Scientific proof of flood.

[notto]

The meteor impacts prove a catastrophic event happened 10,000 to 100,000 years ago so there is not time for your continental drift to have covered the distance required at the rate it is moving.

No they don't. You haven't done anything to substantiate that all of the meteor impacts happened less than 100,000 years ago except point us to a site that contradicts this claim.

You are using your conclusion as a base for your hypothesis. That doesn't work. You are using circular logic.

How do you know the meteor impacts happened less than 100,000 years ago?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

[/u]

[/color]It is true that there are as many ideas about creation theory as there are about evolution.

I am not critical of the evolutionist for having many different ideas and I will not restrict the creationist either.

We are not talking about evolution we are talking about geology. Flood geologists claim that the flood was a worldwide unique event that changed everything but can't even say exactly what it changed. They not only can't tell which layers are flood layers they place the flood boundaries in wildly different strata.

Regarding builidng the ark and its alleged seaworthyness.
[/color]The insinuation is of course that if we don’t know how no one does.

That is very arrogant of you considering you know almost nothing about the culture.

It is hardly arrogant to think that a late Bronze Age sheppard couldn't build an impossible boat that we couldn't build with modern technology. We know quite a bit about the culture of the Middle East 5000 years ago and we know that it was never interupted by a global flood.

Regarding the falsification of the flood by the fossil record.
I disagree with this statement. I would need specific evidence to change my thinking on the subject.

The entire record of fossils and trace fossils provides a massive amount of specific evidence either you have never studied it or you are forced to reject it by your religious beliefs.

Your site reference has an obvious agenda and I am not sure that they may falsify information (for my own good) or due to self deceit so I will not accept it from this source.

Bible believing geologists of the 19th century realized that the flood could not explain the fossil record. Do you think that evey site on paleontology and geology has an agenda? I suppose they do. An agenda to promote science. Most paleontologists and geologists and indeed most scientists consider YEC such a pile of nonsense that they don't even think about it. I suggest you go to any natural history museum and also read some books on paleontology. You have been fed a load of total nonsense by YECs.

I in turn never refer someone to a YEC site as they also have an agenda.

They have an agenda to distort science to fit their YEC views and still they often disagree with each other on many points. I don't reject YEC sites because they have an agenda but because I have enough knowledge of science and a good enough grasp of logic to see when they are totally full of it, which is always as far as I have seen in extensive study of YEC.

I will of course accept the sites reference from your anti-creationism site if they do not have an obvious agenda.

Really. OK I'll get you a whole list of sites on fossils and trace fossils later that never even mention YEC. I don't have time tonight. Of course if I give you any sites that point out the obvious fact that the fossil record falsifies YEC I suppose you will use that as an excuse to reject them.

I am actually not a YEC.

I am a YBC Young Biological Creationinst.

That was a very interesting list of species however I do not understand why you insist that delivery by man can not account for the present locations of life forms and fossil records.

I gave you the list so that you could see the total absurdity of the idea that they were "delivered by Noah's descendants. If you can't there is little hope you will ever have a logical thought on the subject.

So you are basing your beliefs on the dating systems presently in place?

I though you were basing it on the fossil record?

The various geological eras were identified by their fossil long before the development of the "dating systems in place" You have totally failed to answer any of the questions I raised about it. Doesn't it bother you that neither you nor any other YEC can provide rational answers to those questions?

[/color]Lets start from the big picture.

1. The evidence of large water flows as in the grand canyon.
In the case of the grand canyon a giant lake is assumed to have released and caused the washout.

Only by YECs. There is evidence that lava flows occasionally blocked the Colorado river causing rapid erosion when they broke. This happened more than once over a few hundred thousand years.

Notice how the slow steady process have to be propped up with catastrophic events to explain the condition.

Notice how real geologists try to figure out what really happened and not fit their data to Bronze Age mythology.

2. The geoligical layers during a flood would have the heaver trilobites
on the bottom of a body of water already would be at the bottom of the geological record.

This is complete nonsense. Trilobites where not particularly heavy, you can't explain why they are found below modern animals that live attached to the bottom or why no body fossils of land animals are found in the canyon. I have studied grand canyon geology and the layers are much too complex to have been laid down in a single global flood as Split Rock has already pointed out. The Grand Canyon and its geological record are futher falsification of the flood, not evidenc for it.

Birds are lighter and have the ability to move to higher ground quickly also in a flood condition would tend to float better causing them (on average) to be at the top of the geological record which is where they are found.

Right, birds, sloths, grasses and mango trees all outran velociraptors up to the higher ground while thousands of feet of sediment were being deposited. Of course YECs also say there were no significant mountains before the flood so I wonder what higher ground they ran up.

3. Recently several underwater cities have been found with pyramids at several places around the globe indicating that the original water level on earth was at the continental self level which indicates that not only was there a flood but that the water line has not returned to the original level yet.

Let's have some evidence please. Sea levels are rising since the end of the last ice age but that has nothing to do with a global flood.

4. A slow gradual condition does not explain how the continental shelf was created with river deltas at the continental shelf elevation. This is of course expected if the condition before the flood had a ocean level at the elevation of the continental shelf.

Please explain exactly why not.

5. The Earths north pole area is know to have fossil remains of tropical plants and animals. The extent of this condition is may clear by the large oil reserves which are know to exist in northern climates such as Alaska.

This suggests a much different climate condition then exists now. Such a vastly different climate which must exist before the first ice age dated at 100,000 years even by dating methods which assume a non catastrophic history. Such a change in the Earth climate at so recent a time disproves the idea that things have remained the same for millions of years.

