Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 16 of 44 (23147)
11-18-2002 9:16 PM


"And the Vapor Canopy theory? you just ask me what I feel about the vapor canopy theory and I'll give you a nice little summary."
I'm new here. Tell me instead. Or tell me where all that water came from if it was elsewhere.

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 17 of 44 (23193)
11-19-2002 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by joz
11-18-2002 2:05 AM


Is the EEC the Brit version? We always called in the Vast Worldwide Evilutionist Conspiracy (VWEC) in the US.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by joz, posted 11-18-2002 2:05 AM joz has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 18 of 44 (23194)
11-19-2002 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
11-12-2002 10:00 PM


Hey TC, while we're waiting for the main event to start, how about taking a look at this question on post-flood biodiversity? I'd be interested to hear your response.
[edited to fix @#%%^#$ UBB code]
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 11-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 11-12-2002 10:00 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 44 (23936)
11-23-2002 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by TrueCreation
11-18-2002 8:47 PM


This is the rest of my response to your last post in the Christopher Bohar thread
(http://EvC Forum: Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge -->EvC Forum: Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge):
Once again, for the tediously clueless: Evolution has spent the last 140 years making its case. I do not need to remake that case on these boards or anywhere else. All I need do is point out that creationists have yet to make a scientific case for their position, whether it refers to a young Earth, a lack of evolution, or a global flood.
If you have a case to make for a global flood, then make your case. Do not sit around whining that the nasty bad evolutionist won't play your game because he is failing to make a case against a global flood for which zero evidence has been discovered by scientists and for which you yourself have presented no evidence.
I cannot reasonably be expected to make a case against something which has not had a case made for it! That would be like being expected to prove that I didn't kill Bill Gates. Hello, he's not dead, so there is no need to prove I didn't do it!
I cannot conceive of anything more braindead than someone standing like a spoiled child in a schoolyard stomping his feet and blinking his eyes and clenching his fists and repeatedly chanting "the bad evolutionist won't prove my non-existent global flood didn't happen."
Excuse me, I have to go laugh my socks off. (Talking of taking time out, didn't you post an apology in that other thread that you were so awfully busy that you would be tardy answering other posts? And yet here you are wasting time with more blather. Oh well....)
Truecreation: "Your (sic) getting somewhere! I have not exclaimed that I have a case against evolution."
Isn't the act of claiming that there was a global flood making a case against evolution, given that evolutionists can find no evidence of such an event? If you are not debating evolution vs. creation, why are you even on these boards? Or do you just want to show off your new-found geologic buzzwords?
Truecreation: "My discussions with others on topics in geology are flowing very nicely and others will begin and will flow fluidly as well. For you, however, this seems impossible."
Yes, it is impossible when you dismiss the half-dozen references I posted to show to you that the global flood did not happen in the very thread where you asked me to post material showing it did not happen! Or would you rather I plagiarized those writers and re-word their arguments just so's you can see them in my own words?
Having dismissed those out of hand, you go on to say how you might use textbook references and others could use them too. Could it be that those references showing what a farce the global flood claim is, are actually too tough for you to deal with? Of course they are, because all you want is to play by your own rules with your own dice and your own perks. Sorry, I don't play the creationist game. I play the game that deals with hard fact and supported argument, not myth and fancy.
What you want is to ignore the masses of evidence against global flooding, and concentrate on a couple of insignificant issues that you *think* you have found, imagining in your adolescent fantasies, that you have overthrown 200 years of geology.
Truecreation: "That's funny. I am not even out of high school yet,"
And yet you think you are big enough and smart enough to overthrow the work of professional scientists who have been unable to find any evidence whatsoever for a global flood!
Truecreation: "another ridiculous sophistry."
Is that your favorite word? Or did you just look it up to impress me? You can play word games all you want. You can use big words and accuse others of failing your dithering demands, but until and unless you put in some solid argument dealing with the issues, you are nowhere, and you are staying there.
