Flood Geology?

[Lokmer]

I ran across an excellent little compenium of proofs against "Flood Geology" that may be helpful to you guys who are interested in the topic and/or who debate fundies.

click this link

 

-Lokmer

[Abiyoyo]

I ran across an excellent little compenium of proofs against "Flood Geology" that may be helpful to you guys who are interested in the topic and/or who debate fundies. 

click this link

 

-Lokmer

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I dont get the whole evidence thing. The whole book of the Bible is based on faith in God, not evidence. My question to the "frantic Creationists" that persist to prove Gods miracles, and creations are correct is;Are they higher than God? Can they prove anything that represents Gods word without his willing to do so? Is Gods hand to short to get ample evidence to what He would want known? I guess people would coim me a "creationists" because I do believe everything in the Bible.But what is a "creationist" really?Sounds more like a debat team to me.

[Guest MalaInSe]

I dont get the whole evidence thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Clearly.

[Merlinfmct87]

Clearly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Too funne Ren... Too funny...

 

Merlin

[white_raven23]

I dont get the whole evidence thing. The whole book of the Bible is based on faith in God, not evidence.

 

Obviously.

 

That's why you're still a Christian. Please tell me you're not a detective, or an FBI agent.

 

Although I suppose you'd make a great defense attorney.

[Purple Rhino]

I dont get the whole evidence thing...

I guess people would coim me a "creationists" because I do believe everything in the Bible.But what is a "creationist" really?Sounds more like a debat team to me. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok Yo Yo or other believers,

 

I would like to ask, since you believe 'everything in the bible'. Could you tell me intelligently;

 

1) Which version do you believe?

2) Why is it that Evidence wouldn't matter?

 

I personally wonder why this god, represented in the bible, relies so much on 'faith' of it's followers. Yes I agree that having your minions believe for the sake of believing is a clever tactic to maintain infallibility but why not give a few concrete articles of evidence? Or more believable explanations.

 

Maybe a diagram of the giant tank that held all of the sea creatures on the ark. Because according to the story for whatever reason they died off with everyother thing.

 

PR

[Mr. Neil]

I love flood geology. There are few things in Christian apologetics and creationism that is as weak as flood geology. They can't account for anything in the geologic column. In fact, they blantantly lie and say that it doesn't exist!

 

The whole book of the Bible is based on faith in God, not evidence. My question to the "frantic Creationists" that persist to prove Gods miracles, and creations are correct is;Are they higher than God?

I've heard this objection a few times. One Christian writer (I don't remember who) said that it was blasphemous to subject God and his miracles to falsification.

 

But this is based on the assumption that the creationists are trying to prove something, which they're clearly not. They're trying to disprove evolution, and doing a very poor job at it.

 

Creationists have no interest in doing science, because they ignore anything that doesn't fit within the narrow margins of their objective. Creationist come up with the answer first, which is that the Bible is true, and then they overlay this bias on top of the evidence. But in doing so, they overstep crucial evidences, such as fossil regularities, foot prints and migration patterns, varves, and (my personal favorite) angular unconformities. These things completely falsify flood geology, and the creationists simply don't want to admit it.

 

Their folly is that the Bible cannot and is not literally true. It contradicts both the fossil record and itself. I know you take the Bible literally, but I think I would be irresponsible if I didn't say that such a worldview is out of touch with reality.

[jcismyhomeboy]

yoyo, brother, your really hurting the cause more than helping it.

Fellas, there are a lot of proofs out there to support flood geology.

The Grand Canyon for example. mollusks found on top of mountains. The strange meandering of the St. Lawrence Seaway, i will post some more evidence for this later, i just kinda don't have the time right now. YoYo, of course belief in the bible requires faith, but in order for something to be considered true it must be falsifiable, for instance if i claim that in the region surrounding our solar system there is an Oort cloud giving birth to comets the claim must be testable to be credible.

The bible makes a lot of claims that are in direct contradiction with popular science, and therefor has a responsibility to at least whether these claims if not completely disprove them. But if we're gonna win these lost souls, and if they look exclusively at evidence that we must believe that our God could provide that for them.

[jcismyhomeboy]

I love flood geology.  There are few things in Christian apologetics and creationism that is as weak as flood geology.  They can't account for anything in the geologic column.  In fact, they blantantly lie and say that it doesn't exist!

 

I've heard this objection a few times.  One Christian writer (I don't remember who) said that it was blasphemous to subject God and his miracles to falsification.

 

But this is based on the assumption that the creationists are trying to prove something, which they're clearly not.  They're trying to disprove evolution, and doing a very poor job at it.

