How do I choose my paradigm?

[DivineOb]

It has been stated numerous times by Socrates that the so-called evidence for (macro)evolution is interpreted by many to indicate that (macro)evolution has occured because of those people approach the data with the initial materlialistic worldview (for now, we'll put aside the fact that I think such assumptions are essential for performing 'science').

Certainly I can look at the data and find evidence for (macro)evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. If I adopt a different paradigm (biblical literalist), I can certainly find evidence indicating a young earth, and special creation explaning the diversity of life (by interpreting the bible). Certainly I could view the world through the lens of a different paradigm, and come to a different interpretation of the evidence.

My question is, if the paradigm I adopt in analyzing the data plays such a significant role in the conclusions I will draw from the data, how am I to choose the paradigm I adopt? How does one even go about choosing a particular paradigm? Certainly, analyzing a particular paradigm while committed to a different paradigm will reveal the analyzed paradigm as nonsensical... So, what specific procedure should I follow to discover which is the correct paradigm I should follow, *without* requiring me to adopt a particular paradigm before I can analyze it? For those of you who are not materialists, what can you say (which does not involve 'poking holes' in materialism, or adopting your worldview before what you say will make sense (this includes avoiding a religious conversion, if at all possible)) to convince me to adopt a different paradigm?

Edit:
I apologize if what I wrote above was confusing... writing in neutral terminology is difficult :/

[Socratism]

It is hard to say "scientifically" how people choose the paradigm which they adopt, because each person is in many ways a special case.

In my own case I followed the naturalistic paradigm until I realized that taken to its natural conclusion it led to the absurd. Thus, it was not until I rejected this ultimate absurd conclusion that I was ready to consider the traditional Christian paradigm, which is that God created the universe and first life.

If God did this then it is not illogical to consider that the "scenario" presented in Genesis might be true.

From a scientific standpoint it would be far easier for lifeforms to diverge (even devolve) from an initial complex and sophisticated state to yield what we see today around us.

It is far harder to imagine how complexity with sophistication could arise from a simplistic beginning to what we see today.

Thus, although the Bible is not a science textbook it certainly seems to be the absolute truth. Who can point to something it has said and say with absolute certainty that it is not true?

On the other hand nothing we know about science can be said to be true with absolute certainty (by scientists' own admission).

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 12:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115078#post115078)
Socratism:
In my own case I followed the naturalistic paradigm until I realized that taken to its natural conclusion it led to the absurd. Thus, it was not until I rejected this ultimate absurd conclusion that I was ready to consider the traditional Christian paradigm, which is that God created the universe and first life.Was this before or after you accepted Genesis to be 100% literally true?

[Socratism]

Today @ 12:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115083#post115083)
Jimmy Higgins:

Was this before or after you accepted Genesis to be 100% literally true?

In my particular case I did not get interested in scripture until some 5 to 10 years after I had discovered that evolution couldn't possibly be true, at least in its extreme form of "goo to the zoo".

At that point I decided to see if any of the other events described in Genesis (other than creation week of course) violated any physical laws. So far I haven't found anything significant.

[Joe Meert]

At that point I decided to see if any of the other events described in Genesis (other than creation week of course) violated any physical laws. So far I haven't found anything significant.


JM: The flood also violates many physical laws. However, what you are really saying is that your interpretation seems consistent with what you believe to be true. What scientific evidence, if found, would lead you to abandon your young earth paradigm?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Socratism]

BTW, I should add that it can't be said that I believe scripture to be 100% literally true because I am aware of Hebrew idioms and figures of speech.

For example, when Jacob says he "hates" his wife Leah this is a figure of speech that simply means he does not love her as much as his favorite wife.

Thus, an extreme form of literalism that does not recognize this sort of thing is obviously in error.

On the other hand it would be just as wrong to err in the opposite direction and write off anything disagreeing with current thinking as "symbolic". Even such great men of God as Augustine erred in that way.

[Socratism]

Today @ 01:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115109#post115109)
Joe Meert:




JM: The flood also violates many physical laws. However, what you are really saying is that your interpretation seems consistent with what you believe to be true. What scientific evidence, if found, would lead you to abandon your young earth paradigm?
Cheers
Joe Meert

Having worked in highly technical fields my whole career, and having personally prepared, executed and validated many computer simulations of a wide range of physical phenomena, I would disagree with your assertion that the Flood described in Genesis violates any physical laws.

[Frumious]

At that point I decided to see if any of the other events described in Genesis (other than creation week of course) violated any physical laws. So far I haven't found anything significant.

So you don't think that a woman being changed into a pillar of salt violates any physical laws!?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

[Joe Meert]

Having worked in highly technical fields my whole career, and having personally prepared, executed and validated many computer simulations of a wide range of physical phenomena, I would disagree with your assertion that the Flood described in Genesis violates any physical laws.


JM: Having worked in geology my whole career and having personally prepared, executed and validated many computer simulations of a wide range of physical phenomena, I can tell you that the global flood in Genesis violates many physical laws. In addition, having examined the geologic record on several continents in some detail, I can also tell you that the global flood violates the geologic record.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 01:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115117#post115117)
Socratism:
Having worked in highly technical fields my whole career, and having personally prepared, executed and validated many computer simulations of a wide range of physical phenomena, I would disagree with your assertion that the Flood described in Genesis violates any physical laws. Having worked in the geotechnical field my whole career, and having personally logged tons of sedimentary rock core and thousands of jars of soil, I would disagree with your assertion that the Flood described in Genesis has any proof on earth that it ever happened.

[rach12]

Today @ 06:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115117#post115117)
Socratism:



Having worked in highly technical fields my whole career, and having personally prepared, executed and validated many computer simulations of a wide range of physical phenomena, I would disagree with your assertion that the Flood described in Genesis violates any physical laws.

Having worked in geology my whole career, and having personally logged thousands of feet of core and RC chips, mapped various geologic terranes, and been involved in various other geologic studies, I would agree with Joe and Jimmy that the Flood does in fact violate most physical laws of geology and has no supporting evidence whatsoever.

[Lobstrosity]

Today @ 09:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115078#post115078)
Socratism:

Thus, although the Bible is not a science textbook it certainly seems to be the absolute truth. Who can point to something it has said and say with absolute certainty that it is not true?

Come on, Socratism, you know that's not how it works. Something is not considered the absolute truth until proven false absolutely. One reason for this is because it is impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty. For example, can you say with absolute certainty that anything in the Odyssey is false? Sure, so some men fight a giant cyclops and get turned into pigs by a witch--it sounds unreasonable, but how can you prove that at some point in our past such things were not possible? What portions of the Koran can you prove are incorrect?

The very fact that the Bible can be used to support almost any position imaginable hints at its inaccuracy. Love thy neighbor, smite thy enemies, turn the other cheek, have your disobedient children stoned to death... It sounds like it was written by someone exhibiting multiple-personality disorder (or at least someone Bipolar).



At that point I decided to see if any of the other events described in Genesis (other than creation week of course) violated any physical laws. So far I haven't found anything significant.
I see, so the idea that two of every "kind" suddenly decided to traverse the Earth in a quest to find Noah is perfectly consistent with the type of animal behavior we observe today? What about the fact that none of the millions of animals on the Ark (including insects) could have died during the many months of the flood without causing the extinction of an entire kind? Does such a requirement sound physically plausible to you?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 03:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115165#post115165)
rach12:
Having worked in geology my whole career, and having personally logged thousands of feet of core and RC chips, mapped various geologic terranes, and been involved in various other geologic studies, I would agree with Joe and Jimmy that the Flood does in fact violate most physical laws of geology and has no supporting evidence whatsoever. Would that include faults and seams in rock? The geologist in our office is going bonkers that they will be doing a fault study for a BIG sewer line that will be going underground in Cleveland, very close to the shoreline. From previous work, they believe that there will a "wedge fault" if I'm not mistaken (which I could be), that should be the result from isostatic rebound. They said that you could see the interbedded siltstone bed drop a significant (geologic) depth, then picking right back up. Now that is some interesting stuff. You involved with such?

[Socratism]

Today @ 01:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115122#post115122)
Frumious:



So you don't think that a woman being changed into a pillar of salt violates any physical laws!?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

After viewing the classified photos of the aftermath of the nuclear explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, some of the analysts in my group remarked at the similarity of some forms to "pillars of salt" (which term can be interpreted in various ways from the original ancient Hebrew text).

(Before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusion I should state that I don't believe Sodom was destroyed by a nuclear explosion. But the explosion was probably comparable.)

I think that there was a very profound reason for the warning to not trail behind the group in order to look back.

Thus my previous warning to not be an extremist in one's "literal" understanding of scripture.

[Socratism]

Lobstrosity,


The very fact that the Bible can be used to support almost any position imaginable hints at its inaccuracy. Love thy neighbor, smite thy enemies, turn the other cheek, have your disobedient children stoned to death... It sounds like it was written by someone exhibiting multiple-personality disorder (or at least someone Bipolar).

The reason you feel this way is the same reason I used to feel this way myself: lack of knowledge of the whole "theme" or "plot" of the Bible. Your overview is flawed just as mine used to be before I discovered (was shown actually) what the heck was really going on..

[Lobstrosity]

Today @ 01:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115227#post115227)
Socratism:


After viewing the classified photos of the aftermath of the nuclear explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, some of the analysts in my group remarked at the similarity of some forms to "pillars of salt" (which term can be interpreted in various ways from the original ancient Hebrew text).

(Before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusion I should state that I don't believe Sodom was destroyed by a nuclear explosion. But the explosion was probably comparable.)

I think that there was a very profound reason for the warning to not trail behind the group in order to look back.

Thus my previous warning to not be an extremist in one's "literal" understanding of scripture.
This doesn't do much to refute the claims that the scripture details events that violate physical laws. For example, what physical process caused this massive explosion you postulate? If it was just "sparked by God," that makes it unphysical; that makes it energy from nowhere.

Secondly, nothing in the Bible indicates that Lot and his wife were separated by any vast distance. He would have to have fully left her behind in order for the explosion to turn her to "salt" while leaving him and his daughters completely unscathed. Since the Bible makes no mention of his leaving her, it is not fair to justify her saltification by saying she "trailed behind" and was thus too close to the blast. It seems pretty clear from the text that we are meant to assume that the cause of her pillaring was her turning to look at the explosion, and such a phenomenon would defy current physical laws.

[James]

Today @ 04:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115227#post115227)
Socratism:

After viewing the classified photos of the aftermath of the nuclear explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, some of the analysts in my group remarked at the similarity of some forms to "pillars of salt" (which term can be interpreted in various ways from the original ancient Hebrew text).

There's a big difference between "looking" like a pillar of salt after being hit by a nuclear explosion at ground zero and having all of one's molecules spontaneously transformed into chlorides. Does the verse in question say that "God turned Lot's wife into a crisply cooked form very much resembling a pillar of salt?"

[Socratism]

I see, so the idea that two of every "kind" suddenly decided to traverse the Earth in a quest to find Noah is perfectly consistent with the type of animal behavior we observe today?

It is not clear to me that Noah would have had to do anything except gather the creatures that were then currently within his domain. It is obvious to me that Noah was probably a great leader and was descended from other great leaders mentioned in the Genesis geneology. He certainly didn't personally build a great ship like the Ark.


What about the fact that none of the millions of animals on the Ark (including insects) could have died during the many months of the flood without causing the extinction of an entire kind?

Since we have such little knowledge about genetics (probably less than 2% of what will eventually be known) it is premature to make important life altered judgments based on such fragmentary evidence.

I doubt insects would have had a problem surviving. It is almost impossible to get rid of them, even in closed spaces like a space capsule.


Does such a requirement sound physically plausible to you?

No, but it doesn't sound impossible either. Which is remarkable for such an ancient "myth", supposedly written by ancient nomads or sheep herders.

[Socratism]

Today @ 04:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115244#post115244)
Lobstrosity:
This doesn't do much to refute the claims that the scripture details events that violate physical laws. For example, what physical process caused this massive explosion you postulate? If it was just "sparked by God," that makes it unphysical; that makes it energy from nowhere.

Since that area is very active geologically (it is part of the African Rift) my theory is that it was probably a volcanic type of event. When I visited Israel it was clear that the Sea of Galilee is a caldera I believe it is called and volcanic rocks abound in that region.


Secondly, nothing in the Bible indicates that Lot and his wife were separated by any vast distance.

Even topping over a small rise to the other side might be sufficient to give protection. This was the case at Mt. St. Helens in an eyewitness account that I read. Anyone hanging back a few steps to look back at the event from the top of the rise would not be so fortunate.

[Socratism]

Today @ 04:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115245#post115245)
James:



There's a big difference between "looking" like a pillar of salt after being hit by a nuclear explosion at ground zero and having all of one's molecules spontaneously transformed into chlorides. Does the verse in question say that "God turned Lot's wife into a crisply cooked form very much resembling a pillar of salt?"

Knowledge of chemistry was absent in those days. As some have noted scripture is not a science textbook and people were merely recording what they actually saw happen. From God's point of view that was all that was required. It is only the extreme literalist who would require something more technologically precise before they would believe it happened.

[Socratism]

But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. Gen 19:26

310. 'achar, akh-ar'; from H309; prop. the hind part; gen. used as an adv. or conj., after (in various senses):--after (that, -ward), again, at, away from, back (from, -side), behind, beside, by, follow (after, -ing), forasmuch, from, hereafter, hinder end, + out (over) live, + persecute, posterity, pursuing, remnant, seeing, since, thence [-forth], when, with

5333. netsiyb, nets-eeb'; or netsib, nets-eeb'; from H5324; something stationary, i.e. a prefect, a military post, a statue:--garrison, officer, pillar

4417. melach, meh'-lakh; from H4414; prop. powder, i.e. (spec.) salt (as easily pulverized and dissolved:--salt ([-pit]).

[rach12]

Today @ 09:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115204#post115204)
Jimmy Higgins:

Would that include faults and seams in rock? The geologist in our office is going bonkers that they will be doing a fault study for a BIG sewer line that will be going underground in Cleveland, very close to the shoreline. From previous work, they believe that there will a "wedge fault"; if I'm not mistaken (which I could be), that should be the result from isostatic rebound. They said that you could see the interbedded siltstone bed drop a significant (geologic) depth, then picking right back up. Now that is some interesting stuff. You involved with such?

Faults, yes. Seams... as in joints? Yes. Hmmm... not too familiar with the term 'wedge' fault (sounds like a normal fault from your description), but it that's no surprise since mineral deposits and not glacial terranes are my forte.:)



Socratism:

Since that area is very active geologically (it is part of the African Rift) my theory is that it was probably a volcanic type of event. When I visited Israel it was clear that the Sea of Galilee is a caldera I believe it is called and volcanic rocks abound in that region.
It would be interesting to see which, if any, volcanoes have erupted violently in the area. Have you seen evidence of this?

[Frumious]

It is not clear to me that Noah would have had to do anything except gather the creatures that were then currently within his domain. It is obvious to me that Noah was probably a great leader and was descended from other great leaders mentioned in the Genesis geneology. He certainly didn't personally build a great ship like the Ark.

And just what sort of domain had representatives of every "kind" of animal that ever lived on the earth in it? While Noah may have been a carpenter I always wondered how the walrus got aboard the ark. Of course I always wondered how the walrus got back the sea from the mountains of Ararat but we have already estabished the biogeography falsifies the flood.


I doubt insects would have had a problem surviving. It is almost impossible to get rid of them, even in closed spaces like a space capsule.

