Flood Question

[Subduction Zone]

The scriptures give absolutely no details about flood sedimentation amounts or levels.
Such assumptions are assuming a "natural" flood, which the scriptures insist it was not.
Such imaginations are just setting up straw men to push over.

Yes, "magic" solves all problems. The average person gets tired of hearing people respond "magic" when evidence that should be there is found to be lacking.

So is your explanation for the universally missing population bottlenecks "magic" too?

 

[RickG]

RickG, a correction on modern clams, very often you can't date modern clams with C14 dating due to the reservoir effect. They will have a false "old" age. Of course that age is still less than 60,000 years.

http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html

Thanks for mentioning the reservoir effect. I am well aware of the "reservoir effect", as much of my current research on abrupt sea level rise events related to the Laurentide ice sheet involves that effect. Fortunately, it is not as much of a problem as it used to be, say prior 1990s. The thing to understand there is that each reservoir is unique, and of course as I am sure you are aware of, the literature in these cases always describes the margin of error. Additionally they also mention any results that were out of statistical reliability and discarding them for that specific reason. You and I of course know that that is what is often deliberately misrepresented in the YEC community as in picking and choosing. The fact is one does not use unreliable results which can and does happen due to a number of circumstances. The only picking and choosing is the verification of reliable or unreliable results, and not picking and choosing what they want it to fit.

 

[RickG]

The scriptures give absolutely no details about flood sedimentation amounts or levels.
Such assumptions are assuming a "natural" flood, which the scriptures insist it was not.
Such imaginations are just setting up straw men to push over.

You really like citing the Straw Man Fallacy, which I find quite interesting especially when your comment is exactly the description of that fallacy. Here, is the definition of that fallacy:

A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.
(source: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/straw-man/)
​

Now, how is your post a straw man? You provide your interpretation of biblical scripture ignoring that I'm not involving scripture in my argument whatsoever, rather my argument is against the YEC claim that all sedimentary strata in the geologic column is said to be a result of that flood. I am not denying a global flood as you assert in "your" straw man argument. I am denying that the sedimentary layers in geologic strata is not a result of that flood. And in doing this I am showing that the highest possible flood waters could not possibly deposit the amount of sediment the Flood Geology proponents claim.

So please try to stay on topic and not erroneously claim a straw man with your own straw man argument.

 

[davedajobauk]

I see far too many variables, for anyone to make 'guesses'
For reason #1 ~that because rains were 'global' and surface material was so-variable
that MUCH of this 'sediment', would consist-of, redistributed surface loose-material

As far as attributing depth (of sediment) to 'flood sediment'
we would need to 'date' the sediment that occured pre-flood & post-flood
and also> know 'what date', the flood occured (?) so to exclude Tidal and Estuarine movements 'and additions'
~that occured, subsequently, from weathering of landmasses

dave

 

[[serious]]

I know, because if they followed it instead of ignoring it, they would realize that in the claimed 95 million years since the dinosaurs existed, the amount of sediment we see (which the dinosaurs are in) could not have went by natural processes. Your own arguments defeat you, by refusing to consider that worldwide catastrophic event, but you refuse to see.

Hold on, you think that sedimentation didn't start until the dinosaurs?

Also, weren't you just saying how structures end up buried in just a few thousand years? Why wouldn't that same logic still apply?

 

[RickG]

I know, because if they followed it instead of ignoring it, they would realize that in the claimed 95 million years since the dinosaurs existed, the amount of sediment we see (which the dinosaurs are in) could not have went by natural processes.

"...claimed 95 million years since the dinosaurs existed..." ?????????

 

[davedajobauk]

95 Million years... seems to stretch that point unreasonably

A team of scientists has discovered the youngest dinosaur preserved in the fossil record before the catastrophic meteor impact 65 million years ago. The finding indicates that dinosaurs did not go extinct prior to the impact and provides further evidence as to whether the impact was in fact the cause of their extinction.

It would seem that some 30 Million years, has been added to the record, perhaps mistakenly






source of above quote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110712211016.htm

 

[Loudmouth]

The scriptures give absolutely no details about flood sedimentation amounts or levels.
Such assumptions are assuming a "natural" flood, which the scriptures insist it was not.
Such imaginations are just setting up straw men to push over.

IOW, you have to suspend all known natural laws in order to make flood geology work.

 

[SkyWriting]

You really like citing the Straw Man Fallacy....

You must be thinking of somebody else. This is the first time I've ever thought it applied. Though I admit, you are the person most likely to hear me discuss it.