Truecreation: "At the latter time of entering the thread I simply suggested that you address the threads I opened just for you."
I am sooo honored, but until and unless you state a position and make an argument for that position, there is nothing to debate in this thread or any other thread.
Truecreation: "And I'd like to leave the thread. Unfortunatelly (sic) you continue to parrot drivel regarding my credibility and I don't think I'm going to leave your sophist rhetoric without response."
My entire line of response to you in the other thread has been ***REPEATEDLY** to ask you to deal with the issues in that thread or stop posting there. I am sorry you cannot grasp that and have this desperate need to have the last word, but all you are doing is digging yourself further into an inescapable hole with every word you type.
Here's a riot:
Me: "Then stay out of the biology threads. Duh! It obviously has not occurred to you, but evolution is largely biology at heart."
Truecreation: "Shows how much you know. This is completely false."
Me: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Please, do thrill us all with yet another creationist-invented definition of evolution from someone who claims biology is not his strong suit. I cannot wait.
Truecreation: "I don't think the existence of paleosols, evaporite deposition, or anything of that likeness has anything to do with the existence of Jesus or his deity."
But it has everything to do **with the issues which opened the other thread**. Of course, I already explained this in tedious detail, but please do let me know if there is any way at all that I can make this just a teesy bit more clear to you.
Truecreation: "Similar (sic) as you have no intellectual incite (sic) in geology, I have little with scripture and does not interest me much seeing it is just a big battle of semantics."
I have no idea what this phrase means. Perhaps you will translate it for us, with spelling and grammar fixed? Then perhaps I can give you, similarly, an insight.
Truecreation: "Read the first post in the thread, I have stated my position, you have claimed in other threads that my position is faulty, I have asked you to support this by illustrating your objections. You attempted, but your sorry attempt was not effective."
Excuse me, but this is a direct quote from your first message in this thread: "My 'challenge' to buddika is that he present in this thread up to three & no more geologic examples of which he adequatelly (sic) understands and can carry in-depth discussion with, illustrating why the flood is not feasible, did not occur, is impossible, or whatever extream (sic) he chooses."
Does this, or does this not ask me to start off the thread? Thank you. Apologies not necessary.
I posted a book reference and some half-dozen URLs, all related to **why the flood did not happen**. If you had actually *looked* at those URLs and **paid attention** to them, you would have found this FAQ, which refutes the flood from a geologic point of view:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
The FAQ by Glenn Morton, and young-Earth creationist turned evolutionist, contains this quote:
"I pointed out that if the all the sedimentary record had to be deposited in a year long flood of Noah, then given that the entire geologic column in this area is 5000 meters thick, and that the Haymond beds are 1300 m thick, 1300/5000*365 days = 95 days for the Haymond beds to be deposited. Since there are 15,000 of these layers, then 15,000/95 days = 157 layers per day need to be deposited. The problem is that the animals which made the burrows mentioned above, need some time to re-colonize and re-burrow the shale. Is it really reasonable to believe that 157 times per day or 6.5 times per hour, for all the burrowers to be buried, killed, and a new group colonize above them for the process to be repeated? Even allowing for a daily cycle, would require 41 years for this deposit to be laid down"
This alone refutes a global flood. So you see, I gave you precisely what you asked for and even this was not good enough for you. I guess I didn't sprinkle it with sufficient geologic buzzwords.
Now you can quote technical terms like "paleosols" and "evaporite deposition" all you want, but these words alone do not establish a case for a global flood despite your desperate need to have it be so.
If you are contending that they do, then **you need to explain what that case is** because, as far as I am aware, geology incorporates these concepts without any need to resort to global flooding.
You have made a lot of statements in the other thread as to what you do not support and do not believe in, but you have made **not a single statement of position on your global flood scenario** and consequently, I have no clue what your position is, since **you have never established a position**. This is why I am in no position to debate, discuss, or argue with you. Your position is non-existent and therefore unassailable. Is there any way I can render this any more crystal clear even for you?
