Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total)
52 online now:
AZPaul3, CosmicChimp (2 members, 50 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,279 Year: 925/14,102 Month: 328/597 Week: 106/96 Day: 1/22 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does a flood ...
edge
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 105 of 206 (781599)
04-05-2016 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
04-05-2016 6:49 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
There was ONE Biblical worldwide Flood and there is plenty of evidence for it in the strata themselves that span whole continents that are laden with dead things in such a way as to show they were buried catastrophically. Fantastically good evidence.

Actually not, particularly since we don't see any evidence for more recent lifeforms in older rocks. If there were one huge flood, the fossils would be all mixed up, lions next to trilobites. We don't see that. But that's just one line of evidence. There are many more which you have shown a preference to deny.

Walther's Law gives us the method for the laying down of the strata in disparate sediments: sand that became sandstone, carbonates that became limestone, clay that became shale, mud to mudstone and so on, which are laid down one after another and one on top of the other as sea level rises, which is of course what would have happened in the flood.

Problem is that we see it repeated over and over in the geological record, always recording a new set of fossil evidence. And we never see evidence that the entire planet was inundated.

Walther's Law gives us the explanation for how sediments got sorted separately. Millions of years per sediment is a ridiculous notion.

Why is that?

And of course the fact that there are dead things galore buried in those sediments fits very nicely the Flood's purpose of wiping out all living things. Since sediments sort, apparently contents do too.

So, if this happened all at once why do we not see mammals buried with trilobites?

And all that evidence is still there. It hasn't gone away.

Except for the evidence that you choose to ignore...

As I recall I've many times laid out a complete scenario for the Flood and even Percy once said it suffices as a model, though I'm unable to find where he said it, so your constant refrain that I haven't is false.

Yes, a model that has been shown to be fallacious.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix 1 quote box.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 04-05-2016 6:49 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Faith, posted 04-05-2016 9:06 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 112 of 206 (781612)
04-05-2016 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Faith
04-05-2016 9:06 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
But your whole notion of "older rocks" is just the OE theory.

Theory backed up by numerous lines of evidence including relative dating techniques and known geological processes, further backed up by various dating methods.

If the rocks aren't older then which lifeforms are found in them has nothing to do with the age of the rocks.

But dating shows this not to be the case.

And this notion that the fossils would all be jumbled up is again just interpretation for which you have no specific evidence, it's just your own head trip.

Not necessarily 'jumbled up', but in the same age rocks. We should find large mammals with large dinosaur fossils but we do not.

Since Walther's Law sorts sediments it apparently also sorted the dead creatures that were deposited with them. According to what principle I have no idea but obviously sorting occurred.

Then we are correct in saying that you do not understand Walther's Law.

It explains why strata are time-transgressive but still have lateral continuity.

You do not "see" this at all, you interpret this into the facts that are subject to other more reasonable interpretations.

So then, you reject Walther's Law.

You should have said so in the first place.

The evidence I've given is sufficient.

Only if you neglect surrounding data, such as relative dating methods and known geological processes.

This entire discussion is of course always just one interpretation against another and yours are usually no better than the Flood interpretations.

I'm sure you have studied these things as much as I have.

I think I've given killer evidence for the Flood many times but you'll never see it because of your OE tinted glasses.

You have given evidence for marine deposition, but not for a global flood.

Think about what a 'global flood' means. No land, no beaches, no swamps, no erosion; and yet there they all are in the geological record.

One sediment per millions of years is ridiculous on the face of it.

It is also a straw-man argument. No one says this but YECs.

A slab of rock of one kind of sediment that spans a whole continent and even the entire world was simply not built up over millions of years, ...

Why not? And please provide and example of a formation that is global.

...as if the surface of the earth were EVER composed of one sediment.

True, and one of the reasons is that there was always an emergent land mass to provide sediments of various nature.

Golly gee just look at the surface of the earth NOW and realize that those strata simply do NOT represent the surface of this planet in any time period whatever let alone for millions of years.

Why not?

Because it makes you uncomfortable?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Faith, posted 04-05-2016 9:06 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:32 AM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 113 of 206 (781613)
04-05-2016 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
04-05-2016 9:16 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
OF course I don't know how the fossils were sorted and it's ridiciulous to expect that of a Floodist.

Well, some of us do know and time is the most explanatory suspect.

For you to reject it based on your admitted ignorance is a bit arrogant.

The model doesn't have to account for how the creatures were sorted since one wouldn't expect a Flood to have a sorting method.

