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.
I've seen on nearly every site dealing with creation and evolution a discussion of the Noachian flood. In this particular forum, the debate stems around the speed of tectonics during the flood and/or tectonics as a cause for the flood. What is more difficult to find, in fact I dare say impossible to find, is a detailed account of the globally correlatable strata that mark the onset, peak and post flood conditions. Creationists are not willing to be pinned down on the exact strata marking these events because the geologic record cannot (at any time in earth history) be harmonized with a global flood event such as the Noachian story. Don't believe me? Try to find a creationist who has defined a set of globally correlatable strata marking pre, post and syn flood conditions. Remember, the flood is no trivial event if biblical literalists are to be taken seriously. It is the most important event in earth history in terms of shaping the earth that we see today. It seems to me that something this devastating should be easily traceable from outcrop to outcrop and continent to continent. So here's the challenge to any creationist bold enough to take it on, where are these globally correlatable strata. Give me locations in North America, Europe, Africa, Antarctica, Australia, Asia and South America that I can walk up to and say "Here's where the flood started", Here's where the flood reached its zenith and "here's where the flood ended". Describe the features in these rocks that make them correlable and distinctive. If modern geology can correlate a measly asteroid impact on a near global basis, surely flood geologists can do the same for the defining event in earth history.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
What is more difficult to find, in fact I dare say impossible to find, is a detailed account of the globally correlatable strata that mark the onset, peak and post flood conditions. Creationists are not willing to be pinned down on the exact strata marking these events because the geologic record cannot (at any time in earth history) be harmonized with a global flood event such as the Noachian story.
Of course you won't find this because the Flood, as a worldwide event that laid down the sedimentary strata, was falsified long ago. NONE of the strata could be said to have been laid down by a world-wide flood and, in fact, ALL of them have been shown not to have been laid down by a Flood.
See Gillespie's Genesis and Geology and Davis A. Young's The Biblical Flood for details. Young also has a few web sites around.
Since the strata have already been shown not to have been laid down by a world-wide Flood, YECs can only duck and weave.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
I think it clearly shows that YECs really can't tell where the flood starts and stops. I also think this page illustrates a YEC tactic that I believe I've heard Joe complain about before. Try to explain one little part of the world's geology while ignoring the fact that your explanation only works in tiny areas and is falsified by the totality of the earth's geology.
YECs can't indentify which strata were deposited by a worldwide flood because as Lucas points out, no strata were deposited by a worldwide flood.
but you have to remember that it is very hard to tell, since some parts of the ocean were simultaneously boiling, freezing, tearing out gorges, sorting sand, sorting fossils, preserving footprints, settling out limestone into multiple layers, settling out coal into multiple layers, being brine, being freshwater, transporting insects and seeds (many of which cannot survive in water), shooting out into space at over 11km/s and altering radioactive decay rates.
I am afraid your primitive "man's science" which is just a THEORY cannot cope with this level of complexity.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
but you have to remember that it is very hard to tell, since some parts of the ocean were simultaneously boiling, freezing, tearing out gorges, sorting sand, sorting fossils, preserving footprints, settling out limestone into multiple layers, settling out coal into multiple layers, being brine, being freshwater, transporting insects and seeds (many of which cannot survive in water), shooting out into space at over 11km/s and altering radioactive decay rates
'The time has come,' the Walrus said,
'To talk of many things:
Of shoes -- and ships -- and sealing wax --
Of cabbages -- and kings --
And why the sea is boiling hot --
And whether pigs have wings.' Lewis Carroll
I also think this page illustrates a YEC tactic that I believe I've heard Joe complain about before. Try to explain one little part of the world's geology while ignoring the fact that your explanation only works in tiny areas and is falsified by the totality of the earth's geology.
This is ad hoc hypotheses. Hypotheses that are made up to get around particular falsifications. As you pointed out, one way to test whether ad hoc hypotheses work is to take them out of the particular instance they are made for. That's independent testing.
Now, instead of complaining, Joe, you should be happy. Because you have a way to falsify the ad hoc hypothesis. You can also falsify them by noting the the ad hoc hypotheses often contradict each other. For instance, the Flood is said to be very violent and very gentle all at the same time. A violent Flood is used to explain the fossilized forests of Yellowstone. But a gentle Flood is used to explain the dinosaur nests in central Montana. Just 200 or so miles apart, the waters of a global Flood are supposed to be incredibly violent and completely still at the same time.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
That paper ends with "We hope this will lead to greater productivity as we base our investigations more consciously on Scripture instead of worrying about how to make the Bible work within a system based on evolution."
But the problem is that the GUC was devised by creationists qnd Flood geologists 50 years or so before Darwin published Origin of the Species! So the system is not based on evolution. The whole premise of their problem -- geology is based on evolution -- is simply not true. No wonder none of their models work!
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
[quote=lucaspa]For instance, the Flood is said to be very violent and very gentle all at the same time. A violent Flood is used to explain the fossilized forests of Yellowstone. But a gentle Flood is used to explain the dinosaur nests in central Montana. Just 200 or so miles apart, the waters of a global Flood are supposed to be incredibly violent and completely still at the same time.[quote]
--??? Thats a very odd falsification. Of course degrees of energy or 'voilence' will be variable at any one instant, but not at any one location. I think this is just one more example of futile attempt to simulate a global flood in a bathtub.
--We can infer that the deposition of the Yellowstone fossil forest lithofacies were so called "high energy" deposits because of the volcanic origin of the ash fall and the conglomeratic mud flows. There isn't very great YECist literature on the yellowstone fossil forest's.
We can infer that the deposition of the Yellowstone fossil forest lithofacies were so called "high energy" deposits because of the volcanic origin of the ash fall and the conglomeratic mud flows. There isn't very great YECist literature on the yellowstone fossil forest's.
Perhaps that's because fossil forests falsify the global flood.
--??? Thats a very odd falsification. Of course degrees of energy or 'voilence' will be variable at any one instant, but not at any one location. I think this is just one more example of futile attempt to simulate a global flood in a bathtub.
Look you are the one pushing CPT. This is what Baumgardner himself says about CPT
A notable consequence of the flooding of the continental regions is an emergence of giant cyclonic eddies, driven by the Earth’s rotation, that circulate over the flooded continents.29 These water currents are similar in origin to the jet streams in the atmosphere and display comparable velocities of several tens of meters per second. Such currents have the power and scale to transport and distribute the quantities of sediment required to form the thick and laterally extensive sediment blankets that characterize the Paleozoic and Mesozoic portions of the continental sediment record. Since their velocities exceed the threshold for cavitation, these eddies also have considerable erosive power, sufficient for example to erode thousands of meters of crystalline rock from continental shield regions, as the field evidence indicates has occurred. Other sediment sources include the pelagic material scraped from subducting ocean plates at continent margins. In addition to clay this pelagic inventory would contain halite, gypsum, and other salts formed by rapid evaporation of seawater at the base of the steam jets.
Sounds to me like all the Paleozoic and Mesozoic sediments are being deposited by very violent processes. So how do we get animal tracks, nests and eggs in both the Paleozoic and Mesozoic sediments?
Linear Mode