So, in short, until you make a case as to how paleosols or evaporite deposition support a global flood, **there** **is** **nothing** **to** **discuss**.
Let's hear it for the clueless: "Wrong, this is what you should be doing! proving the negative. Why? Because you have asserted that it is negative. You have not supported this assertion."
Well obviously it doesn't do any good at all to clue you in to the patently obvious. But let me try one more time. Science has found lots of evidence of local floods all over the world, but science has found **absolutely no evidence whatsoever supportive of the Biblical Genesis global flood**. It is technically impossible. I have offered you many references as to why this is so.
You're the one claiming science is wrong. You are the one claiming that despite what scientists say, there was a global flood (at least I assume this is what you're saying since you have yet to make a clear position statement). You are the one who seems to have as yet undisclosed evidence which supports your flood claim. Therefore the onus is upon you to establish your case. You have not established such a case. I cannot discuss non-existent data with you.
Your position is essentially this: You are saying that there was a plaid unicorn hiding in a hole at the end of your yard yesterday. I refer you to several people who walked by yesterday, specifically looked in that same hole, and saw nothing unusual. Now you are saying, well there was a unicorn there, give me your best three reasons as to why there wasn't.
No! If you are making this claim, just as if you are making the claim for the flood, you need to give *your* best arguments which support it. Then, when I know what your position is, I can address it. Until then, there is nothing to discuss. Do you get it now?
Truecreation: "quote:Evidence against a theory is much more effective at altering its merit than providing evidence for a theory..."
So what were the half-dozen URLs? Chopped liver?
Truecreation: "Even if I had posted 3 geologic examples for the flood, this does not say that the flood happened in any way."
So now you aren't sure if it happened, despite all of your bravado, despite opening this thread challenging me to prove it didn't? You want to waste time "discussing" something you are not even sure of yourself? Do you have a position or do you not? If you do not, then what's the point of this thread? Even if I presented 3 examples, what is to stop you using this exact argument in reverse? Your "discussion" is not only worthless, the foundation for it is non-existent.
Please do not waste any more of my time in this thread or in the other one.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by TrueCreation, posted 11-18-2002 8:47 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by TrueCreation, posted 11-23-2002 5:41 PM Budikka has replied
 Message 23 by TrueCreation, posted 11-24-2002 7:03 PM Budikka has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 44 (23961)
11-23-2002 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Budikka
11-23-2002 2:03 PM


--Oh my goodness, praise the lord! Finally we can start that main event. Nice to see you finally presented something in a reasonable format.
--So, the quote:
quote:
"I pointed out that if the all the sedimentary record had to be deposited in a year long flood of Noah, then given that the entire geologic column in this area is 5000 meters thick, and that the Haymond beds are 1300 m thick, 1300/5000*365 days = 95 days for the Haymond beds to be deposited. Since there are 15,000 of these layers, then 15,000/95 days = 157 layers per day need to be deposited. The problem is that the animals which made the burrows mentioned above, need some time to re-colonize and re-burrow the shale. Is it really reasonable to believe that 157 times per day or 6.5 times per hour, for all the burrowers to be buried, killed, and a new group colonize above them for the process to be repeated? Even allowing for a daily cycle, would require 41 years for this deposit to be laid down"
--You claim that this falsifies the flood. However, what was the animal which created the burrows? Turbidite deposits are created in deep submarine waters. So the animals which created the burrows are obviously aquatic, probably in the Crustacea group? I greatly question whether a turbidity current with the resources only allotting for millimeter and centimeter depositional thicknesses isn't going to eliminate the aquatic world and require repopulation. You need more data here.
--How large are the burrows? Given the data presented in the article, they shouldn't be more than about 5cm. Burrowing in fine grained sediments is not a difficult task that takes such a long time to occur. You need more data.
