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

[freezerman2000]

LOL -- Just fine, thank you!

Good to hear!

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

Some of our Christian bretheren are going to have a lot of heresy and false teaching to explain one day.

Perhaps you should start explaining now and give yourself a headstart.

 

[Split Rock]

funny many websites give definition for this "non existent" item!

University of Southern California definition:
http://www.usc.edu/org/cosee-west/Jul_Aug2012/For the Web/General informaion on OOS/Obs_sci.pdf

also the University of Georgia Department of Geology refers to it as well:

it mentions "observational science" in the first three paragraphs:

What is Science?

should I keep finding definitions for observational science for you?

My apologies... I was thinking of "Operational Science," since that was what your reference seemed to be talking about. Usually when professional creationists talk about "historical science" they usually contrast it with "operational science," which is a made up term. I just now noticed my mistake.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This is all ad hoc rationalization. We have the physical evidence, and that evidence indicates there was no global flood. No one looking at the geological column would conclude there was a global flood. There is no historical record of a global flood from the time period it was supposed to have occurred. There are no genetic bottlenecks that would coincide with a global flood. It did not happen.

I think the flood, as described in the bible, would wash away more evidence than it would leave behind. Those washed out areas would be filled in or further eroded over the next few thousand years, I would guess. I'm pretty good a figuring out mechanical things and I don't see how any kind of uniform evidence is possible from this flood.

 

[Loudmouth]

I was wondering how you knew what date they tested it? You said "This was KNOWN from the peer reviewed literature before your creationist sources decided to date these rocks." Yet all that was given was a simplistic chart, with no dates? So how is it that you know the date of the test?

I am familiar with that specific example of creationist dishonesty from previous discussions.

Secondly there were errors in the mass labeling of xenoliths in the study. Peer review can be wrong, especially if not followed by someone of a PHD etc specializing in the field of study of the actual article that was peer reviewed. If you find Peer review of this sort, please provide. I myself have dozens of peer review from non-phd's. Anyone can provide that info. So let me give you the nitty gritty:

So you already know that the rocks contain xenoliths, but you are using these rocks anyway to cast doubt on radiometric dating. That is very, very dishonest.

"Steiner (1958) stressed that xenoliths are a
common constituent of the 1954 Ngauruhoe lava,
but also noted that Battey (1949) reported the 1949
Ngauruhoe lava was rich in xenoliths. All samples
in this study contained xenoliths, including those
from the 1975 avalanche material. However, many
of these aggregates are more accurately described
as glomerocrysts and mafic (gabbro, websterite)
nodules (Graham et al., 1995). They are 3–5 mm
across, generally have hypidiomorphic-granular
textures, and consist of plagioclase, orthopyroxene,
and clinopyroxene in varying proportions, and very
occasionally olivine. The true xenoliths are often
rounded and invariably consist of fine quartzose
material. Steiner also described much larger xenoliths
of quartzo-feldspathic composition and relic gneissic
structure."

the above clip was from a PDF found here: from -Andrew A. Snelling, PhD,

https://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/The-Cause-of-Anomalous-Potassium-Argon-Ages.pdf

So even Snelling himself knew that there were older rocks embedded in these rocks, and he used them anyway. Another great example of creationist dishonesty.

 

[Split Rock]

I think the flood, as described in the bible, would wash away more evidence than it would leave behind. Those washed out areas would be filled in or further eroded over the next few thousand years, I would guess. I'm pretty good a figuring out mechanical things and I don't see how any kind of uniform evidence is possible from this flood.

Again, it wouldn't be uniform, but the evidence would be global at the same position in the geological column. Erosion, would be part of this evidence. One can see the effects of erosion on geological layers. You seem to think erosion leaves no traces... it does.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Again, it wouldn't be uniform, but the evidence would be global at the same position in the geological column. Erosion, would be part of this evidence. One can see the effects of erosion on geological layers. You seem to think erosion leaves no traces... it does.

