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.
The problem is that discoveries are forced to fit the preconceptions while all counter evidence is shunted aside as irrelevant or problematical. When that modus operandi is in effect you can't really trust what is being tagged as evidence until it is examined by an objective scientist.
The creationists pretend that what is referred to as the Geological Time Scale is "The" Geological Column. It is wrong as the Geological Time Scale is a graphic representation of time periods and how they follow each other. For example the Cambrian is older than the Ordovician which is older than the Silurian, etc. Thus, the Geological Time Scale does not represent rock "layers". It doesn't have thicknesses or depths or anything like that.
What Geologists do is to show how their Geological Columns for areas relate to the Geological Time Scale.
The problem is that discoveries are forced to fit the preconceptions while all counter evidence is shunted aside as irrelevant or problematical. When that modus operandi is in effect you can't really trust what is being tagged as evidence until it is examined by an objective scientist.
Nothing there is being ignored. Many of the claims can be found here, on an index of creationist claims:The evidence mentioned in this article:
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm
Nothing there is being ignored. Many of the claims can be found here, on an index of creationist claims:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
It took me less than three minutes to debunk the first three:
Claim 1: Polystrate trees.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC331.html
Claim 2: Fossils require a flood
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC363.html
Claim 3: Clastic Dikes
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe#20
The evidence is not being ignored. It simply fails to convince. It doesn't imply what the creationists think it implies. For example, the claims about Mount Saint Helens - why is it somehow surprising that a catastrophic mudflow can carve a channel? We've known this for quite some time. However, the mudflow carved a fairly straight line - as one might expect from rushing water. By comparison, here's a photo of Goosenecks canyon:
Notice anything different about it?
Again, this bears repeating. The evidence is not being ignored. It's being considered and rejected, because there's simply nothing to it. The combined scientific value of the contributions of Creationism to our knowledge can be found listed below here in this post, my signature excluded.
1. Theophobia. The intense fear of all that is religious or related to gods, God or even a creator which some might tag as such.This causes what I have found to be temporary cancellations of the scientific method at the precise moments deemed necessary and proclamations of inability to reason or mental blindness whenever it is found convenient.
2. Professional Career Considerations:
Any scientist who interpreted data in a way that goes contrary to the popular atheists agenda will be tagged as persona-non-Grata and subjected to career hampering attention. Some have even lost professorships based on their non-atheist beliefs which they sought to convey to their students. So those unwilling to face the heat choose to play along.
3. Money Issues: Grant money will cease if it is found hat any conclusions that the archaeologist reaches is being used to support what is considered unscientific and bogus by the majority. Again, the same reaction. Better to play along than to be left empty handed, with loss of prestige, and an object of ridicule to boot.
But bandwagon or appeal to authority aren't valid reasons for acceptance of any claim.
However, despite that very strong possibility, I will use the links you provided and will objectively evaluate the pros and the cons of the issues as is required. Then I and will get back to you on this. Might take some time, but I will certainly respond.
Also, that flowing water can carve a meandering river is basic geology.
That is simple to do. God said: "Let there be life" and DNA was the Language He used to Create Life. Nothing more to explain."Explain the fossil record without evolution"
If that's the extent of your claim then I agree. If however you support the idea that the Flood produced the fossil record then you have a great deal to explain. If you are a Floodist then I await your detailed response to the OP.That is simple to so. God said: "Let there be life" and DNA was the Language He used to Create Life. Nothing more to explain.
From our perspective Noah's flood was local. Only one of the many bio diverse ecosystems were effected, not the whole biosphere. Only this was a very important biosystem because this is where farming and domestication of plants and animals began. This is why Noah's animals were divided into clean and unclean animals. Gensis 7:2 "Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate" Clean animals were the animals that ended up on the dinner table. These were the animals that we actually eat. Moses lists animals such as camels, rabbits and pigs as being unclean, or unfit to eat (Leviticus 11:4-8 Leviticus 11:4-8 4 They did not travel very far in Noah's day. NO more then 300 miles. So for Noah he simply did not know that the biosystem he lived in was not the whole world as we know it today. From his perspective sitting on the Ark his world was flooded. From our perspective looking back today we would consider it to be a local flood. The Tigris Euphrates Valley was flooded and the water went up over the top of the mountains. This most likely was caused by what they call land damns that were there after the ice melted from the last ice age. They hold the water in for a while but then they break and the water from the melting ice returns to the ocean. Even this still happens today that a land damn will give away and cause flooding. Noah would have known the flood was coming. Now a days they would drain the water off slowly rather then wait for the damn to break and flood the area. The reason people live in flood plains even today is they are very futile farming ground. The food grows really good on flood plains.If that's the extent of your claim then I agree. If however you support the idea that the Flood produced the fossil record then you have a great deal to explain. If you are a Floodist then I await your detailed response to the OP.
