Evidence of the flood

Observable facts ?

quote:

---

The trilobite and coelacanth fossils further support my argument by showing only microevolutionary changes on the typical order of varieties and races over what the standard theory says are hundreds of millions of years.

---

The scientists who have actually studied the fossils disagree. Without further argument, taking into account the actual observed variations this must be classed as just an opinion. No observable facts to support it are mentioned.

quote:

---

These are the only fossils that occur in so many different strata up the geological column and they do not support the OE/ToE at all, which is fabricated out of the great "leaps" supposed between major groups such as reptiles and mammals.

---

No great leap is proposed, so this claim must be dismissed as a fabrication.

quote:

---

And there is also the absurdity of associating a time period with a huge flat sedimentary rock, let alone ALL the time periods. The very idea of a time period so clearly demarcated from others is absurd to begin with, and having them marked by sedimentary deposits is eyerolling absurdity.

---

This is just another ignorant fabrication - misrepresenting mainstream geology.

quote:

---

And the other absurdity of trying to claim the Geoloigical Column is continuing in lakebeds and seafloor. I've explained this sufficiently in my previous post on this subject.

---

I think the claim is more that the varves indicate - at least - tens of thousands of years of continuous deposition with no sign of the Flood. However we do find such deposits as rock in the Green River formation and if they were deposited in the same way - as the evidence indicates (and you seem to have conceded as much, but perhaps without understanding that) - then it would be rather odd to insist that modern deposits couldn't be added to the geological column in the same way.

quote:

---

So what is that, four separate arguments based on observable facts that show millions of years to be absurd and rapid deposition to be the only reasonable interpretation of the actual form of the strata.

---

Three ignorant opinions - two of them strawmen - and a confused argument which is contradicted by evidence you claim to accept (even if that was a mistake).Not a case worth mentioning.

The Flood side take evidence as mere excuses to reach a conclusion. The case of "Harvey" the hawk might support a few animals taking refuge on the Ark, but hardly pairs of everything. There is no attempt to understand or reason from the basic facts, let alone consider the wider context - one animal did it therefore all must do it instinctively. Which is completely ridiculous.Faith is even worse citing her personal opinions as "observable facts" - even as being so obvious as to be beyond question - while the views of those who have actually made detailed observations are simply rejected out of hand. Even when her claims are clearly false.Not only does Faith ignore the many rebuttals to her claims she outright denies that they exist - which is by any sane standard lying. Added to that a bunch of hypocritical whining trying to pretend that it is her opponents at fault for not sharing her ridiculous and obvious bias. It's not a pretty sight.

quote:

---

JUST STOP REPLYING TO ME, THAT WILL SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM.

---

In other words you just want to win. You don't care if your arguments are any good. You don't care if you have the facts right. Everyone else should just stop proving you wrong and correcting your errors.I don't think so. Why shouldn't you make the effort to come up with good arguments instead of calling already-rebutted arguments good and demanding that everyone else agree with you? Why shouldn't you make the effort to get the facts right instead of just insisting that your ill-informed opinions are correct no matter what?

quote:

---

Most of the creationist-evolutionist debate doesn't involve new evidence. It's all about different interpretations of the same facts held by both sides.

---

Not really, since creationists are prone to reject evidence they can't force into,their interpretation. E.g the many transitional fossils.It's all about the method of interpretation. Those who follow the scientific way seek to understand and to find the truth. Those who follow the creationism seek to force the evidence to fit their established views, often stop examining the evidence as soon as they do (likely to avoid finding out that they were wrong) and some invent bizarre fantasies to make the evidence fit.It is pretty clear that only one side has any interest in the truth.

quote:

---

THEY DON'T "LATER HAVE THE EFFECTS OF SURFACE EROSION!" YOU'VE OBVIOUSLY NEVER UNDERSTOOD ONE THING I'VE EVER SAID ABOUT THAT CROSS SECTION, WHICH I SUSPECTED LONG AGO.

