The list of extinctions compared to the list of 'evolved' organisms

[valkyree]

No vertebrates before the Cambrian era, that's what I'm saying

if there was a global flood

and if the pC - Cambrian is the unconformity for the beginning of the flood

then all the vertebrates dead in the fossil record represent the vertebrates alive before the flood

i'm not saying that's what happened - lots of problems explaining how that would happen

i know what the Bible says

and I know what old earthers say happened

i don't know what happened i have lots of questions

 

[valkyree]

I do find it good that the story of the flood is used quite frequently in juxtaposition to the judgment of Christ. Doesnt really tell us whether the Apostles thought it was a literal narrative

you're right - it doesn't

but it does say the people are willingly ignorant of the truth of the flood


Josephus said the people of his day had already forgotten that people used to live to be almost a thousand years old and thought the idea was crazy - so he believed they did live to be that old just as the Bible says

how much more have we forgotten at this later date? .........too much

 

[valkyree]

How can you possibly not realize that "serious scientific publications" aren't about to disclose the problems with the status quo?

well said

 

[valkyree]

I know!


That is correct.


You see, THIS is where you go wrong (well, one of the places). You think that because something fits your assertions, it is evidence for a global flood and BOOM you win.

well you are a good sport for putting up w me!


But you haven't 'explained' the origin of the reef complex, all you've done is say 'aha, it is shallow water, and there was shallow water before the flood! EVIDENCE!!' Meanwhile, modern geology explains the origins of the reef itself (you haven't), documents and explains the evolution of organisms composing the reef (you haven't), explains the morphology of the reef and associated sediments (you haven't), provides petrographc and geochemical constraints on the diagenetic history of the reef (you haven't), explains why the reef complex died, giving SPECIFIC PROCESSES leading to its demise (you haven't) explains why the reef was preserved (you haven't), explains why the reef was exhumed (you haven't), when it was exhumed (you haven't), and why caves have developed in it since it was exhumed (you haven't).



.

I don't for the most part disagree with those explanations!!!

that's a good and impressive list and I'm sure you know more about the reefs than I do - most of this kind of stuff is accurate as far as I am concerned - it's the big picture historical aspect i question and the rate at which these events occurred

allow me to look at your source

 

[valkyree]

Modern geology does all of this, but you just say 'oceans were shallow before the flood, then the flood happened'. But even ignoring all of the above, your 'shallow preflood seas' assertion falls flat on its face, because the reef complex is directly associated with penecontemporaneous deep-basin highstand turbidite fans (SOURCE).

.

510 degree dip??

i'm confused

isn't this article talking about secondary debris flow/turbidite deposits - those would have happened during/after the flood

the carbonates in the pre-flood deposits would not be such - they would be the primary deposits from which these turbidites came

 

[Orogeny]

5-10 degree dip-- it's a range, just like the other dips cited in the abstract. Context, my dear. And no, the sediment was not sourced after the reef finished developing, the sediment was sourced during the several sea level highstands that took place while the reef complex developed, which is why the turbidites interfinger with the forereef facies, which also formed during reef development, which is why the reef facies actually prograde over the basinal facies rather than simply abut them, as your model would require.

 

[valkyree]

.
So no, none of this is evidence for your flood. And even if it were, you would have to explain both the preflood geologic processes necessary for deposition of the Capitan Reef Complex AND the synflood processes necessary for preservation and exposure of the complex. Also, since the reef complex is Permian, that would mean that everything Permian and older is preflood deposits, which pretty much shoots your 'Precambrian/cambrian boundary is the base of the flood' hypothesis right in the foot.


.

it wasn't my flood - it was the Creator's flood

Permian would mean it was somewhere in the middle of the entire catastrophe which started with a breaking open of the fountains of the deep - it would involve tectonics and flooding - not just flooding

the pC-Cambrian boundary as the base of the flood is just an idea - it's not my idea - I know it's far-fetched - it's an alternative idea to 4.5 billion years of slow plodding along and sequential thin deposits that would not preserve any fossils and destructive mutations causing more complex life forms to magically appear which is also far-fetched

so if there wasn't a catastrophe of some sort then what authority does the Bible have to believers? where did all the flood legends come from? why were plants and animals so much larger in the past? why do the Bible and other sources speak of how much longer people lived before the flood? why is there a global network of extremely well-built precisely-oriented pyramids and other structures with functions we cannot figure out today?

 

[valkyree]

5-10 degree dip-- it's a range, just like the other dips cited in the abstract. Context, my dear. And no, the sediment was not sourced after the reef finished developing, the sediment was sourced during the several sea level highstands that took place while the reef complex developed, which is why the turbidites interfinger with the forereef facies, which also formed during reef development, which is why the reef facies actually prograde over the basinal facies rather than simply abut them, as your model would require.

the interfingered turbidites change everything - gotta think about it

 

[Keachian]

you're right - it doesn't

but it does say the people are willingly ignorant of the truth of the flood


Josephus said the people of his day had already forgotten that people used to live to be almost a thousand years old and thought the idea was crazy - so he believed they did live to be that old just as the Bible says

how much more have we forgotten at this later date? .........too much

I think what Peter's driving point is is that God fulfills his promises/judgment and scoffers scoff. I am fully expectant of Christ and hope he tarries no longer, I don't think Peter would class me someone who doesn't believe in a flood as a scoffer.

 

[florida2]

well said

I am very close to literally banging my head on the desk.

