The order of fossils in the geological column

[OldWiseGuy]

Here are Christian Geologists.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=RpUyb1ETyCC0pnIgjvoOjQ&bvm=bv.65788261,d.aWc

This article attacks the YEC model and is in general agreement with me (I believe in GAP theory). Noah's flood was inconsequential in regard to the earth's geology.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well that was disappointing. And you are wrong. You can address my points, you just can't refute them and have chosen instead to retreat to AV's stance of "Evidence can take a hike". Except AV is honest about it whereas you are trying to give the impression that your position fits the evidence in some way.

Here's the way it works: if your model doesn't fit the evidence, then your model is wrong. If you're going to ignore the evidence, don't pretend you're interested in having a real discussion. I'll repost my last post here in case you want to reconsider and actually try to defend your model. Or, as I said, you should just say that the evidence can take a hike like AV does very explicitly and stop pretending you care about the evidence fitting your model.

The first 'evidence' is the story itself (bible scholars generally agree that it is presented as an actual event). There are no human survivors save the those on the ark. You are speculating outside of the bounds of the story. All of my speculations are safely within the bounds of the story.

 

[Dusty Bin]

Noah's flood was inconsequential in regard to the earth's geology.

That could be because there was no flood, had there been they would have found the witness marks by now.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That could be because there was no flood, had there been they would have found the witness marks by now.

Four thousand or more years is a long time for such faint evidence to be preserved.

 

[Dusty Bin]

Four thousand or more years is a long time for such faint evidence to be preserved.

A world wide flood that was around for a year, who are you trying to kid?
they have found evidence that the Mediterranean sea has dried up at least twice.
(I can't post links but look it up)

 

[lasthero]

Four thousand or more years is a long time for such faint evidence to be preserved.

Not really. We know about far more ancient floods.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

they have found evidence that the Mediterranean sea has dried up at least twice.
(I can't post links but look it up)

I'll take your word for it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not really. We know about far more ancient floods.

A million year old flood will leave more evidence than a one year flood will.

 

[lasthero]

A million year old flood will leave more evidence than a one year flood will.

How do you figure?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The first 'evidence' is the story itself (bible scholars generally agree that it is presented as an actual event). There are no human survivors save the those on the ark. You are speculating outside of the bounds of the story. All of my speculations are safely within the bounds of the story.

You are ignoring the evidence that humans can survive extended periods at sea with little to no supplies or preparation. That isn't speculation, that is objective fact. You are trying to claim that your extrabiblical speculations are justified but it is unreasonable to suggest that in the entire world there were ships already stocked and supplied. That's an obvious double standard. Feel free to explain why my assumption is unreasonable. Just repeating that the bible says only eight survived is insufficient.

You have also failed to supply evidence that corpses would poison the air, poison the rain and prevent fishing or that they would cluster around all the other ships in the world but not the Ark.

The Flood as you envision it is not consistent with all of humanity being wiped out. You have offered no rebuttal to this beyond your repeating that the bible says everyone died so everyone must have died. Your model is inconsistent with evidence and reason. So again, why not just say it: Evidence can take a hike.

 

[bhsmte]

The first 'evidence' is the story itself (bible scholars generally agree that it is presented as an actual event). There are no human survivors save the those on the ark. You are speculating outside of the bounds of the story. All of my speculations are safely within the bounds of the story.

I think you mean "biblical historians" generally agree it was an actual event.

Which historians would those be and what substantiation did they use to meet the historical method to determine whether it was likely something happened in the past?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You are ignoring the evidence that humans can survive extended periods at sea with little to no supplies or preparation. That isn't speculation, that is objective fact. You are trying to claim that your extrabiblical speculations are justified but it is unreasonable to suggest that in the entire world there were ships already stocked and supplied. That's an obvious double standard. Feel free to explain why my assumption is unreasonable. Just repeating that the bible says only eight survived is insufficient.

You have also failed to supply evidence that corpses would poison the air, poison the rain and prevent fishing or that they would cluster around all the other ships in the world but not the Ark.