What evidence of the flood would be present? I once read a geological survey that expressed puzzlement at the absence of large amounts of fallen rock that should have been found at the base of a certain cliff, but were nowhere to be found anywhere nearby. Strange eh?

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

I think the flood, as described in the bible, would wash away more evidence than it would leave behind.

But if you claim the flood was global, that evidence must remain on the earth somewhere! Moving the evidence around is not the same thing as eliminating it entirely.

This confuses me: Young earth creationists regularly claim the Grand Canyon as evidence of a global flood. But when asked why we don't find such vast canyons all over the world, they claim that the flood was so powerful and vast that it wiped out the evidence. Which is it?

. I'm pretty good a figuring out mechanical things and I don't see how any kind of uniform evidence is possible from this flood.

1) How is a flood a "mechanical thing"?

2) How would alleged aptitude with "mechanical things" translate into geology skills?

3) Do floods leave behind the same kinds of evidence as ocean environments? Many creationists tell me that virtually any evidence of water they find anywhere is "proof of a global flood". But does all water-related evidence look the same as flood evidence?

For that matter, when I ask creationists to describe the kinds of evidence that is unique to floods, they go silent. And why is it so difficult to get creationists to identify which stratum or strata (which layer/s) represent Noah's flood?

As you can see, it is difficult to determine just what young earth creationists are claiming about the flood.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But if you claim the flood was global, that evidence must remain on the earth somewhere! Moving the evidence around is not the same thing as eliminating it entirely.

I'm sure lots of evidence lays on the continental shelves.

This confuses me: Young earth creationists regularly claim the Grand Canyon as evidence of a global flood. But when asked why we don't find such vast canyons all over the world, they claim that the flood was so powerful and vast that it wiped out the evidence. Which is it?

I'm not a YEC, and I don't know if the flood carved the Grand Canyon.

1) How is a flood a "mechanical thing"?

Have you ever heard the term flood mechanics?


http://profile.usgs.gov/myscience/u...r07172343246642001.Iverson&Denlinger.FISC.PDF

2) How would alleged aptitude with "mechanical things" translate into geology skills?

Floods are more hydrology than geology.

3) Do floods leave behind the same kinds of evidence as ocean environments? Many creationists tell me that virtually any evidence of water they find anywhere is "proof of a global flood". But does all water-related evidence look the same as flood evidence?

The Genesis flood was a unique event in all of history.

For that matter, when I ask creationists to describe the kinds of evidence that is unique to floods, they go silent. And why is it so difficult to get creationists to identify which stratum or strata (which layer/s) represent Noah's flood?

I don't know. My focus is on the flood itself, not so much what was left behind as evidence.

As you can see, it is difficult to determine just what young earth creationists are claiming about the flood.

No one knows just how the flood occurred. There are some wacky ideas out there (no offense intended to fellow believers).

As I see it the biggest problem is the concept of a young earth, which is not supported biblically. Given an old age earth many things can be reasonably explained to the satisfaction of both sides.

 

[Loudmouth]

What evidence of the flood would be present?

Annual ice layers that only go back 4,000 years.

Interruption of tree ring records.

Interruption of annual lake varves.

Large grained deposits containing many animals that all date to 4,000 years before present using 14C dating.

I could keep going.

 

[Loudmouth]

When people ask me what I belive, I tell them and show them why my belief is supported by Scriptures. For whatever reasons, these Christians feel motivated to come here and relentlesly attack what is written. Like the atheists, they tell the same lies and accuse God's word of being nothing more than analogy. It seems to me that if your faith is rooted in the Scriptures that you should be able to validate it with the Scriptures. Not surprisingly, none of them can.

If you want to use an interpretation of Scripture that is shown to be false by the evidence in the reality around us, go ahead. All you are doing is insisting that the Bible is false.

 

[Split Rock]

What evidence of the flood would be present? I once read a geological survey that expressed puzzlement at the absence of large amounts of fallen rock that should have been found at the base of a certain cliff, but were nowhere to be found anywhere nearby. Strange eh?