 

Creationists have no interest in doing science, because they ignore anything that doesn't fit within the narrow margins of their objective.  Creationist come up with the answer first, which is that the Bible is true, and then they overlay this bias on top of the evidence.  But in doing so, they overstep crucial evidences, such as fossil regularities, foot prints and migration patterns, varves, and (my personal favorite) angular unconformities.  These things completely falsify flood geology, and the creationists simply don't want to admit it.

 

Their folly is that the Bible cannot and is not literally true.  It contradicts both the fossil record and itself.  I know you take the Bible literally, but I think I would be irresponsible if I didn't say that such a worldview is out of touch with reality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As far as Evolution goes, there was simply not enough time for it. Look at the earth's human population, or the salt contents of the oceans, or the inherent flaws in carbon dating (assuming an old earth). All these things and more give us a proponderance of evidence which in the very least deserves some weighting before throwing it out because it doesn't fit current scientific trends.

[Asimov]

yoyo, brother, your really hurting the cause more than helping it.

Fellas, there are a lot of proofs out there to support flood geology.

The Grand Canyon for example.

 

And what about the grand canyon supports flood geology? I'm pretty sure it falsifies flood geology (talk to Mr. Neil about that.).

 

mollusks found on top of mountains.

 

How does that support flood geology?

 

The strange meandering of the St. Lawrence Seaway, i will post some more evidence for this later, i just kinda don't have the time right now.

 

How does that support flood geology?

[Asimov]

Look at the earth's human population,

 

What about the earth's human population?

or the salt contents of the oceans,

 

What about it?

 

or the inherent flaws in carbon dating (assuming an old earth).

 

huh?

[jcismyhomeboy]

What about the earth's human population?

What about it?

huh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

alright i got 10 minutes so i'm gonna do this quick and i'll prolly leave some stuff out by mistake.

 

The earth's population is currently at approx 6 B people. We know that the tendancy for humans, as with most organisms is to reproduce geometrically. With the rate of growth we've experience since we started keeping count there is no way we would only be at 6 billion in the 30 millions years or so we've been around. We'd be at more like 6 trillion. And its not due to over population we could fit the entire poplation of the earth in Charleston South Carolina.

 

Second the Salt levels. We know the rate at which erosion decays salt into the oceans. assuming a 4Billion year old earth, we would have no water left, it would all be salt.

 

Carbon dating measures the age of a subject by referencing the half-live of the carbon 14 atom to the rate of decay in the atmosphere. Carbon 14 takes about 27 000 years to settle to a constant rate. When they invented carbon dating they assumed that the earth was millions of years old. Now whenever they measure carbon levels they get very conflicting numbers. For instance they measured a snail that was alive to be well over 14 000 years old. They measure the leg of a mammoth to be 10000years older than the other leg of the same mammoth. Maybe we should wait 21000 years until carbon is at a constant rate in the atmosphere and try it again, huh?>

[Flyby Stardancer]

The earth's population is currently at approx 6 B people.  We know that the tendancy for humans, as with most organisms is to reproduce geometrically. With the rate of growth we've experience since we started keeping count there is no way we would only be at 6 billion in the 30 millions years or so we've been around. We'd be at more like 6 trillion. And its not due to over population we could fit the entire poplation of the earth in Charleston South Carolina.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

...Have you taken into account the population explosions caused by industrial revolutions the world over? And modern medicine? And all that stuff that lets us live longer and allows MORE people to live? We have MUCH lower death rates now than we did a few hundred years ago. And a few hundred years ago we had MUCH lower death rates than we did a few thousand years ago.

 

And in most of the word, the birth rate has not changed.

 

Same number of babies per family, but now most of them are not dying before they can have kids of THEIR own.

 

That means population explosion occurs.

 

And when population explosions occur, we see MUCH higher number of people than there should have otherwise been.

 

See? Simple. Blame industrial revolutions and modern medicines. And us killing our natural predators in an attempt to be the top of the foodchain.

[jcismyhomeboy]

...Have you taken into account the population explosions caused by industrial revolutions the world over? And modern medicine? And all that stuff that lets us live longer and allows MORE people to live? We have MUCH lower death rates now than we did a few hundred years ago. And a few hundred years ago we had MUCH lower death rates than we did a few thousand years ago.

 

And in most of the word, the birth rate has not changed.

 

Same number of babies per family, but now most of them are not dying before they can have kids of THEIR own.

 

That means population explosion occurs.

 

And when population explosions occur, we see MUCH higher number of people than there should have otherwise been.

 

See? Simple. Blame industrial revolutions and modern medicines. And us killing our natural predators in an attempt to be the top of the foodchain.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if you expect that to account for a difference of 5.94 trillion people than maybe your the on thats cramming evidence around your dogma. We're talking 30 million years here pal, compare that to the 100 year period your refering to. Be honest now how can you justify all three of these facts.

[Mr. Neil]

yoyo, brother, your really hurting the cause more than helping it.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

Fellas, there are a lot of proofs out there to support flood geology.

