The problem of evidence for a Biblical Flood

[hansgeorg]

Slower processes are the only way limestones form naturally. Your explanations fail unless you are going to appeal to angels or a fideist approach that everything was created as is with the appearance of age.

What you are also neglecting is the weathering of limestone topography, soil formation, and formation of limestone caves which require millions of years. Limestone precipitate in caves show annual rings that easily dates of hundreds of thousands of years. There is absolutely no evidence that this can happen rapidly.

BY soil I suppose you mean humus - it is forming very rapidly and no one who digs up humus in his garden will ever be told by any scientist the humus took billions of years to form.

The limestone deposits in caves ... will you give me a source saying there are annual actual RINGS?

The flowstones, anyway, we do have pictorial evidence it can form very rapidly.

As to rings, are you sure you aren't confusing with tree ring dating?

There is no evidence today of these huge limestone formations forming rapidly. The observed evidence today only shows progressive precipitation of carbonates, and slow processes Ooolites forming in tidal coastal regions. If you can show evidence of the formation of limestone and layers of coral reefs forming rapidly please do. Such evidence does not exist.

This reference is bizzaro ridiculous. There is no evidence that limestones form in any remote way as we make cement today. These are not natural processes objectively observed in limestone formations. This cannot explain the coral formations, limestone precipitate deposition, nor oolites deposits.

You failed to notice, perhaps, that the limestone we talk about is CaCO3 - just as the end product of cement.

In other words, it is not a chemical impossibility for limestone to form rapidly.

Obviously, in the aftermath of a huge Flood, certain areas would look like gigantic magnifications of, for instance, cement being put in place and left to harden in a building.

Based on the actual objective evidence this is impossible.

Based on the actual evidence that builders use the process and the amount of time you suggest is not there, you are wrong.

Yhe above reference describes a gradual formation of Ooolitic limestone very slowly over millions of years. You have to read the whole site and understand geology. Absolutely NO, hundreds of feet of limestone in many different formations over the thousands of feet of strata cannot form quickly nor in flood deposited environments. Coral reefs are found with in these formations that formed in situ, which is impossible in a flood scenario.

The thing is, nowhere in the quote is it specified that it took millions of years.

Nor is the process as described such that one cannot imagine any other timescale than millions of years.

No, not feasible for either limestone nor petroleum in a short time span you propose.

The existence of the coccolithe layer in the sea has already been accounted for, and you have proposed no real other problem.

Yes, but not in the volume that exists in the earth;s resources.

That depends entirely on how much organic material was squished when ... with a Flood, it would have been plenty.

[shunyadragon]

BY soil I suppose you mean humus - it is forming very rapidly and no one who digs up humus in his garden will ever be told by any scientist the humus took billions of years to form.

No, not humus.

The limestone deposits in caves ... will you give me a source saying there are annual actual RINGS?

Since you do not believe in modern science, I doubt references are meaningful.

The flowstones, anyway, we do have pictorial evidence it can form very rapidly.

Flowstones?!?!?! No such term exists in modern geology. What are flowstones?!??! Limestones are not flowstones (?)

You failed to notice, perhaps, that the limestone we talk about is CaCO3 - just as the end product of cement.

The end product of cement is not CaCO3. CaCO3 is an ingredient used in the Manufacture of cement. It is burned and the actual ingredients in cement are Calcium Oxide and Calcium Hyroxide. Cement and concrete has particular composition not found in nature.

Cement and concrete contain very little or no CaCO3.

In other words, it is not a chemical impossibility for limestone to form rapidly.

It is impossible for the huge deposits of limestone to form rapidly.

Obviously, in the aftermath of a huge Flood, certain areas would look like gigantic magnifications of, for instance, cement being put in place and left to harden in a building.

Obviously?!?!? References please. This does not make sense.



Based on the actual evidence that builders use the process and the amount of time you suggest is not there, you are wrong.



The thing is, nowhere in the quote is it specified that it took millions of years.

Nor is the process as described such that one cannot imagine any other timescale than millions of years.



The existence of the coccolithe layer in the sea has already been accounted for, and you have proposed no real other problem.

That depends entirely on how much organic material was squished when ... with a Flood, it would have been plenty.

Depends?!?!?! Not remotely reflects the real world.

[HMS_Beagle]

Anyone who studies the past beyond the actual traditions or accounts of it, needs to make stuff up, and then check whether it will explain the things to be explained.

So go do your checks first, then come back if you find some positive evidence for your woo.

[hansgeorg]

No, not humus.

Then you specify what exactly you were meaning by "soil".

Since you do not believe in modern science, I doubt references are meaningful.

Flowstones?!?!?! No such term exists in modern geology. What are flowstones?!??! Limestones are not flowstones (?)