No one said it has. There have been many ice ages and much warmer periods and moving around of the continents in the last billion years.

I am just getting started and the most obvious geological traits on Earth support a catastrophic event.

Oh, and I didn't mention the meteor crater survey which would surely indicate something similar to a "nuclear winter" or ice age should occur.

But we have mentioned how the massive number of known craters and massive lava flows falsify young earth mythology.

The only geological record of such an event is the ice ages placing the event in the last 10,000 to 100,000 years even based non-catastrophic dating methods.

What do you mean non-catastrophic dating? There is evidence of ice ages going back well before 100,000 years ago. I am sure I have provide links.

So I guess you could say that the current dating methods prove that their base assumption of a non-catastrophic conditions are incorrect, as there is not millions of years for the slow gradual accumulation of the geological record to occur.

You are creating a straw man of modern geology. There have been many catastrophic events in earth's long history but there is no evidence of a global flood a few thousand years ago and a huge list of falsifications of the global flood.

My point was you were comparing current information of species numbers with information which has a lot missing from the fossil record so the counts you are giving are most probably incorrect.

I provided you with data at the genus level on living and extinct genera. What is you explanation for the fact that the more deeply the flood supposedly buried the members of a genus the more likely it is that they became extinct after coming off the ark? So far you have none.

I still do not see why the species count indicates that the life forms could not have been delivered by mankind.

Are you back to biogeography? If you can't see how absurd YEC attempts to explain biogeography are there is little hope that you will ever think rationally on the subject.

[/color]It’s a theory and it is a lot less sweeping then this your statement.

"The fossil record is totally inconsistent with flood deposition as anyone who actually studied any paleontology and thought rationally about the subject can easily see."

Did you study all the theories before you made this statement?

I don’t mind you venting but please don’t expect me to accept rules that you are not willing to follow yourself.

Yes, I have studied all the YEC pseudo explanations for the fossil record. I have been studying YEC and reading what passes for there "scientific literature" for nearly 20 years. I have also studied fossils and trace fossils. YEC attempts to explain the overall record of fossils and trace fossils are all easily shown to be false.

This was intended as an example as were dogs.

The designation of species is not owned by people with your beliefs only.

The horse and zebra are an example of animals which can interbreed but have sterile offspring which can be considered as an indication of a new species if one wishes.

As at this non-YEC site http://www.ratbehavior.org/Hybridization.htm

"Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) and roof rats (Rattus rattus, also called black rats, ship rats) are A species, according to the biological species concept, is a group of related individuals or populations that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Members of different species cannot produce fertile offspring together."

At the bottom of the reference site it also states that horses and zebras have sterile offspring.

The dog example indicates that the size of the fossil remains may be accepted as an indication that the life form is a different species.

Selective breeding by humans as used on dogs and by "survival of the fittest" differs only in the efficiency of the process, both cause change in size.

These two examples indicated how the "species count" could vary one way or the other.

By misinterpretation of differing fossils bone structure size as an indication of a different species and the misinterpretation of similar bone structures as a common species when it may not be the case.

But the examples I gave from Morton's web page were at the genus not the species level so all your attempts at rationalization are meaningless.

So if an ostrich and a tyrannosaurs rex are the same species what else has been confused?

No one ever said that they were same species, only that they are related.

I of course must ignore unsubstantiated and vague comments such as this because they are impossible to prove one way or the other and therefore serve no useful purpose.

Meanwhile you are also ignoring well substantiated facts from geology, paleontolgy, biodiversity, biogeography, archeology and many other falsifications of the worldwide flood. There are a multitude of good reasons why the global flood has not been taken seriously by science for more than 150 years.

I am still not sure how Glenn’s findings prove the flood did not occur even if they are accurate.

Please enlighten me.

Have you read any of them? Maybe you could start by looking at Glenn's post in the quiet thread. If you read his web pages you will see tons of photos and documentation. Or maybe you should start with the story of why he left YEC.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

FB

Duane[/QUOTE]

 

[duordi]

We are not talking about evolution we are talking about geology. Flood geologists claim that the flood was a worldwide unique event that changed everything but can't even say exactly what it changed. They not only can't tell which layers are flood layers they place the flood boundaries in wildly different strata.

Who is "they"? Is this intended for me or someone else?

It is hardly arrogant to think that a late Bronze Age sheppard couldn't build an impossible boat that we couldn't build with modern technology. We know quite a bit about the culture of the Middle East 5000 years ago and we know that it was never interupted by a global flood.

You are wrong, as the Hebrews journeyed to the Americas at the time of Moses.

The entire record of fossils and trace fossils provides a massive amount of specific evidence either you have never studied it or you are forced to reject it by your religious beliefs.

It is of course impossible to discuss this without knowing which specific evidence you are referring to.

Bible believing geologists of the 19th century realized that the flood could not explain the fossil record.

I disagree, but I am curious where you would get such an idea.

Do you think that evey site on paleontology and geology has an agenda?

No only YEC sites and anti-YEC sites.

I post sites all the time which disagree with my point of view.

The data presented is still valid, I am free to disagree with the interpretation of the data if I find errors in the logic used.

I suppose they do. An agenda to promote science. Most paleontologists and geologists and indeed most scientists consider YEC such a pile of nonsense that they don't even think about it. I suggest you go to any natural history museum and also read some books on paleontology. You have been fed a load of total nonsense by YECs.

