Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,249 Year: 5,506/9,624 Month: 531/323 Week: 28/143 Day: 1/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Creationist Sues the Grand Canyon for Religious Discrimination
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1561 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 5 of 99 (809312)
05-17-2017 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
05-17-2017 6:46 PM


Re: Flood disproved
You say the Flood was disproved over 200 years ago. I think you owe it to us to show us how it was disproved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 05-17-2017 6:46 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2017 7:23 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 05-17-2017 7:25 PM Faith has replied
 Message 14 by jar, posted 05-17-2017 8:38 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 05-18-2017 11:03 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1561 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 11 of 99 (809331)
05-17-2017 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coyote
05-17-2017 7:25 PM


Re: Flood disproved
Thanks.
As I suspected it's a lot of toppling of straw man concepts of the Flood, such as "...the assumption that fossils resembling modern tropical species had been swept north 'by some violent means'" and ..."Buckland's identification of red mud in the Kirkdale cave as diluvial, when near identical mud in other caves had been described as fluvial" and the idea that it had to be a violent torrent, and so on.
Not a word about the strata interestingly, which occur on a scale more commensurate with a worldwide Flood than the little local events that are so easily dismissed as local because they are. Also the abundance of fossils. The strata are probably in there somewhere but it's not in these quotes.
So basically they debunked the geological effect of the Flood on the basis of a few ill-thought-out examples here and there. Some red mud in a cave is a pretty puny bit if evidence for the Flood. Tropical fossils being found in the north probably IS evidence of the Flood but they aren't taking into account that a biblical understanding of the pre-Flood world would have expected it to have a far more temperate climate, even closer to tropical, than after the Flood, and violence wouldn't necessarily have been required of the Flood in any case. There probably was violence during different phases of the Flood, but there's no need to attribute it to the whole event.
Those are typical arguments anti-Floodists come up with still, totally inadequate.
Edited by Faith, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 05-17-2017 7:25 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1561 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 13 of 99 (809335)
05-17-2017 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
05-17-2017 8:14 PM


Re: Flood disproved
And what, pray tell, was Leonardo's reasoning for rejecting the Flood?
ABE: I just noticed your link, but that page is too bright for me to read, can you do a quick summary for me? Thanks.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 05-17-2017 8:14 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by JonF, posted 05-17-2017 9:22 PM Faith has replied
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2017 7:22 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1561 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 16 of 99 (809353)
05-17-2017 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by JonF
05-17-2017 9:22 PM


Re: Flood disproved
Please repeat the information. I don't remember what Leonardo thought,.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by JonF, posted 05-17-2017 9:22 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by JonF, posted 05-18-2017 9:38 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1561 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 20 of 99 (809391)
05-18-2017 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by JonF
05-18-2017 9:38 AM


Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
Thanks for the information, but I was just reading what RAZD posted from the Leonardo site and you seem to be in disagreement with that where you say:
Basically he realized that the fossils on mountaintops lived and grew where they were found (wherever that might have been at the time) and were far too complete to be deposited by moving water.
Since things are much more ancient than letters, it is no marvel if, in our day, no records exist of these seas having covered so many countries. . . But sufficient for us is the testimony of things created in the salt waters, and found again in high mountains far from the seas.
At first glance this seems to contradict what RAZD just posted about Leonardo's refuting the idea that the fossils in mountains had grown there:
...others thought that these shells had grown in the rocks. Leonardo had no patience with either hypothesis, and refuted both using his careful observations. Concerning the second hypothesis, he wrote that "such an opinion cannot exist in a brain of much reason; because here are the years of their growth, numbered on their shells, and there are large and small ones to be seen which could not have grown without food, and could not have fed without motion -- and here they could not move."
But he isn't saying they grew in the rocks, merely " lived and grew where they were found (wherever that might have been at the time" since he goes on to suppose that the land had been covered by seas at some point: " it is no marvel if, in our day, no records exist of these seas having covered so many countries. . . But sufficient for us is the testimony of things created in the salt waters, and found again in high mountains far from the seas. "
But that's a statement I would take as a near miss to grasping that they were deposited by the Flood, so near and yet so far.
If local floods could have deposited them and not broken them to bits, why couldn't the worldwide Flood? Why is there such certainty about what the Flood would have done as long as it contradicts what the Bible says? It's not all that hard to set your mind to reconciling the facts with the Bible, it's a mental set, the explanations that debunk the Bible aren't particularly realistic, they're just the usual off-the-cuff suppositions. If the shells are not broken we then assume the Flood wasn't as violent as is often thought.
But the general idea that they lived and grew wherever the mountains originally were is certainly in turn with the idea of the Flood, especially since he also says strata are found in the high parts of the mountains, which to my mind are a sure evidence of the Flood. So the Flood laid down all the sediments along with the shells and other fossils, and after the Flood the mountains were raised: that's the tectonic activity that occurred with the splitting of the continents. See? It all works out just fine.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by JonF, posted 05-18-2017 9:38 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 05-18-2017 10:13 AM Faith has replied
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 10:48 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 40 by JonF, posted 05-18-2017 12:07 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1561 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 22 of 99 (809399)
05-18-2017 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
05-18-2017 7:22 AM