---

There you go confusing understanding with agreement again. It is possible to understand what you are saying without agreeing with it. Indeed, when what you are saying is obviously false (as is often the case) pretty much everyone who understands will disagree.

quote:

---

LOOK AT THE CROSS SECTION. THERE IS NO "EROSION" UNTIL THE CANYON AND STAIRCASE WERE CUT AND THEN THERE IS MASSIVE "EROSION"

---

And there's an example. Obviously the tilted rocks at the Great Unconformity were eroded before later rocks were deposited on them. And even if you believe your crazy attempt to deny that you can't call it obvious.

quote:

---

THE MAGMA STARTS AT THE VERY BOTTOM AND PENETRATES TO THE VERY TOP -- OBVIOUSLY BEGUN AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE. I'VE EXPLAINED THIS HUNDREDS OF TIMES ALREADY WHEN THIS CROSS SECTION HAS COME UP

---

Even if you are right about some of the intrusions, you can't prove that all these events happened later just by looking at one of them. And we have the Cardenas lava which definitely erupted on to the surface as it was then.

quote:

---

I ALSO ARGUE THAT THE GREAT UNCONFORMITY FORMED AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE AND HAVE ARGUED IT IN GREAT DETAIL.

---

Your ability to invent fantasies is not in question. However, you never came up with any evidence for it, nor did you adequately address the serious problems.

quote:

---

I REJECT THE WHOLE IDEA OF INVISIBLE UNCONFORMITIES AND THERE IS CERTAINLY NO EROSION BETWEEN LAYERS THAT COULD HAVE OCCURRED ON THE SURFACE.

---

You can call unconformities "invisible" all you like but the majority are quite visible. And there is plenty of erosion "between layers" that only makes sense if it occurred at the surface. Remember the monadnocks ?

quote:

---

IT IS SICKENING TO HAVE TO START ALL OVER EXPLAINING WHAT I'VE EXPLAINED SO MANY TIMES ALREADY TO SOMEONE WHO NEVER BOTHERED TO UNDERSTAND ONE WORD OF IT

---

Funny how you try to reverse reality as usual. But you ignore the fact that your claims are being rejected because they are false.

quote:

---

THIS COULD BE MY PROBLEM OF FAILURE TO SAY IT CLEARLY ENOUGH THOUGH I EXPLAINED IT ALL SO MANY TIMES I DOUBT IT, NOW YOU ARE COMING ALONG KNOWING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT ANY OF IT. BUT WHATEVER THE PROBLEM THERE IS NO POINT IN EVEN TRYING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THIS DEGREE OF MISCOMMUNICATION. WHAT A PATHETIC JOKE DEBATE AT EVC IS.

---

The problem is that you are blind, arrogant, uncaring of the truth - and you expect to be unquestioningly believed even when it is obvious that you are wrong. And you try to blame other people for your faults. Maybe if you stopped ranting and tried to be a Christian things might just become clearer to you. But probably not, since being Christian in any real sense seems to be beyond you.

But in the post you were replying to, Percy was simply pointing out the obvious evidence against your assertions. You can't honestly call that misrepresentation of your arguments.

quote:

---

The Muav channels were clearly formed after the strata were all in place by liquefied limestone running between the layers

---

What makes it "obvious"? Explain.

quote:

---

The smooth half-moon shape of the channel.

---

That's not an explanation, isn't true and doesn't give any reason to think your "liquid limestone" is needed at all. How about including the reasoning?For reference, here is Percy's image of the channel again - you will note that the yellow line indicating the channel is nowhere near a "smooth half-moon shape"

quote:

---

I'm remembering a different picture. But this one tpo just looks like a smooth-cut channel filled with limestone.

---

It obviously isn't smooth.

quote:

---

A riverbed would have a thick bed of pebbles and stones at the bottom, this is just a smooth surface.

---

Maybe, if it was flowing fast enough to carry pebbles, not that I think you can tell for sure from that photo anyway. (Unfortunately the description doesn't give a lot of detail)

quote:

---

Yes I get very impatient and the more this same argument comes up the more impatient I get. I always have multiple people against me refusing to acknowledge anything reasonable I say and in fact denying that I ever say anything reasonable, which is, excuse me, stupid because I know it's reasonable and it doesn't exactly inspire me to treat anything they say with any respect

---

When your "reasonable" claims have been shown to be wrong, or are obviously false or even require further support - let alone those that get to the level of raving insanity - it is far from unreasonable for people to disagree. And in fact it is far from rare for you to demand agreement with your claims even after they have successfully been rebutted, to insist that a defeated argument is "good" and must be accepted.

quote:

---

I'm sure my personality is a problem since I do have a temper and I do get impatient and I don't always remember to pray for patience.