I do not read YEC sites but I would venture to guess that you do read anti-YEC sites.

Come now, be honest, do you?

An anti-YEC site is a site who’s sole purpose for existing is to prove YEC ideas are wrong.

Really. OK I'll get you a whole list of sites on fossils and trace fossils later that never even mention YEC. I don't have time tonight. Of course if I give you any sites that point out the obvious fact that the fossil record falsifies YEC I suppose you will use that as an excuse to reject them.

If I can determine some sound reasoning or logical argument I will not reject the idea, but if the site has only one reason for existing to prove another site is wrong I will have to research the topic as I expect the site may not be giving a balanced view.

Research takes time of course so if it is required an instant reply is not possible.

Please include why the numbers prove something as at this point I do not understand why a large number of animals someplace proves the they were not delivered..

The various geological eras were identified by their fossil long before the development of the "dating systems in place" You have totally failed to answer any of the questions I raised about it. Doesn't it bother you that neither you nor any other YEC can provide rational answers to those questions?

So you are saying that the dating methods were calibrated to match the previously determined dates.

I agree with this.

How were the dates determined in the first place?

Only by YECs. There is evidence that lava flows occasionally blocked the Colorado river causing rapid erosion when they broke. This happened more than once over a few hundred thousand years.

Notice how real geologists try to figure out what really happened and not fit their data to Bronze Age mythology.

Yes they have data showing there was a catastrophic event and adjusted the model to match the data.

So we agree that the Colorado River is not capable of forming the grand canyon but a much larger rush of water is required .

I am content with this agreement.

This is complete nonsense. Trilobites where not particularly heavy, you can't explain why they are found below modern animals that live attached to the bottom or why no body fossils of land animals are found in the canyon. I have studied grand canyon geology and the layers are much too complex to have been laid down in a single global flood as Split Rock has already pointed out. The Grand Canyon and its geological record are futher falsification of the flood, not evidenc for it.

Right, birds, sloths, grasses and mango trees all outran velociraptors up to the higher ground while thousands of feet of sediment were being deposited. Of course YECs also say there were no significant mountains before the flood so I wonder what higher ground they ran up.

If you will not accept the fact that trilobites are heaver ( have a higher density then birds or that trilobites are going to be a lower elevations, there is no use following this point.

What do you mean non-catastrophic dating? There is evidence of ice ages going back well before 100,000 years ago. I am sure I have provide links.

Please do.

I provided you with data at the genus level on living and extinct genera. What is you explanation for the fact that the more deeply the flood supposedly buried the members of a genus the more likely it is that they became extinct after coming off the ark?

This may be what I was looking for.

I do not have time to finish this now but I will read the original post reference and respond.

I have never tried to compile a specific order of events, pre-flood during flood and post flood.

This should be fun .

Duane

 

[duordi]

No they don't. You haven't done anything to substantiate that all of the meteor impacts happened less than 100,000 years ago except point us to a site that contradicts this claim.

You are using your conclusion as a base for your hypothesis. That doesn't work. You are using circular logic.

How do you know the meteor impacts happened less than 100,000 years ago?

My logic is as follows

1. Scientific evidence proves that the meteor impacts are not random.

2. Meteor impacts therefore must be part of a single event.

3. The energy release of a single event must cause the equivalent of a nuclear winter effect.

4. Geologically the ice ages are typically placed (roughly) in the last 100,000 years, which is a small fraction of the entire record considered by non-catastrophic theories to be billions of years.

5. A devastating meteor event capable of causing an ice ages and the meteor impact crator record would also cause a world wide flood which has occurred in the last 10,000 to 100,000 years (roughly).

I see no circular reasoning in this scenario.

 

[Valkhorn]

Duordi, I don't think you have all the evidence or the facts. Or, at the very least, you do not know them.

1. Scientific evidence proves that the meteor impacts are not random.

What evidence? We have evidence for meteors impacting in the last 50,000 years to 1 billion+ years ago.

2. Meteor impacts therefore must be part of a single event.

With such a huge timespan between craters, how can you draw this conclusion?

3. The energy release of a single event must cause the equivalent of a nuclear winter effect.

Since there was no single event, this point becomes invalid.

4. Geologically the ice ages are typically placed (roughly) in the last 100,000 years, which is a small fraction of the entire record considered by non-catastrophic theories to be billions of years.

Evidence for this? I'm not sure how this is relevant.

5. A devastating meteor event capable of causing an ice ages and the meteor impact crator record would also cause a world wide flood which has occurred in the last 10,000 to 100,000 years (roughly).

Since a single event like that never happened, I'm not sure where you can draw this conclusion.

I see no circular reasoning in this scenario.

But I see plenty of conjecture without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.

 

[Ledifni]

My logic is as follows

1. Scientific evidence proves that the meteor impacts are not random.

2. Meteor impacts therefore must be part of a single event.

3. The energy release of a single event must cause the equivalent of a nuclear winter effect.

4. Geologically the ice ages are typically placed (roughly) in the last 100,000 years, which is a small fraction of the entire record considered by non-catastrophic theories to be billions of years.

5. A devastating meteor event capable of causing an ice ages and the meteor impact crator record would also cause a world wide flood which has occurred in the last 10,000 to 100,000 years (roughly).

I see no circular reasoning in this scenario.

The circular reasoning happens with (1) above. Scientific evidence proves no such thing, and so you are assuming your conclusion at the start.

