Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8960 total)
103 online now:
CosmicChimp, jar, JonF, PaulK (4 members, 99 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,624 Year: 1,372/23,288 Month: 1,372/1,851 Week: 12/484 Day: 12/93 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1516 of 1591 (869442)
12-30-2019 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1509 by Faith
12-30-2019 11:27 AM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
And I’ll bring my reply over

quote:
Yes, sorry I don't get everything said that needs to be said in one post, and I forget things I've said years ago. Whatever. The thing about the geological phenomena is that most of it is one time events that occurred in the Prehistoric past...

But it is not really about one-time events. Lakes and rivers and seas, earthquakes, continental drift, volcanic eruptions. These are things that exist today.

quote:
But I also don't want to rest any of this specifically on witnesses either because there are sciences that rely on indirect information, whichis what I was referring to about atomic phenomena and the mostion of the Earth and so on. There is no direct witnessing but there are measuruable AND REPEATABLE effects that can be used to study them

And indeed the events are repeatable - in a general rather than exact sense - but that is good enough. Astronomy has it worse, yet that is still accepted as science.

quote:
It's not that we can't know SOME things about that past, such as that fossils were once living creatures -- but that was not known to those who originally studied them as they came up with all sorts of outlandish ideas about them because they didn't have anything to compare them too. That's the ONE-TIME-EVENT phenomenon. Even that can be resolved as it was in the case of the fossils by a more reasonable interpretation.

And that is why the Flood was rejected by geology. All the supposed evidence for it had more reasonable interpretations.

quote:
t as for explaining the causes of the strata and the fossils, that's where we are getting into territory I'm arguing isn't so easily knowable, because of course I'm objecting to the standard interprreation of it which I consider to be … let's say irrational?

Which only means that you want it to be wrong because it contradicts your beliefs. If you want to see real irrationality, your own arguments are full of it.

quote:
Time periods attached to slabs of rock by dating methods that don't even date the rocks themselves.

And yet the methods are quite sound. Even if the rocks are not dated directly the relationships between them (remember the law of superposition?) provide adequate evidence to work out ages from the rocks that are directly dated.

quote:
Slabs of rock that couldn't ever possibly form from a landscape in a time period anyway.

So you say, but you’ve never come up with any real problems.

quote:
Fossils that form under rare conditions occurring in amazing abundance in these rocks, and sorted BY the rocks too.

Of course the conditions are more common in sone environments than others - and unsurprisingly fossils are more frequently found in rocks formed where favourable conditions would have been more common. And the order is easily explained under the conventional view. It’s your Flood geology that can’t explain it.

quote:
That's supposedly evidence of the time periods interpretation but once you see that a rock can't represent a time period the whole idea comes crashing down. And so on.

But Faith you don’t “see” any such thing. You just make up crazy nonsense. And you can’t call that anything but irrational.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1509 by Faith, posted 12-30-2019 11:27 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 487
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 1517 of 1591 (869445)
12-30-2019 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1511 by Faith
12-30-2019 11:51 AM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
Your statement that species-to-species evolution hasn't been observed is no more true than a statement that beta decay or radio waves haven't been observed, as I described in my original post https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=855972#m855972. Look at the links about such topics as Buffalo grass, Madeira island house mice, the "American goatsbeard" and Nereis acuminata, but that's for another thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1511 by Faith, posted 12-30-2019 11:51 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20482
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 1518 of 1591 (869447)
12-30-2019 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1509 by Faith
12-30-2019 11:27 AM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
... There is no direct witnessing but there are measuruable AND REPEATABLE effects that can be used to study them. REPEATABLE is another important concept. The prehistoric geological past is about ONE TIME events, Unwitnessed in any sense of that word, and UNREPEATABLE. And for all I know I'm leaving out other criteria.

Except we can break the prehistoric geological past "ONE TIME events" into details that are repeatable:

  • Sedimentation rates of different sources (gravels, sands, silts, clays)
  • Changing deposition with distance from shore (Waltham's Law)
  • Aquatic life and death cycles with seasons (diatoms, forams, algaes, etc)
  • Erosion of river banks
  • Local floods covering extensive areas
  • Erosion when dams break
  • etc

We can look at these processes today and compare the results with the geological/fossil evidence to see similarities and differences. The more similarities we see (and we do see many) the more confident we can be that the processes are occurring today in much the same manner as they did in the past.