Leonardo's unbiblical guesses
Interesting, thanks.
He was very interested in the strata, but called them "all layers of clay," rather than different sediments, noting that "at the summit of the mountains we shall always find the divisions of strata in the rocks," but attributed them to flooding of rivers.
Obviously it wouldn't be easy to interpret such phenomena in any age, but it seems to me that believing the Bible ought to give a person the definite idea that the strata are evidence for the Flood. Lots of odd ideas are possible for all these phenomena; standard current Geology's ideas are probably the strangest though, the idea of separate eras of time in which the fossils lived.
..He also appears to have noticed that distinct layers of rocks and fossils could be traced over long distances, and that these layers were formed at different times: ". . . the shells in Lombardy are at four levels, and thus it is everywhere, having been made at various times."
The idea that layers represent time periods is in his thinking already, it seems. Maybe it wasn't all that easy to see layers as simultaneously produced, which is what various recent experiments have shown. But mostly I fault Leonardo for not trying to reconcile the facts with the Bible. On the other hand the Catholic church was discouraging people from reading the Bible in those days.
....The idea that fossils "grew there" he rightly denounces. But then JonF quotes something else from that article that suggests he accepted that they "lived and grew there" if that refers to an original location in the sea.
What about the Great Flood mentioned in the Bible? Leonardo doubted the existence of a single worldwide flood, noting that there would have been no place for the water to go when it receded.
Too bad, Leonardo didn't put much trust in the Bible, but then as I said above, Catholics in those days didn't. Those who do trust the Bible expect to find an explanation for where the water went, they don't just give up and call God a liar, which is what Leonardo's position amounts to from the point of view of a Bible believer. The current theory about where the water went has something to do with the dropping of the sea floor I think.
He also noted that "if the shells had been carried by the muddy deluge they would have been mixed up, and separated from each other amidst the mud, and not in regular steps and layers -- as we see them now in our time."
He lacked the perspective that explains the steps and layers as formed by water in one event.
He noted that rain falling on mountains rushed downhill, not uphill, and suggested that any Great Flood would have carried fossils away from the land, not towards it.
But this is easily answered. There were no fossils on mountaintops when the Flood began, they were deposited in the layers during the Flood which where then raised into mountains afterward.
He described sessile fossils such as oysters and corals, and considered it impossible that one flood could have carried them 300 miles inland, or that they could have crawled 300 miles in the forty days and nights of the Biblical flood.
He seems to have an awfully small flood in mind, as so many do, not envisioning that a worldwide Flood would have so totally covered the land that its tides and waves would have carried all kinds of flotsam and jetsam many hundreds of miles over the land.
All this demonstrates that explaining the prehistoric past is a difficult thing. But biblical creationists have the Bible to give us a lead that others don't have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2017 7:22 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2017 1:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1561 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 23 of 99 (809400)
05-18-2017 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Coyote
05-18-2017 10:13 AM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
Yes, your dating doesn't work. And since there weren't yet enough people around to be disturbed by the jostling of mountain building as the tectonic plates moved apart, that's the best theory that fits with the biblical account.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 05-18-2017 10:13 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Taq, posted 05-18-2017 11:11 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1561 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 24 of 99 (809403)
05-18-2017 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
05-18-2017 10:07 AM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
Another point: If Leonardo realized that the shells in the high mountains had to have originated in the sea, which led him to postulate that the land had been covered by the sea at one point, he should have noticed that to get shells into the high mountains by that means implies that the water had to be as deep as the worldwide Flood anyway.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 10:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1561 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 29 of 99 (809413)
05-18-2017 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Taq
05-18-2017 11:03 AM