How did insects like mayflies and the other 1500 members of the order ephemeroptera survive? Most only live in fresh water and some only in running water and they have very brief adult stages. Did Noah have a running stream on board the ark?

How about insects like the cicadas that only live briefly in the air and spend most of their life cycles in the ground under living trees, sometimes as long as 17 years? Seems like they might have a hard time with a flood that rearranged all the world's geology. Did Noah have a small forest on board? What about all the other ground dwelling insects? How about all those butterfly species whose larva only live on specific plants and whose adult stages need nectar from living flowers. I guess Noah had a little ecosystem on board for them.


No, but it doesn't sound impossible either. Which is remarkable for such an ancient "myth", supposedly written by ancient nomads or sheep herders.

It seems impossible to anyone who thinks logically about the massive problems involved with a worldwide flood and all the falsifications from various areas of science. As I said on the biogeography thread the ancient nomads had no idea of the diversity of life that was living and had lived on earthand they had no idea that places like Australia with its unique fauna even existed. They could be excused for thinking that all "kinds" of animals could be saved in a big boat from a worldwide flood. You have no excuse.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 07:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115414#post115414)
rach12:
Faults, yes. Seams... as in joints? Yes. Hmmm... not too familiar with the term 'wedge' fault (sounds like a normal fault from your description), but it that's no surprise since mineral deposits and not glacial terranes are my forte.:)That stuff is just so darn cool. I wish I had enough time to race, study Genesis, geology, astronomy etc... Doesn't exist. So geology falls to the side so I let our friendly geologist at work answer lots of issues. As for the fault, its like a U where the edges of the U are at angles, say 45 degrees for instance. Really cool stuff. The company in charge of the design wanted to do angular drilling from a barge, which if you are familar with coring, is quite impossible. :teeth:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Socratism, you just had three professionals tell you that there is no evidence of the "Great Flood", yet you just seemed to duck this issue. Care to discuss this problem?

[James]

Today @ 06:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115290#post115290)
Socratism:

Knowledge of chemistry was absent in those days. As some have noted scripture is not a science textbook and people were merely recording what they actually saw happen. From God's point of view that was all that was required. It is only the extreme literalist who would require something more technologically precise before they would believe it happened.

The real point was: how does this not violate a natural law? It's extremely unlikely that a nuclear blast will spontaneously happen in the middle of an ancient Hebrew city, and even more likely that it will turn one person to ash while leaving everyone next to her completely untouched. Any way you slice it, it's a violation of a physical law. How about the resurrection? I don't know of any natural laws that can account for that either.

[chickenman]

I choose the methodological naturalism paradigm because it works

people seem to forget that evolution isn't the only theory that results from the MN framework, they should be complaining about the naturalistic biases present in thermodynamics of nuclear physics (if only god had included a chapter in the bible on nuclear forces)

its only because MN came up with an alternative explanation to one in the bible that people like philip johnson have decided it is flawed.

[Socratism]

Today @ 07:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115432#post115432)
Frumious:
And just what sort of domain had representatives of every "kind" of animal that ever lived on the earth in it?

What's a "kind"?


While Noah may have been a carpenter I always wondered how the walrus got aboard the ark. Of course I always wondered how the walrus got back the sea from the mountains of Ararat but we have already estabished the biogeography falsifies the flood.

Where did we establish that? Maybe I was sleeping when all the handwaving was going on.


How did insects like mayflies and the other 1500 members of the order ephemeroptera survive? Most only live in fresh water and some only in running water and they have very brief adult stages. Did Noah have a running stream on board the ark?

We only know the characteristics of forms we observe today. Evolutionists themselves marvel at how rapidly creatures adapt (except they erroneously tend to call this "evolution").


How about insects like the cicadas that only live briefly in the air and spend most of their life cycles in the ground under living trees, sometimes as long as 17 years? Seems like they might have a hard time with a flood that rearranged all the world's geology.

Sounds like they could have easily survived the Flood, at least in a few spots, and then had thousands of years to repopulate the world. Insect life is tough to extinguish.


Did Noah have a small forest on board? What about all the other ground dwelling insects? How about all those butterfly species whose larva only live on specific plants and whose adult stages need nectar from living flowers. I guess Noah had a little ecosystem on board for them.

Better to think that "evolution" would have no trouble generating specialized adaptations in thousands of years.


It seems impossible to anyone who thinks logically about the massive problems involved with a worldwide flood and all the falsifications from various areas of science.

You keep saying that but then fail to come up with any.


As I said on the biogeography thread the ancient nomads had no idea of the diversity of life that was living and had lived on earthand they had no idea that places like Australia with its unique fauna even existed. They could be excused for thinking that all "kinds" of animals could be saved in a big boat from a worldwide flood. You have no excuse.

I'm just waiting for anybody to come up with compelling evidence. So far no cigar, just a lot of ranting.

[Frumious]

What's a "kind"?

A term the creationists throw around to try to keep down crowding on the ark but will never define precisely as you well know.


Of course I always wondered how the walrus got back the sea from the mountains of Ararat but we have already estabished the biogeography falsifies the flood.


Where did we establish that? Maybe I was sleeping when all the handwaving was going on.

IIRC you did some of the handwaving which is all creationists can do with biogeography.


Sounds like they could have easily survived the Flood, at least in a few spots, and then had thousands of years to repopulate the world. Insect life is tough to extinguish.

So insects that live in the ground and require the roots of living trees for nourisment could have easily survived a year long flood that covered the entire earth and in the current YEC version deposited thousands of feet of sediments all over the world. Easily? Your credulity is amazingly selective.

And maybe you think all 1,500 ephemeroptera species are descended from maybe one or two species that somehow surived in stagnant water on the ark. Amazing what evolution can do for the YEC I really find it amusing when creationists now use hyperevolution to try to get around some of their insoluble problems. Maybe you the walrus was a fast running plains dwelling animal 4,500 years ago or whenever you think the flood occured. I notice you failed to answer that question.

The Frumious Bandesnatch

[Lobstrosity]

Today @ 02:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115264#post115264)
Socratism:

It is not clear to me that Noah would have had to do anything except gather the creatures that were then currently within his domain. It is obvious to me that Noah was probably a great leader and was descended from other great leaders mentioned in the Genesis geneology. He certainly didn't personally build a great ship like the Ark.

It seems clear to me, however, that other Biblical experts such as our good fellows over at AIG (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp) disagree with this interpretation, claiming that

Skeptics paint a picture of Noah going to countries remote from the Middle East to gather animals such as kangaroos and koalas from Australia, and kiwis from New Zealand. However, the Bible states that the animals came to Noah; he did not have to round them up (Genesis 6:20). God apparently caused the animals to come to Noah. The Bible does not state how this was done.This interpretation is clearly unphysical.

Also, how exactly was Noah a great leader? If the entire world was heinously corrupt and deserving of slaughter, how would a great leader not share some of the culpability for that? Couldn't Noah have guided at least some of his subjects to be virtuous as he himself was? On top of this, it seems rather cruel and strange to me that Noah would have enlisted the help of others to build a giant ark only to then condemn them all to death by denying them the use of said ark. "Thanks for the help, guys, have a good flood! Hope your drowning goes ok!"

I know you think the flood was used to wipe the earth free of genetic engineering gone awry (though you need to explain why we have never found any of the ancient technology they would have used for such things, which is quite odd given that they would have almost certainly been using metal tools), but do you really think that Noah, his wife, his sons, and his sons' wives were the only "natural" humans left on Earth? What about his sons' in-laws? What about his friends? Surely he could have saved a few other un-modified humans--would that not be the virtuous, moral thing to do? Would that not be something Jesus would have done? Or was Jesus the one drowning everyone? I always get confused about that--Jesus is God, but was God always Jesus (even the vengeful, jealous God of the OT)?

[Socratism]

Today @ 10:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115575#post115575)
Lobstrosity:
It seems clear to me, however, that other Biblical experts such as our good fellows over at AIG (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp) disagree with this interpretation, claiming that

Skeptics paint a picture of Noah going to countries remote from the Middle East to gather animals such as kangaroos and koalas from Australia, and kiwis from New Zealand. However, the Bible states that the animals came to Noah; he did not have to round them up (Genesis 6:20). God apparently caused the animals to come to Noah. The Bible does not state how this was done.This interpretation is clearly unphysical.

If they want to think that God "apparently" caused the animals to come to Noah, more power to them. Obviously we will never know this for sure one way or another. I just think it is possible he had men to do this for him, like many other leaders have done throughout history to stock their own private zoos with exotic creatures..


Also, how exactly was Noah a great leader? If the entire world was heinously corrupt and deserving of slaughter, how would a great leader not share some of the culpability for that?

There is a good model for that in what is happening today where poor leadership has allowed millions of children to be murdered in the womb with most people looking the other way and rationalizing it as "pro-choice". Noah was not perfect, and neither was any other leader in all of scripture. The only redeeming feature of any human being is their love for God and hence love for their fellow man.


Couldn't Noah have guided at least some of his subjects to be virtuous as he himself was?

Possibly, but virtue doesn't save, only God's grace can save. If the problem was widespread genetic experimentation and tinkering as I suspect, the only solution is to pick the most unpolluted genomes and start over.


On top of this, it seems rather cruel and strange to me that Noah would have enlisted the help of others to build a giant ark only to then condemn them all to death by denying them the use of said ark. "Thanks for the help, guys, have a good flood! Hope your drowning goes ok!"

All eventually die. The ultimate tragedy is to die unsaved. It was absolutely necessary to preserve the blood line to the Messiah unpolluted in order to carry out the plan to save the world from its sins. Those that do not understand the major theme of history as revealed in scripture naturally think that acting expediently is what counts in life, but life ends for all and what happens then is what really counts.


I know you think the flood was used to wipe the earth free of genetic engineering gone awry (though you need to explain why we have never found any of the ancient technology they would have used for such things, which is quite odd given that they would have almost certainly been using metal tools), but do you really think that Noah, his wife, his sons, and his sons' wives were the only "natural" humans left on Earth?

Of course not. But the ultimate objective for mankind is what needs to be kept firmly in mind: eternity with or without God. Without a Savior ALL of humanity would have perished for all of eternity.


What about his sons' in-laws? What about his friends? Surely he could have saved a few other un-modified humans--would that not be the virtuous, moral thing to do? Would that not be something Jesus would have done? Or was Jesus the one drowning everyone?

You have hit the nail on the head. Your answer is yes.


I always get confused about that--Jesus is God, but was God always Jesus (even the vengeful, jealous God of the OT)?

It is quite clear you are confused by your lack of knowledge about God's overall plan for mankind. However, your major need at this point in your life is what was my own major need at one point in my life.

[Jimmy Higgins]

We are falling into the semantics of the "Great Flood", so I'd suggest us getting out of the entire scholarship part of the scripture and jump right into the science. I've already noted this once:
Socratism, you just had three professionals tell you that there is no evidence of the "Great Flood", yet you just seemed to duck this issue. Care to discuss this problem?
Once again Socratism, can you explain how this can be?

[Socratism]

I really find it amusing when creationists now use hyperevolution to try to get around some of their insoluble problems.

The question of the millions of species (mostly lower forms not on the Ark of course) has always been there whether anyone recognized it or not. If creationists have erred on certain points that is not evidence for evolution is it?


Maybe you the walrus was a fast running plains dwelling animal 4,500 years ago or whenever you think the flood occured. I notice you failed to answer that question.

I am not a seer about anything, much less the ancient past. When I speculate I recognize I could be wrong. Perhaps a pair of walruses survived near the peak of a mountain in some way.

Some other lifeforms obviously perished and became extinct. Some didn't, but lifeforms as a whole obviously did.

God does not demand absolute perfection of His creation, which is good, because if He did we would be in deep doo doo.

[Frumious]

The question of the millions of species (mostly lower forms not on the Ark of course) has always been there whether anyone recognized it or not. If creationists have erred on certain points that is not evidence for evolution is it?

I never said it was an argument for evolution. I said it was a strong argument against the claim that the flood of Noah was worldwide. There are many people who don't accept the evidence for evolution but still accept the overwhelming evidence against a worldwide flood.



Maybe you the walrus was a fast running plains dwelling animal 4,500 years ago or whenever you think the flood occured. I notice you failed to answer that question. ”


I am not a seer about anything, much less the ancient past. When I speculate I recognize I could be wrong. Perhaps a pair of walruses survived near the peak of a mountain in some way.

A mountaineering Walrus. That's a good one. I'll have to remember the walrus on the mountaintop. I am getting a humorous vision of a walrus in alpine climbing gear driving in a piton to anchor his rope.


Some other lifeforms obviously perished and became extinct. Some didn't, but lifeforms as a whole obviously did.

That brings up an other interesting question raised by Glenn Morton.

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fish.htm
Why is "post flood" survival of mammalian genera directly correlated with how deeply the mmembers of that genera that were not on the ark were buried by the flood? Here is a list from oldest to youngest in fossil record and the number of species that survive.

oldest
Triassic there are 4 genera--no living members
Jurassic.............. 43 genera-no living members
Cretaceous..........36 genera-no living members
Paleocene...........213 genera-no living members
Eocene...............569 genera-3 extant genera
Oligocene............494 genera 11 extant genera
Miocene..............749 genera 57 extant genera
Pliocene..............762 genera 133 extant genera
Pleistocene..........830 genera 417 extant genera
youngest

What does your flood based paradigm say about these data?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

[Socratism]

Today @ 07:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115911#post115911)
Frumious:
There are many people who don't accept the evidence for evolution but still accept the overwhelming evidence against a worldwide flood.

I rarely "follow the crowd". Jesus said that they were on the path that leads to destruction.


I am getting a humorous vision of a walrus in alpine climbing gear driving in a piton to anchor his rope.

I am getting a picture of a person determined to disbelieve in God.


That brings up an other interesting question raised by Glenn Morton.

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fish.htm
Why is "post flood" survival of mammalian genera directly correlated with how deeply the mmembers of that genera that were not on the ark were buried by the flood? Here is a list from oldest to youngest in fossil record and the number of species that survive.

oldest
Triassic there are 4 genera--no living members
Jurassic.............. 43 genera-no living members
Cretaceous..........36 genera-no living members
Paleocene...........213 genera-no living members
Eocene...............569 genera-3 extant genera
Oligocene............494 genera 11 extant genera
Miocene..............749 genera 57 extant genera
Pliocene..............762 genera 133 extant genera
Pleistocene..........830 genera 417 extant genera
youngest

What does your flood based paradigm say about these data?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

First it says that it is amazing that a person would use Glen Morton as a serious reference.

Second I would say that there is a profound misunderstanding of what the sedimentary layers look like on a worldwide basis.

Third, I would say that there is also a profound misunderstanding illustrated here over how people determine what a layer contains in the way of fossils.

Finally there is also a profound misunderstanding about how a particular genera is distributed throughout the layers themselves.

As Gould described it a new form appears suddenly out of nowhere in the fossil record, persists for tens or hundreds of million years without significant change until it reaches the current era or else becomes extinct, to be replaced by a different form that also appears suddenly with no apparent precursors. Thus he posited the PE theory, which explains nothing, but like "convergence" merely gives a name to something that is observed in the fossil layers.

[Joe Meert]

As Gould described it a new form appears suddenly out of nowhere in the fossil record, persists for tens or hundreds of million years without significant change until it reaches the current era or else becomes extinct, to be replaced by a different form that also appears suddenly with no apparent precursors. Thus he posited the PE theory, which explains nothing, but like "convergence" merely gives a name to something that is observed in the fossil layers.

