• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Flood Geology

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Jerry Smith, May 26, 2002.

  1. seebs

    seebs God Made Me A Skeptic

    +1,462
    Seeker
    Married
    US-Republican
    It's a pretty good bet. The theory that the geological column has not been randomized has both explanatory and predictive power.

    My figuring is, it's *possible* that God created the world on Tuesday, and gave us all long, complicated, memories.

    I don't think it's *likely*.

    Given the bulk of the evidence, and the meta-questions of argumentative style and honesty, I think evolution is the winning theory right now.
     
  2. Josephus

    Josephus <b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b> Supporter

    +215
    Messianic
    "If "possibility" is all you are intersted in then you will readily concede science to the scientists, right?"

    Science, of course, yes! Scientific theory? No.



    So this always is the issue, isn't it? I disprove one, and we go on to another. At this rate, we'll never stop unless you begin to think for yourself as I hope to have given you clues as to how to begin. You're still waiting for someone to hand you truth on a silver platter. I can't do that. I don't know that much. I can only think for myself. I was hoping to maybe teach you "how to fish" so you could "feed yourself."

    "You can prove to me, beyond reasonable doubt, that JC (Julius Caesar) and GW existed. I don't think you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Moses did."

    Can you prove to me Socrates? Homer? The further back in time you go, the less evidence you will find for certain people because historians weren't that popular back then I'd imagine.


    "Well, then: NO IT AIN'T (Yeah- huh!), (Nuh-uh)...
    ad infinitum."

    I'm glad we agree. Let's instead talk about HOW to think for ourselves and not debate someone else's points.
     
  3. seebs

    seebs God Made Me A Skeptic

    +1,462
    Seeker
    Married
    US-Republican
    I think your point is basically sound, but we can fall back on the basic standby: Reasonable evidence exists for Socrates, up to and including substantial writings by his students. Likewise, enough other stories were told about Homer at the time to suggest that he really existed.

    Proof? No. I can't provide *proof* that George W. Bush really exists; I can merely provide what I consider very good evidence. Much harder to produce "proof" of Abraham Lincoln.

    And yet, I'm willing to believe that they exist, because the evidence I've seen is consistent with that, and the theory allows me to predict things. My belief that there was once a man named Abraham Lincoln suggests that he will be mentioned in texts from that time in history; he is. My belief that life evolved from a common ancestor suggests that there should be a large tree of primates gradually approaching the current lines of hominids and apes, but that some of them will apparently have died off. Indeed, there appear to be fossils supporting this. Further back, I would expect at least one animal with some reptile characteristics, and some bird characteristics. Do you think anyone will ever find one? :)
     
  4. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    +9
    What, precisely, is the difference between science and scientific theory?


    Which one did you disprove. All I did was show you why we can have confidence in C-14 dating (within its known error), even though it is conceivable that something interfered with the production of C-14. In case you missed it, it was because we can cross-check C-14 dating against independent methods. Turns out the dates correlate between a variety of methods and C-14, so unless there was a conspiracy we can be confident of the C-14 date.

    You forgot to say "Grasshoppaaah...."

    You are right! I have been sitting here on my duff waiting for someone to hand me the truth on a silver platter. I'm changing that right now! I'm going outside to daydream.

    There is a fair amount of doubt about whether Socrates or Homer did exist as individuals with those names, as a matter of fact. No, it can't be proven. On the other hand, I am definitely not going to use any book or story attributed to them as eye-witness evidence for any theories of mine.


    Fine by me. Lets start with this. Before we get too carried away daydreaming about how the Flood COULD have been responsible for layers of coal, lets take a few years and educate ourselves about how coal is formed in nature, and what the real-world formations look like. Then we can come back later and have a look at our idea that the Flood is responsible for all of the coal deposits and see if it makes sense.

    Check back with you in a few years to see how that one came out.
     
