TEs/OECs interpretation of The Flood

[Jorge]

Because they're all misrepresentations and outright lies. Jim asked for scientific evidence, not your usual YEC BS.

Geology alone disproves a literal Noah’s Flood. There are meandering rivers incised 1000’ deep into solid basalt, something impossible to create in a one-time one-year flood. There are also exhumed river channels that take millions of years to form.

Genetics alone disproves a literal Noah’s Flood. There is no sign in the genetic record of any massive genetic bottleneck that must be present in all species if they descended from only a few individuals who survived on the Ark only 4500 years ago.

Physics alone disproves a literal Noah’s Flood. The geologic column can be dated by the radiometric decay of the materials in the strata with the oldest always being on the bottom. It is impossible for a flood to sort materials horizontally by their radiometric age.

I can and have defended all three of these scientific facts . You can't defend a single one of your gasbag YEC claims.

You are officially OFF this thread, Beagle. Let's not see your mug here again.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

Just for grins I though I'd look at 's Flood "evidence". This is the first hit from his AIG search

Worldwide Flood, Worldwide Evidence

As predicted it is nothing but lies about the actual physical evidence.

Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents

Lie. We know by plate tectonic uplifting many areas that were once seabed and now at the tops of mountains.

Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals

Lie. AIG cites a few mass burial locations and ignore the other 99.9% of the fossil record that doesn’t show rapid mass burial.

Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas

Lie. There is no physical evidence sediment layers like the Coconino were deposited rapidly and lots of evidence it wasn’t.

Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances

Lie. There is no physical evidence sediment layers like the Coconino were transported long distances. The Coconino sandstone was eolian deposited at the edge of the North American inland sea

Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata

Lie. There are numerous examples in the Grand Canyon alone of strata with buried river channels eroded between the layers.

Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession

Lie. It is known that rock strata can be bent without breaking when subducted underground and subjected to very high heat and pressure.

So much for the "evidence".

[HMS_Beagle]

You are officially OFF this thread, Beagle. Let's not see your mug here again.

Just saw this so sure thing coward. I'll just start a new parallel thread to point out your lies and stupidity. You can't censor scientific reality no matter how hard you try.

[oxmixmudd]

You are officially OFF this thread, Beagle. Let's not see your mug here again.

Jorge

And why would you do that Jorge? I mean look at all the derogatory things you've called me in threads over the last few weeks.

And he is quite correct. You can't or won't defend scientific arguments for YEC. But in the thread above the Beagle nicely summarizes the problems with each of these supposed 'evidences' for a "Universal Flood" per your definition.

And that IS the issue. You can't just cherry pick a few bits that fit into what you want and ignore the rest. For example, you can't take a formation that appears to show no erosion between layers and say GLOBAL flood when there are hundreds of other formations that DO show erosion between layers. The scientific hypothesis must fit at least the majority of the evidence, not some cherry picked handful! So unless you can explain long term erosion (like river beds) between layers, or the inverted river channels or pollen from different species in different layers at yearly intervals.

Oh yes, and one of the evidences are the massive chalk layers like the cliffs of Dover. Yet these are made of up of trillions of exo-skeletons from very small life-forms. You just don't get concentrations of those creatures at those levels over a 1 year period Jorge. It takes a lot longer than that for enough of them to grow and die and make the chalk itself.

Not only that, the fossils themselves represent different eras of life, eras that are found all over the world, eras that represent whole eco-systems. Ecosystems don't sort in layers in a single flood Jorge.

Which is another problem. The sediments and the fossils in them are sorted all over the world by the types of life found in them. That is the fact that pushed Darwin's thoughts the direction they went. Early geologists found that as you went deeper into the sediments the types of fossils changed. And that one could correlate directly the type of fossils found with the depth of the sediment. This is explained if life changed over the eons and those changes were recorded as sediments were deposited. It makes no sense at all if all the different types of life died all at once and then were buried in the turbid waters of a massive global flood.

And it goes on and on. Oh, and don't even get me started on what the asteroid impacts do to the whole thing, since all these strata that are supposedly layed down during the flood are penetrated to the bedrock below them - implying most of the large impacts occurred during or after this same massive flood!!! I don't remember the Bible talking about decades of impact ejecta and stratospheric dust induced super-cold winters. I think it mentions Noah emerging after 1 year.

Here is the bottom line Jorge, something you YEC types need to get hold of.

