Noah and the rainbow

[granpa]

Hi

What interpretation or worldview can make the following physical evidence just disappear:
- 30,000 undisturbed annual layers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu in Japan
- 100s of 1000s of undisturbed annual ice layers from Greenland

oh, thats just the tip of the iceberg.
there is many kilometers of sediment covering all continents.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm

Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet
Hells Creek Fm................................~2250 feet
Fox Hills.....................................~3060 feet
Pierre Shale..................................~3200 feet
Niobrara Chalk................................~4400 feet
Carlile Shale.................................~4750 feet
Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm .......................4910 feet
Belle Fourche Shale............................5000 feet
Cretaceous Mowry Fm........................... 5370 feet
Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm.......................5790 feet
Jurassic Rierdon Fm............................6690 feet
Piper Formation................................7110 feet
Triassic Spearfish Fm..........................7325 feet
Permian Opeche Fm..............................7740 feet
Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm........................7990 feet
Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm.........................8245 feet
Mississippian Otter Fm.........................8440 feet
Mississippian Kibbey Lm........................8780 feet
Mississippian Charles Fm.......................8945 feet
Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm................9775 feet
Mississippian Lodgepole Fm....................10255 feet
Devonian Bakken Fm............................11085 feet
Devonian Three Forks Shale....................11180 feet
Devonian Birdbear Fm..........................11340 feet
Devonian Duperow Fm...........................11422 feet
Devonian Souris River Fm......................11832 feet
Devonian Dawson Bay Fm........................12089 feet
Devonian Prairie Fm...........................12180 feet
Devonian Winnipegosis Grp.....................12310 feet
Silurian Interlake Fm.........................12539 feet
Ordovician Stonewall Fm.......................13250 feet
Ordovician Red River Dolomite.................13630 feet
Ordovician Winnipeg Grp.......................14210 feet
Ordovician Black Island Fm (part of Winnipeg).14355 feet
Cambrian Deadwood Fm..........................14445 feet
Precambrian...................................14945 feet

 

[Jig]

Hi

What interpretation or worldview can make the following physical evidence just disappear:
- 30,000 undisturbed annual layers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu in Japan
- 100s of 1000s of undisturbed annual ice layers from Greenland

There may very well be 30,000 layers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu. The idea that every layer must be annual is not part of that evidence. That idea is formulated by presuppositions and philosophical worldviews.

Where is the geological layer laid down by the flood, with all the soil, plant matter, dead animals and other debris? There should be a single layer worldwide.

But there isn't.

Cheers

Should there be only a single layer? That would be an assumption. I was not around for the flood. What does it look like when the fountains of the deep break open and pour fourth water? And what geological footprint would that leave behind? We can only assume.

 

[Jig]

Cool.
But, the point still stands.
The resurrection of one guy, and a cataclysmic event covering the entire earth, are fundamentally different in terms of evidence because one can happen without leaving much of an evident foot-print, and the other inevitably leaves a world-wide evident footprint.

Without knowing what sort of geologic world-wide footprint a supernatural global flood would leave makes it unfair to assume your initial point is true. This was my point.

 

[cubinity]

Without knowing what sort of geologic world-wide footprint a supernatural global flood would leave makes it unfair to assume your initial point is true. This was my point.

A hypothesis is tested against application.
For so long as the hypothesis is not disproven by application, then it works.
What application of the current hypotheses concerning geological layering disproves it as a working description of what we are finding?
It is not enough to say, "Without knowing," since we know what we have tested against application.
So, I think it is fair to ask how the hypotheses geologists are using have been proven, during testing, not to work.
Without such evidence, your point is moot.
That is a new point that supports my initial point.

 

[JVPITER]

There may very well be 30,000 layers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu. The idea that every layer must be annual is not part of that evidence. That idea is formulated by presuppositions and philosophical worldviews.

The idea that virtually all the layers are annual is certainly part of the evidence. Perhaps you just don't know what the evidence is:

- The layers are formed of very fine organic and inorganic material, requiring placid, still water - a global flood swamping the lake would not leave such fine, delicate layers intact

- The layers are observed forming annually today, and the deep layers have the same appearance as layers formed recently, primary evidence that all the layers form via the same annual process

- Organic debris in the layers can be carbon-dated, and the ages from carbon-dating correlate nearly perfectly with the ages determined from counting layers as years

- The ages determined from the layers and carbon-dating also correlate nearly perfectly with ages determined independently from ice layers and tree-rings

Why would the lake layers, carbon-14 decay, ice core layers and tree-rings all correlate nicely unless the layers are, in fact, annual?

Should there be only a single layer? That would be an assumption. I was not around for the flood. What does it look like when the fountains of the deep break open and pour fourth water? And what geological footprint would that leave behind? We can only assume.

