Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains?

[createdtoworship]

(Sadly, some creationist Christians are donating money to Hovind's legal defense fund.)

.

thats a straw man fallacy, simply because one creationist doesn't pay taxes doesn't typify ALL creationists. Strawman.

 

[createdtoworship]

This is a GREAT EXAMPLE of a favorite propaganda technique for which Creation.com is famous. [Gradyll doesn't use quotation marks or in any way indicate that this is a copy-and-paste from a website.

Maybe you didn't read the post accurately enough, because at the bottom I said this:

above article from:

Devils Tower can be explained by floodwater runoff

so your above comment, in bold would be innacurate.

The reader only figures this out when he realizes that not the numbered FIGURES in the text are not shown *and* when he moves his mouse over the link at the bottom of the post.

See my quote of the original post above, I clearly said "above article from" so this is again, another innacuracy on your part. l also noticed a second logical fallacy here on your part, because you are just insulting the opposing party because it makes your viewpoint seem stronger (which is an ad hominem, a classical fallacy used in debate). Sometimes evolutionists will even go to the extremes of "abusive" ad hominems and a host of others. I sure hope you are above all of that?

(I will address the other point of your response when I have more time)

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

thats a straw man fallacy, simply because one creationist doesn't pay taxes doesn't typify ALL creationists. Strawman.

Technically, it's a declarative statement, it's either true, or it's not.

Either creationists are, or are not, donating money to DAL and inmate Hovind's defense fund.

To my knowledge, they have.

 

[createdtoworship]

This is a GREAT EXAMPLE of a favorite
propaganda technique for which Creation.com is famous. [Gradyll
doesn't use quotation marks or in any way indicate that this is a
copy-and-paste from a website. The reader only figures this out when
he realizes that not the numbered FIGURES in the text are not shown
*and* when he moves his mouse over the link at the bottom of the post.
Notice also that Gradyll uses the title "Flood Explanation" at the top
of the post---setting up in the reader's mind that this is about
NOAH'S Flood when in fact the only relationship between the formation
and the article and Noah's Flood is that WATER MOVEMENT (of some sort)
does the eroding, including rain, snow, and water freezing in cracks.
Yes, much like sea-shells-on-mountains, to a creationist the "proof"
of a global flood is considered anything that involves WATER! Yes,
they set the bar extremely low.]

Notice how virtually EVERY creationist article, website, and forum
post includes the requisite "evil conspiracy theory" and "Danger
Will Robertson!!!" strategy. Gradyll's beings with: Devil's
Tower, another tool of the Devil to explain away the Flood. Of
course, all of the "creation science" industry entrepreneurs
discovered long ago that the best way to solicit money from donors was
to scare them with stories of how SATAN is behind the enemies
machinations and "genuine Christians" will invest their dollars in
stopping those fiends who conspire to destroy us! As the title
explains, the DEVIL HIMSELF is behind Devil's Tower because those evil
conspirators want to "explain away" the flood---even though Genesis
never claimed that the flood was global! (Doesn't matter. After all,
TRADITION is more important than what the Bible says.)

Geologists have a number of theories about HOW the Devil's Tower
formed but to my knowledge almost all of the theories involve water in
some form gradually eroding the sediments AROUND the igneous column
which is the tower. And in the "creation science" world, that
[conveniently] ALWAYS means the waters of Noah's Flood draining
away---despite the absence of evidence for such. Indeed, there are
MANY other explanations for why waters would be eroding the
sedimentary rock around the tower. But what I find particularly
humorous is that creationists employ this easy "It was the flood of
Noah!" solution even while failing to point out to the reader that the
various formations involve DIFFERENT rock strata around the world.
(That is, they don't line up as consistent strata.) And that is why
creationists RARELY identify the rock layer which represents the flood
"era". They KNOW that their "evidence" is inconsistent---and the
reader will ONLY be told the information that HELPS the young earth
creationist case, not the data which debunks it. Creation.com also
avoids telling the reader how OTHER creationists come up with
contradictory theories. (So they like to make it look like those
"atheist scientists can never agree on anything but "creation science"
has the answers.)

And readers who have some basic geology in their backgrounds
(especially if they know how creationists abuse terminology) will
notice that, as usual, the creationists have their own "pet
definitions" for UNIFORMITARIANISM and CATASTROPHISM. These make
convenient straw men which they can set up and then pretend that those
conspiring geologists have backed themselves into some imaged corner
where they are in a terrible quandary.