 

[Tomk80]

My logic is as follows

1. Scientific evidence proves that the meteor impacts are not random.

This is an assertion which determines the rest of the line of reasoning. So you will need to give accurate support for this. Can you back this up with evidence and sound logic?

 

[duordi]

Duordi, I don't think you have all the evidence or the facts. Or, at the very least, you do not know them.

What evidence? We have evidence for meteors impacting in the last 50,000 years to 1 billion+ years ago.

With such a huge timespan between craters, how can you draw this conclusion?

Since there was no single event, this point becomes invalid.

Evidence for this? I'm not sure how this is relevant.

Since a single event like that never happened, I'm not sure where you can draw this conclusion.

But I see plenty of conjecture without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.

This of course would be confusing to you without the data.

Here is the web site showing meteor impacts on Earth.

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/CILocSort.html

Notice that a large portion of the strikes are not random by latitude or longitude and therefore must be related to a single event.

Now the previous post may be more understandable and of course generate new questions.

Duane

 

[duordi]

This is an assertion which determines the rest of the line of reasoning. So you will need to give accurate support for this. Can you back this up with evidence and sound logic?

I posted this up the thread but here it is again.

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/CILocSort.html

This chart shows the meteor strikes recorded on Earth.

Notice that the strikes are not random.

My conclusion is that they come from a single object which disintegrated on Earth entry and therefore must impact in a concentrated area.

Duane

 

[notto]

This of course would be confusing to you without the data.

Here is the web site showing meteor impacts on Earth.

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/CILocSort.html

Notice that a large portion of the strikes are not random by latitude or longitude and therefore must be related to a single event.

Now the previous post may be more understandable and of course generate new questions.

Duane

We've already addressed this.
1) this is 'discovered' impacts. We haven't looked everywhere so you conclusion is premature.
2) The site also lists the ages of the finds showing they didn't happen all at the same time and are not related to a single event.

You are using this data way outside of its credibility to support your conclusion.

If you are just looking at the picture to base your conclusions on, you are not using the 'data' that comes along with it.

 

[Tomk80]

I posted this up the thread but here it is again.

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/CILocSort.html

This chart shows the meteor strikes recorded on Earth.

Notice that the strikes are not random.

My conclusion is that they come from a single object which disintegrated on Earth entry and therefore must impact in a concentrated area.

Duane

It doesn't strike you as funny that this 'pattern' is largely mimicked by large population densities? In other words, this 'pattern' is very strong in Western Europe, Eastern America and Australia, where population densities are relatively high and large areas of land are thoroughly explored, and not in places like south America or Africa where the presence of western civilizatin is severely limited?

 

[duordi]

Perhaps the location of the strikes causes geographical (lakes) or chemical changes to geographical area making a more desirable location for settlements.

In the US California and the Eastern seaboard has the greatest population which does not follow the meteor strike pattern.

India misses the population completely as does China and Australia.
Europe has a good match I think.

The meteor survey was largely done with satellite information and then the area was verified by taking samples.

The satellite imagery of the planet is complete.

Older strikes may be eroded beyond recognition of course or be difficult to identify and sites are added all the time for this reason, but big and relatively recent strikes would be hard to miss.

Oh, and here is the poplulation map I used.

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2005/images/glext&masys_800.jpg

It locates urban areas which should be a close enough match for our needs.


Duane

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Perhaps the location of the strikes causes geographical (lakes) or chemical changes to geographical area making a more desirable location for settlements.

In the US California and the Eastern seaboard has the greatest population which does not follow the meteor strike pattern.

India misses the population completely as does China and Australia.
Europe has a good match I think.

The meteor survey was largely done with satellite information and then the area was verified by taking samples.

The satellite imagery of the planet is complete.

Older strikes may be eroded beyond recognition of course or be difficult to identify and sites are added all the time for this reason, but big and relatively recent strikes would be hard to miss.

Oh, and here is the poplulation map I used.

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2005/images/glext&masys_800.jpg

It locates urban areas which should be a close enough match for our needs.


Duane

Satellite imagary won't show impacts in dense rainforest or jungle. I assume this is why impacts are not known in the Amazon Basin and equatorial Africa. The western coasts of both North America are part of the "ring of fire" and active mountain building has probably wiped out evidence of impacts. Also the majority of impacts have probably occured in oceans and would not be visible even if sea floor subduction had not wiped them out. We probably only see about 10% of the impacts that have occured in the last 3.5 billion years and none of those that occured during the late heavy bombardment of the inner solar system 3.8-3.5 billion years ago that caused all those craters on the moon. As I have pointed out before these impacts can't be crammed into a YEC time frame without causing such severe problems that they falsify the flood rather than provide evidence for it. Got to go before my server shuts down.

FB

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

[/color]Who is "they"? Is this intended for me or someone else?

I was referring to the inability of so-called "flood geologists" or "creation scientists" to specifically identify which layers were deposited by the flood. I have seen the "end of the flood layers" placed from the Cambrian to early Pleistocene for example. If there really had been a global flood a few thousand years ago I would think the evidence would be clear enough to determine what it deposited and what it didn't. Of course since no layers were deposited by global flood it is no surprise that there is no agreement among YECs. You can't identify something that doesn't exist.

[/color]You are wrong, as the Hebrews journeyed to the Americas at the time of Moses.

I thought they were either slaves in Egypt or wandering around lost in the desert or wiping out the people they ran into. Could you provide some documentation of the 450 wooden boat they built to journey to the Americas?

Regarding the fossil record:
[/color]It is of course impossible to discuss this without knowing which specific evidence you are referring to.

