~~The Flood~~ Global or Local???

[dad]

..
1. arguing that the error in pi is not an error, but simply needs to be understood as an approximation, even though there is nothing in the text itself that would indicate that an approximation is intended

Are you suggesting that the measurements in the bible are wrong? Pi arguements aside?

2. arguing that the error in the number of legs an insect has is not an error because I'm taking into account the original context and understanding of the original author and readers of this passage, even though that text itself plainly described insects as having four legs.

I think you may be refering to the bit about the insects tha "go" upon all "fours"? If so, I assume that the locusts and such in question fly, or go upon all four wings, not feet. A common misconception.

 

[shernren]

Again, this is preposterous. An approximation IS literal. It is not a "metaphor" or an "allegory". An approximation is not a figure of speech. And, as should be obvious, approximations are WELL within the boundaries of "common sense".

And any "common sense" is well within the boundaries of "science", and any YEC who claims to interpret Scripture using "common sense" is really interpreting Scripture using "science", just a smaller subset of science than the set TEs use with no logical justification besides the fact that it panders to their individualistic, relativist understandings of science.

"Common-sense interpretation" is really using science to interpret Scripture, with YEC-friendly terms and words. And so the next time you say a TE is busy reading science into Scripture, take a hard look at yourself, because in a scientific civilization/culture like ours there really is no other way to read anything, and you're guilty of the very thing you cast disdain on.

[Trailer / Spoiler: subject of my next 1 or 2 posts in the "Scientific Myth of Creationism" series. about 60% done, too ]

 

[chaoschristian]

[Trailer / Spoiler: subject of my next 1 or 2 posts in the "Scientific Myth of Creationism" series. about 60% done, too ]

I can't wait for the merchandizing to hit stores!

 

[HypnoToad]

So, I suppose you believe those also never happened either?

as a Christian don't you think how you argue is important and reflects on your faith?

What's your point?

You cited the idea that the creation account being a "play on neighbor gods" as evidence that it is only metaphor. Therefore, by your reasoning, the fact that the 10 plagues were also plays on the Egyptian gods is evidence that the 10 plagues are also metaphor and never historically happened.

 

[Prophetable]

There is no solid geological evidence to support the hypothesis that a global flood never occured. Rather only a biased interpretation of scientific data.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So, I suppose you believe those also never happened either?

as a Christian don't you think how you argue is important and reflects on your faith?

What's your point?

You cited the idea that the creation account being a "play on neighbor gods" as evidence that it is only metaphor. Therefore, by your reasoning, the fact that the 10 plagues were also plays on the Egyptian gods is evidence that the 10 plagues are also metaphor and never historically happened.

please do NOT misquote me.
the issue is difficult enough without such poor debate tactics.

what i said was

a strict, literal, modern, common sense, man in the pew viewpoint fails in 1Kings on the issue of pi as it fails to understand Gen1, its pattern of the Sabbath and the kingdoms and kingship and the play on the neighbors gods.

i have NEVER(in more than 2000 postings on this board on the issue) written that Gen 1 is ONLY a metaphor, those are your misreading of my words.

for the record i am a conservative, infallibilist, Klinean-framework interpretation in my understanding of Gen 1, i see it as the Preamble for the Treaty of the Great King. it's great motif is the Sabbath, the 2 parallel triads capped with the viceregency of man under God. I believe YECism is a modern scientism misreading Gen 1 as a result of a 19thC common sense hermeneutic. I see Adam and Eve as historical figures and think Gen 2-5 are primarily historical and secondarily a distant mythos.

i find your tactics ill becoming of a Christian, essentially not just unbrethrenly but an underhanded attempt to associate your misunderstanding of my position with unbelief itself so to discredit whatever i say as not from a believing Christian but from a pagan unbeliever. (hence the alignment to those who do not believe the miracles of Moses are from God)


i don't believe you even listen to those you reply to, but are so certain of your position that you don't do any serious study nor question your ideas.

i don't even think you understand what i mean when i said "play on neighbor gods" even though this idea has been a dominant one here for me for the 2 years i've posted here.

but no matter. you dismiss acting Christ-like in your manners online with the statement
"What's your point?"

my point, to be explicit, is that to follow Christ is to act nicely online in the manner of your speech, not to misquote others, not to engage in a conversation without study or preparation, to be ready to change your viewpoints if they are shown to be wrong, at a bare minimum.

but that is just me, i guess.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

There is no solid geological evidence to support the hypothesis that a global flood never occured. Rather only a biased interpretation of scientific data.

ice cores continuous back at least 120Kya.
live trees back at least 4500ya.
dendrochronology back at least 10Kya.
lake varves back at least 100Kya.

you are not only wrong.
but very wrong.

however, offer an alternative scientific explanation for any one of these systems of data....i'll read and engage with it.