The Flood as you envision it is not consistent with all of humanity being wiped out. You have offered no rebuttal to this beyond your repeating that the bible says everyone died so everyone must have died. Your model is inconsistent with evidence and reason. So again, why not just say it: Evidence can take a hike.

Methinks you're trying to lure me into a 'spitting' contest.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How do you figure?

A million year old flood would leave sediments with fossils. Noah's flood wouldn't.

 

[Dusty Bin]

Not really. We know about far more ancient floods.

A million year old flood will leave more evidence than a one year flood will.

The flood didn't last a million years, but you will twist whatever you're told to keep yourself believing, good luck.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think you mean "biblical historians" generally agree it was an actual event.

Which historians would those be and what substantiation did they use to meet the historical method to determine whether it was likely something happened in the past?

No, I mean what I said: Bible scholars generally agree that the story is presented literally/literarily as an actual event, whether or not they believe it actually happened.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The flood didn't last a million years, but you will twist whatever you're told to keep yourself believing, good luck.

I think you jumped the track here.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Methinks you're trying to lure me into a 'spitting' contest.

No, I'm trying to get you to address the points I've made:

You are ignoring the evidence that humans can survive extended periods at sea with little to no supplies or preparation. That isn't speculation, that is objective fact. You are trying to claim that your extrabiblical speculations are justified but it is unreasonable to suggest that in the entire world there were ships already stocked and supplied. That's an obvious double standard. Feel free to explain why my assumption is unreasonable. Just repeating that the bible says only eight survived is insufficient.

You have also failed to supply evidence that corpses would poison the air, poison the rain and prevent fishing or that they would cluster around all the other ships in the world but not the Ark.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, I'm trying to get you to address the points I've made:

You are ignoring the evidence that humans can survive extended periods at sea with little to no supplies or preparation. That isn't speculation, that is objective fact. You are trying to claim that your extrabiblical speculations are justified but it is unreasonable to suggest that in the entire world there were ships already stocked and supplied. That's an obvious double standard. Feel free to explain why my assumption is unreasonable. Just repeating that the bible says only eight survived is insufficient.

You have also failed to supply evidence that corpses would poison the air, poison the rain and prevent fishing or that they would cluster around all the other ships in the world but not the Ark.

Supplied with fresh water for a year? I said polluted air and water, not poisoned. With no wind the corruption would not be disbursed but would hang around for a long time. Picture the 'doldrums' on a vast scale. Recall that God wanted them dead (to be blunt).

From "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner":

All in a hot and copper sky,
The bloody Sun, at noon,
'Right up above the mast did stand,
No bigger than the Moon.
Day after day, day after day,
We stuck, no breath no motion;
As idle as a painted ship
Upon a painted ocean.

 

[bhsmte]

No, I mean what I said: Bible scholars generally agree that the story is presented literally/literarily as an actual event, whether or not they believe it actually happened.

Do you know the difference between scholars and historians? Do you understand how historians follow the historical method to determine what likely happened in the past? Do you know what type of evidence historians require, to establish something likely happened in the past?

Do you have a name of a legit biblical historian, who claims the flood was a real event as depicted in the bible and the verified this as true by using the historical method? If you do, it is likely an evangelical Christian historian, that decided to utilize the historical method in a loose fashion, but I would love to see those names.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm not here to be a ray of sunshine I'm here countering ridiculous arguments.
Is he a believer in fables? is he deluded in thinking he has all the answers?

Do you think you get through to believers? if you think you do then you will be the first.

If religious people could be reasoned with there would be no religious people. (I don't know who said that but it's true)

My goal isn't to change how people think, that would be ridiculous. I'm not some kind of atheist missionary handing out science books, I am on here to improve my patience by defending my positions without coming off as rude or abrasive, to the extent that I can. And I have made progress. And you know, people listen to me, they consider what I have to say, and even though for the most part what I say won't change anyone's mind, that is fine because I don't intend to do that.