Dripstone, stalagmite, a k a flowstone, at least in Kent Hovind's dialect. I don't think he made the word up.

If you were born in Mexico, that might be the reason you haven't heard the term.

The end product of cement is not CaCO3. CaCO3 is an ingredient used in the Manufacture of cement. It is burned and the actual ingredients in cement are Calcium Oxide and Calcium Hyroxide. Cement and concrete has particular composition not found in nature.

Cement and concrete contain very little or no CaCO3.

Then explain this part:

Once the excess water is completely evaporated (this process is technically called setting), the carbonation starts:

Ca(OH)2 + CO2 → CaCO3 + H2O

This reaction takes a significant amount of time because the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the air is low. The carbonation reaction requires the dry cement to be exposed to air, and for this reason the slaked lime is a non-hydraulic cement and cannot be used under water. This whole process is called the lime cycle.

It is impossible for the huge deposits of limestone to form rapidly.

Due to what exact factor ...

Obviously?!?!? References please. This does not make sense.

Flood scenario would imply lots of violent action involving lots of ... well, since you actually ASKED for references, I leave the word to CMI:

http://creation.com/can-flood-geolog...ick-chalk-beds

That's a reference for you!

Depends?!?!?! Not remotely reflects the real world.

You are presumably conflating "the real world" as extant before our senses with "the real world" as conceived by your theories.

[hansgeorg]

So go do your checks first, then come back if you find some positive evidence for your woo.

There are items on which positive checks are not available on which a lack of refuting negative evidence is good enough - for at least one possibility or alternative.

[Duragizer]

Hans has the imagination of a child -- a very young child, raised on a remote, isolated island by tribal villagers left untouched by modern civilization.

I almost envy him.

[hansgeorg]

Hans has the imagination of a child -- a very young child, raised on a remote, isolated island by tribal villagers left untouched by modern civilization.

I almost envy him.

I actually have the imagination of St Thomas Aquinas.

[Wally]

I actually have the imagination of St Thomas Aquinas.

Well,in his defense, there is the 800 years of scientific discoveries that he was unaware of.

[oxmixmudd]

You know, that kind of talk looks a bit like calumny.

Calling people insane because they disagree on how one is to understand (not everyday deal with, but understand as concept) the world we live in reminds me of the Inquisition - except it did not use the insanity charge, and it limited the charge of apostasy to those who were actually obliged to Christianity by baptism.

Your take on the world, given the information available, borders on, if not is, insanity. It might be a tame sort, like someone who believes their stuffed animals are real and have feelings, but it still indicates a real problem.

Jim

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

You know, that kind of talk looks a bit like calumny.

Calling people insane because they disagree on how one is to understand (not everyday deal with, but understand as concept) the world we live in reminds me of the Inquisition - except it did not use the insanity charge, and it limited the charge of apostasy to those who were actually obliged to Christianity by baptism.

calumny requires the statements themselves to be false. And my purpose is not to defame you Hans, but to try to wake you up - assuming this isn't just some sort of joke.

I am also troubled a bit in that an extreme form of the same process of thought that would label you insane over your rejection of the obvious could label any belief in God or gods as insane, yet clearly such belief is historically common to quite sane and good people.

One thing I am reminded of is that there are things that are good that when taken to extreme become bad. Even water, absolutely necessary for life, when taken to extreme, can become deadly.

In your case you have abused the concept of faith to include blind adherence to a principle obviously incorrect. It is not far from the fundamental principles which can take otherwise good people and turn them into suicide bombers for God. It can make people blow up abortion clinics harming those inside. It can make people drag gay people behind trucks because they believe homosexuality is wrong. One must be able to be corrected in one's beliefs by higher principles. By the witness of reality, otherwise one is nothing more than an automaton. Being created in the image of God means we do not show blind adherence to that which is obviously dead wrong! This is something Christ rebuked the religious leaders for over and over again.

You have enough evidence to know that what you believe is flawed. And you must exercise that element of humanity within you to look at the fact your blind adherence to some principle of interpretation of scripture or church dogma has led you to the place where not only do you reject and turn a blind eye to all the physical evidence around you, you actually created God in the image of a great deceiver. And you must accept that means your dogma is WRONG. And your dogma must yield to that or you are not longer worshiping God but something else - yourself or your institution or your teachers or all the above or something else. But the point it, you are capable of recognizing the dogma you've surrounded yourself is is wrong. The guards at Auschwitz were not given a pass because they were following orders and to disobey orders meant death. We are responsible Hans for the choices we make in situations like that.

This is not as dire a circumstance as that - not even close. But the thought process is the same. And you are painting God as a deceiver. And you are not absolved of that because you are building on some thought Aquinas had. Aquinas did not have the light you do on this topic.