Single huge flood ... single layer full of debris and dead plants and animals. That's not an assumption its just common sense.

Cheers

 

[cubinity]

The idea that virtually all the layers are annual is certainly part of the evidence. Perhaps you just don't know what the evidence is:

- The layers are formed of very fine organic and inorganic material, requiring placid, still water - a global flood swamping the lake would not leave such fine, delicate layers intact

- The layers are observed forming annually today, and the deep layers have the same appearance as layers formed recently, primary evidence that all the layers form via the same annual process

- Organic debris in the layers can be carbon-dated, and the ages from carbon-dating correlate nearly perfectly with the ages determined from counting layers as years

- The ages determined from the layers and carbon-dating also correlate nearly perfectly with ages determined independently from ice layers and tree-rings

Why would the lake layers, carbon-14 decay, ice core layers and tree-rings all correlate nicely unless the layers are, in fact, annual?



Single huge flood ... single layer full of debris and dead plants and animals. That's not an assumption its just common sense.

Cheers

 

[shernren]

Perhaps you just don't know what the evidence is:

Oh, that's not the problem. Haven't you heard him out? Jig has no idea what kind of evidence a worldwide supernatural flood would leave, and I don't blame him.

After all, there could be a two-foot-thick layer of green cheese sedimented two kilometers underground everywhere around the Earth, and good old Jig would just say: "Well, I believe that there was a supernatural flood about four thousand years ago, and wouldn't a two-foot-thick layer of green cheese be just the kind of thing a supernatural flood would leave?"

Of course, it would be. A supernatural flood could leave a layer of green cheese, a fossil bed of unicorns, two hundred pyramids in the Marianas Trench, a race of congenitally arrogant humans living on a continent between the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean (The French, of course, there's no way this could possibly be a reference to the beloved United States of America) - why couldn't it? Why, it could even leave the entire world looking exactly like it is 4.5 billion years old, all the better to weed out the doubters so that they can be sent to hell in eternity future.

 

[Jig]

A hypothesis is tested against application.
For so long as the hypothesis is not disproven by application, then it works.
What application of the current hypotheses concerning geological layering disproves it as a working description of what we are finding?
It is not enough to say, "Without knowing," since we know what we have tested against application.
So, I think it is fair to ask how the hypotheses geologists are using have been proven, during testing, not to work.
Without such evidence, your point is moot.
That is a new point that supports my initial point.

This only applies to operational sciences, which is not what we are discussing. The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable. Do you truly believe that your position does not subscribe to any philosophical assumptions?

 

[Jig]

Oh, that's not the problem. Haven't you heard him out? Jig has no idea what kind of evidence a worldwide supernatural flood would leave, and I don't blame him.

After all, there could be a two-foot-thick layer of green cheese sedimented two kilometers underground everywhere around the Earth, and good old Jig would just say: "Well, I believe that there was a supernatural flood about four thousand years ago, and wouldn't a two-foot-thick layer of green cheese be just the kind of thing a supernatural flood would leave?"

Of course, it would be. A supernatural flood could leave a layer of green cheese, a fossil bed of unicorns, two hundred pyramids in the Marianas Trench, a race of congenitally arrogant humans living on a continent between the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean (The French, of course, there's no way this could possibly be a reference to the beloved United States of America) - why couldn't it? Why, it could even leave the entire world looking exactly like it is 4.5 billion years old, all the better to weed out the doubters so that they can be sent to hell in eternity future.

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

 

[Jig]

- The layers are formed of very fine organic and inorganic material, requiring placid, still water - a global flood swamping the lake would not leave such fine, delicate layers intact

I am not suggesting that I know how these layers were formed. I was not there when they formed. I am suggesting the evidence has more than one interpretation depending on one's presuppositions.

- The layers are observed forming annually today, and the deep layers have the same appearance as layers formed recently, primary evidence that all the layers form via the same annual process

This interpretation of the physical evidence is based on a primary philosophy of naturalism: uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism is an assumption.

- Organic debris in the layers can be carbon-dated, and the ages from carbon-dating correlate nearly perfectly with the ages determined from counting layers as years

How was the C14 dating calibrated?

- The ages determined from the layers and carbon-dating also correlate nearly perfectly with ages determined independently from ice layers and tree-rings

Why would the lake layers, carbon-14 decay, ice core layers and tree-rings all correlate nicely unless the layers are, in fact, annual?

Each "independent" method's conclusions were interpreted using the same presuppositions. Of course they will be similar.