  5. Josephus

    Josephus <b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b> Supporter

    +215
    Messianic
    "What, precisely, is the difference between science and scientific theory?"

    I'm surprised to read you write this question. You mean you honestly don't know? Science is the discovery of the causes of effects. Science theory is the imaginative process of forming predications of causes. In short: Science is fact. Science theory is opinion.

    "Check back with you in a few years to see how that one came out."

    Ok, please let's stop with the ridiculous challenges.
     
  6. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    +9


    Why didn't you say "fact" and "opinion"? I can't account for your use of the terms, but with the definitions you give them here, the use is very, very non-standard.

    So your statement could be rephrased that you are willing to leave "fact" to the scientists, but not opinion. Fine. I will rephrase my question then and try to use terms that you don't have a variant meaning for.

    If "possibility" is all you are intersted in then you will readily concede examination of relevant evidence to the people who are interested in the evidence and the specific models that they support, right?


    It isn't a ridiculous challenge. Without having a basic and general understanding of geology (that is, what has been learned and worked out in the lab and the field for the past couple o' hundred years), how can you possibly know whether the evidence supports the standard model of coal formation and the Flood model equally well? I am serious: if your interest does lie in science, don't daydream about it: go out and learn about it. There is nothing like a good challenging course in a natural science to remind a person how little they know, and to give the incentive to learn more.

    If you are interested only in defending a conclusion - well you are still well advised to educate yourself in the relevant sciences if you expect to succeed and be taken seriously...

    But if you are just interested in it from a standpoint of personal faith, you can concentrate your studies in the areas that you really do care about... If it is an issue of personal faith, you shouldn't have anything at all to say about the science.

    Edit: grammar
     
  7. Josephus

    Josephus <b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b> Supporter

    +215
    Messianic
    "If "possibility" is all you are intersted in then you will readily concede examination of relevant evidence to the people who are interested in the evidence and the specific models that they support, right?"

    No. I disagree with the models. I don't disagree with the facts they find, but I disagree with the interpretations of those facts. A fact would be: certain amount of C14. An interpretation would be: 35,000 years old. I disagree with the interpretations of others, when there are other possibilities. But I do love facts, because it is with pure basic facts, that another theory of how things happened can be invented.

    "how can you possibly know whether the evidence supports the standard model of coal formation and the Flood model equally well?"

    As I said. I'm already convinced.


    "There is nothing like a good challenging course in a natural science to remind a person how little they know, and to give the incentive to learn more."

    I agree! I look forward to my Geology 101 class when it starts next spring. (But I did take Geology in High School in case you are wondering.)

    But I'm intrinsically curious, why you've picked coal production as the evidence for which you hinge your belief in Creation Theory. If it means that much to you, then I will gladly research it (again, since I've done it before in these kinds of conversations but it's been a year or two and I've forgotten every point on this particular issue). What I do wish to point out to you before I begin, is the fact that you mentioned that there is a possibility that coal can form faster than we seem to observe - and I even challenge that, that we can observe coal forming so as to be correct in popular coal-forming theory.
     
  8. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    +9
    You are free to disagree with the models. What you said that prompted my remark was this: "I am simply stating that because I am not a scientist. I am a free thinker. I'm not here to debate specific science, but rather the issue of 'possibility'."

    In real science 'possibility' is a criterion for considering a model, not for accepting it. It is "possible" for coal to form rapidly under some circumstances. It would be "possible" for a global flood to produce some coal. Because it is possible, science can consider the model.

    Science does not accept a model merely on possibility. It accepts the model because it best predicts the most new data, it best accounts for the existing data, and it fits with all of the data. If "possibility" is all you are interested in, then you are not interested in science: you are interested in speculation.

    A means of checking the accuracy of that interpretation would be using an independent dating system. Or two. Or three. No matter what, there are always other possibilities. It is a possibility that the planet's elliptical orbits are a result of the yo-yo strings tied to their centers. Does that mean that you will never accept the inverse square law... because there are other possibilities?