--You haven't presented a falsification, but an argument from incredulity. You need to explain to me why, the article doesn't, so you are required to expand and elaborate further.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Budikka, posted 11-23-2002 2:03 PM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by edge, posted 11-23-2002 8:15 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 24 by Budikka, posted 11-25-2002 12:44 PM TrueCreation has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 21 of 44 (23974)
11-23-2002 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by TrueCreation
11-23-2002 5:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
quote:
"I pointed out that if the all the sedimentary record had to be deposited in a year long flood of Noah, then given that the entire geologic column in this area is 5000 meters thick, and that the Haymond beds are 1300 m thick, 1300/5000*365 days = 95 days for the Haymond beds to be deposited. Since there are 15,000 of these layers, then 15,000/95 days = 157 layers per day need to be deposited. The problem is that the animals which made the burrows mentioned above, need some time to re-colonize and re-burrow the shale. Is it really reasonable to believe that 157 times per day or 6.5 times per hour, for all the burrowers to be buried, killed, and a new group colonize above them for the process to be repeated? Even allowing for a daily cycle, would require 41 years for this deposit to be laid down"
--You claim that this falsifies the flood. However, what was the animal which created the burrows?
Obviously something with a very high reproductin rate!
quote:
Turbidite deposits are created in deep subterranean waters.
Hmm, that's a new one on me. Subterranean turbidites, eh?
quote:
So the animals which created the burrows are obviously aquatic, probably in the Crustacea group? I greatly question whether a turbidity current with the resources only allotting for millimeter and centimeter depositional thicknesses isn't going to eliminate the aquatic world and require repopulation. You need more data here.
Perhaps, but creationism needs a lot more data. In fact, I haven't seen any yet. Even at only a cm per event, we are talking a lot of events in a day here. Certainly a couple of days would be enough, don't you think?
quote:
--How large are the burrows? Given the data presented in the article, they shouldn't be more than about 5cm. Burrowing in fine grained sediments is not a difficult task that takes such a long time to occur. You need more data.
So says you!
quote:
--You haven't presented a falsification, but an argument from incredulity. You need to explain to me why, the article doesn't, so you are required to expand and elaborate further.
Sounds to me like a pretty good case, but I agree, nothing is ever 'proven' in science. However, the flood scenario gets less and less likely every day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by TrueCreation, posted 11-23-2002 5:41 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by TrueCreation, posted 11-23-2002 9:37 PM edge has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 44 (23985)
11-23-2002 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by edge
11-23-2002 8:15 PM


Hm.. So much for what I had hoped for in this thread[post #1]. I just made a parallel thread directly for this one for comments like these:
http://EvC Forum: Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic - Parallel Thread
--And yes, I made the same mistake I made months ago when discussing turbidities! I meant to say submarine, silly me Its been corrected.
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by edge, posted 11-23-2002 8:15 PM edge has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 44 (24113)
11-24-2002 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Budikka
11-23-2002 2:03 PM


--Oh, by the way, your post # 151 is really hilarious, I'm hurt. *sniff*....
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Budikka, posted 11-23-2002 2:03 PM Budikka has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 44 (24230)
11-25-2002 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by TrueCreation
11-23-2002 5:41 PM


I told you I will not take part in this debate until you make your position clear, and set out your own "proofs" of the flood. I am sorry that you appear incompetent to understand this.
For those who can grasp it: The only reason I quoted one of the articles in the half dozen references I previously gave you was to point out what a self-serving lie it was of yours to pretend they did not address your topic.
Now that you have responded to this particular one, you have, yourself, exposed the lie you indulged in, a lie you have repeated repeatedly in the Bohar thread. I rest my case.
These references are not to be taken in isolation, but as a whole. And even in isolation, you have completely missed the point (why did I even hope that you wouldn't?), as this quote makes clear: "Is it really reasonable to believe that 157 times per day or 6.5 times per hour, for all the burrowers to be buried, killed, and a new group colonize above them for the process to be repeated? Even allowing for a daily cycle, would require 41 years for this deposit to be laid down"
So, once again for the congenitally retarded: it makes not a jot of difference what the animals were, they could not have made these burrows regardless of whether the burrows were made on dry land or under aquatic conditions, since there was not enough time if the global flood came and went in one year.