JM: Gould did not argue that PE was the only form of evolution. He also was well-acquainted with the fact that many organisms showed a slow progression in the fossil record.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Frumious]

I am getting a picture of a person determined to disbelieve in God. Understanding that there is massive evidence against a recent worldwide flood has nothing to do with believing in God. I just don't believe in a God that wiped out his creation in a fit of pique because it didn't come out quite the way he wanted it to.


First it says that it is amazing that a person would use Glen Morton as a serious reference.

Are you saying that these distributions are not correct? Do you think there are Triassic genera that are still alive for example? Do you have any evidence that Glenn Morton is lying about that? Can you provide any specific data to back up your claim?


Second I would say that there is a profound misunderstanding of what the sedimentary layers look like on a worldwide basis.

Really. Are you saying there are Triassic or Jurassic layers that have modern mammals in them for example? Just what is your specific claim here? What data do you have to back it up?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

[Joe Meert]

Second I would say that there is a profound misunderstanding of what the sedimentary layers look like on a worldwide basis.



JM: That is very true in regard to creationists. They have a single defining catastrophe that they are unable to correlate on a global scale. Are you willing to answer the following questions?

What layers (be specific) on a global scale mark

(a) the onset of the global flood
(b) the peak of the global flood
(c) the end of the global flood

No creationist so far has been able to provide an answer to these questions, yet the flood IS geology according to ye-creationism.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[rach12]

Today @ 04:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116060#post116060)
Joe Meert:

JM: That is very true in regard to creationists. They have a single defining catastrophe that they are unable to correlate on a global scale. Are you willing to answer the following questions?

What layers (be specific) on a global scale mark

(a) the onset of the global flood
(b) the peak of the global flood
(c) the end of the global flood

No creationist so far has been able to provide an answer to these questions, yet the flood IS geology according to ye-creationism.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Maybe you could help him out Joe. As a geo, what would you expect to see?



Off the top of my head, I might expect to find:


(a) at the onset - a SHORT list (which would be globally correlatable):

-- a color change from pre-flood seds to syn-flood seds;
-- massive erosional surfaces in the higher elevations (i.e., major uncomformities)
-- massive turbidite formations in the ocean due to increased sediment discharge from the continents
-- massive erosional surfaces (down to bare rock) in lower elevations consisting of, for example, huge basins, grooves, potholes, and channels;
-- massive re-deposition of the eroded material into bars, ripples, massive boulder and conglomeratic fields/bars, etc. - a good place to look for these massive deposits would be against mountain ranges or valley walls;
-- massive fossil beds containing ALL forms of subarial life, probably found in association with or within the redeposited material (i.e., with the boulders, trees (woody material), etc.);
-- massive deposits of less hardy sea life (e.g. plankton, diatoms, radiolaria, forams, etc.);
-- numerous massive canyons on the scale of the Grand Canyon (buried, of course, but should be visible);
-- massive sediment discharge at the mouths of rivers (i.e., HUGE, expansive deltas);
-- cities in the lower elevations would have been VIRTUALLY destroyed, while cities and towns in the higher elevations would likely survive in part;

(b) peak flood deposits (i.e., water at it's deepest) - a SHORT list (again GLOBALLY correlatable):

-- a relatively quiet and less-energetic period allowing deposition of finer sediments;
-- formation of current ripples;
-- hmmm... can't think of much more here - anyone else?

(c) post-flood deposits (depends on how fast the water receded - I'm assuming slow) - a SHORT list (GLOBALLY correlatable):

-- as the waters recede, erosion of onset and peak flood deposits;
-- possibly, evidence of wave erosion on the higher peaks and mountains (i.e., elevated beach deposits);
-- deposition of floating material (e.g., dead plants and animals, woody material, etc.) found as unconsolidated piles of debris - if found atop highest peaks would be most significant.


Evidence that should be easy to find:

-- major unconformities and color-change going from pre-flood to syn-flood deposits;
-- every single inch of the planet would have been covered/buried by several hundred/thousand(???) feet of finer and finer sediment, and this includes cities and towns - should be EASY to find;
-- major erosion and unconformities of the peak-flood, fine-grained sediments;


-- and my personal dream find, HUGE HUGE HUGE placer gold and platinum (among other minerals) deposits - WOOOEY, now THAT would be truly inspiring for the Creationist geologist!



Has any Creationist been able to identify one of these?

Obviously, this is a very minor GEOLOGIC list of what I might expect to find as a result of a Noachian-type flood, but can Creationists understand the dilemma?

And just think, biologists, ecologists, paleontologists, archeologists, anthropologists, chemists, and all the other various scientists would all have their own laundry list of expectations.

None of which Creationists have ever tackled, incidentally.

[Socratism]

Observational science frequently is able to define patterns and features and develop relationships after viewing many examples of physical occurrances.

The problem of determining what would happen as a result of a global is twofold:

[1] nobody living has ever seen such a thing in operation, and

[2] effects we see today operating on a global basis generally have wide variations due to different conditions in different parts of the globe.

It seems to me in such a situation it might be wise to give some amount of credence to documents which claim to have been from eyewitnesses to the event.

[QED]

Socratism,

We didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday. It isn't that difficult to put your finger on at least one or two unavoidable consequences of a global flood, but throw into the mix the phenomena that creationists attribute to a global flood - the existence of sedimentary layers world-wide & the existence of most fossil life - and the list of expectations grows dramatically.

For instance, fossil life forms should be sorted in the geological column either hydrologically or not at all. For instance, those sedimentary layers should not leave evaporitic deposits except on their youngest surfaces.

This isn't rocket science. When the data goes against your model, you are supposed to bite the bullet and admit it. That's what students of "your beloved science" do.

[Joe Meert]

The problem of determining what would happen as a result of a global is twofold:



JM: Equivocation, exactly the response of most creationists when these questions are posed. The other response is to make extremely vague correlations ala Tas Walker (http://www.uq.net.au/~zztbwalk/detail.html) or Bernard Northrup (http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/northrup.htm). At least Kurt Wise comes closest to defining one of these answers, but note there is not absolute agreement even on this:


To my knowledge, virtually all creation geologists accept the entire
Cenozoic as post-Flood. The real debate among us is whether the Mesozoic
should also be seen as post-Flood."~Speaking To the Earth," An Interview with
Steven Austin and Kurt Wise," Bible-Science News, 33:5 July, 1995

I asked Kurt this question at GSA last fall and his answer was similar. The fact is that creation scientists can't answer these simple questions. Barry Setterfield, for example (http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/set.htm) claims the Noachian flood is entirely Precambrian.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Socratism]

QED


For instance, fossil life forms should be sorted in the geological column either hydrologically or not at all.

Why is that?


For instance, those sedimentary layers should not leave evaporitic deposits except on their youngest surfaces.

Why?


This isn't rocket science.

I agree. Rocket science can be tested.


When the data goes against your model, you are supposed to bite the bullet and admit it. That's what students of "your beloved science" do.

You should go into comedy. .:rofl:
-----

Joe seems to think that if creationists disagree or if he shows that they err on something that this proves the Flood never happened.

Go figure

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 01:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116165#post116165)
QED:
This isn't rocket science. When the data goes against your model, you are supposed to bite the bullet and admit it. That's what students of "your beloved science" do. To toss another wrench in the cogs, if the sedimentary rocks were formed during the flood, we should expect to see increasing weathering as you go up the rock column, ie the closer to the ground surface, the more weathered the rock. But as I noted with the Bedford Shale in Garfield Heights, Ohio, is highly weathered and in parts it is so weathered it is actually residual soil. This shale is located conveniently beneath 40+ feet of slightly weathered to unweathered sandstones and shales. This just shouldn't be physically possible in a flood model when stratas wouldn't even have enough time to barely weathered nevermind to become residual soil.

[Socratism]

Today @ 03:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116334#post116334)
Jimmy Higgins:

To toss another wrench in the cogs, if the sedimentary rocks were formed during the flood, we should expect to see increasing weathering as you go up the rock column, ie the closer to the ground surface, the more weathered the rock.

Why is that?


But as I noted with the Bedford Shale in Garfield Heights, Ohio, is highly weathered and in parts it is so weathered it is actually residual soil. This shale is located conveniently beneath 40+ feet of slightly weathered to unweathered sandstones and shales. This just shouldn't be physically possible in a flood model when stratas wouldn't even have enough time to barely weathered nevermind to become residual soil.

Why is that? Are you assuming this "weathering" always occurs at a constant rate?

[rach12]

Socratism,

Jimmy is speaking about unconformities and paleosols. Seeing as you are such an expert on geological matters (uh huh) - please explain their existence in detail.

Also, I see you ignored(?) my post on possible evidence you should have to support the flood. No comments?

[Joe Meert]

Joe seems to think that if creationists disagree or if he shows that they err on something that this proves the Flood never happened.


JM: Change the subject, huh? My point is not that they disagree it's that they can't point out any part of the flood geology on a consistent basis. I've asked 3 simple questions, where is the geologic evidence the flood started? Where is the geologic evidence showing peak flood conditions? and where is the geologic evidence that marks the end of the flood? Interestingly, the one that they most agree on is what represents post-flood deposits. Calling them 'post-flood' does not prove that there was a flood only that that particular sequence of rocks are not flood related! My argument is that (a) creationists can't show the evidence for the flood and (b) conventional geology has shown clearly anti-evidence for the flood, then the most logical conclusion is that the flood never happened. Incidentally, creationists of the 18th and 19th centuries also reached a similar conclusion. So, how about some answers or are you going to dodge the question again by arguing some tangent? I noticed how quickly you dropped the pretense of being an expert on the subject you made earlier in the thread. If you want to change the subject, perhaps you can list some of the models you've run that show that the flood violates no known physical laws?


Cheers

Joe Meert

[QED]

Today @ 08:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116333#post116333)
Socratism:

Why is that?

Re-read my original post. Because they were deposited by a worldwide flood.


Why?

Re-read my original post. Because they were deposited by a worldwide flood.


I agree. Rocket science can be tested.

So could the flood model, if you would allow it the predictions that follow from the event, based on well understood models of fluid dynamics, sedimentation, etc...

I say it isn't rocket science, because you don't need to be a genius to look at the available data and see that a recent global flood is falsified by every single prediction it makes.


You should go into comedy. .:rofl:
-----

I wish Seinfeld would quit equating his stand-up routine with my beloved comedy. Now back to an alphabetical listing of the contents of my pantry shelves. This should be very funny to all of you who have not been brain-washed by the Seinfeldians.


Joe seems to think that if creationists disagree or if he shows that they err on something that this proves the Flood never happened.

Really? I just thought he was pointing out how creationists do not have a flood model that they can agree on even in the broad strokes. Mainly because different creationists are trying to force-fit the model to a different set of data that is troublesome for them.


Go figure

Indeed.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 03:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116349#post116349)
Socratism:
Why is that? Are you assuming this "weathering" always occurs at a constant rate? Are you suggesting that while the sedimentary rock column that was being formed during the Flood, also was being weathered at the same time?

[Socratism]

Today @ 04:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116468#post116468)
Jimmy Higgins:

Are you suggesting that while the sedimentary rock column that was being formed during the Flood, also was being weathered at the same time?

Are you assuming that the entire sedimentary column was generated in the Flood?

[xixax]

The fossil record would be rather interesting as a result of the global flood also. You would have a sudden break in the fauna, where certain areas would remain dormant for many years with no new fossils of any kind ( most animals can't migrate from the Middle East to the tip of South America over night ). However, where the ark landed, you should see a constant stream of fossils, first from the flood, and then from the animals that followed closely after having just left the ark.

No evidence of this either... no vast concentric circles of newer and newer organisms as they evolve and spread away from the ark.

There is at least -one- shred of evidence for a world wide flood other than a story in the bible isn't there? If anyone should have it, wouldn't they be able to post it here?

[Socratism]

Most animal remains don't seem to fossilize that well. It seems to take unusual conditions for them to accumulate in large numbers in one place. There isn't much evidence left of the great herds of bison that once roamed the Great Plains, nor of the passenger pigeons that once filled the skies either I don't believe.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 05:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116538#post116538)
Socratism:
Are you assuming that the entire sedimentary column was generated in the Flood? So you are claiming that the Sunbury Shale and Berea Sandstone, the sedimentary rock on top of the Bedford Shale, was formed after the Flood?

[Socratism]

Today @ 08:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116773#post116773)
Jimmy Higgins:

So you are claiming that the Sunbury Shale and Berea Sandstone, the sedimentary rock on top of the Bedford Shale, was formed after the Flood?

I'm not assuming anything except that the Flood account is probably what happened.

I'm just trying to understand what you are assuming (other than that the Flood account isn't what happened).

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yesterday @ 10:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116818#post116818)
Socratism:
I'm not assuming anything except that the Flood account is probably what happened.

I'm just trying to understand what you are assuming (other than that the Flood account isn't what happened). What I'm assuming? I'm assuming is that underlying bedrock shouldn't be more weathered than overlying bedrock unless that rock has had exposure at some point in time.

So now, do you care to explain why there is soil underneath 40+ feet of solid bedrock in Garfield Heights, Ohio?

[Socratism]

Today @ 08:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117114#post117114)
Jimmy Higgins:

What I'm assuming? I'm assuming is that underlying bedrock shouldn't be more weathered than overlying bedrock unless that rock has had exposure at some point in time.

So now, do you care to explain why there is soil underneath 40+ feet of solid bedrock in Garfield Heights, Ohio?

One thing is certain. It didn't happen slowly.

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 08:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117131#post117131)
Socratism:



One thing is certain. It didn't happen slowly.


JM: Stated without backing data. Care to try a more reasoned argument? What about answering some of the other questions posed in this thread. Your constant evasion is becoming comical.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Socratism]

Today @ 08:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117135#post117135)
Joe Meert:




JM: Stated without backing data. Care to try a more reasoned argument? What about answering some of the other questions posed in this thread. Your constant evasion is becoming comical.

Cheers

Joe Meert

What is comical is that geologists think they know how ancient things got the way they are by just looking at them and making up stories.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 08:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117131#post117131)
Socratism:
One thing is certain. It didn't happen slowly. So when was the Bedford Shale exposed, and when did the Sunbury Shale and Berea Sandstone get laid down?

[Socratism]

Today @ 09:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117151#post117151)
Jimmy Higgins:

So when was the Bedford Shale exposed, and when did the Sunbury Shale and Berea Sandstone get laid down?

You ask such simple questions.

Not being like God (as some people here must think they are), I can only give you a rough estimate:

"Sometime in the last 6000 years".

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117161#post117161)
Socratism:
You ask such simple questions.

Not being like God (as some people here must think they are), I can only give you a rough estimate:

"Sometime in the last 6000 years". You say that you know the Flood happened, but you have no scientific evidence as such. Will you admit that much?

[Socratism]

Today @ 09:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117162#post117162)
Jimmy Higgins:

You say that you know the Flood happened, but you have no scientific evidence as such. Will you admit that much?

A reliable eyewitness trumps an educated guess any day of the week.

I would imagine it would be a tad more difficult to reconstruct the lastest NASA disaster without those live pictures and telemetry data.

[Roy]

Today @ 01:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117139#post117139)
Socratism:



What is comical is that geologists think they know how ancient things got the way they are by just looking at them and making up stories.

As opposed to making up stories without looking at them?

