Flood Stories

"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]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"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.[/QUOTE]How do you know this? What is your evidence for your scenario? They are found in the same places.

quote:

---

"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.

---

Sorry, the canyons do not lead one to the exclusive conclusion that a flood formed them. 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.

quote:

---

"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.

---

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!

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, all that water eroding 1/100 the land mass from lower elevations. I don't see the additional sediment load as a must. 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!

quote:

---

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.

---

You mean, other than the fact that they have independent lines of evidence to support them? What is your independent line of evidence that turbidites related to the flood formed submarine canyons; other thant "they could'a!"

quote:

---

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.

---

No. Your model ignores too much other geological data. 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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
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.

---

Que???To be conclusive we must be speculative?Que???

"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.------------------

"To be conclusive we must be speculative" is extremely ambiguous at best and nonsense at worst. Why not express yourself clearly the first time?--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"What is your evidence for your scenario?"

​

--How can I give evidence for the non-existent?

---

But you must have some reason for believing your scenario. It seems to me that you are saying you have no evidence.

quote:

---

"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.

---

But then I have evidence for those long periods of time, whereas you say you have no evidence. So we are not on the same level.

quote:

---

"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.

---

But, TC, we have established that there is evidence for those theories. You admit to having none.

quote:

---

"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.

---

Good, then you could give us your lines of evidence.

quote:

---

"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, they are based on the fact that we see the same phenomena happening today and we see the expected effects in the geological record.

quote:

---

"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 seems to me that you denied the evidence for an old earth somewhere above. That was easy. Do you want to go on?

quote:

---

"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.

---

What I see is that you admit there is no evidence and that you have no observed phenomena and you have shown that you must ignore substantial parts of science to arrive at your theory.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 05-07-2002]

"But then I have evidence for those long periods of time, whereas you say you have no evidence. So we are not on the same level."
--Apparently this is where you are pointing to. What evidence would you like for me to show that these evidences of long periods of time are explainable with short periods of time.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"But then I have evidence for those long periods of time, whereas you say you have no evidence. So we are not on the same level."
--Apparently this is where you are pointing to. What evidence would you like for me to show that these evidences of long periods of time are explainable with short periods of time.

---

Pick any of your favorites and explain why it doesn't show
old age for the earth.Hydrostatic sorting doesn't hold up for the fossil record by
the way ... works on density so all creatures of the same
density should be in the same layers ... they're not.Oh, and we want evidence, not your opinion. You can gives us
your interpretation of some evidence, but just saying 'I reckon
this coulda happened.' will not do.

​

[This message has been edited by Peter, 05-16-2002]

"Pick any of your favorites and explain why it doesn't show
old age for the earth."
--Besides the fact that this should be every method of dating. Not too sure, Dendrochronology is most likely the most misunderstood. Other relative dating, or at least indications of Old age should be considered in the question. Geologic formations and such."Hydrostatic sorting doesn't hold up for the fossil record by
the way ... works on density so all creatures of the same
density should be in the same layers ... they're not."
--Not sure how many times I've stated it, though Hydrologic sorting is not our mechanism for fossil deposition and sorting, if at all, it is highly minute."Oh, and we want evidence, not your opinion. You can gives us
your interpretation of some evidence, but just saying 'I reckon
this coulda happened.' will not do."
--Funny how this is all we can say about the past, 'this could have happened'. What leads you up to this conclusion of the 'this could have happened', reasoning and methodology is something that should be dealt with though.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Pick any of your favorites and explain why it doesn't show
old age for the earth."

​

--Besides the fact that this should be every method of dating. Not too sure, Dendrochronology is most likely the most misunderstood. Other relative dating, or at least indications of Old age should be considered in the question. Geologic formations and such.

---

I have read this statement 4 times and I still don't know what you are saying. Peter asked you to pick a favorite method and present your data.

quote:

---

"Oh, and we want evidence, not your opinion. You can gives us
your interpretation of some evidence, but just saying 'I reckon
this coulda happened.' will not do."

​

--Funny how this is all we can say about the past, 'this could have happened'. What leads you up to this conclusion of the 'this could have happened', reasoning and methodology is something that should be dealt with though.