Get it now?
Now this is the last resposne I will post in this thread until and unless you:
1. Make your position on the global flood clear (was there one or was there not? If so, is it the Genesis global flood you are supporting or some other idea?)
2. Explain your ten (three, one, whatever) best evidences that there was such a flood, given that the vastness of scientific endeavor for the last 200 years has been utterly unable to unearth even a shred of evidence that there was any such flood.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by TrueCreation, posted 11-23-2002 5:41 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by TrueCreation, posted 11-25-2002 4:15 PM Budikka has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 44 (24272)
11-25-2002 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Budikka
11-25-2002 12:44 PM


"I told you I will not take part in this debate until you make your position clear, and set out your own "proofs" of the flood. I am sorry that you appear incompetent to understand this."
--There is no such word as proof in science, surely you should know this by now. And we have explained to you successively why my providing evidence (notice I say 'evidence' not 'proof') of the global flood is of no competition in effectiveness as providing evidence against the scenario. Why is this not reasonable?
"For those who can grasp it: The only reason I quoted one of the articles in the half dozen references I previously gave you was to point out what a self-serving lie it was of yours to pretend they did not address your topic."
--I never claimed that they did not address the topic of the global flood, only that I am not going to attempt to refute the 'articles' themselves, rather, I asked you to bring to me specific points. Luckily you have done this with your citation of one of your articles and I responded.
"Now that you have responded to this particular one, you have, yourself, exposed the lie you indulged in, a lie you have repeated repeatedly in the Bohar thread. I rest my case."
--Just so you know, this kind of jargon doesn't give you a credible presentation. You have good things to say, unfortunately, you frequently batter it up and relieve its merit by having to get your biased rhetoric painted all over it.
"These references are not to be taken in isolation, but as a whole."
--Were going to take them one at a time.
"And even in isolation, you have completely missed the point (why did I even hope that you wouldn't?), as this quote makes clear: "Is it really reasonable to believe that 157 times per day or 6.5 times per hour, for all the burrowers to be buried, killed, and a new group colonize above them for the process to be repeated? Even allowing for a daily cycle, would require 41 years for this deposit to be laid down"
--This is why I questioned you, my questions are completely relevant and may even destroy the credibility of these conclusions depending on the answers. You presented the argument, if you want to accept it as entirely credible by your own personal credulity thats fine but thats not how scientific inquiry works. Answer my questions in post #20 they are completely and utterly relevant.
"So, once again for the congenitally retarded: it makes not a jot of difference what the animals were, they could not have made these burrows regardless of whether the burrows were made on dry land or under aquatic conditions, since there was not enough time if the global flood came and went in one year.
Get it now?"
--No actually you arent getting it. Do you even understand the mechanics of turbidity currents? They are generally thought of as having devastating effects. Though, each turbidite deposit is a mere 1-5cm in thickness! That is highly minute. Turbidities are highly erosive submarine currents and given that the turbidities which took place in the Haymond formation didn't do even the smallest job at eroding the underlying poorly consolidated sediments, you have got to be kidding me to say that that would then wipe out an entire population of whatever the crustacean was. What is also disregarded is that turbidities do not spread out all over the ocean floor, they travel in considerably narrow proportions.
"Now this is the last resposne I will post in this thread until and unless you:
1. Make your position on the global flood clear (was there one or was there not? If so, is it the Genesis global flood you are supporting or some other idea?)"
--Its the one you've heard about in your anti-flood literature (you don't seem to like to find your own inconsistencies?). The global flood of 'Noah'. For a brief description of flood mechanics:
Flood deposits were Cambrian --> Tertiary
And a Helpful quote of myself:
quote:
...Volcanic and Meteoric impact particle nuclei shielded the earth from becoming a global pressure cooker as water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Various ocean depth anomalies in periods of marine surges were caused by ocean volcanism and subduction earthquakes as well as meteoric impacts.