 

[JVPITER]

The idea that virtually all the layers are annual is certainly part of the evidence. Perhaps you just don't know what the evidence is:
- The layers are formed of very fine organic and inorganic material, requiring placid, still water - a global flood swamping the lake would not leave such fine, delicate layers intact
- The layers are observed forming annually today, and the deep layers have the same appearance as layers formed recently, primary evidence that all the layers form via the same annual process
- Organic debris in the layers can be carbon-dated, and the ages from carbon-dating correlate nearly perfectly with the ages determined from counting layers as years
- The ages determined from the layers and carbon-dating also correlate nearly perfectly with ages determined independently from ice layers and tree-rings

Why would the lake layers, carbon-14 decay, ice core layers and tree-rings all correlate nicely unless the layers are, in fact, annual?

I am not suggesting that I know how these layers were formed. I was not there when they formed. I am suggesting the evidence has more than one interpretation depending on one's presuppositions.

This interpretation of the physical evidence is based on a primary philosophy of naturalism: uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism is an assumption.

Lets just be clear here who is "assuming" things.

The layers are observed to be uniform. You are assuming that nevertheless they result from a non-uniform process.

How was the C14 dating calibrated?

By comparison with objects of known historical ages, tree-ring counts, coral growth ring counts, ice-core counts, ocean sediment layer counts, etc. Further, these counts are correlated with various chemical cycles observed in ice layers and sediment, such as atmospheric isotopes, that are observed to vary with the earth's orbital parameters e.g. axial precession (the precession of the equinoxes).

All these very strong correlations are observed to occur on the basis that the layers are annual. You are assuming that somehow all these correlations occurred by chance -- an idea that is so ridiculously unlikely that its equivalent to believing a tornado can blow through a junkyard and build a fleet of space shuttles.

Each "independent" method's conclusions were interpreted using the same presuppositions. Of course they will be similar.

And what presuppositions are those, Jig? That when we see something, its really real, and we're not living in The Matrix? That we should prefer reasonable explanations over ridiculously unlikely ones? Please specify the presuppositions you are talking about -- and remember, in the case of Lake Suigetsu, the layers of sediment are observed to be uniform, so their uniformity is not a presupposition, its an observation.

Thanks

 

[Assyrian]

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

Actually it was Reductio ad Absurdum, reduction to the absurd, which is a valid argument. Perhaps you could try to address shernern's point instead of trying to play fallacies.

 

[shernren]

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.” (1Kgs 18:27, ESV)

​​​​​​​​As a door turns on its hinges,
so does a sluggard on his bed.

The sluggard buries his hand in the dish;
it wears him out to bring it back to his mouth.
(Prov 26:14-15, ESV)

At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, “Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.” And he said to them, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. (Luke 13:31-32, ESV)

As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! (Galatians 5:12, NIV)
​

Yeah, I guess Elijah, Solomon, Jesus and Paul were just plain fallacious.

 

[cubinity]

This only applies to operational sciences, which is not what we are discussing. The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable. Do you truly believe that your position does not subscribe to any philosophical assumptions?

Observation is an operation, and thus this applies.
Of course my position subscribes to philosophical assumptions.
So does yours.
The fundamental difference is that my position responds to peer review.
You seem to simply ignore evidence and peer review and assume that you can achieve objectivity alone.
What we are discussing is evidence, which can be observed by people from different and even opposing point of views, and still be accepted as legitimate evidence, thus reinforcing objectivity.

My point still stands.
We are not currently in any position to observe the physical evidence or lack of physical evidence for a single, isolated resurrection.
But, we are in the position geologically to observe, and to have those from opposing points of view to observe, the lack of physical evidence for a global flood.
Thus, the two events are, evidently, fundamentally different in that way.

By equating them, the only thing you manage to accomplish among those who can and do observe that no such flood happened is call into question whether the resurrection happened, too.
I feel that is destructive to the Gospel message.
By recognizing they are different in terms of our position to observe physical evidence about them, I protect the resurrection with a layer of doubt that no longer exists regarding the global flood.
I feel in the right doing this because the flood being local or global is fundamentally inconsequential, but the resurrection is the fundamental center of my Christian faith.

 

[Jig]

Lets just be clear here who is "assuming" things.

I am fully aware of my philosophical assumptions. However, it appears that you may be ignorant of your own.

The layers are observed to be uniform. You are assuming that nevertheless they result from a non-uniform process.

The issue is not what we observe whether it be uniform or not. The issue is through what foundational assumptions this evidence must be filtered.

Are you saying that methodological uniformitarianism is not a supposition?

By comparison with objects of known historical ages, tree-ring counts, coral growth ring counts, ice-core counts, ocean sediment layer counts, etc. Further, these counts are correlated with various chemical cycles observed in ice layers and sediment, such as atmospheric isotopes, that are observed to vary with the earth's orbital parameters e.g. axial precession (the precession of the equinoxes).

Calibrating these dates with the dates of other dating methods is circular since each of these "independent" dating method's conclusions have been interpreted using that same presuppositions. Basically, assumption supporting assumption.

