| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
30th June 2006, 02:17 PM
| | Servant of the living God
54       
| | Join Date: 19th May 2006 Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,069
Blessings: 117,717
Reps: 983,442 (power: 991) | | Originally Posted by frostymama I'll wait until it is in Archaeology Magazine. I'm sure they'll be on the cover of every publication in the field if it is legit. They better have some very solid evidence.
Sounds wise. That's why I didn't post it as "they found it!" but rather as an interesting topic for discussion. One interesting thing I read (but have not confirmed) was that Josh McDowell was part of the expedition. My wife got saved after hearing him talk at Cal State Long Beach -- so I'm forever in his debt. (not to mention a better explanation as to why there is no geologic evidence of a world-wide flood).
Of course, some of us believe the geologic column is BETTER explained by a global flood than by hundreds (if not thousands) of local events.
-lee- |
30th June 2006, 02:48 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
29  
 | | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,546
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by laptoppop Of course, some of us believe the geologic column is BETTER explained by a global flood than by hundreds (if not thousands) of local events.
-lee-
Including variable chalk deposits, trace fossils, and layered fossil forest horizons? 
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
30th June 2006, 02:53 PM
| | Servant of the living God
54
| | Join Date: 19th May 2006 Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,069
Blessings: 117,717
Reps: 983,442 (power: 991) | | Originally Posted by Mallon Including variable chalk deposits, trace fossils, and layered fossil forest horizons?
Yes. (of course we're way off-topic, but I started the thread and its a "lightweight" thread, so I hope no one will mind  )
How do any of those pose any problem for postulating a geologic column *primarily* formed through a flood?
-lee- |
30th June 2006, 02:59 PM
| | Senior Veteran
29
| | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,546
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by laptoppop How do any of those pose any problem for postulating a geologic column *primarily* formed through a flood?
The fact that they are found *throughout* the geologic column, and thus no majority of the rock record could have been deposited by a single flood.
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
30th June 2006, 03:07 PM
| | Lie Detector
49  
| | Join Date: 13th June 2006 Location: South Dakota
Posts: 1,287
Blessings: 90,996
Reps: 4,026 (power: 11) | | Originally Posted by laptoppop Sounds wise. That's why I didn't post it as "they found it!" but rather as an interesting topic for discussion. One interesting thing I read (but have not confirmed) was that Josh McDowell was part of the expedition. My wife got saved after hearing him talk at Cal State Long Beach -- so I'm forever in his debt.
So now you will buy his book and in other ways enrich his coffers when he lies to you about this? Nice racket these people got going for them Of course, some of us believe the geologic column is BETTER explained by a global flood than by hundreds (if not thousands) of local events.
-lee-
Sure. Obviously, you BELIEVE this. That the direct evidence speaks against your belief have little relevance, of course.
__________________
Geology: fossils in different ages
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
30th June 2006, 06:11 PM
| | Servant of the living God
54
| | Join Date: 19th May 2006 Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,069
Blessings: 117,717
Reps: 983,442 (power: 991) | | Originally Posted by steen So now you will buy his book and in other ways enrich his coffers when he lies to you about this? Nice racket these people got going for them
Excuse me, but that's way over the line. Have you ever even heard of Josh McDowell? What evidence do you have to call him a congenital liar? Because you think he might not agree with you about Noah's ark? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_McDowell) Nice try to slap down someone I suspect you've never even heard of with your academic elitism. It advances nothing for a TE to appeal to academic elitism just as it advances nothing for a YEC to say that others just don't believe the Bible.
-lee- |
30th June 2006, 06:14 PM
| | Servant of the living God
54
| | Join Date: 19th May 2006 Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,069
Blessings: 117,717
Reps: 983,442 (power: 991) | | Originally Posted by Mallon The fact that they are found *throughout* the geologic column, and thus no majority of the rock record could have been deposited by a single flood.
Just because there was a single global flood does not imply in any way that the deposition of material was consistent. Depending on dissolved content, temperature, flow, and other factors, the rate of deposition varies, or even becomes erosion.
-lee- |
30th June 2006, 06:17 PM
| | Senior Veteran
29
| | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,546
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by laptoppop Just because there was a single global flood does not imply in any way that the deposition of material was consistent. Depending on dissolved content, temperature, flow, and other factors, the rate of deposition varies, or even becomes erosion.
Are you just saying that to support your conclusion, or do you have impirical evidence to back your claim?
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
30th June 2006, 06:33 PM
| | Lie Detector
49
| | Join Date: 13th June 2006 Location: South Dakota
Posts: 1,287
Blessings: 90,996
Reps: 4,026 (power: 11) | | Originally Posted by laptoppop Excuse me, but that's way over the line. Have you ever even heard of Josh McDowell?
Nothing on the link you provided showed anything about the Ark, so I am not quite sure what your argument is here?
__________________
Geology: fossils in different ages
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
30th June 2006, 06:37 PM
| | Servant of the living God
54
| | Join Date: 19th May 2006 Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,069
Blessings: 117,717
Reps: 983,442 (power: 991) | | Originally Posted by Mallon Are you just saying that to support your conclusion, or do you have impirical evidence to back your claim?
Its basic sedimentation from dissolved solids in water. There are a variety of factors which affect the sedimentation rate. For example, see http://ecosystems.mbl.edu/Tide/contact/mac_lee_tide.doc
Additionally, a *local* flood is a turbulent mess, with different conditions in different areas. Why should we think a global flood would be any better? If anything it would be worse, and given the scale of the event, we would expect more variation, not less.
-lee- | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