 

[Prophetable]

ice cores continuous back at least 120Kya.
live trees back at least 4500ya.
dendrochronology back at least 10Kya.
lake varves back at least 100Kya.

you are not only wrong.
but very wrong.

however, offer an alternative scientific explanation for any one of these systems of data....i'll read and engage with it.

live trees back at least 4500ya.

- 4,500 years. Interesting!! what happened then.


The rest are time periods based upon faulty dating mechanisms.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

live trees back at least 4500ya.

- 4,500 years. Interesting!! what happened then.


The rest are time periods based upon faulty dating mechanisms.

for one, a tree dated 5500 years old was stupidly cut down to take a core sample.

there are dead trees there (bristlecone pines) showing a continuous occupancy back at least 10K years.

read http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/


demonstrate the faults in the dating mechanisms. you can count the varves.
if you don't engage at the level of the science you are just a scientifically ignorant, metaphysical sniper who is not adding to the discussion but just taking potshots. show exactly what you mean by "The rest are time periods based upon faulty dating mechanisms."

for in doing so, you at least show that you understand the science behind it, even if you don't agree.

 

[HypnoToad]

please do NOT misquote me.
the issue is difficult enough without such poor debate tactics.

what i said was


i have NEVER(in more than 2000 postings on this board on the issue) written that Gen 1 is ONLY a metaphor, those are your misreading of my words.

for the record i am a conservative, infallibilist, Klinean-framework interpretation in my understanding of Gen 1, i see it as the Preamble for the Treaty of the Great King. it's great motif is the Sabbath, the 2 parallel triads capped with the viceregency of man under God. I believe YECism is a modern scientism misreading Gen 1 as a result of a 19thC common sense hermeneutic. I see Adam and Eve as historical figures and think Gen 2-5 are primarily historical and secondarily a distant mythos.

i find your tactics ill becoming of a Christian, essentially not just unbrethrenly but an underhanded attempt to associate your misunderstanding of my position with unbelief itself so to discredit whatever i say as not from a believing Christian but from a pagan unbeliever. (hence the alignment to those who do not believe the miracles of Moses are from God)


i don't believe you even listen to those you reply to, but are so certain of your position that you don't do any serious study nor question your ideas.

i don't even think you understand what i mean when i said "play on neighbor gods" even though this idea has been a dominant one here for me for the 2 years i've posted here.

but no matter. you dismiss acting Christ-like in your manners online with the statement
"What's your point?"

my point, to be explicit, is that to follow Christ is to act nicely online in the manner of your speech, not to misquote others, not to engage in a conversation without study or preparation, to be ready to change your viewpoints if they are shown to be wrong, at a bare minimum.

but that is just me, i guess.

Yes, you're right. You're a much better Christian than I. It's defintiely better to outright attack and condemn somebody instead of FIRST finding out if they maybe misunderstood anything you had said.

And I fail to see what's wrong with asking "what's your point" when I don't see the relevence of your post. It's just a question, sheesh. But, hey, you're right, it's best to just assume it's an attack instead of finding out first.

 

[Prophetable]

for one, a tree dated 5500 years old was stupidly cut down to take a core sample.

there are dead trees there (bristlecone pines) showing a continuous occupancy back at least 10K years.

read http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/


demonstrate the faults in the dating mechanisms. you can count the varves.
if you don't engage at the level of the science you are just a scientifically ignorant, metaphysical sniper who is not adding to the discussion but just taking potshots. show exactly what you mean by "The rest are time periods based upon faulty dating mechanisms."

for in doing so, you at least show that you understand the science behind it, even if you don't agree.

Dendrochronology Dating is is not exact in dating trees. The reason being is that extra rings can be created, other than "annual rings". This has been researched and documented. Even under the microscope "extra rings" are indistinguishable from annual rings.

Carbon Dating (used to date back 10k years) is also under scrutiny in the regard that it assumes too many constants - ie: Fluctuations in phenomena such as cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere, and the earth's magnetic field strength can throw out the dating for starters. All dating methods suffer similar dilemmas.

There is a lot of data on these subjects. What it comes down to is whether you're interested in analysing the opposing data.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Dendrochronology Dating is is not exact in dating trees. The reason being is that extra rings can be created, other than "annual rings". This has been researched and documented. Even under the microscope "extra rings" are indistinguishable from annual rings.

Carbon Dating (used to date back 10k years) is also under scrutiny in the regard that it assumes too many constants - ie: Fluctuations in phenomena such as cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere, and the earth's magnetic field strength can throw out the dating for starters. All dating methods suffer similar dilemmas.