Roy

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117165#post117165)
Socratism:
A reliable eyewitness trumps an educated guess any day of the week.So you admit that there is no evidence of the Flood other than the depiction of it in Genesis?

[Socratism]

Today @ 09:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117166#post117166)
rthearle:



As opposed to making up stories without looking at them?

Roy

You haven't seen me trying to compete with the geology story tellers here have you?

One of my many varied assignments in the past was in the area of reconstructing test failures of complicated systems.

From experiences like that one gets a feel for what science can do reliably and what it can not do reliably and perhaps the degree thereof.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just to get this straight, you can only find evidence of the Flood in Genesis. You can't refer to any geologic evidence of the Flood. Right?

[Roy]

Today @ 02:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117173#post117173)
Socratism:



You haven't seen me trying to compete with the geology story tellers here have you?

You did say:



I'm not assuming anything except that the Flood account is probably what happened.

[rach12]

I'd say it's pretty obvious Socratism knows nothing about geology OR the alleged Noachian flood.

[Socratism]

Today @ 11:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117259#post117259)
rach12:

I'd say it's pretty obvious Socratism knows nothing about geology OR the alleged Noachian flood.

Perhaps, but no one here has yet proven that the Flood did not happen as described in Genesis.

In addition to that eyewitness account we have all the other hundreds of flood stories found throughout the globe.

Myths sometimes have a basis in fact, as I am sure all of you here already know.

Since there is no indisputable evidence that a global flood could not result in what we see today in the geological record, I prefer to believe that the account in Genesis is essentially how much of the geological record got here.

It certainly is a better explanation than the imaginary "inland sea" stuff.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 11:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117296#post117296)
Socratism:
Perhaps, but no one here has yet proven that the Flood did not happen as described in Genesis.

In addition to that eyewitness account we have all the other hundreds of flood stories found throughout the globe.

Myths sometimes have a basis in fact, as I am sure all of you here already know.

Since there is no indisputable evidence that a global flood could not result in what we see today in the geological record, I prefer to believe that the account in Genesis is essentially how much of the geological record got here.

It certainly is a better explanation than the imaginary "inland sea" stuff.
So what you just said Socratism is, "I have no geologic proof that the global flood ever happened." Thanks for being so honest.

[Roy]

Today @ 04:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117296#post117296)
Socratism:
Since there is no indisputable evidence that a global flood could not result in what we see today in the geological record, I prefer to believe that the account in Genesis is essentially how much of the geological record got here.


The geological record contains
- raindrop markings
- salt pans
- footprints and tracks
- burrows
- desert wind-dunes
- nests containing hatched eggshells
- meandering riverbeds
- coral reefs
- coprolites
- unconformities
- attached molluscs
- soils
- root systems
- glacial deposits
- insects in amber
and many other wierd and wonderful things.

How could any of the above have been deposited during a global flood?

[Joe Meert]

In addition to that eyewitness account we have all the other hundreds of flood stories found throughout the globe.

Myths sometimes have a basis in fact, as I am sure all of you here already know.



JM: Any physical evidence to support the eyewitness account? I take it from the latter statement that you give some credence to the existence of many gods (since myths sometimes have basis in fact) and there are fairies, gnomes and elves (all of which are myths). Incidentally, each of these myths has as much physical evidence as you do for the flood. Earlier you claimed to have some models supporting your account, where are they? What did they show?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Socratism]

Today @ 12:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117319#post117319)
Joe Meert:




JM: Any physical evidence to support the eyewitness account? I take it from the latter statement that you give some credence to the existence of many gods (since myths sometimes have basis in fact) and there are fairies, gnomes and elves (all of which are myths). Incidentally, each of these myths has as much physical evidence as you do for the flood. Earlier you claimed to have some models supporting your account, where are they? What did they show?

Cheers

Joe Meert

First off I don't recall mentioning I had a "model" of the Flood. You might jog my memory here.

However, I did probably mention that I was trained in something called Operations Research in which one tends to look at problems from an overall viewpoint. Thus, I see a global flood as a sufficient cause to generate sedimentary layers that can be traced across a worldwide extent.

I don't see much like that happening on a global scale today. It seems to me that there is little happening today that would generate extensive layers that future generations would be able to trace on a worldwide basis.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 12:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117338#post117338)
Socratism:
Thus, I see a global flood as a sufficient cause to generate sedimentary layers that can be traced across a worldwide extent. I don't see much like that happening on a global scale today.The Great Lakes, Mediterranean (sp) Sea, Black Sea, etc...

It seems to me that there is little happening today that would generate extensive layers that future generations would be able to trace on a worldwide basis. Are you saying that individual sedimentary rock layers can be mapped across the globe? What about places like Ontario where ignenous (sp) rock is at the surface, not overlain by sedimentary rock. And still doesn't answer the issue of the remnants of coral in Alberta and Ontario. Canada isn't tropical you know.

[rach12]

Today @ 10:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117338#post117338)
Socratism:


However, I did probably mention that I was trained in something called Operations Research in which one tends to look at problems from an overall viewpoint. Thus, I see a global flood as a sufficient cause to generate sedimentary layers that can be traced across a worldwide extent.
:huh:And Operations Research qualifies you in what, specifically? Intrepreting and/or judging the veracity of geologic evidence?

And since you mentioned it, maybe you could point to or name at least ONE stratigraphic layer that has been "traced across a worldwide extent" and that can (even remotely) be ascribed to flood-related deposition.

I keep hearing about all this evidence you have, but so far have seen absolutely nothing. Quite telling, I must say.

[Socratism]

Today @ 12:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117379#post117379)
rach12:


:huh:And Operations Research qualifies you in what, specifically? Intrepreting and/or judging the veracity of geologic evidence?

And since you mentioned it, maybe you could point to or name at least ONE stratigraphic layer that has been "traced across a worldwide extent" and that can (even remotely) be ascribed to flood-related deposition.

I keep hearing about all this evidence you have, but so far have seen absolutely nothing. Quite telling, I must say.

You apparently never heard of Operations Research. You should read about the accomplishments achieved during WWII.

Operations Research is the study of large scale systems and problems using the full range of scientific skills and techniques. The emphasis in most cases is on the interrelationships between the many different kinds of elements that compose a large scale system or problem, rather than on the details of the elements themselves.

As far as evidence is concerned, any concept concerning a worldwide flood would have to encompass all evidence that is known, just as any other scientific concept would have to do.

So far, from the broad perspective I tend to favor, the slow accumulation of sediments concept seems to have obvious difficulties, which has caused me at this preliminary point to be willing to consider that a global flood might be a better solution, at least for the points I consider initially important from a broad point of view.

[Joe Meert]

You apparently never heard of Operations Research. You should read about the accomplishments achieved during WWII.

JM: Point me to the reports where OR dealt specifically with geologic evidence for a global flood.


Operations Research is the study of large scale systems and problems using the full range of scientific skills and techniques. The emphasis in most cases is on the interrelationships between the many different kinds of elements that compose a large scale system or problem, rather than on the details of the elements themselves.

JM: They studied the global flood?


As far as evidence is concerned, any concept concerning a worldwide flood would have to encompass all evidence that is known, just as any other scientific concept would have to do.

JM: Which it does not, cannot and has not. You're just stalling here hoping that if you repeat the mantra often enough, you might actually make a point. You have no evidence for such an event, geology has counter-evidence against the event and yet you cling to fairies, gnomes and global flood myths in the hopes that commonality means they are true.


So far, from the broad perspective I tend to favor, the slow accumulation of sediments concept seems to have obvious difficulties

JM: Such as? Or are you just stalling again. What are the 'obvious difficulties'. Who says thata ALL sediments are accumulated slowly. Have you thought about the amount of sediment being deposited at the mouth of the Mississippi? The bay of Bengal? Give me evidence or admit you believe the flood regardless of evidence.



, which has caused me at this preliminary point to be willing to consider that a global flood might be a better solution, at least for the points I consider initially important from a broad point of view.

JM: Except you consistently refuse to offer any evidence to support your 'consideration'.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Socratism]

Frankly Joe, your attitude and approach is rather typical of the practitioners of fields where OR has had the greatest success.

It is called the "not invented here" syndrome.

Usually what happens is that the top leaders are dissatisfied with the results in a particular large scale problem, so they call in scientists trained in OR to analyze the problem or system using large scale system techniques.

These "outsider" efforts are strongly resisted by the "experts" in the particular field or system and they offer ready answers why they have already looked at the problem and why some new way of looking at it will never work. Examples of this abound in the areas of both military and business.

I have never seen OR applied to geology, but from my past experience it would be a fertile ground for the technique to be applied. However, it would be a significant undertaking and without top leader support would never be able to overcome the obvious resistance that inevitably comes from the lower ranks.

Your reaction is of course quite typical.

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 01:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117432#post117432)
Socratism:

Frankly Joe, your attitude and approach is rather typical of the practitioners of fields where OR has had the greatest success.


Soc: Evidence, evidence evidence....you try to make up for the lack of evidence by sidestepping the questions asking you for said evidence! Do you have ANY data to support your claim, or is your hope that endless obfuscation and avoidance will convince someone that you're right? How often did OR apply the myths of global floods, fairies, gnomes and trolls to military operations?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Jimmy Higgins]

Socratism, all we are looking for you to say is that the only reason you believe in the Flood is because the Bible says so and that you know you have no supporting geologic evidence to back it up.

[Socratism]

Today @ 02:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117446#post117446)
Joe Meert:



Soc: Evidence, evidence evidence....you try to make up for the lack of evidence by sidestepping the questions asking you for said evidence! Do you have ANY data to support your claim, or is your hope that endless obfuscation and avoidance will convince someone that you're right? How often did OR apply the myths of global floods, fairies, gnomes and trolls to military operations?

Cheers

Joe Meert

Really, Joe. Your latest posting referring to gnomes and fairies is rather pathetic.

[James]

Today @ 11:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117296#post117296)
Socratism:

Perhaps, but no one here has yet proven that the Flood did not happen as described in Genesis.

Correct, it has been falsified due to the existence of evidence that it cannot explain, such as the list provided by rach12.


In addition to that eyewitness account we have all the other hundreds of flood stories found throughout the globe.

Myths sometimes have a basis in fact, as I am sure all of you here already know.

Perhaps that fact that these myths are based on is that all cultures with flood stories live in areas that experience local floods?

I know of a Native American story that explains the existence of today's mosquitos. It says that all the small mosquitos that are observed today came from one giant mosquito a long time ago that no one living today has ever seen. The "fact" that this myth is based on is that small mosquitos exist.

[Joe Meert]

Really, Joe. Your latest posting referring to gnomes and fairies is rather pathetic.

JM: Dodging the question? You are the one who claimed that myths sometimes have truth behind them. So, where do you draw the line in the myths that might be true and those that are false? In the absence of physical evidence, you must consider fairies, gnomes, multiple gods and trolls on equal footing with a global flood. So, are you going to produce the evidence or are you going to incessantly obfuscate and equivocate on the global flood?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[rach12]

Today @ 11:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117405#post117405)
Socratism:

You apparently never heard of Operations Research. You should read about the accomplishments achieved during WWII.

Operations Research is the study of large scale systems and problems using the full range of scientific skills and techniques. The emphasis in most cases is on the interrelationships between the many different kinds of elements that compose a large scale system or problem, rather than on the details of the elements themselves.
You know Socratism, your description of Operations Research sounds a whole lot like what I, and most geologists, do for a living. In my case, economic, exploration, and research geology (at the industrial level, not academic).

I don't just look at the rocks and hope they'll spill the beans and show me exactly where the gold is. I have to incorporate dozens of analyses, skills, analytical techniques, and types of data to solve the problem of finding ore deposits, such as considering the implications of plate tectonics, chemistry, geochemistry, geophysics, biology, plate tectonics, local structural features, stratigraphy/sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology, metamorphism, magmatism, isotopic work, age dating, etc. etc. etc. Add all this with petrographic, microprobe, isotopic, etc. analyses, as well as mapping, sampling, and modeling.

So, Socratism, I'd have to say Operations Research is, and always has been, an intrinsic component of geological studies.

Sometimes it's called interdisciplinary research.

[Socratism]

Today @ 03:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117562#post117562)
Joe Meert:



JM: Dodging the question? You are the one who claimed that myths sometimes have truth behind them. So, where do you draw the line in the myths that might be true and those that are false? In the absence of physical evidence, you must consider fairies, gnomes, multiple gods and trolls on equal footing with a global flood

I draw the line to a great extent at stories (myths) not supported by scripture, although there are a few exceptions to that general rule, e.g. Troy.

Some fabulous myths might still contain a tiny kernel of a basis in fact, but it would be hard trying to extract it out of stories of gnomes and fairies I would judge.

In the case of the Flood, our main topic here, the account has in the many details of timing involved the flavor of a ship's log rather than a "myth". It would be natural to preserve such an important document.

Part of some believer's problem with the Flood story is that they have previously heard the idea that Moses wrote Genesis as it was dictated to him by God or else the ridiculous alternative that they were passed along around the campfire.

A far better idea is that Moses edited stories preserved on the Ark by eyewitnesses to the events described.

http://www.ldolphin.org/tablethy.html

[Joe Meert]

I draw the line to a great extent at stories (myths) not supported by scripture, although there are a few exceptions to that general rule, e.g. Troy.


JM: Moving the goalposts without supporting evidence? You've yet to show that all parts of scripture are 100% correct. So, you've just added another layer of unsupported assertion on top of a lack of evidence for the global flood. Keep digging, eventually the flood will get buried in a pile of unsupported and unsupportable assumptions combined with a complete lack of physical evidence. Talk about rapid sedimentation!!

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Socratism]

Today @ 03:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=117590#post117590)
rach12:


You know Socratism, your description of Operations Research sounds a whole lot like what I, and most geologists, do for a living. In my case, economic, exploration, and research geology (at the industrial level, not academic).

I don't just look at the rocks and hope they'll spill the beans and show me exactly where the gold is. I have to incorporate dozens of analyses, skills, analytical techniques, and types of data to solve the problem of finding ore deposits, such as considering the implications of plate tectonics, chemistry, geochemistry, geophysics, biology, plate tectonics, local structural features, stratigraphy/sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology, metamorphism, magmatism, isotopic work, age dating, etc. etc. etc. Add all this with petrographic, microprobe, isotopic, etc. analyses, as well as mapping, sampling, and modeling.

So, Socratism, I'd have to say Operations Research is, and always has been, an intrinsic component of geological studies.

Sometimes it's called interdisciplinary research.

You may be right.

However, my reading of the geology books I own and well as a survey of the literature in the field has not surfaced too many instances of the kind of overall wordwide analysis that I would expect from the OR approach.

For example, if I were to undertake an OR study of worldwide geological formations and their fossils contents I would start by compiling a structured data base of the three dimensional characteristics of the layers, their composition and their fossil contents.

Does such a data base exist today within the geological community, and if it does how can one gain access to it?

[Joe Meert]

You may be right.

JM: He is. In fact, geology is probably the best science at integrating a wide variety of information. A good geologist has a strong background in math, physics, chemistry and biology in addition to geology.


However, my reading of the geology books I own and well as a survey of the literature in the field has not surfaced too many instances of the kind of overall wordwide analysis that I would expect from the OR approach.

JM: Then I suggest that you've not been reading very much or else you are comprehending very little.


For example, if I were to undertake an OR study of worldwide geological formations and their fossils contents I would start by compiling a structured data base of the three dimensional characteristics of the layers, their composition and their fossil contents.

JM: Oil companies rely heavily on such databases.