The specific evidence is the entire fossil record of marine animals, land animals and plants from the Precambrian to whenever you claim the end of the flood is. Why don't you specifically tell us which layers you think are flood deposits? Then we can discuss the specific fossils and trace fossils that falsify them as flood deposits.

[/color]I disagree, but I am curious where you would get such an idea.

I suggest you study the history of geology. Even flood believing geologists such as Cuvier realized that the earth was far older the Biblical geneologies allowed before 1800 and studies of the fossil record and geological strata had totally falsified the global flood as the origin of any of the world's geology by about 1850. Most of the scientists who did the work falsifying the young earth and global flood were Christians and very religious.

regarding agenda

[/color]No only YEC sites and anti-YEC sites.

I post sites all the time which disagree with my point of view.

The data presented is still valid, I am free to disagree with the interpretation of the data if I find errors in the logic used.

So if I post sites on geology, biogeography and the fossil record that have data that clearly falsify YEC but are not anti-YEC sites will you accept it. You should realize that every site, book or paper on these subjects that is not specifically produced by YEC sworn to uphold the YEC agenda will be loaded with data totally incompatable with YEC.

[/u]

[/color]I do not read YEC sites but I would venture to guess that you do read anti-YEC sites.

Come now, be honest, do you?

An anti-YEC site is a site who’s sole purpose for existing is to prove YEC ideas are wrong.

I read YEC sites and anti YEC sites but I spend most of my time studying science. All science sites with data on cosmology, paleontology, geology, biogeography, archeology, paleoclimate studies, are essentially anti YEC even though they just exist to present their data and never even think about or mention YEC.

[/color]If I can determine some sound reasoning or logical argument I will not reject the idea, but if the site has only one reason for existing to prove another site is wrong I will have to research the topic as I expect the site may not be giving a balanced view.

Since there is no data supporting YEC no site with actual data will present a balanced view. Sorry but for there to be a balanced view each side must have some merit and YEC has none.

Research takes time of course so if it is required an instant reply is not possible.

Please include why the numbers prove something as at this point I do not understand why a large number of animals someplace proves the they were not delivered..

IF You don't understand why humans didn't deliver kangaroos, tree kangaroos, playtypus, bush tailed possums, echinda, marsupial moles, Antechinus(marsupial mice), planigales, bilbies, wallabies, koalas, wombats, numbats, sugar gliders, dunnarts, ninauis, tasmanian tigers, tasmanian devils, phascogales, bandicoots, quols, potoroos and bettongs and others of the 180 species of Australian marsupials and the Australian flightless birds before European showed up there then your statement above about accepting sound reasoning and logical analysis is not true. Do you think people delivered the moa to New Zealand or those dangerous bad tempered Cassowaries to Australia while delivering tasmanian tigers and devils and kangaroos. Those must have been some interesting boat trips for the natives who made them. Why did they just collect marsupials, monotremes and flightless birds? Or do you think the brought all those deadly Australia snakes along as well.

[/color]So you are saying that the dating methods were calibrated to match the previously determined dates.

I agree with this.

How were the dates determined in the first place?

That is not what I am saying. Geologists knew the earth was ancient long before radiometric dating methods. If you want to know how they work read Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.

[/color]Yes they have data showing there was a catastrophic event and adjusted the model to match the data.

So we agree that the Colorado River is not capable of forming the grand canyon but a much larger rush of water is required .

I am content with this agreement.

Totally wrong. The Colorado river formed the Grand Canyon. At times over the last 700,000 years the river was temporarily blocked by lava flows causing water to accumulate. When the lava dams broke erosion was temporarily must faster than average. This is far different than the YECs imaginary global flood and imaginary lakes.

[/u]

[/color]If you will not accept the fact that trilobites are heaver ( have a higher density then birds or that trilobites are going to be a lower elevations, there is no use following this point.

Hmm. I think that the average emporer penguin is much heavier than the average triolobite was. How about you? Do you think the bacteria that formed the stomatolite fossils found in the precambrian were even heavier than trilobites? How about modern clams that grow attached to the bottom? Why did the get buried above the trilobites?

I have never tried to compile a specific order of events, pre-flood during flood and post flood.

This should be fun .

Duane

In my experience whenever YECs get specific with there models they find them quickly falsified. Have fun.

FB

 

[duordi]

I was referring to the inability of so-called "flood geologists" or "creation scientists" to specifically identify which layers were deposited by the flood. I have seen the "end of the flood layers" placed from the Cambrian to early Pleistocene for example. If there really had been a global flood a few thousand years ago I would think the evidence would be clear enough to determine what it deposited and what it didn't. Of course since no layers were deposited by global flood it is no surprise that there is no agreement among YECs. You can't identify something that doesn't exist.

I am of course have not had time to research the topic of geological conditions assuming a catastrophic and non-catastrophic ideas completely, but I can give an overview of what I have found so far.

Your conclusion is based on the assumption that the geologic column must be piled in a chronologically like a deck of cards.

In a flood condition the deck of cards are spread across a table sometimes a card or a few cards are on top of one another sometimes they do not connect at all.

Now you may say the you have a location which has a representation of all the cards and indeed in some cases this would be expected because a catastrophic condition will of course create many conditions and if you search long enough you will find a great many cards piled on top of one another.

Because you are defining what the geological column is you may conform it as you wish.

Selecting several sites that best fit your ideas and then selecting key fossils which best collaborate your theory a close match is found.

If something is found out of order at a later date all you would have to do is assume the species did not go extinct as previously thought or existed previously.