Do you think science is some great conspiracy? Do you have any idea how science works? It's all about challenging new ideas, if you have evidence, and bringing new theories to advance our understanding.

 

[sfs]

well said

You've published a lot of scientific papers, then?

 

[valkyree]

I am very close to literally banging my head on the desk.

Do you think science is some great conspiracy? Do you have any idea how science works? It's all about challenging new ideas, if you have evidence, and bringing new theories to advance our understanding.

don't do that - maybe you have missing information

modern science does not know as much as it thinks it does

 

[valkyree]

You've published a lot of scientific papers, then?

no - but unlike modern science I admit there is a lot I do not know or understand

 

[valkyree]

I am very close to literally banging my head on the desk.

Do you think science is some great conspiracy? Do you have any idea how science works? It's all about challenging new ideas, if you have evidence, and bringing new theories to advance our understanding.

good question but off topic to this thread so I won't answer here

 

[sfs]

no - but unlike modern science I admit there is a lot I do not know or understand

Modern science knows perfectly well that there is a lot we don't understand. If we did understand it all, none of us would have a job. We also recognize that there are some things that we do understand, however.

 

[valkyree]

Modern science knows perfectly well that there is a lot we don't understand. If we did understand it all, none of us would have a job. We also recognize that there are some things that we do understand, however.

there are enough creation science journals out there now full of research articles to show there are plenty of scientists who do not agree with what old-earthers and evolutionists are convinced is beyond dispute

the supposed long list of ''evolved'' organisms and evolutionary trees showing how organisms are all inter-related which is the subject of this thread is not a body of knowledge beyond dispute - they may not have evolved at all yet it's taught as fact to small children giving them no alternatives - what if it's incorrect?

just because we cannot explain all the ways of The Almighty such as all the details of how the creation events took place does not exclude us from being created beings

modern science sometimes has itself confused with The Almighty Creator

 

[gluadys]

the supposed long list of ''evolved'' organisms and evolutionary trees showing how organisms are all inter-related which is the subject of this thread is not a body of knowledge beyond dispute

True, but the scientific disputes are over exactly what the relationships are, not over whether there are relationships in the first place. One scientist may think that A is B's sister while another thinks A is B's cousin, but they both agree that one way or another A is related to B.

- they may not have evolved at all yet it's taught as fact to small children giving them no alternatives - what if it's incorrect?

Indeed! What if it is incorrect? When I studied biology in high school I learned absolutely nothing about DNA. I was taught that chromosomes were made entirely of genes. Now we know that chromosomes are made of DNA and only some of the DNA is genes.

Did my teachers harm me by teaching the best science of the time?

When my parents were in school, they learned nothing about plate tectonics and had no inkling that continents moved or that magnetic poles sometimes reverse themselves.

I never detected that they were harmed by learning the best science of the time.

When my grandfather went to school, he never learned that the universe is expanding, nor did he learn anything about relativity. The physics he was taught was strictly Newtonian with its assumptions of a static universe of infinite extent in all directions.

He was a fine Christian gentleman and so far as I am aware, he was never injured by learning the best science of his time.


So what is the problem if our kids learn the best science of our time and someday it gets turfed out by better science?

just because we cannot explain all the ways of The Almighty such as all the details of how the creation events took place does not exclude us from being created beings

Of course not. Why would you raise such an irrelevant issue?

modern science sometimes has itself confused with The Almighty Creator

No, modern science is not confused, but many people are confused about modern science. For example, anti-evolutionists who make such ridiculous claims about modern science.

 

[sfs]

there are enough creation science journals out there now full of research articles to show there are plenty of scientists who do not agree with what old-earthers and evolutionists are convinced is beyond dispute

There are, compared to the hundreds of thousands of scientists (of all religious persuasions) in the world, a handful of young earth creationist scientists. The creationist journal articles I've seen in my field (genetics) have been truly dreadful: poorly reasoned, factually incorrect and filled with evasion and ad hoc arguments. The only exceptions I can think of are articles by Todd Wood, who's trying to bring some rigor to creationism -- but who ends up spending lots of him time criticizing the arguments of other creationists.

(And of course it's not beyond dispute -- absolutely anything can be disputed.)

 

[valkyree]

True, but the scientific disputes are over exactly what the relationships are, not over whether there are relationships in the first place. One scientist may think that A is B's sister while another thinks A is B's cousin, but they both agree that one way or another A is related to B.



Of course not. Why would you raise such an irrelevant issue?



.

those are disputes between like-minded evolutionists - I am speaking of disputes between creationists and evolutionists - disputes between antagonistic views

if both views have merit both must be compared and contrasted


if life was created by a creator - an intelligent being existing outside of it's creation - but children are taught they evolved accidentally from naturalistic forces and that same idea sets the foundation for university research it is hardly irrelevant

 

[valkyree]

There are, compared to the hundreds of thousands of scientists (of all religious persuasions) in the world, a handful of young earth creationist scientists. The creationist journal articles I've seen in my field (genetics) have been truly dreadful: poorly reasoned, factually incorrect and filled with evasion and ad hoc arguments. The only exceptions I can think of are articles by Todd Wood, who's trying to bring some rigor to creationism -- but who ends up spending lots of him time criticizing the arguments of other creationists.

(And of course it's not beyond dispute -- absolutely anything can be disputed.)

I would say there are a few more in geology - regardless even if there is only one it could be important research

antagonistic views spark more thought and debate and questioning than having only one view or model to work with or allowing one view or model to have a practical monopoly over research