Jim

[hansgeorg]

Well,in his defense, there is the 800 years of scientific discoveries that he was unaware of.

The proportion between actual discoveries and what are unwarranted changes of paradigm has been overrated.

[hansgeorg]

calumny requires the statements themselves to be false. And my purpose is not to defame you Hans, but to try to wake you up - assuming this isn't just some sort of joke.

It is not a joke.

I prefer debate over attempts to "wake me up".

I am also troubled a bit in that an extreme form of the same process of thought that would label you insane over your rejection of the obvious could label any belief in God or gods as insane, yet clearly such belief is historically common to quite sane and good people.

Well, the fact is that quite a number of good and sane people HAVE believed either in gods - plural for the pagans - or in God and His angels doing quite a lot of the stuff you are inventing new tasks for blind matter about.

One thing I am reminded of is that there are things that are good that when taken to extreme become bad. Even water, absolutely necessary for life, when taken to extreme, can become deadly.

There is really nothing extreme about my views - except to the extreme and indeed deadly mind of modernity.

In your case you have abused the concept of faith to include blind adherence to a principle obviously incorrect. It is not far from the fundamental principles which can take otherwise good people and turn them into suicide bombers for God. It can make people blow up abortion clinics harming those inside. It can make people drag gay people behind trucks because they believe homosexuality is wrong. One must be able to be corrected in one's beliefs by higher principles. By the witness of reality, otherwise one is nothing more than an automaton. Being created in the image of God means we do not show blind adherence to that which is obviously dead wrong! This is something Christ rebuked the religious leaders for over and over again.

You have time after time been challenged by me to substantiate that YOUR take on what Christ rebuked the Pharisees over is the correct one. The challenge, by the way, extends to your pastor, if you feel disinclined.

You have time after time refused to give examples.

However, would you, with your views, not have labelled Christ insane and extreme when twice he took the whip and drove out the merchants from the temple?

You have enough evidence to know that what you believe is flawed. And you must exercise that element of humanity within you to look at the fact your blind adherence to some principle of interpretation of scripture or church dogma has led you to the place where not only do you reject and turn a blind eye to all the physical evidence around you, you actually created God in the image of a great deceiver. And you must accept that means your dogma is WRONG. And your dogma must yield to that or you are not longer worshiping God but something else - yourself or your institution or your teachers or all the above or something else. But the point it, you are capable of recognizing the dogma you've surrounded yourself is is wrong. The guards at Auschwitz were not given a pass because they were following orders and to disobey orders meant death. We are responsible Hans for the choices we make in situations like that.

I think you are closer to National Socialists than I am. They were also worshippers of scientism, they were also rejecting the "blind dogma" of Catholics (and perhaps, if then available in Germany, of Rabbinic Jews).

You have engaged in vituperation of what I am doing rather than in answering my actual arguments here.

But your vituperation has gone very vitriolic.

I am tired of your attempts to "wake me up" - especially since they involve even more calumny.

This is not as dire a circumstance as that - not even close. But the thought process is the same. And you are painting God as a deceiver. And you are not absolved of that because you are building on some thought Aquinas had. Aquinas did not have the light you do on this topic.

Aquinas had lots more of light on the topic than you have.

If you had told him that - given the evidence available since his day - what he said about angels would amount to painting God as a deceiver, he would as far as I can gather as a student of his, have replied that your view would equally excuse astrological determinism.

You had another thread where I charged you to give another example of when angels would really be just deceiving us, if my world view "were" true, after I had refuted more than one and asked for time on exactly one (though I forget which one), and you refused to do that there. But here you come back with the same accusation, equally unsubatsntiated this time.

[Wally]

If your theology demands followers accept scientific concepts that are obviously false, then it makes it impossible for rational people to be a part of your religion.

[hansgeorg]

If your theology demands followers accept scientific concepts that are obviously false, then it makes it impossible for rational people to be a part of your religion.

Thank you very much, I won't be joining the religion of oxmixmudd, then!

Or were you referring to sth else than his diatribes on "God would be a deceiver if angels were moving the stars" theme? Is there sth another one here said which you consider as "obviously false"?

I was having a debate (and rather enjoying it) on evidence for the Flood, and if that is what you mean, feel welcome to bring things back to a state of debate!

[Wally]

Thank you very much, I won't be joining the religion of oxmixmudd, then!

Or were you referring to sth else than his diatribes on "God would be a deceiver if angels were moving the stars" theme? Is there sth another one here said which you consider as "obviously false"?

I was having a debate (and rather enjoying it) on evidence for the Flood, and if that is what you mean, feel welcome to bring things back to a state of debate!

The above is formally known as the Pee Wee Herman defense.