There's a lot of great Youtube videos which shred these kinds of
Creation.com pseudo-science articles. These "flood geology" articles
all follow similar scripts. But they NEVER tell their readers that
many of the men who pioneered the modern science of geology started
their field work fully expecting to confirm their personal religious
presuppositions that Noah's Flood had created the landscapes we see
today. Of course, this was understandable, seeing how such a HUGE
flood only a few thousand years ago would be sure to leave abundant
evidence virtually everywhere we look. So those Bible-toting early
scientists were baffled that not only did they find ZERO evidence of a
global flood, what they DID find told a VERY different story! Yes,
water often play a prominent role but they soon realized that a flood
environment leaves completely different remnants and land-forms then
did various kinds of oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, and glaciers, just
to name a few. Creationists like to pretend that every sign of water
in the past must have been NOAH'S floodwaters. But modern geology was
the result of those early field scientists seeing their
presuppositions totally destroyed.

other than a bunch of ad hominems and straw men fallacy I see a lone point that would be your argument, I highlighted it above.

well, is this your main premise?

that because I empty a glass of water in the front yard in a pit, and at the same time empty a glass of water in the back yard, on a pile of rubbish, that this cannot be the same event? Simply because the strata is different layers? Thats silly! Water may erode, rain, flood on any strata that is exposed at the time! The strata in the grand canyon, and the strata on mount st. Helens will both recieve rain! It doesn't mean that that is a different rain storm, simply because one layer of dirt is different! I hope this was not your main point?

 

[createdtoworship]

Technically, it's a declarative statement, it's either true, or it's not.

Either creationists are, or are not, donating money to DAL and inmate Hovind's defense fund.

To my knowledge, they have.

Let me introduce you to the "poisoning the well fallacy"

Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

 

[JustMeSee]

Interesting.

So you think we'll be speaking Elizabethan English in Heaven?

None of my business, but why do you think we'll be speaking Elizabethan English over Jacobean?

Do you mind clarifying this?

I'm under the impression that Jacobean English is the language of the Divine.

He is being sarcastic. I am surprised you were confusing it with seriousness.

 

[super animator]

thats a straw man fallacy, simply because one creationist doesn't pay taxes doesn't typify ALL creationists. Strawman.

.... How do you even got that from his post?

 

[createdtoworship]

.... How do you even got that from his post?

don't pretend that you don't understand the point being made.

It was an example of strawman, and even a little adhominem fallacy that has been prevalent in this thread for some time now.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why would you claim that the tower is
"little eroded?"

that was a comment made by the website, that I sourced. I actually did not make the claim. It is not a suggestion that because there was a slight flaw in logic or grammar that the whole argument is therefore fallacious? That would be a poisoning the well fallacy.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I'm under the impression that Jacobean English is the language of the Divine.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're really under the impression that a purely bookish, non-verbal Jacobean English is the language of the Divine. Nobody actually spoke the English of the KJV, just as nobody actually speaks (or spoke) the English of any other translation.

 

[Joshua0]

I'm always amazed when young earth creationists tell me that this is OBVIOUSLY a "proof" of Noah's Flood.

Noah's flood is a shadow of the flood that was responsible for plate tectonics. Lyell's uniformitarianism replaced the catastrophic theory. Darwin tried to adapt gradualism to his theory. That was popular until punctuated equilibrium was developed by Gould with Niles Eldredge. Still that does not change that a world flood could have caused Plate Tectonics. What is your theory for the mechanism if you reject the flood theory? Here is the story:

"All of a sudden, I saw the Father reach across space and break the water vapor shield and billions of gallons of water hit the earth. Wham! There went the one land mass, into many pieces, floating across the sea. Some of them overlapping upon each other and burying the dinosaurs between layers of earth. Some of the now new continents formed massive mountains, which at the same time caused deep valleys to form. The water kept coming, until all the earth was completely covered. Then God leaned forward again and blew onto the earth; immediately ice began to form over the surface of the waters and life stopped as the earth, covered in darkness, entered into the Ice Age!


The scene changed (millions of years later as the earth lie dormant under the ice) and I saw streaks of light come from Heaven and the Spirit of God was hovering over the frozen planet, waiting. Then I saw God lean forward and He blew upon the ice and instantly the earth was defrosted. Once again water covered the whole earth (Gen 1:2) and there was no land mass visible to the eye.

God spoke again and light was! It was so fantastic, as I watched God re-create the earth, different atmosphere, animals and even man, but eventually they sent me back down to earth. If you accept Christ and make it to Heaven; you can go to Creation Lab and see this too." Kat Kerr

 

[OldWiseGuy]

that because I empty a glass of water in the front yard in a pit, and at the same time empty a glass of water in the back yard, on a pile of rubbish, that this cannot be the same event? Simply because the strata is different layers? Thats silly! Water may erode, rain, flood on any strata that is exposed at the time! The strata in the grand canyon, and the strata on mount st. Helens will both recieve rain! It doesn't mean that that is a different rain storm, simply because one layer of dirt is different! I hope this was not your main point?

Good point. The tides are another good example. Some beaches erode, some build up with sand, others remain unchanged.

