• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Another Flood Question

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Only one problem with the K-T boundary. All the dinosaurs went extinct before it, not a single dinosaur fossil can be found in that layer or even immediately after it. And every single one but maybe a few hundred are found in sedimentary layers before it.

To date, only one, count them, one fossil has been found just before the K-T layer.

But perhaps, just perhaps, if evolutionary supporters did their research first before just accepting everything they were told to believe, they might have discovered this for themselves. Perhaps, but I won’t hold my breath on any evolutionist thinking for themselves.

So you don't think it was an extinction event?
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
72
Chicago
✟131,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
If the account of the Worldwide Flood wasn’t in Genesis... would it be a conventional scientific theory today?

Not likely.
There is zero possibility to have a worldwide flood today (which is perfectly Biblical). If it is not possible today, then science will have hard time to deal with it.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
72
Chicago
✟131,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You don't think one credible scientist would have stepped forward and suggested this possibility, in the absence of the biblical account.

Our knowledge is not there yet. One hundred years later could be possible.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,221
3,311
U.S.
✟697,694.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Not likely.
There is zero possibility to have a worldwide flood today (which is perfectly Biblical). If it is not possible today, then science will have hard time to deal with it.

I agree. My disagreement with the “evolutionary take” is that it begins with the things it sees happening today, and projects that rate all the way back to the beginning (Creation & Flood times). I think that is what Peter was referring to when he said many err by saying everything goes on as it has from the beginning. The Genesis account is “what” happened; there was something else going on (at a different rate - much faster, violent, puzzling) than has happened since (slow & discernable). You have to look at the bible first for “what” happened (the “how and rate” we cannot begin to fully understand), but then look to science for the “understandable how and rate” that has happened since. Two different epochs with uncommon dynamics.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
72
Chicago
✟131,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The movie is not really the focus of my question; I only mentioned it as a quick answer to a “references” question because I had recently seen it, happen to think it presents good information regarding creation and science, and the people interviewed are scientists. In addition, I have no doubt you can google all the contrary articles to your paradigm you would like to read. Actually, I thought parts of the review you provided were pretty good, and thank you, I had not seen them.

One notable quote from a reviewer hints at what paradigm camp he is in: “While some wise restraint is shown, if I had one criticism, it would be that Is Genesis History? still probably tries to cover a bit too much ground in too little time’” I like this one too, “Probably the most valuable thing about Is Genesis History? is that it makes quite clear to any viewer that there are serious scientists and scholars who are willing to engage with and, in fact, embrace the biblical account of history and the data from nature. In addition, a significant amount of that data they engage with is consistent with and well interpreted within a biblical paradigm. In other words, believers are not fanatics who believe based on blind faith. There are reasonable empirical reasons to believe that Genesis really is a record of history and, in general, the interpretations that come out of this paradigm are quite rational.”

Currently, the study of earth history and cosmos history are two major disciplines that include many many branch studies. They, together, composed a history of the universe as most scientists know it.

Now, the Genesis 1-11 has only a few pages, and most of them are theological, not scientific.

Even what Genesis says could be true, would you expect MOST scientists accept what's said in it as science-based "historical"?

I would take an alternative stand, which is much easier and practical. The modern science CAN NOT prove what's said in Genesis 1-11 is wrong. I think it is much more manageable.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The modern science CAN NOT prove what's said in Genesis 1-11 is wrong.

Modern science has no interest in proving Genesis wrong.

The historical authenticity of Genesis vs science might seem like a thing on these forums, or in fundamentalist circles, but the rest of the world couldn't care less. It's quaint that you think it's of any importance but most people don't give it any more thought than you do of the historical authenticity of Buddha's story. The only time (outside these forums) I've ever discussed anything approaching these issues has been making fun of science-denying Americans.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
That is so much pseudoscience it isn’t even funny. I mean please, we have observed clocks slowing aboard airplanes, and they certainly needed no frame switching at their turn around point to do so. It was changes in velocity, and changes in velocity alone which caused those clocks to slow. You don’t even understand the actual experiments performed, instead spout pseudoscience touted long before any actual experiments were performed.

And no the laws are not the same, except for observers moving at the same relative velocity.

“Special principle of relativity: If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K.”

Only if the systems are moving in relative motion with respect to one another do the laws of physics hold good. Your understanding of relativity is flawed.

“The laws of motion in non-inertial frames do not take the simple form they do in inertial frames, and the laws vary from frame to frame depending on the acceleration.“

Your belief holds no merit, only when two observers move in relative motion (the same approximate velocity) in an inertial frame, do the laws of physics hold good in both frames. In a non-inertial frame the laws vary depending upon the acceleration.