I have no objections to the notion of a localized flood. As you'll note from the thread title and my OP, the topic of discussion is the degree to which the fossil record comports with the hypothesis of a global flood.From our perspective Noah's flood was local. Only one of the many bio diverse ecosystems were effected, not the whole biosphere. Only this was a very important biosystem because this is where farming and domestication of plants and animals began. This is why Noah's animals were divided into clean and unclean animals. Gensis 7:2 "Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate" Clean animals were the animals that ended up on the dinner table. These were the animals that we actually eat. Moses lists animals such as camels, rabbits and pigs as being unclean, or unfit to eat (Leviticus 11:4-8 Leviticus 11:4-8 4 They did not travel very far in Noah's day. NO more then 300 miles. So for Noah he simply did not know that the biosystem he lived in was not the whole world as we know it today. From his perspective sitting on the Ark his world was flooded. From our perspective looking back today we would consider it to be a local flood. The Tigris Euphrates Valley was flooded and the water went up over the top of the mountains. This most likely was caused by what they call land damns that were there after the ice melted from the last ice age. They hold the water in for a while but then they break and the water from the melting ice returns to the ocean. Even this still happens today that a land damn will give away and cause flooding. Noah would have known the flood was coming. Now a days they would drain the water off slowly rather then wait for the damn to break and flood the area. The reason people live in flood plains even today is they are very futile farming ground. The food grows really good on flood plains.
Atheist geologists or non-atheist geologists. I think I will believe non atheist geologists since they seem far more inclined to stay true to the scientific method than atheist scientists do.
Actually, http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var2=1137Thank you for the detailed response and the links.
It will take me some time to respond since there is so much to cover.
I do understand that the majority of scientists choose to reject the claims found on the website I mentioned as they do with everything else deemed religious or caused by supernatural forces. But bandwagon or appeal to authority aren't valid reasons for acceptance of any claim. You see, I have found that such a consensus can be caused by irrelevant, non-scientific motives...
Nothing in there is ignored.The evidence mentioned in this article:
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm
And it is mistitled. Nothing in there was scientific evidence for a worldwide flood. At best there was merely misinterpretation of scientific evidence.Nothing in there is ignored.
<staff edit>
Of course it was. On relatively low lying ground with easy run-off to the see, all that would requires is a total suspension of natural law for the water to be able to stack upon itself and avoid that pesky urge to seek a relatively even depth relative to the core of the earth.From our perspective Noah's flood was local.
Well that is unique, making up things that didn't exist to try and explain how water could pool in one area but not spread. These damn, however, had to be mountainous and had to completely surround the region.This most likely was caused by what they call land damns that were there after the ice melted from the last ice age.
Hang on a moment. Are you claiming that such suspension is a criticism for a theory? Because if so, I think the idea of a global flood has a whole lot more problems.all that would requires is a total suspension of natural law
When the glaciers melted they left natural land damns behind. Even today this is still an issue with global warming flooding. This has always been a world wide issue, at least sense the break up of Pangaea. I studied all the elevation maps for the area to confirm my theory. But I ONLY have to convince myself, it would be a waste of my time for me to try to convince YOU, that would be CRAZY. So you can believe what you want to believe and I will believe what I believe based on my study and research. As long as we are fully convinced and not double minded and do not have any doubts. This is why we have science, so we can formula theorys and then we can look to study to see if our theory is plausible or not.Of course it was. On relatively low lying ground with easy run-off to the see, all that would requires is a total suspension of natural law for the water to be able to stack upon itself and avoid that pesky urge to seek a relatively even depth relative to the core of the earth.
Well that is unique, making up things that didn't exist to try and explain how water could pool in one area but not spread. These damn, however, had to be mountainous and had to completely surround the region.
Once water came to the top of these mountains, if it overflowed by one inch the level would not rise further until the water in the surrounding area was just as deep; in other words, a global flood.
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?