Does such a data base exist today within the geological community, and if it does how can one gain access to it?

JM: There are a host of databases and the list is growing. You might try doing a search for publicly accessible databases. However, all of these questions still are nothing more than an avoidance of the questions posed to you. Where is the physical evidence for the global flood?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Socratism]

Actually I have already looked at the overall worldwide situation.

I was just teasing you.

People like you "can't see the forest for all the trees".

[Jimmy Higgins]

Socratism, you provided nothing. You have shown nothing. You have said nothing. Your evidence for the Global Flood seems to be up their with Wyatt's evidence of the ark of the covanent, ie nothing. All you are doing is grandstanding.

Now why don't you show us some actual science that would provide evidence to your myth? If not, then stop bothering to post. You would only be wasting your time.

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Today @ 10:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118370#post118370)
Socratism:
People like you "can't see the forest for all the trees".

Actually, it's the flood deposits we can't see. Apparently, you can't either or you would point them out.

Now, on to another question you dodged. It is from another thread, but I would like an answer from anyone named Socrat*.* or any other Creationist. You, Socratism, said the Cambrian layer is from the global flood. So I asked you to elaborate:


How exactly did this Cambrian layer, global in nature, occur during the flood? Was it via sediments from the continents burying ocean bottoms? If so, then why are the only representatives of the Cambrian very primitive, extinct species? If not, please explain how the Cambrian fossils were preserved. The thing is, Creationism can seem to have merit if one does not look too closely. Let’s look closely and see how quickly your story falls apart.

If you don't have a clue, it is OK to admit you don't have a clue.

FK

[DunnySaze]

Today @ 04:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118370#post118370)
Socratism:

Actually I have already looked at the overall worldwide situation.

I was just teasing you.

People like you "can't see the forest for all the trees".

You have?

Really, the whole world-wide geological system? That's pretty impressive.

Perhaps you can answer any or all of the following, re: The Flood and geology.

1. Why do varve thickness in the Green River formation fall into cycles consistent with regular long-term astronomic and weather cycles?

2. Did both the layering of Grand Canyon sediments and it's carving from those sediments occur during the Flood? How can the oldest rocks in the canyon, the Vishnu Schists, be the pre-Flood basement rock as some creationists say, when they are metamorphic?

3. How do you explain evidence for multiple large-scale glaciation events?

4. How can volcanic plutons form and cool during the brief few-thousand years since creation?

5. How do you explain the formation of paleosols?

6. How did evaporite deposits (e.g. salt, gypsum) form during a world-wide Flood? Or did they form before, or after the Flood?

That's enough questions for now.

[Socratism]

The main observation from an overall global viewpoint is that most of the Earth is not covered by "the geological column" but instead has only fragmentary evidence of the geological layers.

This was not recognized when the "geological column" was first proposed in a simplistic manner.

Another observation is that the layers and their age is obviously an artificial construct. One can see this by observing that many layers have the same age persistence.

The number of assumptions used to explain all this is amazingly high, and indicates that the entire scheme is built on pretty poor foundations.

All of the up and down movements necessary to explain the evidence reminds me of an elevator run by someone unable to make up his mind.

It is a tribute to the intellectual egotism of human beings as well as the pressure of "expert authority" that intelligent people can actually believe passionately in such baloney.

Perhaps the reason they don't tumble to the stupidity of the scheme is because they have never viewed the whole thing on an overall basis as I have.

In other words they can't see the forest for the trees.

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 05:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118776#post118776)
Socratism:

The main observation from an overall global viewpoint is that most of the Earth is not covered by "the geological column" but instead has only fragmentary evidence of the geological layers.

JM: Round and round we go, but no evidence to support your claim is found. In point of fact, the complete geologic column would be expected in your world view since all rocks were deposited in such a short amount of time!!


This was not recognized when the "geological column" was first proposed in a simplistic manner.

JM: Your post belies your ignorance on the topic of the geologic column.


Another observation is that the layers and their age is obviously an artificial construct. One can see this by observing that many layers have the same age persistence.

JM: Statement of fact unsupported by actual data. Please offer support for this baseless assertion.


The number of assumptions used to explain all this is amazingly high, and indicates that the entire scheme is built on pretty poor foundations.

JM: Are you sure? What are the assumptions? Where is your evidence for a global flood. You've carefully avoided all the questions asked of you regarding the evidence for the flood. Sooner or later, even the densest of lurkers is going to realize you're dodging the question.


All of the up and down movements necessary to explain the evidence reminds me of an elevator run by someone unable to make up his mind.

JM: Cute, but care to support this with actual data?


It is a tribute to the intellectual egotism of human beings as well as the pressure of "expert authority" that intelligent people can actually believe passionately in such baloney.

JM: Baseless, unsupported assertion.


Perhaps the reason they don't tumble to the stupidity of the scheme is because they have never viewed the whole thing on an overall basis as I have.

In other words they can't see the forest for the trees.


JM: Follow a baseless assertion with an ad-hom and the world can be yours!

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Socratism]

Today @ 11:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119036#post119036)
Joe Meert:
JM: Round and round we go, but no evidence to support your claim is found. In point of fact, the complete geologic column would be expected in your world view since all rocks were deposited in such a short amount of time!!

So Joe is now an expert on what a global flood would do. But wait, nobody he knows believes in such a thing so where in the peer reviewed literature will he go for his support?


JM: Your post belies your ignorance on the topic of the geologic column.JM: Statement of fact unsupported by actual data. Please offer support for this baseless assertion.

You first. Please post your peer reviewed references supporting your assertion of what a global flood would do.


JM: Are you sure? What are the assumptions? Where is your evidence for a global flood. You've carefully avoided all the questions asked of you regarding the evidence for the flood. Sooner or later, even the densest of lurkers is going to realize you're dodging the question.

But Joe. You make assertions for what a global flood would do and also give no support. Isn't that a double standard?


JM: Cute, but care to support this with actual data?

You first regarding what a global flood would do.


JM: Baseless, unsupported assertion.

You mean like your assertions about what a global flood would do? :rofl:


JM: Follow a baseless assertion with an ad-hom and the world can be yours!

You should know.

[Joe Meert]

So Joe is now an expert on what a global flood would do. But wait, nobody he knows believes in such a thing so where in the peer reviewed literature will he go for his support?

JM: I am familiar with the geologic record. You made the claim that it supports a global flood. I am merely asking you for the evidence. You've succeeded in stretching out your answer for well over 2 weeks, but are strangely silent when asked for key evidence.



You first. Please post your peer reviewed references supporting your assertion of what a global flood would do.

JM: Clever ruse, but it is you who have asserted that a global flood took place. 200+ years of published literature by young earth creationists, creationists, Christians and Muslims argue against your position. While it is perfectly valid debate tactic to change the subject, I was never one to assert that the geologic record argues for a flood, you were. Are you now tired of avoiding the issue?




But Joe. You make assertions for what a global flood would do and also give no support. Isn't that a double standard?

JM: Not at all. It is you trying to overturn the paradigm stating that the global flood happened. So, I merely ask you to tell me three very simple things. What geologic units mark the onset, peak and post flood rocks? Turning the question around is merely an attempt by you to avoid these questions. Remember, it was young earth creationists who disproved the global flood. Have you evidence to support your assertion that it did? Or are you going to continue endless obfuscation in the hopes that one day we let you off the hook?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[rach12]

Socratism,

Please! Let's move on from all these inane comments.

Neither Joe nor any other geologist on the planet needs to have actually witnessed 'The Flood' in order to know what would happen or what the rocks would look like. Geologists are trained to interpret the rocks. We can read the freakin' things like a book most times. And a flood of global proportions would be like reading Dr. Seuss, for crying out loud. Just because you cannot, in all your infinite wisdom (or lack thereof :teeth:), possibly conceive of such a skill, does not mean it is not possible. Sheesh!

Did you happen to look at either one of the posts that noted some of the things you might see in the event of a flood? If you are so confident in your rock-reading skills, why haven't you bothered to propose some of your own ideas/theories? Why? Because you have no clue what to look for or what you would expect. All you know is that anyone who doesn't believe in 'The Flood' HAS to be wrong. You are not doing yourself OR your cause any good right now.

Come on now, if you don't really have anything in the way of proof for your flood, it's okay to say so. Believe me, we already know. If you want to say, "hey, I don't need evidence, I have faith!" Then go right ahead, we already know that, too. And heck, I can respect that!

[Socratism]

Today @ 12:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119061#post119061)
rach12:

[quote]Neither Joe nor any other geologist on the planet needs to have actually witnessed 'The Flood' in order to know what would happen or what the rocks would look like.

Is this attitude egotistical or just plain stupid? :shrug:


Geologists are trained to interpret the rocks.

Indoctrinated would be a better word.


We can read the freakin' things like a book most times.

You're reading the wrong book.


And a flood of global proportions would be like reading Dr. Seuss, for crying out loud.

Your egotism is only exceeded by your ignorance.


Did you happen to look at either one of the posts that noted some of the things you might see in the event of a flood?

Whoops, I thought I was reading Dr. Seuss. :rofl:


If you are so confident in your rock-reading skills, why haven't you bothered to propose some of your own ideas/theories? Why? Because you have no clue what to look for or what you would expect.

Nor does anyone who thinks they would know what to expect from a global flood that they don't believe in in the first place.


All you know is that anyone who doesn't believe in 'The Flood' HAS to be wrong.

Right. I have it on the best possible authority (both old and new testaments) that the global flood was a real event, as well as recognizing that the layers could not have gotten the way they are by uniformitarian fairy tales and "just so" stories.


You are not doing yourself OR your cause any good right now.

How would you know?


Come on now, if you don't really have anything in the way of proof for your flood, it's okay to say so.

The evidence is in the water deposited sedimentary layers. You are so spiritually blind you apparently can't see it. ("Hide in plain sight")


Believe me, we already know.

So now your opinion trumps scripture?


If you want to say, "hey, I don't need evidence, I have faith!" Then go right ahead, we already know that, too. And heck, I can respect that!

Why do I think you are not sincere in saying that?

The fact is that we have megatons of evidence right there in those layers. You are just so spiritually blind and so impressed with fanciful "just so" stories that you can't see the obvious.

[SLPx]

Today @ 01:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119214#post119214)
Socratism:



Is this attitude egotistical or just plain stupid? :shrug:

Accurate is a better word. Just plain stupid is how I would describe the act of repeatedly making matter of fact statements that are not, in fact, facts.




Indoctrinated would be a better word.
Indoctination is what happens in Sunday school and Back to Genesis seminars.




You're reading the wrong book.
It appears that you only read one book and pretend to be conversant in all others. But you don't fool too many people.
[quote]



Your egotism is only exceeded by your ignorance.

Pot kettle? More accurately, this is pure projection.




Whoops, I thought I was reading Dr. Seuss. :rofl:
Now you know how most all else feel when they read your posts.




Nor does anyone who thinks they would know what to expect from a global flood that they don't believe in in the first place.
Rubbish. This is one of the pitfalls of pontificating in an area that you have no knowledge in, which is basically all of science. Believe it or not, a trained geologist knows what floods can do and what to look for to see if one happened. That when rthey do this, they see no evidence for a cataclysmic world-wide flood within the last couple of thousand years is evidence not that they don't know what to look for, but that it did not happen. That and, of course, the fact that nobody else alive at the time is was supposed to have occurred seemed to notice it...




Right. I have it on the best possible authority (both old and new testaments) that the global flood was a real event, as well as recognizing that the layers could not have gotten the way they are by uniformitarian fairy tales and "just so" stories.
Relying on ancient mythology, much of which was borrowed form pre-exisitng religious myths, is hardly a legitimate way to examone the natural world.


The fact is that we have megatons of evidence right there in those layers. You are just so spiritually blind and so impressed with fanciful "just so" stories that you can't see the obvious.

Why don't you tell us about a few ounces of these megatons of evidence for a world-wide flood just a few thousand years ago.

I forgot - you can't actually support any of your claims, how silly of me to ask.

:hi:

[Socratism]

Believe it or not, a trained geologist knows what floods can do and what to look for to see if one happened. That when rthey do this, they see no evidence for a cataclysmic world-wide flood within the last couple of thousand years is evidence not that they don't know what to look for, but that it did not happen.

It is more likely it is because they didn't believe it happened in the first place. I doubt if they spend any time being trained in what to look for in a global flood. Like other observational sciences one goes by past experience. In this case nobody has any experience with a global flood so they must simply try to "scale up" what phenomena would be of major effect during such an event. Since I was trained in hydrological phenomena I can tell you that such a massive "scaleup" from river floods to a global flood would be tough to duplicate and validate in the laboratory (to say the least).


That and, of course, the fact that nobody else alive at the time is was supposed to have occurred seemed to notice it...

You seem to be totally oblivious to the non-Biblical sources for the historicity of a global watery catastrophe.

[DunnySaze]

Today @ 03:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119284#post119284)
Socratism:



It is more likely it is because they didn't believe it happened in the first place. I doubt if they spend any time being trained in what to look for in a global flood. Like other observational sciences one goes by past experience. In this case nobody has any experience with a global flood so they must simply try to "scale up" what phenomena would be of major effect during such an event. Since I was trained in hydrological phenomena I can tell you that such a massive "scaleup" from river floods to a global flood would be tough to duplicate and validate in the laboratory (to say the least).


But isn't a global flood still a flood? Shouldn't it leave evidence behind similar to local flooding, but of world-wide scope? You don't need to re-create a global flood in order to propose it happened, you only need to point to the physical evidence that it did. In this case, there is no physical evidence it did at all. None. Zero. Ziltch. A point you haven't provided an iota of fact to contend.


You seem to be totally oblivious to the non-Biblical sources for the historicity of a global watery catastrophe.

And you seem totally oblivious to the non-Biblical sources of global floods at different times, some that pre-date the Genesis account. What's your 'interpretation' of this? Were there multiple global floods?

[JasonK]

From a non materialists POV:

My paradigms for various beliefs and ways of thought have been generated by weighing both sides of the issue and coming to conclusions based on the evidence and my own presupossitions.
I do not see how one could convince you or I of a different way of perceiving the data at this stage. That change would need come from within. There have been theists that have changed their belief in creation just as there have been atheists who have changed their beliefs on evolution. I assume that in both cases it was do to evidence they viewed which caused a change within, but I would not be so bold as to say the evidence that convinces one of creation would necessarily make someone else believe creation. So your question is difficult to answer. What is it that makes us believe what we believe? Surroundings? Lifestyle? Culture? Why is it two people growing up in the same family, with the same influences can come to completely opposite conclsuions?

[rach12]

Why do I think you are not sincere in saying that?
No, in fact, I am VERY sincere in that.

[Socratism]

Today @ 11:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119308#post119308)
DunnySaze:
But isn't a global flood still a flood? Shouldn't it leave evidence behind similar to local flooding, but of world-wide scope?

A global flood lasting an entire year would be unlike anything ever experienced/recorded by all except the 8 survivors.


You don't need to re-create a global flood in order to propose it happened, you only need to point to the physical evidence that it did. In this case, there is no physical evidence it did at all. None. Zero. Ziltch. A point you haven't provided an iota of fact to contend.

The evidence is obviously that of the deposits admitted by all to have been laid down by water.


And you seem totally oblivious to the non-Biblical sources of global floods at different times, some that pre-date the Genesis account. What's your 'interpretation' of this? Were there multiple global floods?