Real events leave real evidence that is cross correlated in hundreds if not thousands of ways. The correct reconstruction of the history producing the evidence will always be able to be cross-checked by all those inter-related events and records. Manufactured constructs, like those found at the site you referene, constructs that do not follow the data but rather try to force fit the data to a pre-supposition, will ALWAYS fail to cross correlate. And the reason is simple. We are simply not smart enough to account for all the possible interactions of the components of our manufactured solutions.

But the natural unfolding of the real events can. So if we FOLLOW the data to the solution, then we eventually will find it, or something very close to it. And all those cross-correlating data will line up just like they should. That is how you know you are one the right track.


But I'll offer it once again Jorge. We can look at those 'evidences on your list'. And we can stack them up against the other data and the other evidence left out of those lists and see what the evidence REALLY says. You have yet to take me up on that offer. I'm pretty sure I know why too.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Just saw this so sure thing coward. I'll just start a new parallel thread to point out your lies and stupidity. You can't censor scientific reality no matter how hard you try.

He can sensor it from his own brain though - at least partially.

I'm really surprised He'd ban you over what you posted. Bad day I guess

Jim

[rwatts]

Bad day I guess

Jim

Grumpy in his old age?

[oxmixmudd]

Grumpy in his old age?

Jorge is always grumpy. I guess it's just getting worse.

Jim

[rogue06]

Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents


Lie. We know by plate tectonic uplifting many areas that were once seabed and now at the tops of mountains.

Leonardo da Vinci figured it out centuries ago.

Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals

Lie. AIG cites a few mass burial locations and ignore the other 99.9% of the fossil record that doesn’t show rapid mass burial.

And some of the mass burials cannot be attributed to a flood.


To keep things brief I'll limit this to Mesozoic bone beds with dinosaur remains and the result of the opposite of a flood of any sort. They are the result of drought.

For instance there is the world famous Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry in Utah, the Mother's Day Quarry, Canyon Bone Bed, Dino Ridge Quarry and Westside Quarry all in Montana, Ghost Ranch in New Mexico, Dry Mesa Dinosaur Quarry in western Colorado, Douglas Quarry in Dinosaur National Monument, a quarry just west of Arches National Park in southeast Utah, the Patagonia, Argentina site where the remains of Titanosaur were discovered and a couple in northern Madagascar.

[Roy]

"No Jorge. There is no scientific evidence that supports the idea of a worldwide flood."

OH. MY. GOD !!!

I, of course, knew from the git-go that O-Mudd had to be on a really bad batch of LSD to have written that there is "no scientific evidence". Just for the heck of it - I hadn't done so in a while - I went to just one site (The AiG site) and searched "evidence for the Flood".

Lo and behold, up popped 4,050 results!
Gee, and not a single one of those 4,050 results seems to work for O-Mudd - I wonder why.

Possibly because they're full of lies.

You might be dumb enough to swallow the claim that "Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days." is evidence for a global flood, but the rest of us know that the Coconino formation consists of desert sands dunes containing animal tracks and therefore was not deposited by a flood. We also know that AiG have enough geologists to know that the Coconino is desert sand and that their article is a combination of wishful thinking, cherry picking and bunco for the rubes, of which one obnoxious welshing is a prime example.

[Roy]

You are officially OFF this thread, Beagle. Let's not see your mug here again.

EXPELLED!

I suppose that's easier for the welcher than trying to defend his loudmouthed garbage.

[Jorge]

Just for grins ...................

Was the word "OFF" too much for your pea-sized brain to handle?

You are OFF this thread.

If TWeb officers are doing their job then you should have received a warning or infraction by now.

Get OFF, Beagle!

Jorge

[Jorge]

And why would you do that Jorge? I mean look at all the derogatory things you've called me in threads over the last few weeks.

And he is quite correct. You can't or won't defend scientific arguments for YEC. But in the thread above the Beagle nicely summarizes the problems with each of these supposed 'evidences' for a "Universal Flood" per your definition.

And that IS the issue. You can't just cherry pick a few bits that fit into what you want and ignore the rest. For example, you can't take a formation that appears to show no erosion between layers and say GLOBAL flood when there are hundreds of other formations that DO show erosion between layers. The scientific hypothesis must fit at least the majority of the evidence, not some cherry picked handful! So unless you can explain long term erosion (like river beds) between layers, or the inverted river channels or pollen from different species in different layers at yearly intervals.

Oh yes, and one of the evidences are the massive chalk layers like the cliffs of Dover. Yet these are made of up of trillions of exo-skeletons from very small life-forms. You just don't get concentrations of those creatures at those levels over a 1 year period Jorge. It takes a lot longer than that for enough of them to grow and die and make the chalk itself.