--Increased precipitation would in turn produce haloclinic seas, which would concentrate salinity contents towards higher depths. [Haliocenic seas, that is, a halocline would be produced, (though more profoundly at higher latitudes) which is the depth at which the salinity changes rapidly; it forms the boundary between the two layers.]
--The orogenic processes as a cause of catastrophic sea-floor spreading generated mountain ranges such as the Rockies, Alps, and the Himalayas. Dust particle nuclei in the lower atmosphere would have been cleaned out by precipitation. Buildup of volcanic and other dust sources in the high atmosphere would have contributed toward a global nuclear winter which began elevating in effect toward the end of the Mesozoic. Late Mesozoic deposition would have slowed, by the end of the cretaceous, deposits would have practically ceased for some time as iridium concentrated in a fine layer at the K-T boundary. Flood waters abated off the continents coherently with the elevating Ice Age producing glaciers and polar ice caps. Varying hypsographic conditions would have entombed areas on the continents with lakes which may have later emptied creating a diversity in geologic formations.
"2. Explain your ten (three, one, whatever) best evidences that there was such a flood, given that the vastness of scientific endeavor for the last 200 years has been utterly unable to unearth even a shred of evidence that there was any such flood."
--Let me explain to you something, Buddika. In all technicality, I'm not even going to claim that there was, no doubt, a global flood. There is more than abundance of research to be done before we could even think about coming to a confident conclusion. The problem with the global flood is that there is lack in consensus because of this fact. What it is that makes Evolution and its uniformitarian framework successful is not because there is evidence for it in various places, but because there has been such an entirely vast quantity of research done on the theory in attempts to come up with a consensus regarding the ToE. While the 'consensus' changes constantly (if you were to present evolutionary theories from 40 years ago in detail today, you would be laughed off the stage) it is successful because there is one. Flood geology doesn't have that so I am not going to claim that it did in fact happen. I am simply starting my general scientific inquiry as being a proponent of the theory. And am unable to consider changing that until I have enough gathered understanding to make such a switch and maintain my credibility. It is in my experience of discussing various observations and data such as the one you presented, that when I delve into it far enough the problem gets increasingly small until it disapears. I have shown you why giving you 3, 10 or even 50 evidences for the flood will not be effective. If you can reason to me why my way of addressing this question from you is not rational or logical we may be able to go further regarding the merit of it.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Budikka, posted 11-25-2002 12:44 PM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by edge, posted 11-25-2002 10:19 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 30 by Budikka, posted 11-28-2002 9:27 AM TrueCreation has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 26 of 44 (24325)
11-25-2002 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by TrueCreation
11-25-2002 4:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I told you I will not take part in this debate until you make your position clear, and set out your own "proofs" of the flood. I am sorry that you appear incompetent to understand this."
--There is no such word as proof in science, surely you should know this by now. And we have explained to you successively why my providing evidence (notice I say 'evidence' not 'proof') of the global flood is of no competition in effectiveness as providing evidence against the scenario. Why is this not reasonable?
Umm, TC, just a quick question. Why do you think Buddika put the word 'proofs' in quotation marks?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by TrueCreation, posted 11-25-2002 4:15 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 11-26-2002 4:47 PM edge has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 44 (24466)
11-26-2002 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by edge
11-25-2002 10:19 PM


"Umm, TC, just a quick question. Why do you think Buddika put the word 'proofs' in quotation marks? "
--If he were to explain why he did, he would say something along the lines of him never seeing a proof or evidence (he would use them synonymously) of the flood so he's basically rolling his eyes even considering the thought that anything I could present could possibly be indicative of a global flood. Something like that at least.