 

[Split Rock]

that was a comment made by the website, that I sourced. I actually did not make the claim. It is not a suggestion that because there was a slight flaw in logic or grammar that the whole argument is therefore fallacious? That would be a poisoning the well fallacy.

I asked a question about what you claimed or cited. So, is your response to everything now going to be, "that's a poisoning the well fallacy?"

 

[Loudmouth]

Good point. The tides are another good example. Some beaches erode, some build up with sand, others remain unchanged.

So how does a flood produce hundreds of feet of limestone at the peak of a mountain? How does that work?

 

[AgnosticShtick]

.... How do you even got that from his post?

I wondered the same thing. It didn't say that creationists in general don't pay their taxes. It said that there are a lot of creationists who donate to Kent Hovind's legal defense fund. I keep running into Hovind followers online. They are young earth creationists who don't seem to care about Hovind being a liar and fraud. They think he is a saintly person who has the truth. If Gradylle doesn't believe me, read the comments under Hovind's Youtube videos. Or read the comments under any creationist youtube video. You will see lots of silly stuff. Or am I making this up?

Creationist contributors to Hovind's defense fund. How is that poisoning the well? It is pointing out that just as Hovind didn't care about truth and evidence, his followers apparently admire that fact and sponsor it! Why do creationists speak so favorably of the silly showmen like Ken Ham, all three Hovinds, three generations of Morris, the Banana Man Ray Comfort and that peanut butter jar man. (I forget his name.) I could think of many more. ARe they all poisoning the well when we notice how many silly creationist Youtube videos there are?

But I will say this: Complaining about poisoning the well sure beats trying to reply to scientific facts and troublesome evidence. He has that right!

 

[AgnosticShtick]

So how does a flood produce hundreds of feet of limestone at the peak of a mountain? How does that work?

Based on what my youth pastor used to say, as the flood waters grew higher, all of the animals ran for higher ground. So apparently the little creatures whose bodies make limestone when they die all ran to the nearest mountain top. And that is why all of the world's limestone is at the top of mountains. (Isn't it? You are saying that's not true? Really? Sorry. Never mind.)

I assume the White Cliffs of Dover were formed by all of the chalk producing creatures running to the edge of England and stopping there at the border of land and sea. They all waited too long and all drowned there. We see their chalky remains today. I love creation science. It explains so much.

 

[Loudmouth]

Based on what my youth pastor used to say, as the flood waters grew higher, all of the animals ran for higher ground. So apparently the little creatures whose bodies make limestone when they die all ran to the nearest mountain top. And that is why all of the world's limestone is at the top of mountains. (Isn't it? You are saying that's not true? Really? Sorry. Never mind.)

It's kind of like when it snows. It always piles up feet high at the peak of your roof and nowhere else. Amazing how that works.

 

[AgnosticShtick]

When I was growing up in a conservative church, my youth pastor was a believer in a global flood but the senior pastor believed Noah's flood was in one region where all of Noah's people lived. So the young pastor had all of the scientific problems to fight against but the pastor didn't. A flood in one region doesn't have to fight against all of the obvious evidence that discredits a global flood.

But I think the youth pastor felt superior because his view required more faith to believe!

 

[AV1611VET]

When I was growing up in a conservative church, my youth pastor was a believer in a global flood but the senior pastor believed Noah's flood was in one region where all of Noah's people lived. So the young pastor had all of the scientific problems to fight against but the pastor didn't. A flood in one region doesn't have to fight against all of the obvious evidence that discredits a global flood.

But I think the youth pastor felt superior because his view required more faith to believe!

Where's the retaining wall for this local flood?

Can scientists recreate a local flood in a laboratory with a true-to-scale model of the Mesopotamian region, and be true to the Scriptures at the same time?

If the flood was local -- as some say the Bible says -- and if the flood lasted a year, as the Bible says it did; where did the water come from?

Wouldn't it had to have cascaded over a retaining wall into the Mesopotamian region; then stayed there for months and months?

The Mesopotamian region would have to have been a crater, if the flood was just a local one.

 

[RickG]

Where's the retaining wall for this local flood?

Elevation.

[/quote]Can scientists recreate a local flood in a laboratory with a true-to-scale model of the Mesopotamian region, and be true to the Scriptures at the same time?[/quote]

I don't see why not. All that would be needed would be to build a model of the Bosphorus Straight breech into the Black Sea, which is in the area of the mountains of Ararat.

If the flood was local -- as some say the Bible says -- and if the flood lasted a year, as the Bible says it did; where did the water come from?

The Mediterranean Sea through the Bosphorus Straight.

Wouldn't it had to have cascaded over a retaining wall into the Mesopotamian region; then stayed there for months and months?

It did, it increased the size of the Black Sea by 1/3.

The Mesopotamian region would have to have been a crater, if the flood was just a local one.

Including the entire Mesopotamian region would be just as incorrect as including the entire world.