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.
Flood Geology requires a very violent flood.
The sequencing of layers come from comparison with other non-involved ice layers in other parts of the world.
How do we document these interruptions, these missing ice layers.
What properties do ice cores have that allow is to spot missing
layers from a series of layers?
Your thinking of a tsunami or a tidal wave. A steady rain over much of the land surface could leave little evidence behind.
And i am not falling into an error. i said, "experimental results that cannot be duplicated are of no value in science; one of the reasons we reject claims of the miraculous. Such claims can never be repeated under controlled conditions, nor shown to ever have happened" and that is quite true. Science does reject claims of the miraculous, or anything else that is against all known science and has no evidence to indicate it happened.
"Some "miraculous" events would leave evidence that would persist to today. Miraculous creation of species in their present form, for instance.
True, if it had happened.
I guess I could decide you dont know what you are talking about and are distorting science, with this statement...."accepted scientific theory until 1800-1831. It has been shown to be wrong. So we can't teach it as true"
Where i come from we dont teach any theory as being 'true".
I will admit to being just a grad student and you have more experience in science than I do.
How do we document these interruptions, these missing ice layers.
What properties do ice cores have that allow is to spot missing
layers from a series of layers?
If you were experienced with critical analysis of ancient literature, you'd have much less difficulty resolving literary "Conflicts". But at this point, you seem stuck.
Actually, it couldn't be gentle: floods of any sort leave distinctive patterns, and a year-long flood that covered the entire Earth would definitely leave some markers. Funnily enough, there are none.Your thinking of a tsunami or a tidal wave. A steady rain over much of the land surface could leave little evidence behind.
Disruption of the entire geologic column was just a theory.
Actually, it couldn't be gentle: floods of any sort leave distinctive patterns, and a year-long flood that covered the entire Earth would definitely leave some markers. Funnily enough, there are none.
But we have just been told the flood was very gentle from steady rain which is why it left no evidence and now we hear that it caused all this erosion. That doesn't sound like a gentle flood to me. You guys need to get your stories straight.Ah but it wasn't just a flood. It was flooding followed by flooded followed by recession of flood. So you would have depositiing of marine fossils, then the flood and erosion of existing mountains forming large sediment fields. These fields would then be under enormous pressure by the flood above and then secondary erosion by the water receding as well as tertiary effects as remaining lakebeds emptied spontaneously like the grand canyon.
It was Leonardo da Vinci who first realized that marine fossils in mountains were not the result of Noah's flood so your fossil evidence is a bit out of date.The evidence of vast beds of fossils pushed together by seeming floods is also evidence.
On some miracles, science does not reject them. For instance, science does not reject the miracle of the loaves and fishes. It can't. That miracle may have happened. Same with the Resurrection. Neither left evidence that would have lasted until today.
If you say "against all known science", then you are using theory to reject data. You can never do that. You see, the miracles are "data"; observations.
In science, "rejected" is the same as saying "refuted" or "false". And that isn't what science does. Science treats the miracles as an anomaly. Science is much more neutral than "rejected".
Let me go into more detail about how miracles are "data".
We'll start with the resurrection. Scientifically, what you have with the dead bodies is a THEORY, based upon the individual data points of dead bodies we have observed. The *theory* states that a person dead will not come back to life. However, you can never prove a theory, you can only test it. So far, all the data supports that theory. BUT, Yeshu's possible resurrection is DATA. That is the point you keep missing. Data can always overthrow theory. But you cannot use theory reject data. You cannot generalize from what you have observed to reject the next observation.
Now, Yeshu's supposed resurrection is not solid data. It happened a long time ago and it left no physical consequences around that we can objectively, intersubjectively study today. So, we are allowed to view the event as an anomaly and do not have to revise the theory. But we simply cannot use the theory to say the data (the resurrection) never happened.
Let me give you another example of theory and data. We have released several rocks and seen them fall. So we devise a theory of gravity that says that ALL unsupported objects will fall. This works well as we drop bricks, limbs, seashells, leaves, etc. But then we try a helium balloon. It goes up. Do we deny that it goes up? NO. Instead, we revise the theory to: all objects that mass more than the air they displace will fall when unsupported. The THEORY gets changed. In the case of Yeshu, IF we could find objecitve data to confirm the event happened, then our theory would be: all humans who die remain dead except when deity interferes and reverses the process.
But that is no different from any other claim of an action in the past, including the non-miraculous. Currently there is a theory about a meteor impact at the end of the Cretaceous and a theory about a meteor impact at the end of the Lesser Dryas. IF it had happened, there would be a crator. Contrary data allows us to falsify the theory. True statements cannot have false consequences. When we find false consequences, the statement cannot be true. In the case of the theory about the meteor impact at the end of the Cretaceous, a crator was discovered at Chixulub Mexico. No crator has been discovered at the end of the Lesser Dryas.
Really? They don't teach cell theory as true? They don't teach round earth as true? How about the theory that DNA is in a double helix? What do you teach them as?
Stephen J Gould put it this way: "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent."
But i will take it as a misstatement on your part, much as you could take it that when i said science is based on observation and experiment, i didnt mean that was the entire thing.
