Starcrystal said:
There has been flood evidence I've read that was from research in the 1960's to 2002. The Lipodendheron ferns in polystrate layers for example is but one of these.
Star, you don't evaluate theories by stacking up "evidence for" and seeing which stack is higher. Instead, you evaluate theories by trying to falsify them. To do that you look for evidence that can't possibly be there
if the theory were true. Theories are statements, and true statements can't have false consequences. A global flood to explain geology has false consequences. It isn't true.
Some aquatic animals died in the flood simply due to the raging of the waters.
But if the waters were raging then how do we get dinosaur nests preserved intact and rhythmites, which can only occur in still water? What you have here, Star, is an example of an ad hoc hypothesis. Ad hoc hypotheses are constructed to avoid falsification of the theory. However, a way to test the ad hoc hypothesis is to see if it contradicts
other data. This one is falsified by other data that show the flood had to be still, not raging.
BTW, how do raging waters acount for the extinction of cartilaginous fish while other cartilaginous fish -- such as sharks and rays -- survive? You haven't given us an explanation, just an excuse.
Others may have gone extinct over time.
How much time do we have after the Flood to the present?
Yes, I actually read some books in the 60's that listed Nebraska man and Piltdown man as links. Some may have been library books from the 50's. I was just a kid at the time.
They were even earlier than that, since Piltdown was falsified in 1949 and Nebraska was shown to be an honest mistake in 1925. I doubt you read textbooks but I suspect you got this from modern creationist material.
Preachers refuting the flood in the 1800's holds no water They are MEN. They didn't have the research tools.
Sure they had the research tools. And they were scientists. It's just that several of them were
also ministers. Most scientists of the time had day jobs, since there were no jobs at being only a scientist. The most common day job in England was being an Anglican minister.
They had all the tools they needed to study geology and determine that geological features could not have been laid down by a Flood. I suggest you read Davis A Young's
The Biblical Flood: A Case History of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence. Young is both an evangelical Christian and a trained geologist. You can find some of the falsifications of the Flood here:
http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/ The reason I pointed out that they were Christians and ministers is so you didn't have the duck that it was an atheist conspiracy.
I've read only parts of Origins, mostly what is catalogued in other evolutionary textbooks, but they often refered back to Origin quotes. Darwin himself however questioned the construct of the human eye, as well as writing that he considered the entire project had been, "Devoting myself to a phantasy." (Darwins own words.)
LOL, you never read evolutionary textbooks, but creationist materials. You just demonstrated it here by referring to Darwin's doubt of the eye misquote and the "phantasy" misquote. Star, you've just destroyed any credibility you hoped to get for your revelation story.
Here's the Darwin eye quote
in full. Try reading Origin.
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
Now if we refute the flood, what does that do to the Bible?
Nothing. The Noachian Flood is not essential to any theology.
It makes the Genesis account out to be untrue, an allegory, a metaphor, or something other than what it says.
So? Christians have already done that with the passages that were once interpreted as showing a flat earth or an earth that does not move.
Could it be that evolution is carefully orchestrated on "evidence" that APPEARS valid, only it is actually evidence misapplied and forced to fit the theory? Rather than evidence objectively evaluated from ALL sides?
No.
1. Because science uses only evidence that is the same to everybody under approximately the same circumstances. Therefore the evidence is open for anyone to look at and can't be orchestrated.
2. Scientists get fame by showing ideas to be
wrong. Thus, the individual motivation for scientists is to refute evolution, not orchestrate it.
3. The people who falsified creationism were Christians. Therefore they had no motive to do so. In fact, their motive would have been to orchestrate evidence to keep creationism. Now, if scientists aren't going to orchestrate evidence to back a theory that is proposed by their Christian religion, they are certainly not going to orchestrate evidence that people claim is against their religion!
I've seen plenty of modern evidence showing flood layers that researches say could ONLY have been layed down in a brief period of time.
Please quote your sources.
What about the trilobite fossil imbedded in a human sandal print?
It's not a sandal print.
Unfortunately there have been some imbeciles among church folk who may have created evidence in an attempt to support a beleif. Those who do that are worse than atheists who sincerely think their evidence points to evolution.
Such as the Paluxey mantracks and the Inca stones? Don't be too harsh on the carvers of the Paluxey mantracks. It was the Depression and they were starving. They needed the tourist trade. Show a little Christian forgiveness.
Christians are not supposed to fabricate things to prove God exists,
And yet we show that creationists do that time and again. The misquotes you have used, for instance. Your claim that Nebraska man was still listed as a transitional in
evolutionary textbooks in the 1960s (or maybe the 1950s). So why did you fabricate?
But also remember, there are countless cases of evolutionists committing simlar fraud.
"Countless"? You only gave two examples. At the most I've seen 5 examples. Since over
160,000 papers on evolution can be found on PubMed just since 1965, 5 doesn't seem "countless"
Lets go with the evidence that is valid.
Fine. In that case the 160,000 papers shows that evolution is supported and creationism falsified.
BTW, once again I have to warn you that
Creation and creation
ism are two different things. Creation is a theological idea that God created. Creationism is a specific
how of creation. But remember, evolution is
also a how God created. See the second quote in my signature. So this isn't about Creation vs evolution. It's about exactly how God did create. Did He create by evolution or by creationism?
In some cases they are spiritual, or should I say, "interdimensional" quantum anomolies that invade the 3 dimensional world.
And what quantum anomalies would those be. Please summarize for us some of Talbot's ideas. Thank you.