There is a lot of data on these subjects. What it comes down to is whether you're interested in analysing the opposing data.

factual errors in your posting.

1.those trees that often lay down multiple rings per year are NOT used for dendrochronology.

2.C14 is used not to 10Kya but to about 50K-60Kya, and the limit is based on the half life.

3.the flucuation of cosmic rays effects the fundamental equation of C14 and is a very good example of how science fixes its problem and now uses dendrochronology to calibration C14 dating.

4. i would refer you to my blog for a large number of research projects stimulated by CF origins postings. i, for one, do spend a lot of time researching the issue.
see:
http://rmwilliamsjr.livejournal.com/


so i am still looking for:
All dating methods suffer similar dilemmas.

btw.
in response to:
What it comes down to is whether you're interested in analysing the opposing data.

i am really transparent on my research.
i publish my reading lists:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/booklist.html

book reviews:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/bookreviews.html

where do you make your research and studies available for our interaction? i'd bookmark and keep up with your studies on the topic, as i do several dozen other people. mostly by blogs.

 

[Prophetable]

factual errors in your posting.

1.those trees that often lay down multiple rings per year are NOT used for dendrochronology.

2.C14 is used not to 10Kya but to about 50K-60Kya, and the limit is based on the half life.

3.the flucuation of cosmic rays effects the fundamental equation of C14 and is a very good example of how science fixes its problem and now uses dendrochronology to calibration C14 dating.

4. i would refer you to my blog for a large number of research projects stimulated by CF origins postings. i, for one, do spend a lot of time researching the issue.
see:
http://rmwilliamsjr.livejournal.com/


so i am still looking for:
All dating methods suffer similar dilemmas.

btw.
in response to:
What it comes down to is whether you're interested in analysing the opposing data.

i am really transparent on my research.
i publish my reading lists:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/booklist.html

book reviews:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/bookreviews.html

where do you make your research and studies available for our interaction? i'd bookmark and keep up with your studies on the topic, as i do several dozen other people. mostly by blogs.

Infactual claim #1 Exactly - why aren't these trees used in dendrochronology. How do we know Bristlecone pines haven't done the same thing in the past?

#2 The point is C14 is part of the process. Also C14 in General is suspect.

#3 As dating methods continue to re-calibrate perhaps biblical timelines may become more feasible.

#4 No doubt you've committed more research on dendrochronology(etc..) issues than myself, but I learn fast.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

you have said:

is also under scrutiny

All dating methods suffer similar dilemmas.

Also C14 in General is suspect.


all generalities.
engage with the science.
what exactly is wrong with:
dendrochronology
C14 dating
ice core dating
lake varves

pick one.
demonstrate:
you have mastered the science.
you have legitimate scientific concerns with the methodology.
can express and defend that disagreement at the scientific level, not at this nebulous generalities you (and YECism in general) speaks to.

that is the big problem with YECism, it looks as if it engages with the science with statements like:
Also C14 in General is suspect.


but never seems to offer specifics.
so rise up, do your best. help us to understand what all these errors are in the dating fields.

remember you are defending a global, universal flood about 4Kya. i show you dendrochronology back 10K and you offer a maybe they grow multiple rings.
this is not engagement with the science. this is sniping for effect, nothing more.

 

[PaladinValer]

I read what you wrote.
I also posted numerous links that refer to water under the crust.

Did you read them?

You didn't get the whole story: http://geology.about.com/library/weekly/aa032298.htm

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_water

That's primordial water, which had always existed and was there since Earth's birth or water that has seeped into the mantle through subduction. Water doesn't naturally form and exist in the mantle.

In addition, any water was dissolved. It only "reconstituted" upon escaping. Thus, while "water" may exist, it isn't in a state of what you are thinking: liquid.

However, it cannot get out but by hydrothermal vents. Even with as many vents as there are, they wouldn't have been enough to cause the Flood.

Furthermore, again, I cite Hebrew cosmology. The fact that water can come out of the Earth in a similar way the ancient cosmology depicts is a coincidence; the same coincidence that is found in the sacred scriptures of many different religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (since all three use the Bible) regardless.

In addition, again, there is absolutely no universal flood ring of sediment. No sediment ring found all over the Earth, no Deluge. Something of that magnitude would have left a great deal of evidence throughout the world.

The Deluge is and remains myth. A good myth for its truths in morality and faith/doctrine, but is not factual in terms of geologic history.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

In addition, again, there is absolutely no universal flood ring of sediment. No sediment ring found all over the Earth, no Deluge. Something of that magnitude would have left a great deal of evidence throughout the world.