    And I love facts, because it is with pure basic facts that both of these theories can be tested, assuming they both make highly specific predictions about what facts can or will be found.

    Without understanding the core principles of geology --- how is it that you came to be convinced? I am convinced that electrons have little light switches on the side that turn them on and off. How did I come to be convinced of this without learning about electrodynamics?

    If your Geo101 prof is worth her salt, you will come out of there with a whole new perspective on YEC.

    The part of our debate that focused on coal seems to be about the only part of the Creation Model's predictions that we are still discussing. If you wish to revive one of your other points where we left off, be my guest.

    Even if this is correct: you have yet to demonstrate that most or all of the coal beds found in nature could have originated quickly, under flood-conditions - given their unique characteristics.
     
  9. Josephus

    Josephus <b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b> Supporter

    +215
    Messianic
    "And I love facts, because it is with pure basic facts that both of these theories can be tested, assuming they both make highly specific predictions about what facts can or will be found."

    I thought I did give a list of predictions.

    For a short answer to this, let me entreat you to something recent that just happened a while ago.

    I made a prediction, if you remember, a few days ago in this thread, that evidence for a sudden massive meteor storm in the solar system would be found quite possibly as close as our own moon. That the moon's surface is nearly devoid of serious craters and impacts on one half, and riddled with a tremendous bunch on the other, was listed as a "proof" that we can see with our own eyes, and with mapped moon globes. What that predicted, is that the evidence for this massive storm, would be a similar feature on other bodies in the Solar System. Of course, I didn't bother to check that prediction until I came across an article yesterday that said the planet Mercury is potmarked with craters on one side more heavily than it is on the other hemisphere! My jaw dropped. Here was proof for an inherent prediction I just made a few days ago, always assumed was true for the last two years of my life, and here I was faced with the evidence!

    So yes, predictions can be made, and have been. Sadly though, some people are unwilling to accept that much of the data predicted is in fact also the same data used by another interpretation of that data: Evolution! This involves strata layers, mass extinction evidence & fossils; all data that you've conceeded could also support the Creation/Flood Theory.

    Yet you bring up an interesting point. Why believe it if another explanation is simpler? I disagree that evolution is a simpler explanation than the theory I've been mentioning for the past several pages. I agree it has more popular support at this time, and thus a greater concentration to continue to "prove" it out, but I disagree that Evolution is more valid than the submitted theory of a Global Flood. One person says "I see no evidence for Evolution." Another says "I see no evidence for a Global Flood." Both people come from two perspectives of data interpretation.

    Unless one is willing to consider the other side, as I found myself doing a few years ago (I used to be a staunch theistic evolutionist), one will never be convinced of the other side. In my rationale, I've seen it fruitless to engage in discussion where one side refuses to seriously consider the other side - even if just for a moment.

    In which case, though contrary to my stated purposes for this forum, I'd be happy to point you in the direction of articles from the "Creationist" camp that explain this with the work already done. If so, give me a few days to see if I can find something online. I'm sure there is. :)
     
  10. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    +9
    I'm going to go to bed now, so I will not reply to your post edit: tonight... but if you can, sometime between now and tomorrow, please post your references for this:

    "That the moon's surface is nearly devoid of serious craters and impacts on one half, and riddled with a tremendous bunch on the other,"

    and this:

    "Mercury is potmarked with craters on one side more heavily than it is on the other hemisphere!"

    I will check out for myself whether either of these planets keeps one side facing the larger body it orbits, and any other relevant considerations, I am just inerested in the references that confirm your statements. If possible, I would like to know how it is that the asteroid model explains the anomalies you mention (the one-sided scarring of Mars and the moon).

    One other thing I will be looking at in my next post will include whether the asteroid evidence points to one or more catastophic meteor storms in the past or whether it points to one or more catastrophic meteor storms in the past that are linked some way with the Global Flood hypothesis (in timing, for instance).

