically where these canyons and submarine land-slide canyon deposits are located (such as the Mississippi and Nile deltas)."Sorry, the canyons do not lead one to the exclusive conclusion that a flood formed them."
--Of course it doesn't, it leads you to the conclusion that some force disrupted a absolutely massive submarine land-slide, in need of significant force or chemical deconsolidation of the continental shelf or some other mechanism in which the flood's world hydrodynamics is one explanation."On the other hand there is evidence that there has been plenty of geological time for them to be eroded by normal turbidity current activity."
--Well of course, however this assumes that there actually have been these amounts of time, as well as mine assumes there was a global flood with these hydrodynamic effects. Both are on the same level of scientific hypothesis as far as has been drawn here."Hmm, that's convenient. So you cannot document any such phenomena, other than "they could'a been!" Give me some evidence! Throw me a line, TC, I'm drowning!"
--As I state below in my last post and above in this post. It is using the same logic as is to construct a hypothesis in mainstream scientific theory as in planet formation, stellar evolution, mesa formation, or the K-T extinction. It is simply what will happen if infact these hydrodynamic actions were taking place, and thus these findings are evidence of this. This is of course confirmed as possible by the landslides which we find happen today at times by today's weak turbidity currents."Yes, all that water eroding 1/100 the land mass from lower elevations. I don't see the additional sediment load as a must."
--The additional sediment load is one cause for the submarine land-slide, such additional weight causes the continental shelf to collapse."Man, this is confusing. Elsewhere, I'm debating someone who says that Cretaceous chalk beds must have been deposited during the flood! And yet you tell me that massive submarine density currents are virtually covering the ocean floor with material eroded from the continental shelf! Could you please get on the same page!"
--I do agree that Cretaceous chalk beds were deposited during the flood, how is this not on the same page?"You mean, other than the fact that they have independent lines of evidence to support them?"
--Yes they do, as well as my hypothesis does."What is your independent line of evidence that turbidites related to the flood formed submarine canyons; other thant "they could'a!"
--All of earth history is based upon theories which are 'coulda happened's'. See above, unless you would like to be more specific."No. Your model ignores too much other geological data.
--Well then I would like to see what I am ignoring, I am posting because I would like my hypothesis to be sharpened, so it should be able to explain and not be refuted by other evidences. What evidence have I not considered?"It is PURE speculation without independent evidence. It's like a crossword puzzle where the words don't cross. Give me a crossing word and I'll surrender."
--See above unless you would like to be more specific on what I am missing evidence for exactly.------------------

"To be conclusive we must be speculative?"
--Yes you must first speculate before you are to make your way on a road to come to conclusions. Speculation is synonymous to thinking.------------------