And how much philosophy of science have you had as a grad student?
But we have just been told the flood was very gentle from steady rain which is why it left no evidence and now we hear that it caused all this erosion. That doesn't sound like a gentle flood to me. You guys need to get your stories straight. ...
Our understanding of geology has evolved over time but your story of the flood is very different from what I have heard from most believers in the global flood. It is not that the story has changed but that there are many different versions of the story.The story has not changed.
But our current beliefs about geology change from day to day.
Of course it is impossible to know these things about an event that never happened.I don't have a date for the flood to start with.
I don't know what impact it would have.
It does in the places where it exists without overthrust or folding which geologists can recognize. The earth's geology and fossil record are totally inconsistent with a global flood. Or course biogeography, biodiversity, anthropology and many other fields of science also provide data showing that the flood of Noah if it occured at all must have been local.Nor do I know that your geologic column is a linear time line.
Are you aware the original biologists didn't believe in evolution? Obviously not. Only 19th century biologists started to believe in the theory of evolution. So that's less than 200 years vs. several thousand years of biologists who didn't believe in evolution.
.. The earth's geology and fossil record are totally inconsistent with a global flood. ..
The Grand Canyon is an equilibrium drainage basin, side canyons that have not been blocked by landslides or lava flow enter at the level of the canyon floor showing that it was formed slowly over a long period of time and is not the result of a great flood or its aftermath. [/quote]
Not even close to current theory.
But the Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Chinese failed to notice they were flooded.We don't know what effects a global flood would have.
Or the global atmospheric conditions when it took place.
People do guess both the time and the conditions.
Having done that, then then insist it never took place according
to conditions that they made up.
Sorry but it is our current understanding of the grand canyon. The side canyons (that are not blocked by Cenozoic lava flows or land slides) enter at the level of the main canyon floor indicating that the canyon is an equilibrium structure that formed over long periods of time. Instead of reading creationist nonsense on the Grand Canyon you should read some Scholarly work such as Grand Canyon Geology Edited by by Stanely Beus and Michael Moralis. It is true that most of the downcutting of the Colorado plateau has occured in the last 2.5 million years which is relatively rapid on a geologic time scale but the grand canyon is not the result of catastrophic flooding or the aftermath of a recent global flood.The Grand Canyon is an equilibrium drainage basin, side canyons that have not been blocked by landslides or lava flow enter at the level of the canyon floor showing that it was formed slowly over a long period of time and is not the result of a great flood or its aftermath. [/quote]
Not even close to current theory.
Here is what Geologist Tim Heaton says about the supposed rapid formatin of the grand canyon. (Emphasis added)
How would we go about testing such a theory, especially when all direct evidence has been washed away? Testing for a flood has its problems, especially if it occurred long ago, but testing for a recent origin of the Grand Canyon by flooding is a simple matter. The question to answer is whether the Colorado river, its tributaries, and the slopes of the canyon walls are in an equilibrium state (i.e. whether they would have the same basic configuration if left to current erosion processes for an arbitrarily long time). Non-equilibrium drainages can be found wherever glaciation, catastrophic flooding, or other non-stream processes have recently dominated. Such "deranged" drainages are typified by numerous lakes, U-shaped valleys, and waterfalls where tributaries enter a river. In equilibrium drainages the tributaries, even washes that only rarely carry water, meet the river exactly at its level, and slopes are controlled primarily by the hardness of the rock units. Is the configuration of the Grand Canyon in equilibrium or relectual? Unquestionably it is the former. Given a million years of current conditions there would be considerable slope retreat, but from all we can tell the general appearance of the Grand Canyon would be virtually identical to what it is now."
Heaton, Timothy. 1995. A Young Grand Canyon? Skeptical Inquirer. vol. 19, no. 3, pp.33-36.
Durango Bill has an interesting page on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Origin and Formation of the Grand Canyon
We have discussed the Grand Canyon on this forum in the past.
http://www.christianforums.com/t2072977/
Unfortunately some of the links will no longer be operative so I don't want to pull an AV and necro the thread.
Added in Edit: There is still debate about how old the grand canyon is and some recent evidence that it may be older than previously thought. There is considerable evidence that formation of lava dams in the last 700,000 years did form lakes and floods when those dams eroded away may have contributed to more rapid cutting of the canyon. What is clear is that the grand canyon did not form in a single catastrophic event, that it did form long ago that the layers of rock comprising the Colorado plateau that the canyon cuts through were laid down over hundreds of millions of years.
That's because they weren't.But the Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Chinese failed to notice they were flooded.
Would you like to explain Global Atmospheric conditions that could lead to thousands of feet of "gentle rain" IIRC you are gentle flood creationist and not a "flood that rearranged and deposited most of the earth's geology creationist". Do you know anything about weather at all? Do you know what latent heat of vaporization is? Do you understand the problems with having enough water in the atmosphere to yeild even a few feet of global rain?We don't know what effects a global flood would have.
Or the global atmospheric conditions when it took place.
People do guess both the time and the conditions.
Having done that, then then insist it never took place according
to conditions that they made up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?