If I'm using God's word as the basis for my understanding of the age of the Earth, which is possible to calculate from the various time clues given throughout, starting with the pre-Flood patriarchs, then I'm not worried about the consequences of being wrong. I'd worry a lot more if I denied those calculations.
I'm also convinced of the (word Percy won't let me use) of the interpretation of the geological column in terms of the ToE. I know the word sounds especially (another word Percy won't let me use) but I haven't come up with another one yet. Any ideas?
Re: The Vexed Problem for Creationists of Providing Evidence
quote: But of course I thlnk the evidence for the Flood itself is enormous and obvious wherever one looks around the Earth, including the strata and a general impression of a wrecked environment...
And you are completely wrong. The way to knowledge is to understand, not to make up excuses to pretend that Faith is right.
You look at these things very superficially and assume that the Flood did them, and that all the tectonic movement only started after the strata were all in place. But a deeper look - even a slightly deeper one - shoes that that is all wrong. You make up excuses to try to get around much of the evidence, you ignore large parts of it, and even that little you are willing to accept pays no part in your conclusion.
And that really is obvious. So how can you really believe that you have massive evidence ? Itâ€™s been shown that all the things you point to cannot be reasonably attributed to the Flood, that they point more to an ancient Earth, without any world-wide Flood. That is why geology takes that view. And that is why you donâ€™t have massive evidence.
quote: ...if that evidence isn't apparent to anyone else after all my arguments there's little hope in my mind that evidence for a climate difference would be apparent either.
You havenâ€™t really made much of an argument though. You have never produced evidence supporting the bizarre excuses you have invented to deny the evidence against you. You have tried to pretend that the evidence is weaker than it is to try to put your own opinions on a level with science - often making false claims, but never really dealing with the issues. But you have never made a case that stands up.
Donâ€™t blame us for your failure to find real evidence or your inability to defend your claims. Have the honesty to admit that you donâ€™t have a case that deserves to be believed.
quote: If I'm using God's word as the basis for my understanding of the age of the Earth, which is possible to calculate from the various time clues given throughout, starting with the pre-Flood patriarchs, then I'm not worried about the consequences of being wrong. I'd worry a lot more if I denied those calculations.
And if you are putting falsehoods in Godâ€™s mouth and demanding others believe them - and sinning in the name of doing so - shouldnâ€™t you be worried about that ? And there is a pretty good case that you are doing exactly that.
quote: I'm also convinced of the (word Percy won't let me use) of the interpretation of the geological column in terms of the ToE. I know the word sounds especially (another word Percy won't let me use) but I haven't come up with another one yet. Any ideas?
Since you obviously refuse to even understand the standard interpretation of the geological column, and the â€œabsurdityâ€ is in your misunderstanding the best idea would be for you to stop being so convinced of your ignorant opinions and get the facts right.
I assume you are talking about spiritual consequences? Karmic consequences? Of being wrong about the age of the earth? I don't thlnk there would be any. Intention is everything and my intention is to serve God with such considerations, and I do it by deriving it from His own revelation too. At the very worst it's an error from ignorance, certainly not intention. Perhaps for that motivation there might be some positive consequences. But I don't know.
Re: The Vexed Problem for Creationists of Providing Evidence
I've assumed there is no evidence that could be pointed to for the climate differences before and after the Flood, but I'd love to thlnk there is.
Actually Faith, there is overwhelming and conclusive evidence that the climate before and after the time when either of the Biblical Floods stories claim it happened were pretty much identical to today. There is absolute evidence that there was rain, that the critters and plants and fungi were the same, that there was no mass extinction of all populations of plants, animals or fungi at that time. There is overwhelming evidence that the temperatures were pretty much the same both before and after the time when either of the Biblical floods supposedly happened.
It's not just that there is no evidence for a climate difference before and after the time either of the floods supposedly happened, there is overwhelming evidence that there was no changes.
As you predicted you received a number of replies to this message, and maybe it did feel like a "tidal wave of denunciations" to you, I don't know, but to me they ranged from detailed responses to your claims to dispassionate characterizations of how you argue your position to telling you that you need facts.
To me the most compelling thing that was said was that you need stronger science to overcome current science, but that you make no effort to do that.
If you can't see why it's absurd I can't explain it to you.
No. Not allowed. Data, facts, reasoning. Required.
Well, what I said is going to end up being true, either you get how it's absurd or you don't,...
Say I'm debating a Flat Earther and I tell him, "Your ideas are absurd, you either get it or you don't." Surely you must understand how inadequate an argument that is, especially given the mammoth amount of evidence for a spherical Earth.