Eventually the most prominent anomalies can be accounted for and eliminated by modifications to the column.

New data will of course constantly be used to modify the column so your theory will be a close match to the data.

Unique conditions can be overlooked as one must expect that not all conditions of formation can be known due to the loss of information with passage of time.



Your conclusions will always of course prove your base assumptions true which is the goal of a theory.

If a flood theory is used the amount of radio active trace elements depend on the speed of the event and the original age of the material (and content of the trace elements in that material) used so trace elements would not indicate age necessarily but also a condition of formation.

Your proposed geological column is meaningless as the portion caused by the flood would not indicate a time period necessarily but a condition at the time of formation.

Because a flood would be a flood in Africa as well as America similar layers would be found. Which would be due to habitat elevation mobility intelligence density propensity to bloat and many other factors which I am not aware of.

Any major flood before or after a world flood could produce similar results to a smaller scale of course.

So the catastrophic geologist examines the data and looks for a deck of cards spread across the table with a few cards that overlap and some that do not connect at all.

When you say Hay I found the geologic column here at these places that are 1% of the planet I have to ask what about the other 99% that supports a spread deck of cards idea.

Well you may say I should not expect no erosion at all and most places will not have all the layers after all this happened over millions of years.

I would reply, it did not happen over millions of years and the so called missing layers most often were never there.

So you see the two theories can not be judged by the other theories assumptions.

You can not prove the catastrophic theory wrong using a geological column which assumes a non catastrophic condition.

Before you judge me to harshly on the last statement consider your reaction if I said that evolution could not have occurred because life has existed only 6000 years and there was not enough time for the process to happen.

You would say Hay, you can’t apply your assumptions to my theory I don’t accept your assumptions.

Likewise I can not accept your assumption when considering a catastrophic condition but must judge the theory based on how well it fits the evidence being consistent with its own base assumptions.

I will attempt to keep you updated as I inform myself on the subject but details will have to wait until I finish researching both sides of the argument.

I thought they were either slaves in Egypt or wandering around lost in the desert or wiping out the people they ran into. Could you provide some documentation of the 450 wooden boat they built to journey to the Americas?

In this site the Ten Commandments were found on a rock in New Mexico.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/15_home.html

This is a site quote...

"The above inscription cannot be a fake for the following reasons. The actual time of discovery of the inscription is not known but was known by the locals as far back as the 1850's. At that time, the script of the text was unknown and therefore undecipherable. It was not until this last century that the ancient Hebrew (paleo-Hebrew) script was discovered in the Near East. Once this ancient script was discovered the Los Lunas inscription could be deciphered and was found to be a copy of the "Ten Commandments".

So there was travel between the Americas and Egypt about the time of Moses 900 years after the flood.

The script was the original most early language placing it close to the creation of the text and can be no earlier then the ten commandments were given.

Would you care to make a bold assertion that they didn’’t take animals with them now that we know they made the trip?

The Jews were not the most technically advanced people of the day.

So if I post sites on geology, biogeography and the fossil record that have data that clearly falsify YEC but are not anti-YEC sites will you accept it. You should realize that every site, book or paper on these subjects that is not specifically produced by YEC sworn to uphold the YEC agenda will be loaded with data totally incomparable with YEC.

My opnion is not a majority opnion and so most sites disagree with me, but I have found data is neutral and so I use sites that disagree with me all the time.

You have read my posts for a while so I assume you realize that and do not require an example, but if you wish to see an example or two ( from this thread ) I would be willing to provide it, just ask.

Before you give evolution based evidence, understand that it is not necessary for the catastrophic theory to comply with the evolutionary geological column theory but only that the raw data complies with catastrophic conditions predicted.

I read YEC sites and anti YEC sites but I spend most of my time studying science. All science sites with data on cosmology, paleontology, geology, biogeography, archeology, paleoclimate studies, are essentially anti YEC even though they just exist to present their data and never even think about or mention YEC.

Try reading about the meteor impact record and the conditions it is required to cause.

If the meteor impact record is not random then the amount of energy released at one time would cause the equivalent of a nuclear winter.

The geological record must place the event at the ice ages causing the accepted dates of Earths history to be in error.

The next question of course is does the flood theory match the geological record on the majority of the Earth and I believe it does.

The fact that there is not a balance of information is due to the lack of effort given for one theory when compared to another.

It is not fair to criticize the theory for this condition.

If You don't understand why humans didn't deliver kangaroos, tree kangaroos, playtypus, bush tailed possums, echinda, marsupial moles, Antechinus(marsupial mice), planigales, bilbies, wallabies, koalas, wombats, numbats, sugar gliders, dunnarts, ninauis, tasmanian tigers, tasmanian devils, phascogales, bandicoots, quols, potoroos and bettongs and others of the 180 species of Australian marsupials and the Australian flightless birds

before European showed up there then your statement above about accepting sound reasoning and logical analysis is not true.

Please note that you are applying evolution base assumptions here which would not necessary be true in a catastrophic theory. It is similar to dividing by zero in mathematics and all logical rules which are implemented afterward are void.

Please bear with me as I study the subject in an effort to determine base assumptions for a catastrophic geological condition.

That is not what I am saying. Geologists knew the earth was ancient long before radiometric dating methods. If you want to know how they work read Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.

I do not disagree that the theory has existed for a long time or that there are have been many combinations of beliefs regarding religion and the origin of the Earth.