    Until tomorrow,

    Goodnight :)
     
  11. theyre here

    theyre here Supreme Skeptic

    132
    +4
    Sorry, you’re wrong. Your statement is the kind of lie that has been perpetuated by creationists to fool their untrained followers about science.

    “Science” is the field of study.

    “Theory” in the scientific sense, is the end-all result. Within the scientific community, a theory is considered fact since it is the end statement that begins with a hypothesis, rounds of tests, additional experimentation, errors are examined, changes are made, and the final theory stands up to criticism by peer review.

    Stating the evolution isn’t fact because it’s called “the theory of evolution” is a deceptive and distasteful tactic of people who otherwise espouse truth and morality.
     
  12. LewisWildermuth

    LewisWildermuth Senior Veteran

    +116
    Christian
    Single
    Okay let's take this prediction. Since the C14 rates were different before and after the flood we should find that in one layer of fosils there is a low and "old" date to them, these being all the fosils layed down before and durring the flood. The rock layers just above the flood and volcanic layers in your model should show a remarkebly different age and appear much younger. since the "younger" appearing fosils only appear after the flood and it's disturbance of the geologic columb it should be a relativly easy mark to find. Has anyone found it?

    Oh and you still have yet to report on the new waterbaloon/apple experiment... What did you find?

    Here is what I found...

    Experiment done six times.

    3 times: Ballon skin riped from apple in lines of strell eminating from the impact site.

    2 times: Ballon skin remains intact with only a small hole at impact site and localised distortion.

    1 time: Apple itself knocked off table ballon skin ruptures at impact site and on opposite side at a site where the BB exited apple.

    No evidence of a rupture pattern that would lead to what we see in plate tectonics today.
     
  13. theyre here

    theyre here Supreme Skeptic

    132
    +4
    From Josephus: "the earth's atmosphere before the Flood was so protective, that C14-causing radiation could not get through."

    You do realize your unfounded idea would also prevent a great deal of sunlight from getting through. How did plants survive before this mystery water suddenly fell without catastrophic kenetic energy?
     
  14. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    +9
    Good morning,

    I thought I would try to pick up this a.m. where I left off last night & go ahead and respond to your post.

    You did. I was merely giving you my assessment of the facts. However, since we are on the subject:

    Predictions are useful for testing theories, and the more specific they are, the better we can test a theory. Vague predictions are not as good for testing a theory.

    For instance, my theory is that invisible yo-yo strings are the cause of a planets elliptical orbit. I predict therefore, that there will be spots on the surface where the invisible strings attach to the sun's surface. I further predict that the spots will rotate with the sun, in order to keep the strings from getting tangled up. I also predict that the planets will all "spin" like yo-yos spin when they are being tossed by a child.

    Now, if I refuse to be more specific than that, finding the evidence from my predictions doesn't do much for my theory.

    After all, there is a lot more I could predict with my theory: I could predict that orbits of the planets should be synchronized to avoid one planet's string getting tangled with another. I could predict that the spots on the sun will align with the planets, and that there will be at least nine of the spots, aligned with the planets. I could predict some evidence of an equatorial "crack" where the yo-yo strings attach to the planets. I could predict that the yo-yo strings would burn up close to the sun very quickly and the planets would therefore fly out into space.

    So, when we use facts and predictions to test theories, we must be sure we are looking at as many predictions that must follow from our theories as possible, in as much detail as possible: not just a few, and not in just general ways.

    I'm going to challenge the notion first that the moon's surface is "nearly devoid of serious craters" on "one" half. I did check and found that the near side (the side that faces earth) was more scarred than the far side.

    What makes difference in craters from one side to the other evidence for your hypothesis of a single catastrophic meteor shower?


    Could you tell me what article? I can find nothing like that. I've looked at several astronomy web-sites, including one sponsored by NASA, and I haven't been able to turn up anything like that about Mercury.