Calling things names like "absurd" and "idiotic" and so forth is just insult and denigration. It's meaningless in science and not how you change scientific understandings. Is that how you think scientific differences should be settled, by determining who has the best mockery and insult skills? Can you imagine any scientist explaining that he changed his mind on something because someone called his views absurd?
If you have facts, evidence, data, whatever, for your position then you must present them and explain how they support your view. Facts derive from observations of the real world. Making up stories that don't align with the facts and are often contradicted by them is never going to work.
...so that asking me to defend the idea is just going to bring all Evo Hell down on my head,...
On the contrary, defending your position with facts would be applauded by everyone.
...but I'll make an effort to do the EvC thing, futile though I know it will be.
If by "EvC thing" you mean arguing from the facts, then it will only be futile to the extent you lack facts.
And yes I know there will be a chorus of wounded science-minded people who will respond about how how wrong I am and how insulting I'm being, and how the response I get is my own fault because i'm not meeting the requirements and so on and so forth, as well as a chorus of denunciations if I object to that chorus along with a denial that anything I'm saying about that or anything else could possibly be true although it patently is;...
What you say will be judged tentatively true according to how well it accords with the facts. The validity of your own views is not bolstered by calling other views "absurd" or "idiotic." That's mere playground name calling and has no place or constructive role within science.
In any case as usual it's all my own fault.
Yes, it's your fault, but so what? You can change. Start arguing from the facts. Stop using name calling as a device.
But hey, this is my destiny and I'm coming to accept it at least for now.
You've been very determined over a very long period about following a fact-free, ignorant, rude and temper-strewn course, but that doesn't have to be your future.
The Buddhist frame of reference is interesting as I've been following it recently: it's my karma and I can see that concept in both a Buddhist way and a Christian way. And I certainly hope that even at my age if I follow the Buddhist methods, which are remarkably like Christian methods though perhaps easier to identify and for that reason maybe easier to follow, I can change my karma before I die. What a relief that would be.
Why a relief? Because of issues at EvC? Or throughout your life?
And I probably won't do a very good job of saying why the standard interpretation of the geological column is absurd either.
If you can't articulate the facts and rationale behind why you think it's wrong, then why do you think it's wrong? I find that one common way I become convinced I'm wrong is by trying to convince someone else I'm right. It often isn't the other guy's arguments that convince me, but my own inability to construct compelling arguments. If what I write doesn't even seem convincing to me, how is it going to be convincing to anyone else? At that point I usually change my mind.
It's absurd just to look at it. Which can be seen most clearly in the Grand Canyon which exposes the whole column from the Great Unconformity, or at least the Tapeats Sandstone, through the Permian time period or Kaibab Limestone.
There it is: the idea that time periods (Cambrian, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Eonian, etc) get expressed in the physical form of discreet separate layers of lithified sediments, often very specific sediments such as sandstone or limestone or shale and so on, that's what's absurd.
The "Eonian" period?
Someone else already explained how it is far messier than this, but to a first approximation your description is fine. Why is it absurd?
This linking of the time periods with the sedimentary rocks of the geological column is so completely and uncritically accepted (yes it is), so taken for granted, and so intimately connected to the Fossil Record which is a sacred tenet of the Theory of Evolution, if it is seriously questioned the whole edifice will not only be shaken but will probably collapse.
If it's wrong then its collapse and replacement with better science would be a good thing. What facts say it is wrong? Usually your assertions of why it is wrong reflect an incredibly poor understanding of how simple basic processes work, for example sedimentation and erosion.
This edifice which is apparently so necessary to the wellbeing of everybody at EvC at the very least.
I think I speak for everyone here when I say that what we hold most dear is knowledge of the facts and how to construct them into meaningful models of the natural world. That's where our egos lie, not with any one particular view. We accept the views of biology and geology because the facts we know are consistent with the frameworks of understanding built around them (theory). If the facts change or someone comes up with better theory explaining those facts then we'll change in an instant.
Here's an example. Before the discovery of dark energy (which is just a label for a phenomenon we observe but can't explain) everyone believed that the expansion of the universe was slowing. Then observational evidence by two independent teams discovered that the expansion was accelerating. That was that, and everyone stopped believing in a slowing expansion.
The same thing would happen with evolution and the Flood. Everyone would stop believing in evolution and start believing in the Flood were caches of mammal fossils discovered in pre-Cambrian layers all around the world, and if radiometric dating was discovered to be flawed and off by a factor of around 10 million, and if new DNA analysis techniques revealed that life was actually divided into immutable kinds, and if we discovered that we'd gotten our allele analysis wrong and that no unclean life has more than 4 alleles per gene and no clean life has more than 28 alleles.
Which is why it can't be questioned and why simply suggesting it will be met with lengthy discourses on all the OTHER "scientific reasons" for the validity of the fossil record and the ToE which I encounter all the time from RAZD and PaulK and JonF in particular. while totally dismissing as well as denouncing the point I'm making here.