---

In an absolutist sense you are correct. However, it is possible to make basic assumptions that most people would accept as reasonable. For instance we might say that since a rock unit is identical to another on the other side of a fault, that they have been offset by that fault a certain distance. This would be considered evidence. To say that faster radioactive decay rates could have resulted in faster plate tectonic rates is not evidence. It is a story.

"I have read this statement 4 times and I still don't know what you are saying. Peter asked you to pick a favorite method and present your data."
--I don't really have a 'favorite' method. I indicated that I thought Dendrochronology is often misunderstood as a thought. I also made the assertion that every dating methods should not conclusively show an old age for the earth. Geologic formations are ones that I'll usually revolve around in a relative dating method argument. I would rather not give my data until I can be more specific by getting a further response."In an absolutist sense you are correct. However, it is possible to make basic assumptions that most people would accept as reasonable. For instance we might say that since a rock unit is identical to another on the other side of a fault, that they have been offset by that fault a certain distance. This would be considered evidence."
--Right, though assumptions and indications of 'time' are usually more or less difficult or at least give a wider variation depending on other assumptions."To say that faster radioactive decay rates could have resulted in faster plate tectonic rates is not evidence. It is a story."
--Well not a 'story', but a conclusion, what this conclusion is based on and how reasonable it is is something I have left to study.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--I don't really have a 'favorite' method. I indicated that I thought Dendrochronology is often misunderstood as a thought. I also made the assertion that every dating methods should not conclusively show an old age for the earth.

---

Exactly!!!!! Some methods do not tell us the age of the earth. They date other things. The problem is that most of these other dates are younger, including all(?) of the creationist clocks. They date something other than the age of the earth.

quote:

---

"In an absolutist sense you are correct. However, it is possible to make basic assumptions that most people would accept as reasonable. For instance we might say that since a rock unit is identical to another on the other side of a fault, that they have been offset by that fault a certain distance. This would be considered evidence."

​

--Right, though assumptions and indications of 'time' are usually more or less difficult or at least give a wider variation depending on other assumptions.

---

I can accept the basic assumptions of radiometric dating, along with most scientists. If you cannot, that is fine. Just remember that you are 'swimming against the current' and that to support you point, you must work that much harder. Sorry, but science is conservative.

quote:

---

"To say that faster radioactive decay rates could have resulted in faster plate tectonic rates is not evidence. It is a story."

​

--Well not a 'story', but a conclusion, what this conclusion is based on and how reasonable it is is something I have left to study.

---

A conclusion that is based on no real data. That is a story to me. Regardless, it is not evidence.

"Exactly!!!!! Some methods do not tell us the age of the earth. They date other things."
--Right."The problem is that most of these other dates are younger, including all(?) of the creationist clocks. They date something other than the age of the earth.
"
--Younger?"I can accept the basic assumptions of radiometric dating, along with most scientists. If you cannot, that is fine. Just remember that you are 'swimming against the current' and that to support you point, you must work that much harder."
--I also have less research to go by this assertion. Sure I may be 'swimming against the current', however, this does not mean I am incorrect. Also, what I may possibly want to look for if I am going to ever use this, is evidence that decay rates may have infact been faster in the past, not that they could have been."Sorry, but science is conservative."
--I have no problem with this."A conclusion that is based on no real data. That is a story to me. Regardless, it is not evidence."
--I was not aware that you have done in-depth studies on the implications of accelerated decay. And yes, in the way that you put it, it wouldn't be evidence.Also, this went unanswered:"What evidence would you like for me to show that these evidences [whatever this may be] of long periods of time are explainable with short periods of time."------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-18-2002]

TrueCreation writes:

---

What evidence would you like for me to show that these evidences [whatever this may be] of long periods of time are explainable with short periods of time.

---

Scientific theories are built upon evidence. Evolutionists have been telling you that Creationism doesn't have a theory, and one of the reasons we know this is because there is no supporting evidence, something else we've been telling you. That you have to ask evolutionists what the evidence supporting your view would be like should cause you to realize the truth of what people have been telling you.In another thread you claimed that flood mythology is not Bible based, but just the same as for your dating discussion, there's no scientific evidence for the Noachic flood. If objective evidence for the flood existed then there would be supporters for flood theory in all cultures and religions, including scientists, but the actual situation is that only evangelical Christians think the flood was real.--Percy