There should be globally distributed massive sediementary layers containing many fossils, often on top of layers showing erosion. They should be in the same location in the geological column. This is what geologist looked for in the early 19th century. They did not find it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There should be globally distributed massive sediementary layers containing many fossils, often on top of layers showing erosion. They should be in the same location in the geological column. This is what geologist looked for in the early 19th century. They did not find it.

How could they know what to look for if they didn't know how the flood actually happened, i.e. the model and the mechanics We don't know this today.

 

[Tomk80]

How could they know what to look for if they didn't know how the flood actually happened, i.e. the model and the mechanics We don't know this today.

We know what a flood looks like, even a global one, and what kind of evidence should be found. As Loudmouth and Split Rock indicated. So they did know what to look for.

 

[Split Rock]

How could they know what to look for if they didn't know how the flood actually happened, i.e. the model and the mechanics We don't know this today.

We know what floods do. We see them. We see what evidence they leave in the geological record. Why is it that creationists insist on providing "The Flood" with somekind of mysterious powers that render it invisible in the geological column?

 

[createdtoworship]

I am familiar with that specific example of creationist dishonesty from previous discussions..

check out, poisoning the well fallacy. You have no idea about the dates, especially because the graphic contains no information about it. I was just starting a discussion with it, not basing all my arguments around it. The dates could be a month ago, or a week ago. We simply have no idea. This is also a violation of a straw man fallacy. Confusing your previous arguments with this one, is also wrong. We need to treat every case uniquely for sake of open mindedness.

So even Snelling himself knew that there were older rocks embedded in these rocks, and he used them anyway. Another great example of creationist dishonesty.

That is a quote mine on your part. Snelling never said there were no xenoliths, however the previous number of them has gone down so significantly however that they are no longer a factor in the "mass" dating of rocks. Only if there is a significant amount of the older rock WILL it be an issue. This is pretty straight forward rationalizing of the data.

 

[createdtoworship]

Thanks. I love the dead horse icon.

Actually the accusation made against me is just another lie in a string of lies. I've never accused anyone of not being a proper Christian. I challenged those who were deliberately lying about the Bible to back up what they claim in the Scriptures. Amazing, none of them ever can. As a matter of fact, I've NEVER seen a T.E. produce passages of Scriptures to support their case. The lie about Genesis stating that Adam and Eve had parents was a lie I'd never head before. The lie about Yom meaning long periods of time gets old. Although, like the word "day" it can be used to represent a time period other than 24 hours, when used in the Scriptures with "evening and morning," or "on the _th day" it means a single calendar day 100% of the time. They know this. It's not a mistake, it's an outright lie.

When they say that there is nothing in the Bible that refutes evolution it's like denying that water exists on the planet earth. Show them the verses and they do not respond. Ask for supporting Scriptures and you don't get any.
Not ever.
Not from any of them.

They claim that the the world used in Genesis means the land where the Israelites lived, but it's the same word used earlier when it mentions, "The heavens and the earth, and the same used "and the earth was without form." They know the context. They know they are deliberately lying about the context, and yet they feel compelled to continue.

When people ask me what I belive, I tell them and show them why my belief is supported by Scriptures. For whatever reasons, these Christians feel motivated to come here and relentlesly attack what is written. Like the atheists, they tell the same lies and accuse God's word of being nothing more than analogy. It seems to me that if your faith is rooted in the Scriptures that you should be able to validate it with the Scriptures. Not surprisingly, none of them can.

Very good points, I agree the "evening and morning were the first day" is the critical argument for literal 24 hour periods of creation. That is obviously a jewish day which starts at sundown (6-7pm) and ends at sundown the next day. This detail makes it highly likely that this passage is referring to an actual day, not a "day age".

 

[createdtoworship]

More lying!

Did you actually READ either of the websites you cited? Or did you know that these were NOT "University of Southern California" and "University of Georgia Department of Geology" definitions? Am I supposed to give you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting you can't read? (Or simply avoided reading?)

