Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
77 online now:
Aussie, candle2, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), vimesey (6 members, 71 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,042 Year: 4,154/6,534 Month: 368/900 Week: 74/150 Day: 5/42 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The TRVE history of the Flood...
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 35 of 85 (804020)
04-06-2017 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
04-06-2017 1:25 PM


Re: Real world evidence
Well I am, and for all I know David is too, looking at real-world evidence (not scientific theories but physical observations) -- it's what I've been arguing here and everywhere else I've argued this -- observations of the real world.

For clarity, you're talking about looking at pictures on the internet, right? You're not talking about you, yourself, actually digging up rocks in the real world, correct?

Since these observations call the Old Earth model into question, they also call the dating methods into question, so you can't just keep pointing to those methods as if they trump everything else.

Well, it is a science thread. Where's the scientific evidence that doesn't fit the old model?

Looking at pictures on the internet and going "looks like a flood to me!" is not observing evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 1:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 2:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 85 (804041)
04-06-2017 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
04-06-2017 2:28 PM


Re: Real world evidence
So you're saying one can't make any true observations about say conditions on Mars unless one has been there? Or a geologist who has studied one feature of his science in great depth can't arrive at any true observations about some other facet of the science he hasn't actually experienced? Or nobody can talk about the molecular formula for water without having seen the oxygen and hydrogen atoms actually doing their thing? Did I have to be there when the apple fell on Newton's head to follow his analysis of the event? Is it possible to know anything about anything in the past when all that's available is written documents and maybe some photographs?

No, I'm saying that looking at pictures on the internet and going "looks like a flood to me!" is not observing evidence.

It's just a superficial reaction from an a priori position. There is no analysis or understanding, it is clearly and plainly wishful thinking.

Also, I suspect that a person could spend a lifetime in the Grand Canyon and not understand how it formed.

A child can spend 5 minutes looking at the river in the bottom and interpolate the vast amount of time it would take for it to carve that canyon.

If you didn't already believe that there had to have been a flood there, you'd prolly see it too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 2:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 3:14 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 85 (804043)
04-06-2017 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
04-05-2017 9:03 PM


Proving a negative?

How would I ever know that I need to go buy more beer if I cannot prove that there is no beer in the fridge?

The evidence for the Flood is gargantuan, worldwide, starting with the sedimentary strata that were laid down one on top of another across huge spans of geography, obviously deposited by water, showing very tight contacts between them, razor sharp in many cases.

How could one stratum get smooshed down on top of another stratum without there being a tight contact line between them? They can't float!

Then there was the amount of time erosion would have had since then to carve various figures out of the deposited sedimentary rock. 4500 years just about exactly the right amount of time to carve the hoodoos and the monuments and the Grand Staircase and so on.

Yeah right. I don't believe you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 04-05-2017 9:03 PM Faith has taken no action

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 85 (804061)
04-06-2017 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
04-06-2017 4:36 PM


Re: Evidence please?
CatsEye's refusal to address the evidence because I've never taken a pickaxe to a rock;

Not true, that was for clarity.

Here's me addressing what you are calling evidence:

quote:
Since these observations call the Old Earth model into question, they also call the dating methods into question, so you can't just keep pointing to those methods as if they trump everything else.

Well, it is a science thread. Where's the scientific evidence that doesn't fit the old model?


quote:
The evidence for the Flood is gargantuan, worldwide, starting with the sedimentary strata that were laid down one on top of another across huge spans of geography, obviously deposited by water, showing very tight contacts between them, razor sharp in many cases.

How could one stratum get smooshed down on top of another stratum without there being a tight contact line between them? They can't float!


I still don't know the answers to those questions.

If you'll answer them, we can move on and I'll keep addressing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 4:36 PM Faith has taken no action

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 85 (804062)
04-06-2017 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
04-05-2017 9:46 PM


The receding water would have scoured off those huge plateaus.

How do you know?

What properties of the plateaus indicate them being scoured off by receding Flood waters?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 04-05-2017 9:46 PM Faith has taken no action

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 85 (804063)
04-06-2017 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
04-06-2017 1:33 AM


Re: No way the strata represent great eras of time
It's commonly believed here but the actual observed facts of the strata don't fit that long-term scenario but are best explained by rapid deposition. The strata are laid one on top of another quite straight and flat, there is nothing about them to suggest there was ever anything like a normal earth surface to any of them, they are flat as a pancake stretching over huge distances and stacked to huge depths.

The densities of the strata, and the arrangements of their molecules, indicate that they have been compacted and we're not laid down in the form that they are in today.

How does your model account for that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 1:33 AM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Davidjay, posted 04-07-2017 12:36 AM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022