Not only that, the fossils themselves represent different eras of life, eras that are found all over the world, eras that represent whole eco-systems. Ecosystems don't sort in layers in a single flood Jorge.

Which is another problem. The sediments and the fossils in them are sorted all over the world by the types of life found in them. That is the fact that pushed Darwin's thoughts the direction they went. Early geologists found that as you went deeper into the sediments the types of fossils changed. And that one could correlate directly the type of fossils found with the depth of the sediment. This is explained if life changed over the eons and those changes were recorded as sediments were deposited. It makes no sense at all if all the different types of life died all at once and then were buried in the turbid waters of a massive global flood.

And it goes on and on. Oh, and don't even get me started on what the asteroid impacts do to the whole thing, since all these strata that are supposedly layed down during the flood are penetrated to the bedrock below them - implying most of the large impacts occurred during or after this same massive flood!!! I don't remember the Bible talking about decades of impact ejecta and stratospheric dust induced super-cold winters. I think it mentions Noah emerging after 1 year.

Here is the bottom line Jorge, something you YEC types need to get hold of.

Real events leave real evidence that is cross correlated in hundreds if not thousands of ways. The correct reconstruction of the history producing the evidence will always be able to be cross-checked by all those inter-related events and records. Manufactured constructs, like those found at the site you referene, constructs that do not follow the data but rather try to force fit the data to a pre-supposition, will ALWAYS fail to cross correlate. And the reason is simple. We are simply not smart enough to account for all the possible interactions of the components of our manufactured solutions.

But the natural unfolding of the real events can. So if we FOLLOW the data to the solution, then we eventually will find it, or something very close to it. And all those cross-correlating data will line up just like they should. That is how you know you are one the right track.


But I'll offer it once again Jorge. We can look at those 'evidences on your list'. And we can stack them up against the other data and the other evidence left out of those lists and see what the evidence REALLY says. You have yet to take me up on that offer. I'm pretty sure I know why too.


Jim

"Derogatory things that I've been calling you"

Since when is speaking the TRUTH "derogatory"?

Don't bother to answer, certain people definitely find the truth "offensive and derogatory".

You cleverly (and dishonestly) try to change the subject above, to shift the spotlight away from yourself. You had stated that "There is no scientific evidence for a worldwide flood." In one brief post with one link I conclusively proved that your claim amounts to (1) total ignorance or (2) a lie - there is no other option. So which is it?

You can certainly choose to interpret the observations so as to fit your preconceived beliefs (in the same way as you re-interpret God's Holy Word to do the same), but that doesn't mean that the evidence supporting a worldwide Flood isn't there. What you people (dishonestly) do is try to make the evidence vanish using smoke, mirrors and a magic wand. Then, after that dishonest display of pseudo-intellectual wizardry, you go out and make the claim, "There is no evidence".

WOW - it's the kind of thing that has to be seen to be believed.

Jorge

[rogue06]

Possibly because they're full of lies.

You might be dumb enough to swallow the claim that "Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days." is evidence for a global flood, but the rest of us know that the Coconino formation consists of desert sands dunes containing animal tracks and therefore was not deposited by a flood. We also know that AiG have enough geologists to know that the Coconino is desert sand and that their article is a combination of wishful thinking, cherry picking and bunco for the rubes, of which one obnoxious welshing is a prime example.

Let's not overlook, as Jorge would say, the fact, Fact, FACT, that every single person who writes, or does work for the most prominent, “prestigious” YEC groups like the AnswersinGenesis (AiG) are required to agree beforehand that no matter what they uncover it must not, cannot, in any way, demonstrate that evolution takes place or that the universe is more than a few thousand years old. No I’m not making this stuff up. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and Creation Ministries International (CMI) require the same thing.

These groups oblige all those who work for them to sign documents that compel them to ignore evidence that goes against the organization’s particular reading of various Bible verses. IOW, they can only accept what they had already assumed. Here is the statement of faith required by CMI (which is nearly identical to the Statement of Faith that AiG demand you sign). And here is the oath ICR forces their people to sign.

When you are required to sign a statement of faith or oath like this that requires that you ignore all evidence that shows evolution taking place or that the Earth or universe is older than a few thousand years old, then you aren't doing science but only pretending to do so.

In science one should be prepared to, in the words of Thomas Henry Huxley, "Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."^[1]

But if you set up a preconceived notion and then declare that "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts" it then you are merely doing an imitation of Carroll's Queen of Hearts when she declares in Alice in Wonderland "Sentence first! Verdict afterwards."