-------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by edge, posted 11-25-2002 10:19 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by edge, posted 11-27-2002 10:01 AM TrueCreation has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 28 of 44 (24581)
11-27-2002 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by TrueCreation
11-26-2002 4:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--If he were to explain why he did, he would say something along the lines of him never seeing a proof or evidence (he would use them synonymously) of the flood so he's basically rolling his eyes even considering the thought that anything I could present could possibly be indicative of a global flood. Something like that at least.
I don't suppose you would consider that Buddika just might be asking the question from your perspective. After all, creationists are the ones who talk about 'proof' and he did ask what are your proofs. Just a semantic question to help you understand what we are talking about here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 11-26-2002 4:47 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by TrueCreation, posted 11-27-2002 6:12 PM edge has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 44 (24667)
11-27-2002 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by edge
11-27-2002 10:01 AM


"I don't suppose you would consider that Buddika just might be asking the question from your perspective. After all, creationists are the ones who talk about 'proof' and he did ask what are your proofs. Just a semantic question to help you understand what we are talking about here."
--Yes I see that, I know that he is asking for my proofs of a global flood. What I wrote in my last post is a further elaboration on what he indicated to me in saying that. I countered him in saying that it would be a pretty trivial thing for me to give him evidence for the flood as opposed to him giving me evidence against. And I also did as he asked me, outlined some brief thoughts on what I think about the mechanics of the event.
--I'm just waiting for him to continue the discussion by addressing post #25.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by edge, posted 11-27-2002 10:01 AM edge has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 44 (24775)
11-28-2002 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by TrueCreation
11-25-2002 4:15 PM


TC: "There is no such word as proof in science, surely you should know this by now."
That's why I put the word in quotes, duhh!
TC: "And we have explained to you successively why my providing evidence (notice I say 'evidence' not 'proof') of the global flood is of no competition in effectiveness as providing evidence against the scenario. Why is this not reasonable?"
If you could render your rambles into intelligible English it would help. And I have tiresomely explained **repeatedly** why you need to state your position. I have patiently explained **repeatedly** that science has been unable to find any evidence in 200 years that there was anything like a global flood.
You are the one saying that you disagree with 200 years of science. It is therefore **incumbent** upon you to make your case, not for me to restate 200 years of science's lack of evidence for a global flood.
Besides, I have already offered half-a-dozen URLs that explain this to you in immense detail. I am so sorry that you are unable to grasp any of this, but this is your problem, not mine.
TC: "Just so you know, this kind of jargon doesn't give you a credible presentation. You have good things to say, unfortunately, you frequently batter it up and relieve its merit by having to get your biased rhetoric painted all over it."
If that isn't jargon and irrelevant blather, I don't know what is.
Me: "These references are not to be taken in isolation, but as a whole."
TC: "Were going to take them one at a time."
**You** can do what you want. **We** are going to do nothing until and unless you:
1. State your position ("Flood deposits were Cambrian --> Tertiary" doesn't do it. It offers no indication of how the flood transpired - where the water came from, where it went, when the flood happened, etc), and
2. Set out your evidences that support your claim that flies in the face of 200 years of science that there was a global flood.
TC: "Answer my questions in post #20 they are completely and utterly relevant.
There was only one question and I answered it. The type of organism is irrelevent, since there is no organism that can meet the requirements of the quote:
"Is it really reasonable to believe that 157 times per day or 6.5 times per hour, for all the burrowers to be buried, killed, and a new group colonize above them for the process to be repeated? Even allowing for a daily cycle, would require 41 years for this deposit to be laid down"
Blabbering jargon about turbidity currents does not address this specific issue (nor how the layers are so neatly preserved despite all this "turbidity"). Now state your posiiton and make your case. Those are my terms for taking up your debate challenge. There will be no progress until you deal with that, since if you cannot make a case for a flood, there is nothing to discuss and you lose.