Re: Flood disproved
"The answer is simple: empirical evidence. Because the 'diluvial' strata which had been cited as evidence for a global flood were composed of gravel and other unconsolidated sediments, they were harder to investigate than the older, consolidated sedimentary rock.
This doesn't make sense to me. I don't know what it is referring to. What at that time was considered to be "diluvial" strata? How is the sedimentary rock determined to be "older?"
However, after a great deal of study, some geologists had been able to map portions of the 'diluvium' and demonstrate conclusively that they were the result of different events, clearly separated in time.
Since I have no idea what is meant by the "diluvium" nor what "mapping" portions of it describes, I can't get any; idea of what is meant by "demonstrate[ing] conclusively that they were the result of different events, clearly separated in time." How could that be determined in any case?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 05-18-2017 11:03 AM Taq has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1561 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 30 of 99 (809416)
05-18-2017 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taq
05-18-2017 11:11 AM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
You don't fit theories to stories in books. You fit theories to empirical evidence.
If the book is known to be the word of the Creator God who made it all, what it says is the primary evidence, THE empirical evidence we must put above all other evidence. This does not mean rejecting something in the world that is clearly a fact, but a lot of what is pitted against the Bible is noting but interpretations and not facts at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taq, posted 05-18-2017 11:11 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Taq, posted 05-18-2017 11:30 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 32 by jar, posted 05-18-2017 11:35 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 33 by Tangle, posted 05-18-2017 11:40 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1561 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 34 of 99 (809428)
05-18-2017 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Tangle
05-18-2017 11:40 AM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
I'll say it again: known facts have to be reconciled with the Bible, but the usual stuff pitted against the Bible isn't facts, it's interpretations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Tangle, posted 05-18-2017 11:40 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Taq, posted 05-18-2017 11:49 AM Faith has replied
 Message 37 by Tangle, posted 05-18-2017 11:53 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1561 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 38 of 99 (809439)
05-18-2017 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Taq
05-18-2017 11:49 AM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
No, they don't. We no more have to reconcile facts to the Bible than we have to reconcile facts to the Iliad or the Harry Potter books.
I said the Bible is God's word. Harry Potter isn't. What you believe is irrelevant. I'm talking about what is required of a Bible believer.
If there really was a recent global flood then the facts will lead us to that conclusion independent of the Bible.
The facts of the strata and the fossils that occur on a scale commensurate with the Flood --, and the fossils also point to mass death -- ought to have led you to it already, but the ponderings of scientists reported on this thread manage to ignore these glaring evidences and rationalize them away.
The very fact that you have to start with the Bible being true in order to conclude that the Bible is true only demonstrates that the facts don't support the Bible.
I knew the Bible was true before I knew anything about creationism. Knowing its true is what got me involved in creationism. Again, what you believe is irrelevant. The Bible tells us about the worldwide Flood and the observable facts of the enormous extent of the strata and the enormous abundance of dead things found therein confirm it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Taq, posted 05-18-2017 11:49 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Taq, posted 05-18-2017 12:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1561 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 39 of 99 (809440)
05-18-2017 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Tangle
05-18-2017 11:53 AM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
Considering all the disagreements and different theories the scientists have come up with over the centuries it's pretty ridiculous to hold them up against anything. Being disagreed with by all the evos at EvC proves nothing against anything I've said. I consider my record to be very good as far as pinning down both the Flood and the main problem with evolution goes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Tangle, posted 05-18-2017 11:53 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Tangle, posted 05-18-2017 12:16 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1561 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 42 of 99 (809446)
05-18-2017 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Tangle
05-18-2017 12:16 PM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
Well golly gosh I don't even care if all the scientists in the world disagree with me if I'm convinced they're wrong about something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Tangle, posted 05-18-2017 12:16 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Coyote, posted 05-18-2017 12:29 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1561 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 44 of 99 (809449)
05-18-2017 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by JonF
05-18-2017 12:07 PM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
Local floods could not have deposited them without breaking them to bits.
So you agree that Leonardo was wrong about that.
Why is there such certainty about what the Flood would have done as long as it contradicts what the Bible says?
Because we know a lot of how the physical world works.
Um, the scientists so far quoted disagree with each other quite a bit about how the physical world works.
Strata n fossils, strata n fossils, that's what the Flood did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by JonF, posted 05-18-2017 12:07 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by JonF, posted 05-18-2017 1:35 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 59 by caffeine, posted 05-18-2017 2:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024