Totally wrong. The Colorado river formed the Grand Canyon. At times over the last 700,000 years the river was temporarily blocked by lava flows causing water to accumulate. When the lava dams broke erosion was temporarily must faster than average. This is far different than the YECs imaginary global flood and imaginary lakes.

My point was that a consistent condition can not have formed the grand canyon.

The only question that remains is, how catastrophic was it?

Hmm. I think that the average emporer penguin is much heavier than the average triolobite was. How about you? Do you think the bacteria that formed the stomatolite fossils found in the precambrian were even heavier than trilobites? How about modern clams that grow attached to the bottom? Why did the get buried above the trilobites?

It is not just a function of weight location and many more conditions, yes even chance.

The catastrophic model allows non-catastrophic conditions also just as the evolutionary models allow catastrophic conditions.

This is fair for both theories.

In my experience whenever YECs get specific with there models they find them quickly falsified. Have fun.

Ha. Ha, well I haven’t gone under yet.

Wish me luck.

Duane

 

[Valkhorn]

Duane, since you haven't really posted any evidence beyond simple verbal conjecture, I don't think you can really call what you're saying a scientific theory.

Actually its about as far from science as you can get.

 

[Valkhorn]

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/NAmerica.html

Duourdi,

You didn't look at the ages of the impacts. Why don't you look at them. Its kind of hard for a 'single event' to span hundreds of millions of years...

 

[MSBS]

I disagree, but I am curious where you would get such an idea.

in regards to this quote by FB:

Bible believing geologists of the 19th century realized that the flood could not explain the fossil record.

Just to jump in, Adam Sedgewick was the most famous of these, and this is what he said upon his retirement from the presidency of the Geological Society of London in 1831:

"There is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion, when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth. We saw the clearest traces of diluvial action, and we had, in our sacred histories, the record of a general deluge. On this double testimony it was, that we gave a unity to a vast succession of phaenomena, not one of which we perfectly comprehended, and under the name diluvium, classed them all together....Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which led many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation."

And, BTW, while searching for this quote I found a very nice website devoted to the history of flood geology and how it didn't stand up to scientific study, which was apparently written by a Christian geologist. It looks to be a very nice piece of scholarship.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

[/u][/color]I am of course have not had time to research the topic of geological conditions assuming a catastrophic and non-catastrophic ideas completely, but I can give an overview of what I have found so far.

Your conclusion is based on the assumption that the geologic column must be piled in a chronologically like a deck of cards.

It is not an assumption. It is observed that in undisturbed strata younger layers lie atop older ones. Where faulting and thrusting have occured things change but the general prinicple is more than 200 years old.

In a flood condition the deck of cards are spread across a table sometimes a card or a few cards are on top of one another sometimes they do not connect at all.

Now you may say the you have a location which has a representation of all the cards and indeed in some cases this would be expected because a catastrophic condition will of course create many conditions and if you search long enough you will find a great many cards piled on top of one another.

Because you are defining what the geological column is you may conform it as you wish.

Nonsense. Undisturbed strata are found in the same order in many places around the world though in most places some layers have been removed by erosion. I suggest you read former YEC Glenn Morton's page on the geologic column here are the layers as found in North Dakota
Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet
Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm .......................4910 feet
Cretaceous Mowry Fm........................... 5370 feet
Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm.......................5790 feet
Jurassic Rierdon Fm............................6690 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 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....................14355 feet
Cambrian Deadwood Fm..........................14445 feet
Precambrian...................................14945 feet

The world's geology falsifies the flood plain and simple.

Selecting several sites that best fit your ideas and then selecting key fossils which best collaborate your theory a close match is found.

If something is found out of order at a later date all you would have to do is assume the species did not go extinct as previously thought or existed previously.

You are just full of the misconceptions promoted by YECs. It is not the date of extiniction that is important but the date of first appearance. But there are many fossils that are absolutely characteristic of various layers. Did you ever hear of index fossils?

Eventually the most prominent anomalies can be accounted for and eliminated by modifications to the column.

Give us some examples where the "geologic column" is modified to "correct anomolies"

New data will of course constantly be used to modify the column so your theory will be a close match to the data.

Fossil data collected over the last 200 years fit with conventional geology and falsify the flood.

Unique conditions can be overlooked as one must expect that not all conditions of formation can be known due to the loss of information with passage of time.

What are you talking about?

Your conclusions will always of course prove your base assumptions true which is the goal of a theory.

The problem is that early geologists who started with the base assumption that there had been a global flood collected data and concluded that the world's geology could not be explained by a global flood. For a modern example read Glenn Morton's story as I asked you to do before. He explains how he tried to fit the data he was collecting into his assumption that there had been a global flood and how he could not. Here is a quote.

"But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.


"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ," That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either."

If a flood theory is used the amount of radio active trace elements depend on the speed of the event and the original age of the material (and content of the trace elements in that material) used so trace elements would not indicate age necessarily but also a condition of formation.

This makes no sense. You clearly don't understand the principles of radiometric dating. Again I suggest you read
Radiometric Dating : A Christian Perspective.

Your proposed geological column is meaningless as the portion caused by the flood would not indicate a time period necessarily but a condition at the time of formation.

Because a flood would be a flood in Africa as well as America similar layers would be found. Which would be due to habitat elevation mobility intelligence density propensity to bloat and many other factors which I am not aware of.

So a flood would be a flood and deposit the same scattered cards you refered to above in the same order all over the earth. This is nonsense. How would a flood deposit massive layers of salt? How would a flood deposit specific collections of animals along with their tracks, their droppings and their nests in the same layers all over the earth? How would a flood deposits layers of soil with insect nests and root traces in them? How would a flood deposit desert dunes to make eolian deposits?