These are "measuruable AND REPEATABLE effects" and this why we KNOW that you can't get alternating varve layers from flood waters, with layers formed from alternating light (diatom, foraminifera) layers and dark clay layers. The settling rates of these materials makes it unworkable. Especially when you get to the 6 million pair varve layers of the Green River Formation.

quote:
Stratigraphic Cross Sections of the Eocene Green River Formation in the Green River Basin, Southwestern Wyoming, Northwestern Colorado, and Northeastern Utah

see Figure 1.Structure map of the Greater Green River Basin, southwestern Wyoming and adjacent areas, showing major basinal areas and adjoining uplifts. Modified after Johnson and others (2005).


So yes, we can replicate the specifics, the sedimentation of clays and shell fossils and show that they need time to settle individually. And we can match the fossils of shells/tests to seasonal growth in lakes and ponds today, as well as to the influx of clays and silts after the season of growth ends. The details that make these annual layers.

It's the details Faith.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1509 by Faith, posted 12-30-2019 11:27 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1519 of 1591 (869465)
12-30-2019 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1513 by ringo
12-30-2019 11:53 AM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
\ Repeatable does not mean that the events are repeatable. We can not repeat the destruction of the World trade Center but we can be very sure that it did happen.

I listed a number of criteria that I believe make it possible for there to be scientific knowledge about something. Repeatability is an important one, but I also listed "witnesses" referring to events that have been seen by many or reported in writing, which certainly describes the WTC event.

My point is that the geological phenomena that are PREHISTORIC, meaning without any sort of witness evidence, and ONE-TIME events, meaning unrepeatable, are not testable science, and although by comparison with other similar phenomena we may know SOME things about them, the accepted theory about the strata and the fossils is a wild interpretation that has no testability and I believe yields to the interpretation of the Flood as the far better explanation.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1513 by ringo, posted 12-30-2019 11:53 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1520 by PaulK, posted 12-31-2019 5:36 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1521 by ringo, posted 12-31-2019 10:43 AM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 1520 of 1591 (869479)
12-31-2019 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1519 by Faith
12-30-2019 7:50 PM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
quote:
My point is that the geological phenomena that are PREHISTORIC, meaning without any sort of witness evidence, and ONE-TIME events, meaning unrepeatable, are not testable science, and although by comparison with other similar phenomena we may know SOME things about them...

In fact we may learn a lot of things about them. We can identify lakes, deserts, rivers. We can identify ancient tectonic events. We can work out a whole lot from the type of sediment and how it lies and how it relates to other nearby rocks. Your objection is not an honest objection, it is just an excuse for discarding conclusions you don’t like.

quote:
... the accepted theory about the strata and the fossils is a wild interpretation that has no testability

Neither of these are true and you have not given any valid reason to think otherwise. But then you think that the idea that the sediment was deposited over a particular period of time is absurd. You think that the order of the fossil record is an “illusion” - despite the fact that it is based on (and is the product of) repeatable and repeated observation.

quote:
... and I believe yields to the interpretation of the Flood as the far better explanation.

I don’t think that your preferences have anything to do with which is the better explanation. Since the mainstream view accounts for the evidence very well, while you discount large amounts of evidence (because the Flood can’t explain it!) and don’t even have a good explanation for the remainder.

In the face of those facts any honest person would have to admit that the mainstream stream view was by far the better explanation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1519 by Faith, posted 12-30-2019 7:50 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1532 by Percy, posted 12-31-2019 5:34 PM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 1534 by mike the wiz, posted 01-01-2020 7:47 AM PaulK has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17835
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 1521 of 1591 (869485)
12-31-2019 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1519 by Faith
12-30-2019 7:50 PM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
Faith writes:

I also listed "witnesses" referring to events that have been seen by many or reported in writing, which certainly describes the WTC event.


Even in the story, there was a maximum of eight witnesses and there is no corroborating evidence that those witnesses even existed. On the other hand, we have reports in writing from other civilizations - Egypt, India, China - that indicate that no worldwide flood happened. If you're going to accept witness evidence, you have to accept all of it.

