|
Author
|
Topic: Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
Message 92 of 304 (292655)
03-06-2006 9:35 AM
|
|
|
What's the topic?
Modulous makes a good point when he notes that explaining modern geology is not the topic of this thread, but there seems to be a great deal of interest in it anyway. There are two possible courses of action:
- Discuss the thread's topic, which would mean Faith would present evidence *for* the flood and explain how it supports the flood scenario. A new thread could be opened to discuss the views of modern geology.
- Change the topic of the thread to discuss the views of modern geology.
It's Mark24's thread, so it's his call. Until he chimes in I will be disallowing discussion of modern geological views. Only flood evidence and flood interpretations of the evidence should be discussed in this thread.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 93 by mark24, posted 03-06-2006 9:39 AM | | Admin has not replied | | | Message 95 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 9:41 AM | | Admin has not replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 98 of 304 (292662)
03-06-2006 9:48 AM
|
|
|
Faith's Arguments
Here's another copy of Faith's evidence and arguments for the flood as summarized in PurpleDawn's Message 74:
Faith writes: - 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 marine fossils in mountains and deserts is also great evidence for a worldwide flood.
- The existence of the stratifications called the geological column, also found all over the world, is terrific evidence for a worldwide flood. The alternation of different kinds of sediments with different fossil contents is just not at all compatible with the notion of deposition over millions of years, but water certainly can explain it, as some of the scenarios evos concoct even end up conceding.
- 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.
- 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.
In your replies please focus on how this is or isn't evidence for a flood and not on how modern geology is or isn't a better explanation.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 102 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2006 10:00 AM | | Admin has not replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 109 of 304 (292683)
03-06-2006 10:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
03-06-2006 10:06 AM
|
|
Re: Those layers again
Faith writes: ...on this thread all I care about is how the slow accumulation theory is untenable... While that would be off-topic for this thread, if you propose a new thread then I will approve it as quickly as I am able. I suggest using your Message 83 from this thread as the opening post.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 103 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 10:06 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 137 of 304 (292732)
03-06-2006 12:04 PM
|
|
|
Topic Reminder
Hi Folks, I know this feels really weird because I, too, am debating in this thread, but we're only supposed to be examining evidence and arguments *for* the flood, not examining and defending modern geology. It is difficult to leave aside comparisons to the views of modern geology, but that's what we're supposed to be doing, and it makes sense because if we allow modern geology to be a distraction Faith will never have an opportunity to describe the creationist flood-scenario interpretation of the evidence. If someone proposes a thread to discuss creationist criticisms of modern geological views I will approve it as quickly as I can.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 141 by roxrkool, posted 03-06-2006 12:12 PM | | Admin has not replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 147 of 304 (292752)
03-06-2006 12:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 145 by Faith
03-06-2006 12:41 PM
|
|
Guidelines Advisory
Faith writes: Also please acknowledge that slow deposition is an absurd explanation... ... I understand this is not supposed to be the topic of this thread, but it WAS part of my post that Mark24 supposedly started this thread to answer. But comparing the two scenarios has proven many times to be an overwhelming distraction from understanding just what it is the flood scenario proposes. I will approve as rapidly as I can any thread proposal to examine the views of modern geology, but I'll have to rule discussion of it here as off-topic. Hoping you understand, thanks!
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 145 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 12:41 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 155 of 304 (292765)
03-06-2006 1:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 150 by PaulK
03-06-2006 1:16 PM
|
|
Off-topic Advisory
Hi PaulK, If someone opens a thread to examine how poorly modern geology explains the evidence then I'll approve it as soon as I can, but this thread should focus on YEC evidence and interpretations.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 150 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2006 1:16 PM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 159 of 304 (292773)
03-06-2006 2:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 158 by roxrkool
03-06-2006 2:11 PM
|
|
Guidelines Advisory
roxrkool writes: You have already been shown more than once how fossils are better explained via the old earth, non-flood model. You simply choose to ignore the evidence - as usual. I've been trying to make this off-topic for this thread, but I'll approve a thread proposal for critiquing modern geological views as quickly as I can. Also, please don't allow yourself to be drawn into violations of other guidelines.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 158 by roxrkool, posted 03-06-2006 2:11 PM | | roxrkool has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 167 by roxrkool, posted 03-06-2006 6:29 PM | | Admin has not replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 163 of 304 (292783)
03-06-2006 3:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 160 by mark24
03-06-2006 2:38 PM
|
|
I'm going to continue trying to keep this thread on-topic. That means this is on-topic:
mark24 writes: This thread IS about evidence of the global flood, it's in the title, for christ's sake. And this is not on-topic:
mark24 writes: You haven't shown what it explains that mainstream geology doesn't. ... And you have failed to show why the flood explains extinction better, you have just asserted it. Evidence please. If the data, per se, can't tell between two scenarios, then it isn't evidence for one of those scenarios over another. Just as it's possible to present modern geology's interpretation of the evidence without reference to the Genesis flood, it should be just as possible to present the YEC interpretation without reference to modern geological views. In other words, this thread is not for comparing and contrasting the two views, but for getting a clear statement of the YEC view. It would represent enormous progress were we to achieve this. In all the time I've participated in creation/evolution discussions, I've never seen the evidence interpreted in a YEC flood-scenario context.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 160 by mark24, posted 03-06-2006 2:38 PM | | mark24 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 168 by mark24, posted 03-06-2006 6:50 PM | | Admin has replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 203 of 304 (292916)
03-07-2006 8:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 168 by mark24
03-06-2006 6:50 PM
|
|
Opinion about what's on and off topic
Hi Mark24, While it might seem strange to disagree with the thread originator as to what and what isn't on-topic, in this case I'm going to stay with my original impression when I first read the thread proposal. The title of this thread is:
Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some And the OP concludes:
So where is this "staggering" evidence of a global flood? So I'm declaring this thread a place where Faith can present her evidence for a global thread, and not a place to compare flood scenario interpretations with modern geology.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 168 by mark24, posted 03-06-2006 6:50 PM | | mark24 has replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 204 of 304 (292917)
03-07-2006 8:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 194 by Modulous
03-07-2006 3:58 AM
|
|
Re: Testing testing 1...2...3
Modulous writes: ...sister thread I proposed... Can't find a sister thread proposal. Please point me at it.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 194 by Modulous, posted 03-07-2006 3:58 AM | | Modulous has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 205 by Modulous, posted 03-07-2006 8:57 AM | | Admin has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2