The Deluge is and remains myth. A good myth for its truths in morality and faith/doctrine, but is not factual in terms of geologic history.


additionally:

there are intact civilizations with writing preserved throughout the proposed time period in at least China, Babylonian and Egypt. inhabited villages in Turkey, Mesoamerica, and in the Andes, for just a few example.

there are trees growing now that were alive during the proposed Noahic flood time. additionally using now dead trees puts the dating process back 12kya. well past the proposed YEC creation date, let alone earlier than the flood. trees can not have lived through the flood.

there are ice cores demonstrating that those ice sheets existed throughout the proposed time period. ice sheets and glaciers can not have survived a global flood.

likewise lake varves exist which falsify the universal, global interpretation of the Noahic flood. lake varves could not have remained intact through the flood.

there is more, but this is more than sufficient to falsify a universal, global Noahic flood ....

 

[Prophetable]

you have said:

is also under scrutiny

All dating methods suffer similar dilemmas.

Also C14 in General is suspect.


all generalities.
engage with the science.
what exactly is wrong with:
dendrochronology
C14 dating
ice core dating
lake varves

pick one.
demonstrate:
you have mastered the science.
you have legitimate scientific concerns with the methodology.
can express and defend that disagreement at the scientific level, not at this nebulous generalities you (and YECism in general) speaks to.

that is the big problem with YECism, it looks as if it engages with the science with statements like:
Also C14 in General is suspect.


but never seems to offer specifics.
so rise up, do your best. help us to understand what all these errors are in the dating fields.

remember you are defending a global, universal flood about 4Kya. i show you dendrochronology back 10K and you offer a maybe they grow multiple rings.
this is not engagement with the science. this is sniping for effect, nothing more.

Your initial claim that I had factual errors were adequatley answered in my following post.

You are now accusing me of sniping for effect. I believe all my points have been valid and in no way fallacious.

You also accuse YECism of not offering specifics. How do you know YECism hasn't answered specifically. Are you omniscient? With your vast reading list are you sure you've read all the research and data provided by Creation Scientists on this matter?

Does your Scientific Method involve ridicule and false accusation as a means to support your conclusions?


If you can't proove that Bristlecone Pines have never produced extra rings, then how can you with integrity claim the 10kyr argument disprooves the flood?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You also accuse YECism of not offering specifics. How do you know YECism hasn't answered specifically. Are you omniscient? With your vast reading list are you sure you've read all the research and data provided by Creation Scientists on this matter?


fine, prove me wrong, show a specific YECist paper that deals with the issues at a scientific basis/level.

in several years of reading on the topic, i have never seen a reply to:
HERV's
GLO pseudogene
chimp 2p+2q=human 2 chromosome

i have never seen a paper that legitimately questioned radioactive dating, demonstrated the assumptions needed to do C14 dating, showed any evidence for a young earth that has not been rebuttaled completely, demonstrated any evidence for a universal, global Noahic flood.

but please. show us where all this research is.

Does your Scientific Method involve ridicule and false accusation as a means to support your conclusions?

show me where i engage in ridicule or false accusations, nastiness, ad hominems and i will gratefully apologize for such unChristlike behavior and thank you for pointing out my sinfulness in arguing in such a way.
that is one reason i consistently use the same user name on dozens of boards, and make all my writing public. i welcome the criticism and will change as i am persuaded is needed.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If you can't proove that Bristlecone Pines have never produced extra rings, then how can you with integrity claim the 10kyr argument disprooves the flood?

1st science deals in evidence, not proof. it's major tool is induction which does not yield 100% certainty but rather something like legal levels, beyond reasonable doubt.

2-bristlecone pines are a very good example of a tree that will not lay down two growth rings, but rather has the opposite problem, no growth ring for a very poor year.

but that aside. do you really think that you can destroy the credibility of such a well entrenched scientific technique with just the idea of multiple rings? hundreds of people (just a few miles from where i sit as a matter of fact) have dedicated their professional lives to looking at these issues.

dendrochronology doesn't rely on one tree that "might" have occasionally laid down 2 growth rings. look at the science. engage with the data. understand what is going on.

tree ring core data is based on a very large sample size now. the odd tree that has adnormal growth has long since fell out of the databases.

 

[Prophetable]

If you can't proove that Bristlecone Pines have never produced extra rings, then how can you with integrity claim the 10kyr argument disprooves the flood?

1st science deals in evidence, not proof. it's major tool is induction which does not yield 100% certainty but rather something like legal levels, beyond reasonable doubt.