But that arrangement of fossils is data.

Your model needs to explain it.

We can't just ignore data because it doesn't fit a cherished model.

Percy agrees I've provided a model, and in fact I've provided a model many many times in the past.

He also says that your model failed its tests.

It should be rejected.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 04-05-2016 9:16 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 6:43 AM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 159 of 206 (781688)
04-06-2016 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Faith
04-06-2016 10:13 AM


Re: what must be seen
In any case, if you are going to impose on me your own interpretation of the Bible which I absolutely reject, ...

You want to do that yourself, eh?

... perhaps discussion is simply impossible and I should opt out of this thread.

Well, a discussion implies that you would consider what your counterpart is saying. Flat rejection does kind of kill conversation.

Knowing how bizarre and singular your view of the Bible is, is the reason I didn't join this thread when it was originally posted, and hesitated this time too. What's the point? You have an invented Bible and and invented Christianity and I adhere to the real one.

I believe what Jar is trying to say is that, not only is the YEC interpretation incorrect, but the Bible itself is contradictory.

Also, reducing the Flood to ONE LAYER of the strata is beyond absurd.

I don't believe that anyone intends do so so. Anyone with a modicum of geological experience knows that rock layers come in (recognizable) packages.

The problem here is that there is no discernible package that looks like a rising and lowering global flood. On the other hand, we do see regional and even continental flooding occurring many times in the geological record.

Compounding your error is the fact that at virtually no point in the geological record can we ascertain a period when there was no land mass that was being eroded. Evidence to that effect is the presence of beach sands, swamps, lakes and a host of other land-type deposits. After all if there is no beach, how do you get beach sands?

Now, if we can see numerous large marine encroachments (look up 'cyclothems') on land during say the Devonian of Pennsylvania, why can we not see something that is as major as the Biblical flood?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 10:13 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 4:19 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 160 of 206 (781689)
04-06-2016 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Faith
04-06-2016 8:53 AM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
You have a false idea of the Flood. It's no wonder if there is no evidence for YOUR idea of the Flood since it couldn't have happened. Your expectations of what would constitute evidence are ridiculous.

Please give us some evidence that is diagnostic of a biblical flood and not a regional or local flood. In other words, how do you know that a flood is global? Have you traced the strata around the world?

The actual evidence has been given. Worldwide strata indicating worldwide water deposition according to Walther's Law, worldwide fossils indicating worldwide death by water.

First of all Walther's Law applies to all rising and lower of sea level.

Secondly, what do you mean by 'death by water'? Most of the fossils in the fossil record are marine.

If it's not good enough for you that's not surprising since you have unreasonable expectations and the usual assumptions of those hostile to the idea of the ONE Biblical Flood..

Actually, the hostility is directed a the militant YECs rather than their flood per se. Rejection does not mean hostility.

The actual evidence has been given.

As I've said many times the evidence you present is also evidence for mainstream geology. What you need is a way to tell them apart. We have given you some ideas here, but you seem to ignore those possibilities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 8:53 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 190 of 206 (781747)
04-07-2016 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Faith
04-06-2016 6:42 PM


Re: Moderator Clarifications
Just to clarify, I don't reject the fact that these things are occurring, I reject the claim that they in any way represent how the Geologic column was built.

Well then it's kind of weird that the deposits we see forming in the present look exactly like those of the geological record.

I will admit that the continental crust of the Archean exposed in shield areas looks very different from what we see elsewhere, but that really was a looooong time ago. In fact, that's another thing the YEC simply cannot explain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 6:42 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 192 of 206 (781749)
04-07-2016 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
04-06-2016 4:19 PM


Re: what must be seen
The entire stack of strata wherever they are found is evidence for the global Flood, ...

It is also evidence for the modern understanding of geology.

... and their fossil contents clinch it as the killer of all living things it aimed to be.

It is also evidence for old ages.

Please give us something that is diagnostic of young ages and a global flood and nothing else.

Making assertions is not evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 4:19 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 196 of 206 (781766)
04-07-2016 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
04-07-2016 12:32 PM


Oh well, this thread got even worse today. Mere assertions of establishment science are treated as evidence, repeated statements are accepted though they had already been answered many times.

If we focused on the data, things might go a little bit better. Right now, I see that problem is that the data is ignored while toxic accusations such as 'brainwashing' overwhelm and destroy the conversation.

JMHO...

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 04-07-2016 12:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 04-07-2016 2:48 PM edge 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 © 2021