Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
5th April 2003 at 12:10 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #21
As this article demonstrates, there is no consensus among creationists on this issue.
Just a follow up note:
You know what is truly remarkable about this? If there was such a monumental event like a worldwide flood a mere 4000 years ago, you'd think the answer to the problem of stratigraphy would be glaringly obvious. But the way things are, you'd almost think there wasn't a global flood...
(I meant to add this to the original post, but quoted by mistake. Oh well)
5th April 2003 at 12:03 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #20
1. probably most, if not all
If your answer is "most," then I'm going to need a more specific answer than that so it's clear exactly which sequence of strata that will be discussed.
If your answer is "all," then you've got an immense amount of explanation to do.
2. I think the flood waters were present for about one year.
( i will need to recheck the complete accuracy of this)
5th April 2003 at 12:10 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #21
As this article demonstrates, there is no consensus among creationists on this issue.
Yes, I know. I'm just trying to see if there are creationists who are able to think for themselves while being able to address the evidence that falsifies their model.
And yes, such an event that is only a few thousand years old should indeed be glaringly obvious--especially if it is a global event--in the geologic record.
It would be a lot easier to consider the validity the worldwide flood hypothesis if (1) there was enough water on Earth for it to occur and (2) the deposition as a result is a discrete set of sediments that have nothing to do with more complex features (unconformities, paleosols, faulting, etc.) and that it appears globally and does not constitute the majority of the record.
One would think that if flood "geologists" understood basic geologic concepts they would be arguing that a relatively small sequence of marine strata stratigraphically "high" in the record seen globally are evidence of the flood rather than arguing that kilometers of sediment are a result of it when they clearly cannot be. Then again, I guess there wouldn't be another mechanism for them to call upon to explain those kilometers of sediments.
4th April 2003 at 10:48 PM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #18
Then you are incorrect about the principles of science. Science is a man-made construct--a naturalistic methodology created by humans to interpret the world around them.
There are questions in the opening thread.
Why do people keep detracting from the topic? What is so hard about answering the questions directly?
MB, somrtimes threads take on a life and direction of their own as this one seems to be doing/have done. As for science being a man made construct.......you have me lost as a goose. Man invented the Law of Gravity to have a totally human reason why things fall down instead of up? If that's what you mean, I think we live in different universes. Everything we (the people in my firm) do everyday to keep a certain item flowing downhill, safe potable water coming out of your faucets, a comfy environment in you home and workplace (heat and air con) are all based on science - not just some man-made effort at intrepreting his world. Try running your air conditioner without freon or your heater without gas or electricity. Science is why the freon is there, and why gas or electricity provides the warmth from your heater.
__________________ Plumbdumb PD
But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach; and it shall be given him. James 1:5
5th April 2003 at 04:50 PM Plumbdumb said this in Post #25
MB, somrtimes threads take on a life and direction of their own as this one seems to be doing/have done. As for science being a man made construct.......you have me lost as a goose. Man invented the Law of Gravity to have a totally human reason why things fall down instead of up? If that's what you mean, I think we live in different universes. Everything we (the people in my firm) do everyday to keep a certain item flowing downhill, safe potable water coming out of your faucets, a comfy environment in you home and workplace (heat and air con) are all based on science - not just some man-made effort at intrepreting his world. Try running your air conditioner without freon or your heater without gas or electricity. Science is why the freon is there, and why gas or electricity provides the warmth from your heater.
Not at all. You are confusing "science" with "the natural world".
Science is a human construct. It is a method to examine the natural world. It is a naturalistic methodology to explore that world created by humans. It is not the natural world itself. That method can be used to find the best way to make use of our natural resources, but science is not the same as those natural resources.
You' ve lost me. What can I say but **Hence the Name**. Of course my inability to think straight could have something to do with the 32 people who have been here since 4:00 CST celebrating my youngest Grandson's 1st B-day. They all just left, and I R Whupped.
__________________ Plumbdumb PD
But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach; and it shall be given him. James 1:5
Last edited by Plumbdumb; 5th April 2003 at 10:35 PM.
He's saying that science isn't the world around us. Science is the method you use to figure out the way the world works. Science is man made but the world it describes is not.
__________________
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
OK, so I guess I'll make this easier to establish the framework of discussion by limiting it to a discussion of the Grand Canyon and other strata in the Colorado Plateau region. Which strata from the Grand Canyon and/or the Grand Staircase are flood deposits? An upper and lower bound of the sequence would be appreciated so we all know which strata can be discussed--just take a look at the cross sections linked above (I thought I knew how to post pictures, but I guess not). Keep in mind that the Zoroaster Granite and Vishnu Schist are not sedimentary.
Yesterday at 08:36 PM troodon said this in Post #28
He's saying that science isn't the world around us. Science is the method you use to figure out the way the world works. Science is man made but the world it describes is not.
OK, I'll not post anymore about this here, since I see it's not topic-specific. I'd like to continue the discussion in another thread though.
__________________ Plumbdumb PD
But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach; and it shall be given him. James 1:5
Of course my inability to think straight could have something to do with the 32 people who have been here since 4:00 CST celebrating my youngest Grandson's 1st B-day. They all just left, and I R Whupped. 
Linear Mode