Faith writes:

My point is that the geological phenomena that are PREHISTORIC, meaning without any sort of witness evidence, and ONE-TIME events, meaning unrepeatable, are not testable science....


And my point was that that is NOT what repeatable means. The geology can certainly be tested today.

"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...."
-- Rudyard Kipling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1519 by Faith, posted 12-30-2019 7:50 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1522 by Faith, posted 12-31-2019 1:17 PM ringo has responded
 Message 1523 by dwise1, posted 12-31-2019 1:28 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1522 of 1591 (869494)
12-31-2019 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1521 by ringo
12-31-2019 10:43 AM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
I did not mention the people on the ark and a one time event is pretty much the definition of nonrepeatability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1521 by ringo, posted 12-31-2019 10:43 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1530 by JonF, posted 12-31-2019 3:05 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1541 by ringo, posted 01-02-2020 10:43 AM Faith has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3953
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1523 of 1591 (869496)
12-31-2019 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1521 by ringo
12-31-2019 10:43 AM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
Faith writes:

I also listed "witnesses" referring to events that have been seen by many or reported in writing, which certainly describes the WTC event.


Even in the story, there was a maximum of eight witnesses and there is no corroborating evidence that those witnesses even existed.

Since you're referring to Noah and family, it's valid to ask when they were and when the narrative was written down.

I reposted a YEC's article which repeated a Ussher-style chronology using the Bible to date the age of the earth -- BTW, that YEC is known to plagiarize so I suspect that he merely copied the article for an unknown source. I reposted it at ARE THERE GAPS IN THE GENEALOGIES IN DETERMINING WHEN ADAM LIVED?. I neither believe its conclusions nor endorse it, but at least it presents a more complete approach than I had ever seen elsewhere as so it may be of interest.

Like most, when I engaged in this exercise myself I could get no further than the Flood. This reposted article is a more complete exercise which works its way through the reigns of the various kings to get a count of years AC ("After Creation") which he eventually ties in with a known historical event, Cyrus, the Persian setting the people free (2 Chronicles 36:23) in 538 BCE, which the article calculates was in 3647 AC. He used that to determine the AC date of the start of the Common Era (what he erroneously calls "the turn of the century") which he gives as 4185 AC (538 + 3647). Add 2020 CE to that and you get the current AC year to be about 6205 AC. That works out to Creation to have occurred about 424 years earlier than the Jewish Calendar gives it as being.

So given that 1 CE was at about 4185 AC (remember that there was no Year Zero, so, no, we are not moving into a new decade tomorrow; see my page, DWise1's Millennium Page), we can convert between BCE and AC to see what was supposed to have happened when (Biblical dates based on that YEC's article):


  • Creation -- 0 AC = 4185 BCE
  • Flood -- 1656 AC = 2529 BCE
  • Exodus -- 2668 AC = 1517 BCE
  • Parts of the Bible first put to writing -- 1200 BCE = 2985 AC
  • Start of Solomon's reign -- 3144 AC = 1041 BCE
  • Start of Babylonian Captivity -- 3577 AC = 608 BCE
  • Writing of the first part of Genesis -- 600 BCE to 500 BCE
  • End of Babylonian Captivity (Cyrus the Persian tie-point) -- 3647 AC = 538 BCE

The effect that these dates have on Faith's attempts to claim an eye-witness record for the Flood is devastating. At the very best, there are more than 1300 years between the biblical date for the Flood and the earliest writing down of any part of the Bible. That's more than one thousand years of oral tradition to transmit that story. All our experience with oral tradition shows that at best the stories can change from considerably to completely within just a few generations -- and at worst, such as in the fake news spread by Trump, within mere minutes. More than one thousand years of oral tradition cannot possibly be considered historically reliable.

Worse for Faith's false claims of historicity is that the Flood account was written during the Babylonian Captivity, which is supported by the incorporation of Babylonian mythology into the stories (eg, the Epic of Gilgamesh, which includes both the Flood and a snake that steals immortality from Man). Not only would that involve a full two millennia of oral tradition, but also the massive assimilation of foreign mythology.