Any major flood before or after a world flood could produce similar results to a smaller scale of course.

So the catastrophic geologist examines the data and looks for a deck of cards spread across the table with a few cards that overlap and some that do not connect at all.

All geologists understand that local catastrophic events have occured. YEC geologists take an oath to distort the data to support a global flood model for some of the deposits but can't even identify which deposits are flood deposits and which aren't.

When you say Hay I found the geologic column here at these places that are 1% of the planet I have to ask what about the other 99% that supports a spread deck of cards idea.

Well you may say I should not expect no erosion at all and most places will not have all the layers after all this happened over millions of years.

I would reply, it did not happen over millions of years and the so called missing layers most often were never there.

So you see the two theories can not be judged by the other theories assumptions.

When I find ABCDE in one location ABDE in another ACE in another ABE in another ABCE in an other and BCDE in another and never find ACBDE unless I can find a place where C is thrust over B I can conclude that these layers were deposited in the order ABCDE and that some were removed by erosion. When I find this sequence ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ in this order even with missing letters I can conclude that they were laid down in this order. When I find that BDEGHKMNPSX and Z contain feature showing that could not have been deposited by a single global flood I can conclude that the entire column was not deposited by a global flood.

You can not prove the catastrophic theory wrong using a geological column which assumes a non catastrophic condition.

Science works by falsification and scientists who started out assuming that the global flood formed the world's geology ended up falsifying their original assumption.

Before you judge me to harshly on the last statement consider your reaction if I said that evolution could not have occurred because life has existed only 6000 years and there was not enough time for the process to happen.

You would say Hay, you can’t apply your assumptions to my theory I don’t accept your assumptions.

I don't hold to your assumptions because they have been falsified multiple times by many branches of science.

Likewise I can not accept your assumption when considering a catastrophic condition but must judge the theory based on how well it fits the evidence being consistent with its own base assumptions.

Catastrophies are one thing. A global flood does not fit with any of the data and flood models are not internally consistent. For example YECs often claim that sorting occured by differential escape to higher ground Even if we ignore the fact that it is ridculous to think that grass outran fast moving dinosaurs, YECs also claim that there were no really high mountains before the flood. So where was the higher ground that modern animals ran up while thousands of feet of sediment containing "earlier" organism such as Permian animals and dinosaurs got buried?

I will attempt to keep you updated as I inform myself on the subject but details will have to wait until I finish researching both sides of the argument.

So far it is pretty clear that you have only researched one side.

[/u][/color]In this site the Ten Commandments were found on a rock in New Mexico.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/15_home.html

So there was travel between the Americas and Egypt about the time of Moses 900 years after the flood.

The script was the original most early language placing it close to the creation of the text and can be no earlier then the ten commandments were given.

Would you care to make a bold assertion that they didn’’t take animals with them now that we know they made the trip?

You mean they brought Gila Monsters, Sloths, and Rattlesnakes with them? Do you really believe that ancient Jews not only came to America but somehow penetrated all the way to New Mexico in 700 BC? Other possiblities are A. It's a fake. B. It was brought there by the Spanish. It is more likely that the thing was brought by Crusaders to Spain and by the Spanish to New Mexico than that Ancient Jews came to New Mexico bring Gila Monsters along.

The Jews were not the most technically advanced people of the day.[/qote] And even the most technically advanced weren't traveling from the Middle East to the Americas AFAIK.

My opnion is not a majority opnion and so most sites disagree with me, but I have found data is neutral and so I use sites that disagree with me all the time.

It is the data that actually disagree with you when all are collected and analyzed.

You have read my posts for a while so I assume you realize that and do not require an example, but if you wish to see an example or two ( from this thread ) I would be willing to provide it, just ask.

Before you give evolution based evidence, understand that it is not necessary for the catastrophic theory to comply with the evolutionary geological column theory but only that the raw data complies with catastrophic conditions predicted.

Get this straight please. Catastrophic events have happened over the 4.5 billion years the earth has existed. What hasn't happened is a global flood a few thousand years ago. What hasn't happened is a 600 year old man building a 450 foot wooden boat and saving all the land animals in the world and unloading them in the Middle East a few thousand years ago. That is a myth that has nothing to do with science.

Try reading about the meteor impact record and the conditions it is required to cause.

If the meteor impact record is not random then the amount of energy released at one time would cause the equivalent of a nuclear winter.

After it fried the earth.

The geological record must place the event at the ice ages causing the accepted dates of Earths history to be in error.

The next question of course is does the flood theory match the geological record on the majority of the Earth and I believe it does.

The fact that there is not a balance of information is due to the lack of effort given for one theory when compared to another.

It is not fair to criticize the theory for this condition.

What you are failing to realize is that at one time flood theory was the dominant theory and geologists set out to prove it. It is not a lack effort that causes the imbalance that you mention but the fact that the global flood is falsified by geology, paleontology, biogeography, biodiversity, paleoclimate research and archeology to name a few.

Please note that you are applying evolution base assumptions here which would not necessary be true in a catastrophic theory. It is similar to dividing by zero in mathematics and all logical rules which are implemented afterward are void.

Nonsense. The falsifications of the flood have nothing to do with evolution.

More later.
FB

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Frumious Bandersnatch again.

particularly well written and nicely argued. this ought to get into a faq or introductory reading thread. thank you.