Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9049 total)
474 online now:
dwise1, PaulK (2 members, 472 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,602 Year: 5,248/14,102 Month: 169/677 Week: 28/26 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 35 of 1352 (804263)
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 responded

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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 1352 (804273)
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 responded

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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 1352 (804275)
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 not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 1352 (804283)
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 not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 1352 (804284)
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 not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 1352 (804285)
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 not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Davidjay, posted 04-07-2017 12:36 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 138 of 1352 (804700)
04-12-2017 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Davidjay
04-12-2017 11:35 AM


Aren't you just preaching?

GTFO with that crap.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Davidjay, posted 04-12-2017 11:35 AM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Davidjay, posted 04-13-2017 12:38 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 1352 (804808)
04-13-2017 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Davidjay
04-13-2017 12:38 AM


Re: Exact Historical Landmarks and Prophecies
Cats Eye, add to the discussion without all your crap comments.

If you dont know history thats your problem. If you have numerous billion years of missing links and eras. Again thats your problem.

Get your crap together, and explain your history, in solid form.

And please no one liners, it shows your lack of depth ....

Start your luck and chance thesis off, with maybe your summation....that all human history is by luck and chance and there has never been and never will be any rhyme or reason or design to history. Suggest there is NO DIRECTION OF TIME, and its all just hit and miss MISTAKES of man never learning anything.

Sum up your thesis, rather than making crappy comments against others and me.

Sure, my thesis is simple: Science works.

Now back to the true dating of the Great Flood, the catacylsms that Darwin so well noted and documented.

We know without a doubt, as a scientific fact, that the entire planet has never been flooded since humans have existed.

Whatever calculations you come up with that conflicts with that fact must be incorrect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Davidjay, posted 04-13-2017 12:38 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 1352 (805605)
04-19-2017 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Faith
04-19-2017 1:37 PM


Re: Re::Grand Canyon is the result of Noah's Flood
Meanders have nothing in common with the widest parts of the canyon.

Huh!? There's isn't any part of the canyon that doesn't meander:

(click to enlarge)

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Enlarge thumbnail view to full screen. The photo can be zoomed in even more by clicking on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Faith, posted 04-19-2017 1:37 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Faith, posted 04-19-2017 2:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 539 of 1352 (806433)
04-25-2017 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 526 by Davidjay
04-25-2017 10:56 AM


Re: Faith's Graphs are a start
Notice any similarities today, as man still hasn't learned his lesson, even though reuniting under a new one world
language through translations on line. Why, because man in his arrogance when united, is dangerous and so way back
then, the Lord divided their languages so that they could no longer communicate to each other, and therefore had to leave
off building their proud work of the flesh. So the Lord brought them back down to Earth, and divided them into
linguistic groups and separated them into the four corners of the earth .... and then it seems at the very same time era
divided the Earth into new continents, so as to further keep them apart.

The Lord commanded the animals and people after the Flood, to breed abundantly and they obviously did as well as
redistributing themselves over the face of the remaining dry land. But after this redistribution, expansion and biological
explosion, then came the Tower of babel and the language separation.

So maybe at the same time, there was a shifting of the geological plates, some raising and lowering as the waters
receeded downwards. And so surely after these great land mass had drained and dried out, there could have been a
dividing of the Earth. It can't be absolutely be proven, but the very real possibility remains.

We know as a scientific fact that the entire planet has not been flooded since humans have existed.

Any "possibility" that you come up with that contradicts that must be wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by Davidjay, posted 04-25-2017 10:56 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 610 of 1352 (807257)
05-01-2017 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 609 by Faith
05-01-2017 7:32 PM


Re: The Flood Explains the Cratonic Sequences. Basins are a joke
They don't have to be "uniform," just originally laid down flat, as Morris also said.

The reason they look flat today is because of the geological process of compaction. The environments that they represent (not are), could have been very different when they were on the surface and they were not necessarily flat when they were being laid down.

Layers get a lot flatter over time as they build up, and it takes time.

quote:
If there is a variation in thickness and compactability of a sequence, loading by later deposits will give rise to spatially varying amounts of compaction. This form of compactation is a function of the lithology of the base sediment. Both the thickness and structure of the later sequence will be controlled by the underlying geology in the absence of any active tectonics. wiki source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 609 by Faith, posted 05-01-2017 7:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 612 by edge, posted 05-01-2017 8:57 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 617 of 1352 (807333)
05-02-2017 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 612 by edge
05-01-2017 8:57 PM


Re: The Flood Explains the Cratonic Sequences. Basins are a joke
And yet, we see Faith say the same thing over and over again, that these sedimentary units are 'flat' with parallel top and bottom, and are continentally extensive.

They also keep harping on this whole "razor sharp" contact lines between the layers, as if it was possible for it to be some other way, or something.

Doesn't make any sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 612 by edge, posted 05-01-2017 8:57 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 619 by Faith, posted 05-02-2017 11:51 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 621 of 1352 (807367)
05-02-2017 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 619 by Faith
05-02-2017 11:51 AM


Re: The Flood Explains the Cratonic Sequences. Basins are a joke
I know this is a quote from edge but I'll answer it here. I have never said anything about them being parallel top and bottom to some degree of perfection, but you can look at them and see a GENERAL parallel form and that's all I've ever meant. All I've ever said is that they are originally laid down horizontally or "flat" across the flat continent, which is what water would do.

But we can't say that they were originally laid down flat just because they look flat today. They've gone through compaction, and that makes them flatter. They very well may not have been flat when they were laid down.

So what? The point is that they were originally laid down flat,

That point is wrong and not supported by the evidence.

The point is that mainstream Geology says that the layers represent time periods, (Cambrian, Devonian, Permian, Jurassic, etc) or groups of layers do, and they will point to minuscule amounts of erosion between some layers to prove it,

There is more that proves it than just the amounts of erosion between them...

Yet they claim those time periods persisted over millions of years. No, their actual appearance is of sediments laid down in water one on top of another

But you don't know what you're looking at, and you're not a geologist. Sorry, but your observation is just wrong.

and sometimes they have those extremely razor tight contacts. That is not what you'd get from a surface that had been on the the surface of the Earth for lmillions of years, or even ten or one, or a month.

Sure, but after all of the layers have been compacted together, you would expect exactly that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 619 by Faith, posted 05-02-2017 11:51 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 622 by Faith, posted 05-02-2017 3:27 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 623 of 1352 (807370)
05-02-2017 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 622 by Faith
05-02-2017 3:27 PM


Re: The Flood Explains the Cratonic Sequences. Basins are a joke
What on earth is your obsession with "compaction?" Of course they were compacted. So what?

It means they were not necessarily originally laid down horizontally and flat.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 622 by Faith, posted 05-02-2017 3:27 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 625 by Faith, posted 05-02-2017 3:41 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 640 of 1352 (807602)
05-04-2017 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 625 by Faith
05-02-2017 3:41 PM


Re: The Flood Explains the Cratonic Sequences. Basins are a joke
The fact is they were. You should stay out of discussions you haven't been following.

You should kiss my ass!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 625 by Faith, posted 05-02-2017 3:41 PM Faith 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