All these very strong correlations are observed to occur on the basis that the layers are annual. You are assuming that somehow all these correlations occurred by chance -- an idea that is so ridiculously unlikely that its equivalent to believing a tornado can blow through a junkyard and build a fleet of space shuttles.

I do not believe these correlations happened by by chance. I believe they occur because they have been interpreted under the same package of presuppositions.

And what presuppositions are those, Jig?

Do you honestly not know what they are?

That when we see something, its really real, and we're not living in The Matrix?

Of course the physical evidence is real but it's existence has nothing to do with your interpretation of it. We do not see the past. All the physical evidence is observed in the present.

That we should prefer reasonable explanations over ridiculously unlikely ones?

Is it ridiculous to assume the supernatural?

Please specify the presuppositions you are talking about -- and remember, in the case of Lake Suigetsu, the layers of sediment are observed to be uniform, so their uniformity is not a presupposition, its an observation.

Was the past process of how these layers were laid down observed?

 

[Jig]

Actually it was Reductio ad Absurdum, reduction to the absurd, which is a valid argument. Perhaps you could try to address shernern's point instead of trying to play fallacies.

I am unable to respond to him since he misrepresented my position.

 

[Assyrian]

I am unable to respond to him since he misrepresented my position.

You did respond to him. Why not show how he misrepresented you position instead of making an unsubstantiated claim of logical fallacy?

 

[Jig]

You did respond to him. Why not show how he misrepresented you position instead of making an unsubstantiated claim of logical fallacy?

It was not unsubstantiated. It was an appeal to ridicule because he misrepresented my position in a ridiculous way.

An appeal to ridicule is when an opponent's argument is represented in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument, rather than addressing the argument itself.

This is exactly what he did.

 

[JVPITER]

Lets just be clear here who is "assuming" things.

The layers are observed to be uniform. You are assuming that nevertheless they result from a non-uniform process

I am fully aware of my philosophical assumptions. However, it appears that you may be ignorant of your own.

The issue is not what we observe whether it be uniform or not. The issue is through what foundational assumptions this evidence must be filtered.

Are you saying that methodological uniformitarianism is not a supposition?

The issue is that the layers in Lake Suigetsu are observed to be uniform, because you're claiming that their uniformity is an "assumption", whereas the uniformity is actually what we see, directly, with our own eyes.

Introducing philosophical mumbo-jumbo about methodological uniformitarianism and presuppositions is just an attempt to distract from the simple and obvious: the layers are uniform, and we can count them.

All these very strong correlations are observed to occur on the basis that the layers are annual. You are assuming that somehow all these correlations occurred by chance -- an idea that is so ridiculously unlikely that its equivalent to believing a tornado can blow through a junkyard and build a fleet of space shuttles.

Calibrating these dates with the dates of other dating methods is circular since each of these "independent" dating method's conclusions have been interpreted using that same presuppositions. Basically, assumption supporting assumption.

I do not believe these correlations happened by by chance. I believe they occur because they have been interpreted under the same package of presuppositions.

And what presuppositions are those, Jig?

Do you honestly not know what they are?

I asked you to specify the presuppositions you're referring to, and all you've got is a rhetorical question.

The reason you won't answer is obvious -- the presuppositions behind the correlated dates are ones that you, I, and everyone else share, and spelling this out will expose the silliness of your arguments. The presuppositions are things like: we know how to count, and when we see something uniform it really is uniform and our eyes are not deceiving us.

What is more, these are not really presuppositions any more because they have been tested and confirmed by observing and counting the layers and counting the C14 beta decay, and we have seen that they correlate to a very high degree. If one of the presuppositions was wrong, then the correlation would not exist.

If you wish to dispute that the Lake Suigetsu layers are annual, you must explain why there is a near-perfect correlation between the rate that sediment forms annual layers at the bottom of a lake, and the rate that beta decay occurs in C14. Anyone can see these are completely different physical processes.

And when you're done with that, you'll still need to explain why there is a near-perfect correlation between sedimentation, C14 decay and the rate that snow falls, the rate that the atmosphere accumulates radioactive nuclides due to solar radiation, the rate that the earth wobbles and varies in its orbit, and the rates that trees and corals grow seasonal rings -- because all these correlate too.

What is your explanation for all these correlations, if its not by chance?

Cheers

 

[Assyrian]

It was not unsubstantiated. It was an appeal to ridicule because he misrepresented my position in a ridiculous way.

An appeal to ridicule is when an opponent's argument is represented in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument, rather than addressing the argument itself.

This is exactly what he did.

The creationist position is ridiculous, shernren's post may have used humour to expose how ridiculous it is but that is reduction to the absurd, not appeal to ridicule. What you need to do is show he was really misrepresenting your position not complain because your position appears ridiculous.