My "interpretation" is that Moses wrote Genesis using accounts available to him written by eyewitnesses to the events, with those of the Flood and before having been preserved on the Ark.

http://www.ldolphin.org/tablethy.html

The other Flood accounts, some quite "mangled" but still recognizable, would have arisen in the years after the Flood, but all would of necessity have been ultimately based on the accounts relayed by one or more of the 8 survivors.

Check the excellent collection of flood stories available at talk.origins and compare these somewhat mangled accounts to the matter of fact like ( ship's log?) account in Genesis.

[rach12]

Today @ 10:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119337#post119337)
Socratism:


A global flood lasting an entire year would be unlike anything ever experienced/recorded by all except the 8 survivors.
Hmmm... how convenient. Except that your reasoning is completely bogus and unjustified. We've seen huge flood deposits - just check out the Missoula Lake floods (http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Glaciers/IceSheets/Waitt85GSA/abstract.html).




The evidence is obviously that of the deposits admitted by all to be laid down by water.
Which sediments are you speaking of, specifically? And how would you explain the Jurassic Navajo Sandstone (http://www.unl.edu/geosciences/dbl/NavajoTracks&BurrowsWeb/NavajoTracks&Burrows.html) with all sorts of trace fossils (e.g., dinosaur footprints)

How would you interpret this Formation?




My "interpretation" is that Moses wrote Genesis using accounts available to him written by eyewitnesses to the events, many of which were preserved on the Ark.
And we all know just how credible eye witnesses (http://www.psychologyandlaw.com/topics.htm#Eye%20Witnesses) are... :ahem:

[SLPx]

Today @ 03:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119284#post119284)
Socratism:
Believe it or not, a trained geologist knows what floods can do and what to look for to see if one happened. That when rthey do this, they see no evidence for a cataclysmic world-wide flood within the last couple of thousand years is evidence not that they don't know what to look for, but that it did not happen.

It is more likely it is because they didn't believe it happened in the first place.

Baseless assertion.


I doubt if they spend any time being trained in what to look for in a global flood.
Why would people be trained in mythology in the sciences? Of course, a flood is a flood, regardless of scope.


Like other observational sciences one goes by past experience. In this case nobody has any experience with a global flood so they must simply try to "scale up" what phenomena would be of major effect during such an event. Since I was trained in hydrological phenomena I can tell you that such a massive "scaleup" from river floods to a global flood would be tough to duplicate and validate in the laboratory (to say the least).

So you take the Flood on faith alone....

That and, of course, the fact that nobody else alive at the time is was supposed to have occurred seemed to notice it...

You seem to be totally oblivious to the non-Biblical sources for the historicity of a global watery catastrophe.

Apparently I am. Of course, since all major religions seem to have such tales - many that predate the bible - perhaps you are following the wrong religion?
Of ocurse, it makes much more sense when one realizes that early civilizations sprang up around bodies of water, for obvious reasons. Amazingly, bodies of water sometimes flood. And every now and then, the floods are quite catastrophic. Recall the big floods in the midwest several years ago. It comes as no surprise that 'flood myths' would come out of these experiences, especially when we consider the superstitious nature of such civilizations.

But again, evcen if a world wide flood did occur, the chronology is all wrong - again, there were fluorishing civilizations exisitng during the time that we are told via biblical literalist chronologies thi sflood was supposed to have happened. That alone should cause a rational person to abandon a literalist position.


So, is that mouse DNA reference forthcoming, or is it just more made up rhetoric?

[Socratism]

Today @ 12:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119360#post119360)
rach12:
Hmmm... how convenient. Except that your reasoning is completely bogus and unjustified. We've seen huge flood deposits - just check out the Missoula Lake floods (http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Glaciers/IceSheets/Waitt85GSA/abstract.html).

Gosh, I would have thought that it was just normal processes acting over hundreds of millions of years. Weren't you the one who said we can't trust eyewitnesses and yet you argue "We've seen huge flood deposits".


Which sediments are you speaking of, specifically? And how would you explain the Jurassic Navajo Sandstone (http://www.unl.edu/geosciences/dbl/NavajoTracks&BurrowsWeb/NavajoTracks&Burrows.html) with all sorts of trace fossils (e.g., dinosaur footprints)
How would you interpret this Formation?

I would argue "We've seen huge flood deposits".


And we all know just how credible eye witnesses (http://www.psychologyandlaw.com/topics.htm#Eye%20Witnesses) are... :ahem:

Right. That's why we can say, "We've seen huge flood deposits".

:rofl:

[Socratism]

Today @ 12:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119369#post119369)
SLPx:
Why would people be trained in mythology in the sciences?

I am glad you agree geologists know nothing about global floods.


Of course, a flood is a flood, regardless of scope.

Of course you know that because of your non-training in global floods. :rofl:


So you take the Flood on faith alone....

Nope. Unlike you I was trained in the analysis of large scale events.


Apparently I am. [oblivious] Of course, since all major religions seem to have such tales - many that predate the bible - perhaps you are following the wrong religion?

The tales obviosly did not predate the flood.


Of ocurse, it makes much more sense when one realizes that early civilizations sprang up around bodies of water, for obvious reasons. Amazingly, bodies of water sometimes flood. And every now and then, the floods are quite catastrophic. Recall the big floods in the midwest several years ago. It comes as no surprise that 'flood myths' would come out of these experiences, especially when we consider the superstitious nature of such civilizations.

If you want to believe that river floods last for an entire year and wipe out mankind there is not much I can do for such stupidity.


But again, evcen if a world wide flood did occur, the chronology is all wrong - again, there were fluorishing civilizations exisitng during the time that we are told via biblical literalist chronologies thi sflood was supposed to have happened. That alone should cause a rational person to abandon a literalist position.

Actually, more rational people are merely revising fallible human chronologies, something that always seems to happen when scripture collides with the current fads of humans.


So, is that mouse DNA reference forthcoming, or is it just more made up rhetoric?

Been there. Done that.

PM me, please, if you have a question on the edit ~Sher

[rach12]

How old are you, Socratism? Just wondering... for obvious reasons.

Unfortunately for you and your lame arguments, I have hard evidence - the rocks speak for themselves. Your *evidence,* on the other hand, is suspiciously silent.

And once again, how would you interpret the Jurassic Navajo Sandstone and all its trace fossils?

[DunnySaze]

Today @ 05:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119337#post119337)
Socratism:





A global flood lasting an entire year would be unlike anything ever experienced/recorded by all except the 8 survivors.

But it would still be a flood, would it not? Is that so hard to comprehend? It's supposed to be a real event with real evidence for its existence if I understand the YEC position. If there IS evidence for a world-wide flood, then why do you refuse to show what it is? So far all I’ve seen are excuses to the effect it would be unlike anything before or since. Yes, it would be a lot bigger. So shouldn’t there be a lot of evidence spread over a wide area?


The evidence is obviously that of the deposits admitted by all to have been laid down by water.

Surely you jest. Are you saying that any deposit lain down by water is Genesis flood deposit?? That can’t be right. Clearly you are completely out of your depth in geology and are relying exclusively on creationist sources for your 'facts'.


The other Flood accounts, some quite "mangled" but still recognizable, would have arisen in the years after the Flood, but all would of necessity have been ultimately based on the accounts relayed by one or more of the 8 survivors.

Check the excellent collection of flood stories available at talk.origins and compare these somewhat mangled accounts to the matter of fact like ( ship's log?) account in Genesis.

The flood account in the Epic of Gilgamesh is hardly ‘mangled’. It makes good sense even today. I note several similarities between this and the Genesis myth. Which came first is a matter for speculation. I do note however that the Moses version, if we grant Moses was the author and this is only a tradition held by some Christians, was written down maybe 1450’s or so B.C.E., and parts of the Mesopotamian version are dated to 2000 B.C.E. and language study indicates it’s a fair bit older still.

You can read the flood story of the Epic of Gilgamesh for yourself here:

http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/netcours/rs011/restrict/gilflood.htm

[Socratism]

Today @ 02:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119439#post119439)
DunnySaze:
But it would still be a flood, would it not? Is that so hard to comprehend? It's supposed to be a real event with real evidence for its existence if I understand the YEC position. If there IS evidence for a world-wide flood, then why do you refuse to show what it is?

I have posted what it is dozens of times. Let me try again.

I would expect that the Flood would result in trillions of dead things buried in extensive layers of water-laid sediment covering major portions of the world wide globe.


So far all I’ve seen are excuses to the effect it would be unlike anything before or since. Yes, it would be a lot bigger. So shouldn’t there be a lot of evidence spread over a wide area?

You apparently can't see the forest for all those dang trees that keep getting in the way.


Surely you jest. Are you saying that any deposit lain down by water is Genesis flood deposit??

Probably not all. However, as long as people are in deep denial about the flood they will never get down to work trying to sort out what is what and will continue with their stupid idea of slow deposition over hundreds of millions of years.


That can’t be right. Clearly you are completely out of your depth in geology and are relying exclusively on creationist sources for your 'facts'.

Wrong again. I have the usual geology texts and agree that creationists are just as guilty as evolutionists in thinking that one can work out logically how all the layers got to be the way they are. Heck, people can't even figure out what went wrong with the shuttle even with videos and telemetering and wreckage to help them.


The flood account in the Epic of Gilgamesh is hardly ‘mangled’. It makes good sense even today.

Boy that's a hoot. :rofl:


I note several similarities between this and the Genesis myth. Which came first is a matter for speculation. I do note however that the Moses version, if we grant Moses was the author and this is only a tradition held by some Christians, was written down maybe 1450’s or so B.C.E., and parts of the Mesopotamian version are dated to 2000 B.C.E. and language study indicates it’s a fair bit older still.

I have no doubt Moses wrote down what we have today. However, it is only logical to assume that the original account came from the Ark survivors and both the Epic and Genesis accounts were based on that same source, although the Genesis story is clearly superior and reads much like the log of a ship. Genesis also tells about what happened before the Flood..

http://www.ldolphin.org/tablethy.html

[rach12]

Today @ 01:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119559#post119559)
Socratism:


DunnySaze:

But it would still be a flood, would it not? Is that so hard to comprehend? It's supposed to be a real event with real evidence for its existence if I understand the YEC position. If there IS evidence for a world-wide flood, then why do you refuse to show what it is?

I have posted what it is dozens of times. Let me try again.

I would expect that the Flood would result in trillions of dead things buried in extensive layers of water-laid sediment covering major portions of the world wide globe.

YAY!! We finally have evidence! Oh... maybe not.

Apparently, Socratism doesn't know what evidence means. Here, let me help (from Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com/home.htm) ):

Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: 'e-v&-d&n(t)s, -v&-"den(t)s
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
- in evidence 1 : to be seen : CONSPICUOUS <trim lawns ... are everywhere in evidence -- Amer. Guide Series: N.C.> 2 : as evidence

[Joe Meert]

It is more likely it is because they didn't believe it happened in the first place. I doubt if they spend any time being trained in what to look for in a global flood. Like other observational sciences one goes by past experience. In this case nobody has any experience with a global flood so they must simply try to &quot;scale up&quot; what phenomena would be of major effect during such an event. Since I was trained in hydrological phenomena I can tell you that such a massive &quot;scaleup&quot; from river floods to a global flood would be tough to duplicate and validate in the laboratory (to say the least).
You seem to be totally oblivious to the non-Biblical sources for the historicity of a global watery catastrophe.

JM: And you are equally oblivious to the fact that it was geologists who were CONVINCED of a global flood who concluded that no global flood occurred. These creationists were wise enough to recognize that the Noachian flood was nothing more than a borrowed myth. They used data, not mindless conjecture to reach this conclusion.
Just to refresh your memory here are the questions:

(1) What globally correlatable strata mark the onset of your flood?
(2) What globally correlatable strata mark the peak of the flood?
(3) What globally correlatable strata mark the cessation of the flood?

Socratism seems unable to answer these simple questions, perhaps another will give it a go?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Passant]

I also thought we were actually going to get some substance from Socratism,


I would expect that the Flood would result in trillions of dead things buried in extensive layers of water-laid sediment covering major portions of the world wide globe.

Then comes this,


Wrong again. I have the usual geology texts and agree that creationists are just as guilty as evolutionists in thinking that one can work out logically how all the layers got to be the way they are. Heck, people can't even figure out what went wrong with the shuttle even with videos and telemetering and wreckage to help them.

So of course, we can't learn anything, execpt by reading the Bible, and taking it literally.

BTW, the shuttle crash was caused by foam hitting the wing, this was anounced as the cause today, of course, anyone that used comman sense, and examined the evidence knew this already. Only those that didn't want to face the truth tried to deny it, just like creationists.


How old are you, Socratism? Just wondering... for obvious reasons.

I've wondered this myself.

[TheFiveSolas]

Passant:
Only those that didn't want to face the truth tried to deny it, just like creationists.


Yes, I'm sure that the reason why they waited until today to announce the reason for the shuttle disaster was because NASA didn't "want to face the truth". :hrm:

The fact remains, if evolution is true then it is meaningless for anyone to speak about knowing the "truth" about anything. It is a non sequitur to argue that your brain can "know the truth" when it is a presupposition that brains are the result of millions of random accidents.

In addition, as several of you (evolutionists) have asserted in my thread on evolution and rationality, the theory of evolution can't account for nor offer the preconditions for rationality, human freedom, logic, science itself, etc.

So, I must ask, if evolution can't provide even the preconditions for rationality, logic, or science, then on what rational basis do you claim to "know" anything? In other words, by what objective and universally binding standard are you using to determine truth from error?

[Joe Meert]

So, I must ask, if evolution can't provide even the preconditions for rationality, logic, or science, then on what rational basis do you claim to &quot;know&quot; anything? In other words, by what objective and universally binding standard are you using to determine truth from error?

JM: Interesting change of topic. Might I suggest another thread? We're trying to establish the evidence for a global flood.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Passant]

So, I must ask, if evolution can't provide even the preconditions for rationality, logic, or science, then on what rational basis do you claim to "know" anything? In other words, by what objective and universally binding standard are you using to determine truth from error?

Oh, just the fact that they work. I'm sure you agree that rationality, logic, and science work. If you want to believe that they are gifts from God, that's fine, I'm not to much out of agreement with you. I know that if I drop a ball, it will fall to the ground. If I repeat this a few times, I can be confident that it always will. When everyone in the world observes the same thing, and no exceptions are noted, then I can be reasonably sure that it will always happen. I don't even NEED to be aware of the theory of gravity. If I want to make use of this in other areas, I need to understand gravity, and Newtons laws. But I still don't even need to know any thing about relativity.

I've seen you post this same stuff over and over, and you still don't realize it's just the God of the gaps argument. People once didn't understand lightning, so they said it was the finger of God, then they used logic, reason and science and found the natural explanation for it. People once thought demons caused illness, then they used reason, logic, and science, and found this wasn't so. WHY do these things work? I don't know, maybe God just made the world this way, but, we DO know they work, we DO know that we should always try to find the natural explanation for them, and who knows? Maybe by doing so we will discover God. Maybe that's exactly what he wants us to do. Maybe he’s a little disappointed we wasted so much time with "holy" books, and such, and not sought him out by exploring and understanding his creation.

[HRG_new]

Today @ 01:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119762#post119762)
TheFiveSolas:



Yes, I'm sure that the reason why they waited until today to announce the reason for the shuttle disaster was because NASA didn't &quot;want to face the truth&quot;. :hrm:

The fact remains, if evolution is true then it is meaningless for anyone to speak about knowing the &quot;truth&quot; about anything. It is a non sequitur to argue that your brain can &quot;know the truth&quot; when it is a presupposition that brains are the result of millions of random accidents.