Hence clocks slow as well as decay rates under acceleration. Their is no pseudoscience of switching frames at turn around, as explicit empirical tests performed in airplanes have shown. It is changes in velocity, and changes in velocity alone which cause clocks to slow.

And least understand Relativity before you make claims you can’t support.
Um, the point of turnaround of the travelling twin (decelerate, turn round, accelerate) is where his frame becomes non-inertial, and this is when the time difference observed at reunion occurs. The video explains this quite clearly.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
By the way, I agree the answer to my question, as worded, is “No”. Most conventional scientists would fall back on the old “you can’t explain how a global flood happened scientifically (according to our understanding), so it didn’t happen” argument. This after the bible tells us there was total earth upheaval and deluge with possible hurricanes and asteroid collisions all at once (the “Hand of God”)... all done on His timeline and rates, not ours... and yet many still presume they can determine just how things happened from what is seen today, or even more unreasonable, what didn’t happen and doubting God’s word based on our limited understanding.

So you discount all knowledge except for that housed in a collection of middle eastern tales. Understood.

Except, things like ' total earth upheaval and deluge with possible hurricanes and asteroid collisions all at once (the “Hand of God”)' leave evidence.

Show me some.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,221
3,311
U.S.
✟697,694.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
So you discount all knowledge except for that housed in a collection of middle eastern tales. Understood.

Except, things like ' total earth upheaval and deluge with possible hurricanes and asteroid collisions all at once (the “Hand of God”)' leave evidence.

Show me some.

Why do I need to do that?
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Are you implying that there is a single sedimentary stratum that blankets the entire earth?

Reference please.
It’s your own geologists that claim they can date the earth and fossils by the order in which the strata was laid down, and confirm its consistency by existing worldwide. Are you implying they are incorrect?

I will state outright that you don't know what you are talking about.

What you are indirectly referring to is the use of index fossils, and you have totally butchered how they are used (what else is new).

HINT: their use does NOT rely on universal strata. Almost the opposite, really.

It is funny - creationists generally attack the fact that there is not 100% uniform geologic column the world over, but here the resident expert on 'allies' and 'genetic strains' - and now, apparently geology - implying that there is one.


There is, and since each one is uniform the world over, which in your comment above wanted to argue against..... and is sedimentary.......

Then isn't it odd that you did not provide an example, a name, a link, a citation to this universal sedimentary stratum.

I think creationists should all meet and figure out which sides of arguments they should take.

You know, to avoid contradicting each other.
So should evolutionists, or is it Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, Lankarianism, catastrophes, or millions of years or sudden change?

You might have a point if there were a sizeable chunk of modern evolutionary biologists advocating Lamarckianism, and if you understood what Darwinism/neo-Darwinism are, and if you understood that gradualism does not - and never did - prohibit catastrophism.

IOW - you should try reading about the nature of the claims you make BEFORE you make them.
Geologist agree with me, uniform sedimentary layers worldwide, remember. All in uniform consistent layers, remember...

How can I remember that which you have yet to provide support for?

I am not a geologist, so maybe I am wrong. However, I have taught classes on evolution, and in those classes I have discussed index fossils and geological phenomena, and if there were consistent, uniform, world-wide layers of sedimentary rock, then I know that there would be no need for the use of index fossils.

So show me a link or a paper or or something.


Five world-wide floods?

Chapter and verse please.

The chapter of the creation, penned by God. Look up global extinctions....

I know about mass extinctions, but I don't know anything about floods causing all of them, and I should think that such events would have been God's work, yet in the bible, there is but one flood mentioned, and there is zero evidence for that.

Still waiting for a single uniform world-wide stratum that will contain the fossils of all the humans killed in the flood along with every other form of creature.


You see it, from the age of the dinosaurs onward. It just hasn’t formed into sedimentary rock yet, but is consistent as that’s how geologists say they can date things worldwide, remember?

How can I remember that for which you have not offered anything of merit?

So, you are saying that the 'stratum' that we are living on today proves that there are strata around the entire world formed by these five world-wide floods that you claim (without evidence) occurred?


Creationists twist and turn, and are never straight shooters.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
This link is about how planets were formed, not about the Earth's geological history. The link itself is still very informative.
Which belief on how planets formed was based upon their beliefs of geological history. It appears their beliefs on geological history led to incorrect predictions, the hallmark of an incorrect theory to begin with...

Yes? Or do we need to go show scientific theory is judged by its ability to make correct predictions....
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I will state outright that you don't know what you are talking about.
And I’ll state outright you should look into a mirror when you say this.