So in the end they're very selective about just what evidence they will examine and after they’re done cherry-picking they usually end up offering explanations that are mere ad hoc rationalizations that are wholly internally inconsistent and more often than not mutually contradictory.

There is nothing even remotely similar to this in conventional science. In fact, this is pure anti-science. Agreeing to ignore or hand-wave away contradictory evidence in advance isn’t even remotely scientific but is a perversion of science.












1. This view has been expressed repeatedly by legitimate scientists. For instance:

• "I have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved, as soon as the facts are opposed to it." --Charles Darwin (who also wrote: "A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections - a mere heart of stone.")

• "I keep my theories on the tips of my fingers so that the merest breath of fact can blow them away." --Michael Faraday

• "The hallmark of science is not the question ‘Do I wish to believe this?’ but the question ‘What is the evidence?’ It is this demand for evidence, this habit of cultivated skepticism, that is most characteristic of the scientific way of thought." --Douglas Futuyma

• "A scientist should every morning eat one of his favorite theories for breakfast." --Konrad Lorenz

• "Any real systematist [or scientist in general] has to be ready to heave all that he or she believes in, consider it crap, and move on, in the face of new evidence." --Mark Norell (in his Unearthing the Dragon)

Recently after the discovery of a 14 myo fossil of a type of honey bee in North America Michael Engel of the University of Kansas and co-author of Evolution of the Insects excitedly said "I got to overturn some of my own stuff"

[TheLurch]

So, the problem i have with this is that most of it's circular; i'll try to point out how below.

That's a good question. This Buddhist points out, as you say, that "science appears to contradict something here".

My reply to Mr. Buddhist: Fine, first let's examine what you think "appears to contradict something here". Let's determine which of it is actual science and which of it are observations interpreted under a particular POV, a POV that has a conclusion already inserted into the premises.

But the POV you're arguing for is exactly that - its conclusion is that the earth is young, there was a flood, etc. regardless of the evidence. Outside that POV, there's no reason for thinking any of that. And that's precisely what the hypothetical Buddhist's question was getting at - why should your particular POV be privileged as science? So it appears that you're attempting to answer the question by reiterating the question.

Second, let's examine the equally-scientific evidences that do support a UF.

I know this has been dealt with by others, and you don't accept that, but the weight of the evidence is against that - absent belief in a biblical account (which a Buddhist wouldn't have), there'd be nothing he could examine that would be evidence of a universal flood.

It's not like we can't find evidence of really big floods - see the ones resulting from glacial lake Missoula, for one example. But those point out two major issues: they have well defined boundaries, so we can see where the flood wasn't. And the evidence that there was a flood across the Washington Scablands is not present over most of the rest of the earth.

Second, it is imperative that people learn to separate what I call ideologically inert science (IIS) from ideologically active science (IAS). Succinctly, IIS is science where ideology has essentially no influence; IIS is naturally demonstrable, testable, falsifiable, repeatable.

But if you define "ideology" as anything that might impinge on biblical accounts (which you appear to be doing), then you are creating Christian and non-Christian science. There's a POV that's biblical, and then there's everybody else.

As for your example of measuring density vs. the origin of life, i don't find it compelling. Measuring the density is all those things above, but it's also trivial. The origin of life issue - could life have formed naturally? - is what i'd call a compound question. It's built of many sub-questions involving geology, chemistry, etc. etc. Any one of these are equally as trivial as the density measurement. Can such-and-such chemical form under the following conditions? Each one of those is repeatable, testable, etc.

The process of science isn't repeating density measurements. It's building larger frameworks of understanding on top of these trivial things. So that, when we do things like get images of Pluto we can take what we know about the density of water and nitrogen ice, and conclude there is heat driven circulation of nitrogen ices in Sputnik Planum, that there is a chance that there's liquid water 250km under Pluto's crust, etc. etc.

What you're trying to compare therefore seems to me to be incommensurate.

[HMS_Beagle]

Was the word "OFF" too much for your pea-sized brain to handle?

My takedown of your Flood "evidence" stupidity was cross-posted with your EXPELLED cowardice before I saw your demand. I told you I would comply but since you posted another message to me I'll use the TWeb rules which allow me to reply.

Will you try to defend those first six points from AIG I posted? Of course you won't, you're just a big mouthed coward.

Will you answer the geological, genetic, and physics points I made against your Flood claims? Of course you won't, you're just a big mouthed coward.

You're the same you ever were. A bit shriller perhaps but no wiser.