So far your only point is that it's "absurd," which isn't a point at all. And you've admitted to being unable to articulate why the views of science are wrong. Find facts, construct them into a compelling and consistent interpretation, then describe it all here.
There is no geological evidence of a single world wide flood occurring around the world at any one specific time
There is. The B.E.D.S model, inselburgs, (erosional remnants), experiments for progradation showing facies can be laid down both laterally and superposed in hydraulic conditions with flume experiments proving it. Water gaps, polystrate fossils, standing arches, paraconformities (flat gaps), and some methods of dating. (Geochronomoters). Trackways in straight lines indicating fleeing organisms. New experiments have also now shown bouyancy counters any sedimentation meaning you need a LOT of sediment to counter the gases in the carcasses of animals, which leads to bloat-and-float disarticulation of fossils. A flood is the perfect mechanism for fossilisation because of the large sediment hauls conducive to quick burial and preservation. There is also C14 in diamonds and soft tissue in various dino bones more favourable to youth, despite the desperate explanations put forward for why they could last millions of years.
There is also the correctly qualified evidence we would expect from a flood. Obviously because of what the bible says about the flood, a flood would have been easy to falsify, all you would have had to say before finding the rock record is this;"well if the flood killed everything while it was living, all we need to do is show we won't find every phyla or type of animal preserved dead killed by a flood."
That would have been easy, because obviously the bible says all life perished. But the fact we find fossils fighting, in the suffocation position, tracks of them scurrying, digesting meals, giving birth, and the fact we find all types of life, is the exact type of evidence to expect from a flood.
There is simply PLENTY of evidence better answered by a flood.
In the rocks we would also expect to NOT find any intermediates for bats, pterosaurs, ichthyosaurs, snails, trees. Obviously if it is a history of created kinds, no matter how far back we went in the rock record we would expect to find things that pretty much look the same as they do today.
Here's a little list I prepared earlier of some that appear with no evolutionary history and can be found today and even compared to their living counterparts and they look IDENTICAL. To say this is not the evidence expected from a flood/creation scenario is to LIE, and LIARS will have to answer to God when they stand before Him.
The Coelacanth Fish (340 million years old) Gingko Trees (125 million years), Crocodiles (140 million years), Horseshoe Crabs (200 million years), The Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), Neopilina Molluscs (500 million years), The Tuatara Lizard (200 million years). Avocets (65 million years) Wollemi Pine (150 million years) Ferns (180 million years) Nightcap Oak (20 million years, based on fossilized nut) Maple Tree (30-50 million years/ Eocene) jellyfish (500 million years) Alligators (75 million years) Gracilidris Ant (15-20 million years preserved in amber) Turtles (110 million years) Gladiator Insect (45 million years) Lace Bugs (15 -200 million years, amber) Starfish (500 million years) Bats (48-54 million years) Golden Orb-Weaver Spider (165 million years) Pelican Spider (44 million years) Shrimp - (100-300 million years) Rabbitfish - (150 million years) Gall Mites - (amber - 230 million years) Sponge, Nucha naucum - (220 million years) Octopus - (90 million years)http://creation.com/...octopus-fossils Dragonflies. (can't find a date, but they were a lot bigger but that's all, I guess the Carboniferous) Laonastes Rodent (10 million years up, can't find exact date) Millipedes. (3-400 million years, aprox) Sharks: (450 million years) Vascular plants, land plants. (400 million) Proxylastodoris kuscheli Beetle. (40-50 million) --was believed extinct until recently--? non-marine ostracod. Eocene --was believed extinct until recently-- Sabalites Palm tree - Eocene (30-50 million years)http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html Hydrangea? (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html Alnus flower (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html Swartzia is a tropical tree with some 200 species today (30-50 million years/ Eocene)) Sycamore. "The leaf is not too different from those on the living tree" (30-50 million years/ Eocene) Crinoid Anthedon (150 million years) Eophis underwoodi (snakes) - (167 million years) Tardigrada (micro-bears) - 520 million years. (they have many things that large animals have including a gut, eyes, osphagus, brain and mouth) Sulfur bacteria - 1.8 billion years. Pollen - (Roraima) an indisputable case of pre-Cambrian 550 million years or so. Shovelnose Ray (Belemnobatis sismondae) 150 million years Mayfly - 97-110 million years.? Moss - 330 million years,. (Apparently no evolution of this moss has occurred for 330 Ma. The fossil record of Sphagnum moss itself occurs in the Cenozoic, which means that the record of this type of common moss appears to be pushed back at least 265 Ma.)
(nitpicking one or two examples then complaining, won't change the overall theme here which is that evolution is fiction.)