What you are indirectly referring to is the use of index fossils, and you have totally butchered how they are used (what else is new).

HINT: their use does NOT rely on universal strata. Almost the opposite, really.
The hallmark of someone confused. They are index fossils precisely because they are found every one in the same type of strata for its believed age.

Fossils are dated by the strata they are found in. If the strata were not consistent, then they could not be of the same age.

You need to study up on fossil dating before you provide more false data.

Try studying up on the geological column....

Then isn't it odd that you did not provide an example, a name, a link, a citation to this universal sedimentary stratum.
Which do you want to start with, the Cambrian or another?

7744C066-ABEB-4ECD-96B1-5D0140D30C7B.jpeg


You might have a point if there were a sizeable chunk of modern evolutionary biologists advocating Lamarckianism, and if you understood what Darwinism/neo-Darwinism are, and if you understood that gradualism does not - and never did - prohibit catastrophism.

IOW - you should try reading about the nature of the claims you make BEFORE you make them.
The point now becomes you deny your own multiple theories about evolution and your own inconsistencies.

How can I remember that which you have yet to provide support for?

I am not a geologist, so maybe I am wrong. However, I have taught classes on evolution, and in those classes I have discussed index fossils and geological phenomena, and if there were consistent, uniform, world-wide layers of sedimentary rock, then I know that there would be no need for the use of index fossils.

So show me a link or a paper or or something.
index fossil
“Index fossils are the basis for defining boundaries in the geologic time scale and for the correlation of strata.”

Anything else you need corrected on? Your students probably were more confused than you are.




I know about mass extinctions, but I don't know anything about floods causing all of them, and I should think that such events would have been God's work, yet in the bible, there is but one flood mentioned, and there is zero evidence for that.
Please, all fossils but the very few found in lava flows are found in sedimentary strata. How much evidence of floods do you need?


How can I remember that for which you have not offered anything of merit?

So, you are saying that the 'stratum' that we are living on today proves that there are strata around the entire world formed by these five world-wide floods that you claim (without evidence) occurred?


Creationists twist and turn, and are never straight shooters.
You simply confuse mans ancestors as being more ape like to conform to your theory. I don’t expect the people before the flood to look like us. Just as I don’t expect a poodle to look like a wolf. You have many fossils of our pre-flood ancestors, and guess what, they are found in sedimentary strata too.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
So you discount all knowledge except for that housed in a collection of middle eastern tales. Understood.

Except, things like ' total earth upheaval and deluge with possible hurricanes and asteroid collisions all at once (the “Hand of God”)' leave evidence.

Show me some.
Every planet and moon in the solar system is pockmarked with craters from pole to pole. Ever wonder why the earth only has a few? Oh yes, I’m waiting for the inadequate claim of weathering now. And some on earth has been weathered. But actually look at the numbers found on every planet and moon but earth.

Where will be the evidence of hurricane Harvey in 10 years? Non-existent, that’s where. Catrina left almost nothing visible today. And mount saint helens is well on its way to being healed. And I mean come on Tas, every fossil found is almost invariably found in sedimentary strata. You couldn’t ask for more evidence they died by flood....
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
just a few refutations before I head out.
And I’ll state outright you should look into a mirror when you say this.

Why? I am not the one that wrote of "allies" and "genetic strains" and "phonetic traits."

The hallmark of someone confused. They are index fossils precisely because they are found every one in the same type of strata for its believed age.


They are used to date the strata in other places from which they were originally identified.

The strata are not themselves uniform around the entire world.

My gosh...
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Um, the point of turnaround of the travelling twin (decelerate, turn round, accelerate) is where his frame becomes non-inertial, and this is when the time difference observed at reunion occurs. The video explains this quite clearly.
The video is pseudoscience. The airplane where we actually performed tests with clocks did not turn around.

The twins time slows as he begins acceleration, and then speeds back up as he begins deceleration. At the turn around point it again slows as he accelerated and then speeds back up as he decelerates and land on earth. That is why his clock now ticks once again at the same rate as the stationary twins clock.

You best read up on the clock experiment performed in airplanes. There was no frame switching, no turn around. Each one way journey was recorded separately.

You are being hand fed pseudoscience and apparently unable to differentiate between theory and the reality of actual experimental empirical evidence. There is not one single experimental data that supports the pseudoscience of frame switching. All of the experimental data supports changes in velocity, and changes in velocity alone as slowing clocks.

Even the GPS support this. They speed up because of their distance from the earths surface, and slow solely due to their velocity.

You need to learn to differentiate between fact and fiction, and that video is pure fiction.
 
Upvote 0