    I've conceded that these features could, in general terms, also support the Creation/Flood theory. I haven't conceded that the details that are known about these features could support the Creation/Flood theory.

    For instance, "strata layers" are known to come from sequential depositions of silt or a similar material. Stratified rock often has evidence of a soil horizon between each layer. The layers of stratified rock are chemically distinct from one another. The flood only predicts one stratum, not several (the completely separate issue of volcanic lava "layering" aside.)

    I conceded that the flood must produce not "mass exinction" but COMPLETE extinction, for which we can find no evidence.

    I have conceded that that the Flood would produce remains (loosely speaking "fossils"), but one must go further and predict that if the flood was recent then the fossils should rarely be mineralized.

    Or supported by more data, and better data. Simpler, by itself, means little (my yo-yo string theory is "simpler" in the intuitive sense than the inverse square law). What if it is simpler - meaning that it requires fewer untestable assumptions to work?

    I think that is because you are using a different definition for "simpler"

    I know you do - that is why we are having the discussion. What I am trying to do now is to see WHY you think the interpretation of the data as support for the Global Flood is as valid (or more valid) than the conventional geology interpretations.

    Then at least one of them must be in error, and they should compare notes and see if they can determine some of the errors.

    Here we have you and I, both willing to consider the other side. Lets compare notes.

    Ok. I would be happy for you to show me the explanation of the features found in coal deposits based on the Global Flood model from someone else's work. Here is another good suggestion (for your own benefit) - take those same notes & explanations to the geology department at your U. and ask one of the faculty to examine them to see if there is anything wrong with them. Ask them to explain to you what is wrong with them if they find anything.
     
  15. Hank

    Hank has the Right to be wrong

    +49
    Atheist
    CA-Conservatives
    Man this post is still going strong.

    Genesis 1:6-10 (NIV)
    And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.
    And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

    Would it be save to assume that based on the above there is a high probablity that we will find sound evidence that the whole earth was flooded at one point in time?

    I think, if you want to prove that Noah's flood had taken place, you have to find artifacts from that civilisasion at such locations it could have been placed by flood waters only. Everything else is simply not science. It is pure speculation of ideas.
     
  16. theyre here

    theyre here Supreme Skeptic

    132
    +4



    In science, that is a hypothesis, not a theory. In science, theories are proven, hypothesis are guesses.

    How many times do we need to go over this?
     
  17. Hank

    Hank has the Right to be wrong

    +49
    Atheist
    CA-Conservatives
    I guess until Cambridge or any other dictionary is re-written.

    Theory=a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas which are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation

    Hypothesis=an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proved.

    In other words the yo-yo string is neither :D
     
  18. theyre here

    theyre here Supreme Skeptic

    132
    +4
    Continue to be obtuse and simplistic... typical.

    Why not list all the entries for "theory" instead of the one entry that suits your ill-informed position?

    Merriam-Webster offers the additional: "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena"

    This is why creationists often frustrate scientists in an exponentially increasing way.
     
  19. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    +9
    The yo-yo string theory is proven by the evidence. I even listed it, the spinning motion of the planets (like a yo-yo), the sunspots where the strings attach, the sunspots rotating around the sun to swing the planets around.. what more do you want!

    The data can support either the inverse square law or my yo-yo string theory just as well. It is a matter of interpretation of the data. I think mine is better, because it is simpler, it makes more sense, and you can observe this kind of phenomenon happening every day in the real world. Plus, if "gravity" was responsible for the planets orbits, wouldn't the planets just fall into the sun?
     
  20. Hank

    Hank has the Right to be wrong

    +49
    Atheist
    CA-Conservatives
    :( Read Cambridge again, it implies the same, provided you know the definition of science. Merriam-Webster had to spell it out, for their clientel.

    Creationist have one advantage over scientist, they do not have to provide proof of their mumbo jumbo.
     
Loading...