I'm really tired of this often refuted picture of evolution as the result of "random accidents".

You forget the millions of selection events who weeded out those whose inner model of external reality deviated from actual reality - translated into your language, which "did not know the truth". We are all descendants of organisms whose model of the external world was sufficiently accurate to survive and reproduce, and which were in competition with others with similar internal models (fossils of the latter now grace the departements of paleoanthropology).

Actually, it is the theist who has to worry about being deceived by supernatural beings, for inscrutable reasons. Metaphorically speaking, Nature can be subtle, but she cannot intentionally deceive; a supernatural being can.

Thus your argument IMHO is the equivalent of the pot calling the refrigerator black ;)

regards,
HRG.

"Man is the measure of all things" (Protagoras)

[SLPx]

Yesterday @ 06:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119379#post119379)
Socratism:
Of course you know that because of your non-training in global floods. :rofl:

Yes, :rofl:. Of course, you rnon-training in everything I suppose can explain the fact that you feel the need to repeatedly make false claims or claims that you cannot support (which are, for all intents and purposes therefore also false)
Been there. Done that.
Yes, we have been where it was shown that yo made up claims for rhetorical purposes, and yes, we have done the exposing of this activity that you seem to so frequently engage in.

pretty sad, really.

[SLPx]

Today @ 01:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119762#post119762)
TheFiveSolas:



Yes, I'm sure that the reason why they waited until today to announce the reason for the shuttle disaster was because NASA didn't &quot;want to face the truth&quot;. :hrm:

The fact remains, if evolution is true then it is meaningless for anyone to speak about knowing the &quot;truth&quot; about anything. It is a non sequitur to argue that your brain can &quot;know the truth&quot; when it is a presupposition that brains are the result of millions of random accidents.

Why do you continue to trot out this simplistic mumbo-jumbo?

And where is my apology for the Henry Morris is a racist chastizing you gave me?

:hrm: is right...

[DunnySaze]

Yesterday @ 08:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119559#post119559)
Socratism:




I have posted what it is dozens of times. Let me try again.

I would expect that the Flood would result in trillions of dead things buried in extensive layers of water-laid sediment covering major portions of the world wide globe.

Ah yes, this is just the thing I was talking about when I mentioned the ‘quick glance’ approach to geology in my post regarding brachiopods. It works so well when you take a quick peak at the facts, pick out those you think support your position, then quickly move on. It’s amazing how nature supports a YE view when you do that. Unfortunately, some of us want to explain all the details in a parsimonious fashion, not just pick one or two aspects that seem to conform to our pre-held positions and ignore the rest.

It’s not just the fact that organisms were buried that needs explaining, but also explaining why they were buried in the succession that they were. Why for example is not one blade of grass found buried with all the Permian, Carboniferous and Devonian ferns? How did large plants and the tiny pollen that gave rise to them come to be buried in the same layers?

I could go on and on and on with the details totally inconsistent with a single world-wide Flood laying down these deposits, but there would be little point.


You apparently can't see the forest for all those dang trees that keep getting in the way.

I’m not prepared to just accept your version of events if that’s what you mean. Other Christians have better ideas in my view.


Probably not all. However, as long as people are in deep denial about the flood they will never get down to work trying to sort out what is what and will continue with their stupid idea of slow deposition over hundreds of millions of years.

Probably? I should hope not all. That’s just plain ridiculous. Show me a specific example of a Flood deposit. Are all the layers of the Grand Canyon made up of Flood deposits or just a few? None?
Actually the ones in denial are yourself and the other YE Flood literalists. There is no evidence for a single world-wide Flood ca. 4000 years ago or at any time. I say this not because there can’t possibly be any or because I don’t want there to be any, but because no evidence has ever been advanced for one. Simple as that.

And you should be careful about who you’re calling ‘stupid’. Those slow deposition ideas were worked out in great detail first by Christian creationist geologists. Men like Reverend Benjamin Richardson, Reverend Joseph Townsend, James Hutton, Charles Lyall, William Smith, Adam Sedgwick and Roderick Murchison to name a few. All of whom worked out the basic principles of unformitarianism and geologic fossil faunal succession well before Darwin’s time.


Wrong again. I have the usual geology texts and agree that creationists are just as guilty as evolutionists in thinking that one can work out logically how all the layers got to be the way they are. Heck, people can't even figure out what went wrong with the shuttle even with videos and telemetering and wreckage to help them.

I’ve seen nothing to indicate you have any particular knowledge in geology. You may, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that. Of course geologists can work out reasonable ways for the layers to get as they are. We use the data to do so. All the data, even the myriad of little details. Just like we can work out a reasonable explanation as to what happened to the Shuttle, using all the facts.


I have no doubt Moses wrote down what we have today. However, it is only logical to assume that the original account came from the Ark survivors and both the Epic and Genesis accounts were based on that same source, although the Genesis story is clearly superior and reads much like the log of a ship. Genesis also tells about what happened before the Flood.

I agree both the flood story in the Epic and the Genesis myth likely drew from the same water. Either both drew from a separate source, or one drew from the other. It’s at least equally logical to assume that the Genesis story was a myth drawn in part from the Epic story, and structured so as to teach a distinctly Jewish lesson about creation and how it relates to man. I see no objective basis to say that the Genesis story is “superior” in any way, even if it reads like a ‘ship’s log’ to you. Doesn’t look much like a ships log to me. Those give day-by-day accounts of ships speed, location, course, weather, wind direction, sea state, that sort of thing. It also records any events of significance that occured onboard ship.

[Socratism]

Today @ 02:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120366#post120366)
DunnySaze:

... just pick one or two aspects that seem to conform to our pre-held positions and ignore the rest.

I'm not ignoring them, but it is frequently enlightening to start with the big picture before getting into specific details.


It’s not just the fact that organisms were buried that needs explaining, but also explaining why they were buried in the succession that they were.

I agree.


Why for example is not one blade of grass found buried with all the Permian, Carboniferous and Devonian ferns? How did large plants and the tiny pollen that gave rise to them come to be buried in the same layers? I could go on and on and on with the details totally inconsistent with a single world-wide Flood laying down these deposits, but there would be little point.

Here again we see the dogmatism of the regning paradigm at work because it is impossible for you (and many others) to even conceive of any alternative way that layers could be laid down the way they are found today.


There is no evidence for a single world-wide Flood ca. 4000 years ago or at any time. I say this not because there can’t possibly be any or because I don’t want there to be any, but because no evidence has ever been advanced for one. Simple as that.


And you should be careful about who you’re calling ‘stupid’. Those slow deposition ideas were worked out in great detail first by Christian creationist geologists. Men like Reverend Benjamin Richardson, Reverend Joseph Townsend, James Hutton, Charles Lyall, William Smith, Adam Sedgwick and Roderick Murchison to name a few. All of whom worked out the basic principles of unformitarianism and geologic fossil faunal succession well before Darwin’s time.

What is stupid is that the people today have gone much further than the early geologists did in rationalizing away contrary evidence. One can see this only today after the many years of work that has generated the data to permit the display of 3-dimensional global maps of the layers.


I’ve seen nothing to indicate you have any particular knowledge in geology. You may, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that. Of course geologists can work out reasonable ways for the layers to get as they are. We use the data to do so. All the data, even the myriad of little details. Just like we can work out a reasonable explanation as to what happened to the Shuttle, using all the facts.

Bad example. Such reconstructions would be impossible without extensive live telemetering, video, etc. Reconstructing what happened supposedly millions of years ago "in great detail" is about the most unscientific thing I have ever heard about.


I agree both the flood story in the Epic and the Genesis myth likely drew from the same water. Either both drew from a separate source, or one drew from the other.

Well, that's some progress I guess.


It’s at least equally logical to assume that the Genesis story was a myth drawn in part from the Epic story, and structured so as to teach a distinctly Jewish lesson about creation and how it relates to man.

Guess I spoke too soon.

[/quote] I see no objective basis to say that the Genesis story is “superior” in any way, even if it reads like a ‘ship’s log’ to you. Doesn’t look much like a ships log to me. Those give day-by-day accounts of ships speed, location, course, weather, wind direction, sea state, that sort of thing. It also records any events of significance that occured onboard ship. [/QUOTE]

Well, it is certainly is more like a ship's log than the Epic is. Perhaps Moses omitted the really boring stuff. :ahem:

[Jimmy Higgins]

*YAWN*

Today @ 07:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120710#post120710)
Socratism:
What is stupid is that the people today have gone much further than the early geologists did in rationalizing away contrary evidence. One can see this only today after the many years of work that has generated the data to permit the display of 3-dimensional global maps of the layers. And yet, you've got no evidence of that. And any look at the general rock stratum in Ohio would indicate a very old earth. The continental bedrock that is close to the surface in Western Ohio is deep, about 10,000 feet below the surface in Eastern Ohio. The continental bedrock, slowly slopes down, as you go from west to east. This is an indication of a sort of creep and gradual loading. If the massive sedimentary layers of rock was created during the flood, causing the continental bedrock to bend down, there would have been an immediate shearing of the rock, not bowing. But thats just coming from a geotechnical engineer who majored in structural engineering.

[Joe Meert]

Here again we see the dogmatism of the regning paradigm at work because it is impossible for you (and many others) to even conceive of any alternative way that layers could be laid down the way they are found today.


3 questions, unanswered for weeks:

(1) What globally correlatable sequence of rocks marks the onset of the flood?
(2) What globally correlatable sequence of rocks marks the peak of the flood?
(3) What globally correlatable sequence of rocks marks the end of the flood?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Fedmahn Kassad]

To add to Joe's post, here is something I have asked at least six times (after Socratism said the Cambrian deposits occured during the flood):


How exactly did this Cambrian layer, global in nature, occur during the flood? Was it via sediments from the continents burying ocean bottoms? If so, then why are the only representatives of the Cambrian very primitive, extinct species? If not, please explain how the Cambrian fossils were preserved. The thing is, Creationism can seem to have merit if one does not look too closely. Let’s look closely and see how quickly your story falls apart.

My questions have been avoided like the Ebola virus. Socratism merely complained that my usage of "primitive" was biased, so I said he could delete that word and answer the rest of the questions. The crickets have been chirping ever since.

FK

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 12:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120929#post120929)
Joe Meert:
3 questions, unanswered for weeks:

(1) What globally correlatable sequence of rocks marks the onset of the flood?
(2) What globally correlatable sequence of rocks marks the peak of the flood?
(3) What globally correlatable sequence of rocks marks the end of the flood?

Cheers

Joe Meert Don't forget the consequences of the removal of such a high load of water on the bedrock. This would cause some serious cracking.

[DunnySaze]

Today @ 12:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120710#post120710)
Socratism:





I'm not ignoring them, but it is frequently enlightening to start with the big picture before getting into specific details.

But it’s seldom enlightening to stop there, as pretty much every creationist does.


Me - It’s not just the fact that organisms were buried that needs explaining, but also explaining why they were buried in the succession that they were.

You - I agree.

Me - Why for example is not one blade of grass found buried with all the Permian, Carboniferous and Devonian ferns? How did large plants and the tiny pollen that gave rise to them come to be buried in the same layers? I could go on and on and on with the details totally inconsistent with a single world-wide Flood laying down these deposits, but there would be little point.

You - Here again we see the dogmatism of the regning paradigm at work because it is impossible for you (and many others) to even conceive of any alternative way that layers could be laid down the way they are found today.

So first you agree that the details need to be considered, but when actually asked to consider some you evade. I have more such ‘details’ questions regarding geology on another post, but let’s just say I’m in no hurry to rush over there to see how you better explain them any using your model. Just like I’ve asked at you at least 3 or 4 times now how Darwin was able to predict that the earliest human fossils would be found in eastern Africa using his model, even though if he were only using the “pattern of already known facts and evolution makes no predictions” contention of yours he could not have done so. The question wasn’t even acknowledged let alone answered. Your claims of not ignoring them are hollow.

Also, I CAN conceive of other ways layers can be laid down, including some fairly rapid ones. However, I don’t simply assume the layers can be laid rapidly simply because I can imagine a way that can be done. The idea is to look at the detailed evidence to infer what the best explanation is. Creationists don’t do this, exactly what it means for their method to be unscientific. Geologists (evolutionist geologists) do.


What is stupid is that the people today have gone much further than the early geologists did in rationalizing away contrary evidence. One can see this only today after the many years of work that has generated the data to permit the display of 3-dimensional global maps of the layers.

What’s wrong with that? We also have 3-D weather maps, and weather is at least as complex as geology.


Bad example. Such reconstructions would be impossible without extensive live telemetering, video, etc. Reconstructing what happened supposedly millions of years ago "in great detail" is about the most unscientific thing I have ever heard about.

Then you haven’t seen much science. Sea floor spreading rates can be inferred very well for example. The historical rates agree nicely with those measured directly today.



It’s at least equally logical to assume that the Genesis story was a myth drawn in part from the Epic story, and structured so as to teach a distinctly Jewish lesson about creation and how it relates to man.

Guess I spoke too soon.

If you mean logical = agrees with you, then yes, that’s terribly illogical.


Well, it is certainly is more like a ship's log than the Epic is. Perhaps Moses omitted the really boring stuff.

Yes, it’s just like a ship’s log, except for the fact that it bears little real resemblance to one. It’s certainly an odd notion. The one that reads more like a ship’s log is the one most likely true.

[Joe Meert]

3 questions, unanswered for weeks:

(1) What globally correlatable sequence of rocks marks the onset of the flood?
(2) What globally correlatable sequence of rocks marks the peak of the flood?
(3) What globally correlatable sequence of rocks marks the end of the flood?

Cheers

Joe Meert BUMP

[Joe Meert]

3 questions, unanswered for weeks:

(1) What globally correlatable sequence of rocks marks the onset of the flood?
(2) What globally correlatable sequence of rocks marks the peak of the flood?
(3) What globally correlatable sequence of rocks marks the end of the flood?

Cheers

Joe Meert BUMP

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 08:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122567#post122567)
Joe Meert:

BUMP

As soon as thousands of geologists get over their current love affair with "billions of years" and get down to work using the correct paradigm I am sure they will be able to develop "just so" stories to satisfy your request. :rofl:

[rach12]

Today @ 10:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122855#post122855)
Socratism:


As soon as thousands of geologists get over their current love affair with &quot;billions of years&quot; and get down to work using the correct paradigm I am sure they will be able to develop &quot;just so&quot; stories to satisfy your request. :rofl:

Yeah, see that? "Thousands of geologists." Compared to what? A handful of Creationists? We use our current paradigm because it works! That's it. There is nothing better.

Besides, I would be perfectly willing to get over my own "love affair" of an old Earth if Creationists actually had a good model. One that explained the occurrence of oil, mineral deposits, the fossil record, plate tectonics, paleogeography, and a host of hundreds, no thousands, of other things.

Also, if your model can't explain even the most basic of geologic observations that Joe listed, it's garbage. Plain and simple.

So again, all you have is faith. Admit it.

Actually, no need. We already know.:teeth:

[Socratism]

Besides, I would be perfectly willing to get over my own "love affair" of an old Earth if Creationists actually had a good model. One that explained the occurrence of oil, mineral deposits, the fossil record, plate tectonics, paleogeography, and a host of hundreds, no thousands, of other things.

Nobody will consider the Flood until it is proven that it happened.

But with only a few working on it, there is yet to be seen sufficient solutions to the "thousands of things".

Catch22.