TC's idea of a "brief description of flood mechanics:
Flood deposits were Cambrian --> Tertiary"
Yep, it's brief. Now all you have to do is explain;
1. Where is the evidence that these particluar deposits are global flood-related whilst the others are not?
2. How a catastrophic flood managed to layer everything so neatly. Creationists are obsessed with the laws of thermodynamics, yet never do they turn their microsocope on how it was that a massive and completely random flood could order the fossil record so magnificently.
If there were a global flood, the entire Cambrian-Tertiary record should have one name, since it was laid down all at once, geologically speaking, rather than over massive amounts of time in the geologic periods that we know.
The granularity of the rock in the deposit under discussion should consistently move from coarser to finer as we go from the lowest deposits to the uppermost, since the heaviest particles would settle first.
The fossils should be consistently layered with the heaviest at bottom, grading to the lightest at the top, consistent with hydrodynamics.
There should be a massive extinction record just 4,400 years ago (or whenever it is that TC is claiming this happened, coinciding with this global flood. There is not.
The entire geologic record (Cambrian - Tertiary) should radiometrically date the same, and the fossils should all be in the same state of preservation. Indeed, if the flood took place only 4,400 years ago, we ought to be able to recover DNA from almost literally any fossil we find, if it is so recent. Of course, until TC states his position properly, we have no idea when he thinks it took place or what his evidence is to support his thinking. If all he has is the Bible story, he has lost before we start.
TC: "Volcanic and Meteoric impact particle nuclei shielded the earth from becoming a global pressure cooker as water vapor is a greenhouse gas."
Do you want to explain the mechanics of this, or should we simply take it on faith? This URL:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html
refutes any vapor canopy argument.
TC: "Increased precipitation would in turn produce haloclinic seas"
[rest snipped]
Where did the water come from? How much was there? How deep was the flood? State your position.
TC: "The orogenic processes as a cause of catastrophic sea-floor spreading generated mountain ranges such as the Rockies, Alps, and the Himalayas."
The fact there there is no evidence whatsoever of these things happening at the speed TC claims is, of course, irrelevent, I suppose. This URL:
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
defeats these arguments, particularly the point about about catastrophic geologic reshaping under the header, "Where did all the heat go?".
TC: "Buildup of volcanic and other dust sources in the high atmosphere would have contributed toward a global nuclear winter which began elevating in effect toward the end of the Mesozoic."
And the evidence for this is where? Or is this just a belief?
TC: "Late Mesozoic deposition would have slowed, by the end of the cretaceous, deposits would have practically ceased for some time as iridium concentrated in a fine layer at the K-T boundary."
How did this happen? With a miracle?
TC: "Flood waters abated off the continents coherently with the elevating Ice Age producing glaciers and polar ice caps."
How did this happen? Where is the evidence? If the flood waters rushed off the land as the land raised up, then how come we still have soil on the land? Why didn't it all sluice off into the oceanic basins?
TC: "Let me explain to you something, Buddika. In all technicality,"
More jargon from he who accuses others of endless jargon....
TC: "I'm not even going to claim that there was, no doubt, a global flood."
You already explained that. Once again, what is the point of this thread if even you do not believe in it?
TC: "There is more than abundance of research to be done before we could even think about coming to a confident conclusion."
200 years of science coming up empty-handed with regard to global flooding not enough for you, huh?
TC: "What it is that makes Evolution and its uniformitarian framework successful is not because there is evidence for it in various places,"
Oh, really? And here I was under the obviously erroneous belief that science was forced into accepting evolution and an old Earth because the evidence for it was so massive and so global that it turned up no matter where scientists looked.
And here you are concluding with a whine that you need evidence, after I presented you with half a dozen detailed refutations that you could not be bothered to read. Yep, you've convinced me that you are truly on a search for answers.
Try reading:
"Noah's Flood: The new scientific discoveries about the event that changed history" by William Ryan and Walter Pittman, Simon & Schuster, 1998). That will fix you up.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by TrueCreation, posted 11-25-2002 4:15 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by TrueCreation, posted 11-29-2002 12:49 PM Budikka has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024