The only way for Faith to claim the historical accuracy of the Flood account would be for her to appeal fully on Magick. That would directly contradict Faith's persistent false claim that her claims do not rely on Magick.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1521 by ringo, posted 12-31-2019 10:43 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1524 by Faith, posted 12-31-2019 1:35 PM dwise1 has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1524 of 1591 (869497)
12-31-2019 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1523 by dwise1
12-31-2019 1:28 PM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
Do you have ANY idea what I've said about ANY of this or are you making it all up off the top of your head?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1523 by dwise1, posted 12-31-2019 1:28 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1525 by dwise1, posted 12-31-2019 1:57 PM Faith has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3953
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1525 of 1591 (869502)
12-31-2019 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1524 by Faith
12-31-2019 1:35 PM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
Do you have ANY idea what you've said?

Over the years you have repeatedly tried to use biblical accounts as "eye-witness reports". Furthermore, you have repeatedly insisted that those biblical "eye-witness reports" be given precedence over the physical evidence.

Furthermore, over the years as we have pointed out that your wildly contrary-to-fact claims regarding geology are appeals to Magick, you have repeatedly and persistently denied that obvious fact.

Obviously, you suffer from the same mental deficiency as Trump does in that he is incapable of remembering the many falsehoods he spouts constantly (though he appears to be much worse off as his new falsehoods contradict his previous ones).

You may not be able to remember what you have said, but we do remember!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1524 by Faith, posted 12-31-2019 1:35 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1526 by Faith, posted 12-31-2019 2:01 PM dwise1 has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1526 of 1591 (869504)
12-31-2019 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1525 by dwise1
12-31-2019 1:57 PM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological pastYou really
I don't trust your memory. You need to quote me. And since you are writing in the context of THIS thread quoting what I've said HERE would be the fair place to start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1525 by dwise1, posted 12-31-2019 1:57 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1527 by dwise1, posted 12-31-2019 2:25 PM Faith has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3953
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1527 of 1591 (869509)
12-31-2019 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1526 by Faith
12-31-2019 2:01 PM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological pastYou really
Yeah, right. We have to wade through years of the crap that you've posted. After which you'll just ignore it or deny it like you have done so many times already. Why would anybody want to waste their time like that?

Our memory is very good. We know what you have written. You will deny it all you want, like you do everything else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1526 by Faith, posted 12-31-2019 2:01 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1528 by Faith, posted 12-31-2019 2:27 PM dwise1 has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1528 of 1591 (869510)
12-31-2019 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1527 by dwise1
12-31-2019 2:25 PM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological pastYou really
You don't have to "wade" through anything, just stop pretending you are quoting me when you may be misremembering what I said and probably didn't understand it in the first place. Your negative attitude toward what you think I said is good enough reason for you to be extra careful about what you impute to me instead of just tossing it out as you do. I have not mentioned anything about witnesses on the ark on this thread and your talking about them takes us off topic anyway.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1527 by dwise1, posted 12-31-2019 2:25 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1529 by PaulK, posted 12-31-2019 2:49 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1531 by dwise1, posted 12-31-2019 4:00 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1529 of 1591 (869513)
12-31-2019 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1528 by Faith
12-31-2019 2:27 PM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological pastYou really
Here is one example (an old one, but I’m using a search engine)

Message 94

It is based on witness evidence, the very best kind of evidence there is. All the speculations at thousands of years remove cannot be proved, but a witness from the time itself is worth gold. It is your rank prejudice that calls it "unscientific."

Very recently you stated:

Message 1373

Unless you want to count Noah and those to whom he told the story of the Flood, or Gilgamesh for that matter, and I would count them myself...

It is pretty clear that we do not have an account from Noah or anyone who talked to Noah.
(And, of course, Gilgamesh was not a witness to the mythical Flood)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1528 by Faith, posted 12-31-2019 2:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5770
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1530 of 1591 (869515)
12-31-2019 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1522 by Faith
12-31-2019 1:17 PM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
a one time event is pretty much the definition of nonrepeatability observations

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1522 by Faith, posted 12-31-2019 1:17 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 © 2020