[Mechanical Blis]

Today @ 12:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122855#post122855)
Socratism:

As soon as thousands of geologists get over their current love affair with &quot;billions of years&quot;

It has nothing to do with any sort of "love affair"--it has to do with the data. The data indicates a billions-of-years timescale. Whether or not geologists or young-earth creationists want that to be the case is not relevant.


and get down to work using the correct paradigm

What makes yours the "correct paradigm" when it cannot account for all available data? Your "paradigm" isn't scientific; it's an emotional response. You want the data to be interpreted in such a way so that it validates your religious beliefs no matter how ridiculous the explanations are and no matter how much data is simply omitted or oversimplified to make that easier.


I am sure they will be able to develop &quot;just so&quot; stories to satisfy your request. :rofl:

That's exactly what your position yields: stories, not scientific theories developed to explain all available data. The questions he asked are perfectly reasonable, and the fact that creationists can't answer them is very telling. YECs just attribute all geology to this flooding event (for which there is not enough water anyway) even though this does not explain all geologic data. Perhaps if the questions could be answered, and maybe if the evidence representative of this event was clear and didn't comprise all of the geologic record, the position might be slightly more reasonable just for the fact that YECs wouldn't just say "flood did it" with no explanation or model while failing to explain why a flood wouldn't produce the features they try to explain including non-marine sediments and gradual deposition. Of course limiting the number of sedimentary strata (to actual marine strata that could be deposited in less than a year) that substantiate this event means that there are more features for which you can't simply use the old flood excuse and would thus still pose a problem for a very young earth. The YEC/flood geology position is simply untenable, if one were honest with oneself, because it is falsified by the data, and the model doesn't even try to explain all available data in the first place.

[Socratism]

YECs just attribute all geology to this flooding event

Some do, some don't.

[Mechanical Blis]

Today @ 02:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122907#post122907)
Socratism:



Nobody will consider the Flood until it is proven that it happened.

Strictly speaking, proof is impossible. Evidence would be nice, though. An actual working model that explains all available data would be nice as well. YECs can't provide that though.


But with only a few working on it, there is yet to be seen sufficient solutions to the &quot;thousands of things&quot;.

Catch22.

Few are working on it because it is clear that such an event is falsified by the data. There is no point in trying to raise a falsified theory from the dead. YECs simply have an emotional, not scientific, attachment to this "flood".

[Socratism]

Few are working on it because it is clear that such an event is falsified by the data. There is no point in trying to raise a falsified theory from the dead. YECs simply have an emotional, not scientific, attachment to this "flood".

Perhaps because of my background and training I pay attention to long term trends.

My observation over a period of years is that more and more "catastrophic" interpretations are being advanced to explain features of the geological layers.

My second observation is that it is not necessary for a belief in a global flood to assume that all features of the geological record have been due to a global flood.

My third observation is that there are no models of a global flood that would allow people to state with certainty that a global flood is falsified by the geologic record. In other words the critics have no scientific basis on which to state that a global flood is falsified by the geologic record. They are simply arguing from their incredulity and ignorance of what would happen in a global flood.

[Mechanical Blis]

Today @ 03:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122968#post122968)
Socratism:



Perhaps because of my background and training I pay attention to long term trends.

Of course you ignore the trend of geology considering it was a science that began as young-earth creationism/flood geology, and as more study was done, the original model was found in error.


My observation over a period of years is that more and more &quot;catastrophic&quot; interpretations are being advanced to explain features of the geological layers.

This is just a meaningless subjective claim. In no way does it mean that a 6,000 year old earth will inevitably become valid. It has already been falsified by the data, no matter how many 'catastrophic' interpretations come into light.


My second observation is that it is not necessary for a belief in a global flood to assume that all features of the geological record have been due to a global flood.

Of course it's not, but people do claim that this is true. And until creationists can indicate which strata are in question and what their actual model is, then the entire geologic record is open for use to falsify that notion.


My third observation is that there are no models of a global flood that would allow people to state with certainty that a global flood is falsified by the geologic record. In other words the critics have no scientific basis on which to state that a global flood is falsified by the geologic record. They are simply arguing from their incredulity and ignorance of what would happen in a global flood.

That's because creationists don't have a global flood model.

Critics do have a scientific basis to say a global flood is falsified by the geologic record if creationists claim that the sedimentary record is the result of said flood. It can be falsified by demonstrating features that illustrate haituses in deposition, non-marine deposition (especially interbedded with marine sediments), exposure, erosion, and tectonically created features (angular unconformities, for example) which are contradictory to a global flood scenario, which would not cause the stratification we see (especially in <1 year) and would not allow for succession of deposition during one event.

And then, if the global flood evidence is not the entire geologic record, but merely a fraction of it, that still poses a significant problem to YECism because there's more for you to explain without your handy-dandy explain-it-all excuse of a global flood.

It still all boils down to a global flooding event that creationists cling to because of an emotional attachment to their religious beliefs--it is not a scientific notion, and neither is the 6,000 year earth model. It's an emotional attachment that causes creationist "science" to be nothing more than striving to find only that "evidence" that supports a preconceived, fixed conclusion that will never be allowed to be compromised no matter how much contrary evidence is presented and then subsequently omitted from their arguments, denied, or oversimplified.

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 12:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122855#post122855)
Socratism:



As soon as thousands of geologists get over their current love affair with &quot;billions of years&quot; and get down to work using the correct paradigm I am sure they will be able to develop &quot;just so&quot; stories to satisfy your request. :rofl:


JM: Thank you for finally admitting you have nothing. It only took you a month! Most modern young earth creationists cling to the dream for much longer. You keep forgetting that young earth creationists of the 1700-1800's living in the flood paradigm were the ones who showed clearly that it did not happen as described in the Bible. Modern geology and thousand of Christian geologists since that time have confirmed their findings. In fact, the 3 questions you were unable to answer are the key. Young earth creationists of the 1700s and 1800s had no answer and found counter evidence for the flood. Perhpas you're still reading manuscripts from the middle ages. When you catch up to the 21st century, you'll discover no global flood happened.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Socratism]

Today @ 09:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123231#post123231)
Joe Meert:
JM: Thank you for finally admitting you have nothing. It only took you a month! Most modern young earth creationists cling to the dream for much longer. You keep forgetting that young earth creationists of the 1700-1800's living in the flood paradigm were the ones who showed clearly that it did not happen as described in the Bible. Modern geology and thousand of Christian geologists since that time have confirmed their findings. In fact, the 3 questions you were unable to answer are the key. Young earth creationists of the 1700s and 1800s had no answer and found counter evidence for the flood. Perhpas you're still reading manuscripts from the middle ages. When you catch up to the 21st century, you'll discover no global flood happened.


I have admitted nothing except to say that human beings who think they can predict what evidence the Flood (as well as other past events) would leave in the way of geological and fossil records are the ones living in a dream world.

[rach12]

Today @ 09:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123450#post123450)
Socratism:

I have admitted nothing except to say that human beings who think they can predict what evidence the Flood (as well as other past events) would leave in the way of geological and fossil records are the ones living in a dream world.
Then I say to you, wake up, Socratism, the dream is over!

:teeth:

[Joe Meert]

Yesterday @ 11:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123450#post123450)
Socratism:



I have admitted nothing except to say that human beings who think they can predict what evidence the Flood (as well as other past events) would leave in the way of geological and fossil records are the ones living in a dream world.

JM: Sure you have, you've been unable to support your assertion and furthermore, you cannot show where the ye-creationists erred 200 years ago. The present, even with all its troubles is so much better than the dark ages you live in.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Socratism]

YE creationists are human beings and human beings are not infallible. Whether some creationists 200 years in the past came to the wrong conclusion about the age of the Earth has no bearing on the truth of the matter.

I would think that with the benefit of 200 years of scientific progress they would undoubtedly come to the realization that they really blew it in not sticking to what they should have known from scripture was going to be the correct answer in the end.

[The Barbarian]

So, when are you going to answer Joe's questions?

I'd really like to hear the answers.

[DunnySaze]

06-14-2003 @ 08:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122968#post122968)
Socratism:




Perhaps because of my background and training I pay attention to long term trends.

4.5+ billion years of data is certainly a long term trend. You seem to stop paying attention after 6000 years. Seems rather short term considering.


My observation over a period of years is that more and more &quot;catastrophic&quot; interpretations are being advanced to explain features of the geological layers.

It's not like geologists never heard of local floods or volcanic eruptions until recently. Maybe that observation is just your imagination.


My second observation is that it is not necessary for a belief in a global flood to assume that all features of the geological record have been due to a global flood.

One can certainly assume they are all due to a single global flood. Of course one could assume they were all laid down one grain at a time by Martians too. That might be the superior theory.


My third observation is that there are no models of a global flood that would allow people to state with certainty that a global flood is falsified by the geologic record. In other words the critics have no scientific basis on which to state that a global flood is falsified by the geologic record. They are simply arguing from their incredulity and ignorance of what would happen in a global flood.

Actually I don't think there are any models of a global flood. Any scientifically useful one that is. Can you point to one? Given your second observation I'm sure you have more than the Genesis model. As for 'incredulity and ignorance' a phrase I consider highly ironic coming from you, perhaps you could enlighten those benighted scientists as to the possible effects of a flood of this type.

[DunnySaze]

Yesterday @ 08:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123873#post123873)
Socratism:[QUOTE]

[QUOTE]YE creationists are human beings and human beings are not infallible. Whether some creationists 200 years in the past came to the wrong conclusion about the age of the Earth has no bearing on the truth of the matter.

Whoa. But it does have a bearing when the person making the wrong conclusion is an evolutionist? I hope you think not also.


I would think that with the benefit of 200 years of scientific progress they would undoubtedly come to the realization that they really blew it in not sticking to what they should have known from scripture was going to be the correct answer in the end.

Whoops, spoke to fast. Looks like that 200 year old creationist wasn't wrong after all. And as for this statement, " ... they really blew it in not sticking to what they should have known from scripture was going to be the correct answer in the end", I can hardly think of more depressing thing for a supposed lover of science, to say.

This is not what a lover of science says. It's the very antithesis of science.

[Socratism]

Today @ 11:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124424#post124424)
DunnySaze:



Whoa. But it does have a bearing when the person making the wrong conclusion is an evolutionist? I hope you think not also.



Whoops, spoke to fast. Looks like that 200 year old creationist wasn't wrong after all. And as for this statement, &quot; ... they really blew it in not sticking to what they should have known from scripture was going to be the correct answer in the end&quot;, I can hardly think of more depressing thing for a supposed lover of science, to say.

This is not what a lover of science says. It's the very antithesis of science.

I love real science but the pseudoscience of origins is not my idea of what science is all about.

The concept that somehow science can reveal ultimate origins is about the silliest idea I have ever heard.

[QED]

Socratism... I know the feeling. I love auto mechanics, but all these computers they put in engines these days are just not my idea of auto mechanics.

So you can understand why I sometimes say that I love auto mechanics, but act like I despise the subject, and have no respect for those pseudo-mechanics that work on the cars with computer modules.

The concept that somehow computers can make a car engine go is about the silliest idea I have ever heard.

[Joe Meert]

3 questions, unanswered for weeks:

(1) What globally correlatable sequence of rocks marks the onset of the flood?
(2) What globally correlatable sequence of rocks marks the peak of the flood?
(3) What globally correlatable sequence of rocks marks the end of the flood?

Cheers

Joe Meert
BUMP

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126318#post126318)
Joe Meert:

3 questions, unanswered for weeks:

(1) What globally correlatable sequence of rocks marks the onset of the flood?
(2) What globally correlatable sequence of rocks marks the peak of the flood?
(3) What globally correlatable sequence of rocks marks the end of the flood?

Cheers

Joe Meert
BUMP And why is there a 600+ foot valley carved into these sequences buried in Cuyahoga County.

[DunnySaze]

06-16-2003 @ 11:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124773#post124773)
Socratism:

I love real science but the pseudoscience of origins is not my idea of what science is all about.

The concept that somehow science can reveal ultimate origins is about the silliest idea I have ever heard.

Let's just say I'm glad your idea of what you want science to be all about is not really what science is all about, and with any luck it never will be.

I fail to see the difference between the creationist so-called "true science" or "real science" and magic.

Oh, and neither biological evolution or the Big Bang are about ultimate origins. They only look that way to the untutored.

[Socratism]

Today @ 10:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126359#post126359)
DunnySaze:



Let's just say I'm glad your idea of what you want science to be all about is not really what science is all about, and with any luck it never will be.

I fail to see the difference between the creationist so-called &quot;true science&quot; or &quot;real science&quot; and magic.

Oh, and neither biological evolution or the Big Bang are about ultimate origins. They only look that way to the untutored.

Perhaps the tutored have been brainwashed.
:rofl:

[Joe Meert]

Perhaps the tutored have been brainwashed.
:rofl:

JM: Perhaps, but not likely. Science is all about trying to show where the current thinking is wrong. Scientists make a name for themselves by challenging the status quo. This is why ye-creationism was challenged and failed. Ultimately, ye-global flood geology collapsed against the weight of the evidence. Because of your theological views are absolute, you are unable to comprehend that science operates differently. Science is about change and new ideas. At the same time, we don't beat ourselves over the head trying to resurrect old ideas that have no evidence to support them. Heck, you (or any other creationist) can't even identify the supposed flood rocks!

Cheers

Joe Meert

[QED]

Socratism, I suggest you take a while to think about how the term "ultimate" is used in your own post, and in DS's reply. He is correct that there is no scientific theory that addresses ultimate origins. Your suggestion that scientists are brainwashed in this regard is unwarranted. Even you will be able to see that DS is correct on this point if you will just take the time to consider what the word "ultimate" means.

[Lobstrosity]

06-02-2003 @ 10:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115106#post115106)
Socratism:
In my particular case I did not get interested in scripture until some 5 to 10 years after I had discovered that evolution couldn't possibly be true, at least in its extreme form of "goo to the zoo".

At that point I decided to see if any of the other events described in Genesis (other than creation week of course) violated any physical laws. So far I haven't found anything significant.

Going back in this thread quite long a ways, may I ask about the physical violations found elsewhere in the Bible? You seem to imply that Genesis is believable because you see it as physically plausible without supernatural intervention (after creation week, of course). So then what about the rest of the Bible, where supernatural intervention runs rampant? For example, here are a few violations of physical laws in the Bible, though outside of Genesis (in no particular order):


1) Jonah

Jonah 117 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
Contrary to what you see in cartoons, whale stomachs are not full of air. From a physical standpoint, it's hard to survive for three days without air.


2) Samson (Judges 16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JUDG+16&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on))

The tale is more idiotic than words can describe, but that's not really relevant. The point is that it is rather unphysical for one to derive super-human strength from his hair.


3) Exodus

Wow, this one's just full of unphysical goodness

Exodus 710 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent.
11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.
One would naively think that transforming an inanimate rod into a serpent has got to violate at least one physical law, right?

Exodus 720 And Moses and Aaron did so, as the LORD commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.
As stated, there are several physical laws violated, however I do concede that this could have realistically been achieved if in truth Moses and Aaron slaughtered thousands of creatures upstream. If this latter scenario is in fact true, then one must chide the Biblical authors for their misleading reporting, however.

Also, that whole deal with the deaths of all the first-borns--not very physical. And don't get me started on the parting of the Red Sea!


4) Jesus

He's just a physical-law-violating machine.



So given the supernatural nature of much of scripture, why should it even matter to you whether Genesis violates physical laws?