---

Certainly it is one reason you refuse to admit that you are wrong even after it has been shown. And why you "know" that nonsense you made up is "reasonable"

quote:

---

...the Flood is the only reasonable explanation for the phenomena I'm talking about,

---

But that is not a reasonable claim at all.Firstly the "phenomena" often don't exist as you describe them or there are other factors that rule against them, and your Flood explanation doesn't always make sense (one example - far from the worst - how does the Flood produce "pure" sediments? - one of your claimed phenomena. I can't see a good reason why it should)

quote:

---

I believe the Grand Staircase/Grand Canyon cross section PROVES the Flood and I've pointed to all the features that do thaT

---

And I have looked at it and seen that you are wrong. And others have looked at the actual rocks and found even more evidence you are wrong (e.g. the evidence that the Cardenas lava was erupting while the Dox formation was still being deposited)

quote:

---

When I keep getting back supposed "rebuttals" that just restate the conventional interpretation and never ever ever acknowledge the points I've made, even though I understand why that is so in this Old Earth/Evolutionist stronghold I have less and less patience with it.

---

Well that isn't true. What you mean is that you get angry because people dare to prove you wrong. You get angry because people dare to look at evidence you want to suppress. Those really aren't good reasons to get angry, even if you do get frustrated at losing all the time. But if you rely on jumping to conclusions based on a superficial examination of the evidence or worse cherry-picking or even worse inventing nonsense - then you will lose.It's no use assuming you are right all the time when it just leads you into one mistake after another. And it does. Did you learn nothing from the incident with the Triassic maps? From your insistence that I was misreading the map even when you knew that you couldn't read it ? Even when I turned out to be absolutely correct ?

Disagreeing with the facts - and much of what I said is clear fact - is not a reasonable position.It is a fact that your points are often directly addressed. It is a fact that the people addressing them often do more work in answering you than you ever did in making the original post. It is a fact that they often muster more evidence and better reasoning than you have managed. And you say that you lose respect for them because of that? You feel entitled to deny that they addressed your points at all? You complain that people don't agree with you despite the successful rebuttals?Why should anyone have respect for you when you behave like that?

Then you are doomed to endless frustration here trying to bully us into agreeing with your foolish fantasies. That is not good for anyone. There is simply no way for you to win short of honest argument and if your refusal to accept reality gets in the way of that then that, sadly, is your problem.Certainly I can do no more than try to get you to see the truth. But you just refuse to do so. Too bad for you.

quote:

---

Yes I get very angry at being told I'm wrong when I know I'm right

---

Which is a bit of a problem when you really are wrong, as is often the case.

quote:

---

And yes at the end of the day the Bible trumps everything but the arguments I make here are based on the physical facts.

---

Often they aren't. Is your idea that the buried monadnocks in the Grand Canyon rocks were formed by being pushed up based on physical facts ? Do you have any evidence of the faulting or the folding of the underlying strata that would inevitably be there if you were correct ? Any evidence at all ? Or is it just a refusal to accept -literally - massive evidence of major erosion between strata ?

If Faith answers my question about the monadnocks above, you might find it more enlightening than anything she says in answer to your post.However, the basic pattern is quite obvious. Faith jumps to a conclusion she likes without adequate consideration of the evidence. Then when others provide the evidence that shows that she is wrong she fights tooth and nail against it.Even in the Triassic map incident it shows, although that time Faith eventually admitted that she was wrong - some time after it was absolutely obvious (but if she had been rational she would have realised from the start that she was almost certainly wrong, and if she had bothered to investigate properly she could have found that out - and if she had been honest she would have admitted that she was only guessing)

quote:

---

AS OPPOSED TO BEING BASED ON THE BIBLE. READ IN CONTEXT FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE! THE POINT IS I'M ONLY THINKING THROUGH THE PHYSICAL SITUATION AND NOT RELYING ON ANYTHING ELSE.

---

I disagree that your arguments can be reasonably understood as "thinking through the physical situation" not least because you rarely bother to get a proper understanding of the physical situation, but also because you come up with bizarre hypotheses which seem to be physically impossible.

quote:

---

It's all based on the Great Unconformity's tilting and the strata in the Supergroup and the granite and the schist and the magma fingers, all ililustrated on the cross section, illustrated as confined to the basement area beneath the Tapeats. This is what is interpreted on the standard theory as having to have occurred before the strata were laid down, but I'm interpreting it as having occurred afterward and I give evidence for that.

---

In other words you have no idea if the physical situation really supports your claim - even apart from the merits of your argument.If there is anything about the monadnocks themselves that suggests that they were produced by upthrust rather than erosion you don't know it and haven't bothered to find it. It's just an assumption invented to support your weird fantasy.So no, you haven't based your assertion on physical evidence at all. You have none that directly bears on the question at all.