2-bristlecone pines are a very good example of a tree that will not lay down two growth rings, but rather has the opposite problem, no growth ring for a very poor year.

but that aside. do you really think that you can destroy the credibility of such a well entrenched scientific technique with just the idea of multiple rings? hundreds of people (just a few miles from where i sit as a matter of fact) have dedicated their professional lives to looking at these issues.

dendrochronology doesn't rely on one tree that "might" have occasionally laid down 2 growth rings. look at the science. engage with the data. understand what is going on.

tree ring core data is based on a very large sample size now. the odd tree that has adnormal growth has long since fell out of the databases.

The area is about 14 miles east of Big Pine, California. Using bristlecone pine dendrochronology, ages as old as 7,100 years have been obtained. Walter Lammerts (1983, pp. 108-15) has discovered, however, that under certain experimental conditions, extra growth rings could be induced in bristlecone pine, calling into question the reliability of dendrochronology in establishing accurate absolute ages.

He measured growth rates of seedlings of bristlecone pine under various conditions, including normal outdoor conditions; ordinary greenhouse conditions; greenhouse conditions supplemented by maintenance at a temperature of 70F with no extra light; greenhouse conditions supplemented by a heat lamp for 16 hours per day and maintained at a minimum of 70F; and greenhouse conditions supplemented by treatment with fluorescent light for 16 hours per day, and maintenance at a minimum of 70F. The group that showed the most rapid growth was the group given the treatment with the heat lamp. The fluorescent light treatment was next most effective in promoting growth, but considerably less so than the heat lamp. The use of the heat lamp and fluorescent lamp simulated a 16-hour daylight period, with the heat lamp providing extra heat, of course. The plants maintained at 70F with no extra light exhibited considerably less growth, even less than those plants held under ordinary greenhouse conditions. Those plants grown outdoors had a growth rate only a fraction of those grown in the greenhouse.

Lammerts discovered that seedlings left to grow under ordinary greenhouse conditions, with no extra light or heat (Lammerts' home is in Freedom, California, where temperatures are cool enough in winter so that no growth took place during that period), exhibit only one growth ring after 2.5 years. The most significant of Lammerts' findings was the discovery that an extra growth ring could be induced by depriving the plants of water for two to three weeks in August and then resuming watering. Ordinarily, Lammerts had found, a three-year old bristlecone pine exhibits two growth rings, since, as noted above, no growth ring forms in the first 1.5 years of life. When Lammerts examined three-year-old bristlecone pine trees which had been deprived of water for three weeks in August, followed by normal watering during a warm month in September (September is often the warmest month of the year there), he found that they had three growth rings instead of the two expected. Four-year-old bristlecone pines similarly treated exhibited four growth rings instead of the three found for similar plants whose growth was not interrupted by depriving them of water for two to three weeks in August.

Lammerts points out that soil moisture is at an optimum in the spring, and then diminishes steadily to such an extent as often to halt growth. Then, as the high pressure builds and the heat increases, even more stress has to be endured by the young pine forests. In the early fall, however, evaporation from the formerly existing large lakes again results in clouds and early fall rains, even in such inland mountain areas as the White Mountains. The pine trees would then resume growth, as Glock noted, with the result that another flush of growth and resultant growth ring occurs, just as in the experiment where the young seedlings formed an extra growth ring following return into the ground under the mist system after their drying out.

In the spring, the hot sun and increasingly long days would act the same as the heat lamp treatment, only more so, and stimulate growth of the pine trees, especially in June and July, thus causing them greatly to extend their root systems. This would make them even more vulnerable to stress resulting in cessation of growth until the early fall rains.

Lammerts cites considerable historical evidence that the part of the U.S. embracing this area of California, and actually much more, was much wetter in the past. The Great Salt Lake, in Utah, is a remnant of Lake Bonneville, which had an area of 50,000 square miles. Its decrease in size is said to be correlated with a 200-year period of drought beginning about the year 1200, as determined by tree ring studies. Even as late as 1860, the snowfields of the High Sierras were much larger than recently. As Lammerts points out, with extensive snowfields there would be much evaporation from them in the spring and early summer. The prevailing westerly winds would carry this evaporation over the areas easterly as clouds yielding rain to an extent considerably more than at present. The growth in the spring and early summer would cease during the dry period in late summer. Then, after an early fall rain, or possibly snow, followed by a hot spell in September, growth would resume, yielding an extra growth ring.

Lammerts postulates that it is possible that the presumed 7100 years of age postulated for some bristlecone pines could be reduced to an actual age of about 5600 years, assuming that extra rings would be formed by effects of stress during 50% of the approximately three thousand years since the end of the Flood. Lammerts acknowledges, of course, that it yet remains to be seen whether these results can be duplicated with older bristlecone pines.