In other words, we are once again faced with the question: dishonesty or just ignorance?

Those are NOT "university definitions." You found TWO PROFESSORS who happen to champion the beliefs you espouse and they happened to place COPIES of their articles published elsewhere concerning their personal viewpoints on their university webservers! Or do you actually expect us to believe that an individual professor's article published elsewhere and placed under his webpage on a university server is an official "science definition" of the university? [I don't think you are that naive. I think you knew exactly what you were doing.]

THANK YOU for making our point for us: that dishonest quote-mining is RAMPANT in creationist circles.

If "operational science" and "historical science" are such standard definitions, why did you have to find obscure articles (and try to fool us into thinking they were "university" definitions) instead of citing SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS?

Nobody asked whether or not you could find some professor somewhere who happens to agree with you and publishes materials which creationist websites like to cite. (The geology professor is also known for publishing and comparing creation accounts from various world religions. I think you knew of his interests in creation topics.)

You were asked to demonstrate that these are COMMONLY ACCEPTED SCIENCE DEFINITIONS found as standard terms in textbooks. You failed. Not simply because you were wrong. But because you demonstrated that we can't trust creationist quote-mining.

Be honest: Did you think you could slip this by us? Or are you so accustomed to creationist website deceptive quote-mining that you have become blind to the dishonesty?

My work is done here. I'm saving this one. What a great example of creationist copy-and-paste website ethics!


Originally Posted by gradyll: [bless and do not curse]


I really don't care whether you choose to rationalize your dishonesty as "mere" deception or "outright lies". I don't even care that you think the fact that two negative labels apply to your behavior somehow represents a contradiction of those who are shocked by your posts. But as a Christ-follower, I am HORRIFIED that someone whose position gets associated with the Savior would post such misleading claims and then quibble over some imagined ambiguity about the exact nature and label for such violations of the Ninth Commandment.

You should worry less about the alleged "moving goal posts" and instead wonder why you are wandering around out in the stadium parking lot looking for a way to get back into the game after being ejected by the officials.

But I will admit this: I was absolutely amazed that you would post such deceptive quote-mines immediately after the 350,000 "Lying for Jesus" Google results were discussed. (Were you intent on adding yet another to the total?) Poes have been known to post such outrageous examples in order to vilify Christians on Internet forums. Which side do you represent in this? I'm wondering.

thats funny,

because all you have to do is take the extended address off the link, and you have those websites.

for example

chrsitianforums.com/newreply.php?dodo-newreply&p... yada yada yada

reduced to

christianforums.com

all you have to do is take of the extended address to see the site it's from

entended address is in bold

but I find it funny that you used a misrepresented lie,

to accuse me of lying for a third time in a row.

That should tell you something.

 

[Joshua0]

How could they know what to look for if they didn't know how the flood actually happened, i.e. the model and the mechanics We don't know this today.

Catastrophic Plate Tectonics has been known for 200 years. They just tried to change it into a uniformitarian Plate Tectonics theory and deny that it was caused by a flood. I know flood deposits when I see it and that is what this is.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have no idea about the dates, especially because the graphic contains no information about it.

I have been down this road before. I know exactly where it is going.

You are trying to cite radiometric dating failures as evidence against radiometric dating. You are using the Mt. Ngauruhoe lies that Snelling et al. have told about radiometric dating to support your claims. Perhaps you didn't realize that you were being fed lies, but now you do. The next move is yours.

That is a quote mine on your part. Snelling never said there were no xenoliths, however the previous number of them has gone down so significantly however that they are no longer a factor in the "mass" dating of rocks. Only if there is a significant amount of the older rock WILL it be an issue. This is pretty straight forward rationalizing of the data.

Why not date rocks that lacks any xenoliths? Why date rocks that are not appropriate for dating the lava flow? The only reason that Snelling is using these rocks is to try and make it look like radiometric dating is untrustworthy. He is being dishonest.