Hoooo boy, this aughta be good.

 

The Grand Canyon for example.

The Grand Canyon is one of the best examples of old earth geology. Among those layers which you silly creatos attribute to the flood, you have inconvenient things like foot prints and raindrop impressions, hense you ignore evidence that contradicts your worldview, as I mentioned earlier.

 

The Grand Canyon has some of the best examples of geologic features that debunk flood geology. These formations are known as angular unconformities. These are formations in which sediment was laid down, the layer was tilted, the top of the layer was eroded to a level plane. And then more layers were laid on top.

 

Here's a nice little resource for you: http://www.casdn.neu.edu/~geology/departme...1212/gc_unc.htm

 

Here's why unconformities and flood geology don't work: Gravity. Basically, in order to have this sort of formation, you have to assume that the base layers were already dry, otherwise they'd slide as soon as vocanic activity causes them to tilt.

 

Your problem is that you simply asserted that the Grand Canyon was evidence for the flood. I explained why it's actually evidence against the flood. You lose.

 

 

mollusks found on top of mountains.

This is so obvious, a child could answer this. Basically, any competent person even remotely knowledgable about geology knows that the mountain ranges in which sea life can be found, such as the Himalayans, happen to rise where two plates meet and push rock upward, and that's how you get sea fossils at the tops of mountains. Duh!

 

 

The strange meandering of the St. Lawrence Seaway

You know, you're not actually providing any arguments. You're just dropping names of features and not explaining how this attributes to flood geology. I don't even know what you're trying to prove with the St. Lawrence Seaway. You're going to have to explain.

 

 

i will post some more evidence for this later

Implying that what you've posted now constitutes as evidence, but I don't see any. I've beaten two of them, having had some prior knowledge of these topics, and then showed that the third (actually all of them) didn't even present an argument. You just said that the St. Lawrence Seaway was evidence. HOW!?

 

 

i just kinda don't have the time right now.

You just kinda don't have an argument right now.

 

 

YoYo, of course belief in the bible requires faith, but in order for something to be considered true it must be falsifiable, for instance if i claim that in the region surrounding our solar system there is an Oort cloud giving birth to comets the claim must be testable to be credible.

 

That kind of defeats the purpose of faith then, doesn't it? If you have to subject it to falsifiablity, then you don't have faith it in at all! You're testing it to make sure that it's true! That's the opposite of faith. That's called critical thinking.

 

But don't worry. I didn't really mean that you don't have faith. You do have faith. Otherwise, you wouldn't put the answer in front of the investigation like you did with the Grand Canyon.

 

 

The bible makes a lot of claims that are in direct contradiction with popular science, and therefor has a responsibility to at least whether these claims if not completely disprove them. But if we're gonna win these lost souls, and if they look exclusively at evidence that we must believe that our God could provide that for them.

The second you assume faith ahead of scientific investigation, then you are no longer doing science. But if you try to subject the Bible to falsifiability, you no longer have faith.

 

In my opinion, you're worse off than YoYo! At least YoYo has faith. You're a walking contradiction!

 

[jcismyhomeboy]

Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

 

Hoooo boy, this aughta be good.

 

The Grand Canyon is one of the best examples of old earth geology.  Among those layers which you silly creatos attribute to the flood, you have inconvenient things like foot prints and raindrop impressions, hense you ignore evidence that contradicts your worldview, as I mentioned earlier.

 

The Grand Canyon has some of the best examples of geologic features that debunk flood geology.  These formations are known as angular unconformities.  These are formations in which sediment was laid down, the layer was tilted, the top of the layer was eroded to a level plane.  And then more layers were laid on top.

 

Here's a nice little resource for you: http://www.casdn.neu.edu/~geology/departme...1212/gc_unc.htm

 

Here's why unconformities and flood geology don't work: Gravity.  Basically, in order to have this sort of formation, you have to assume that the base layers were already dry, otherwise they'd slide as soon as vocanic activity causes them to tilt.

 

Your problem is that you simply asserted that the Grand Canyon was evidence for the flood.  I explained why it's actually evidence against the flood.  You lose.

This is so obvious, a child could answer this.  Basically, any competent person even remotely knowledgable about geology knows that the mountain ranges in which sea life can be found, such as the Himalayans, happen to rise where two plates meet and push rock upward, and that's how you get sea fossils at the tops of mountains.  Duh!

You know, you're not actually providing any arguments.  You're just dropping names of features and not explaining how this attributes to flood geology.  I don't even know what you're trying to prove with the St. Lawrence Seaway.  You're going to have to explain.

Implying that what you've posted now constitutes as evidence, but I don't see any.  I've beaten two of them, having had some prior knowledge of these topics, and then showed that the third (actually all of them) didn't even present an argument.  You just said that the St. Lawrence Seaway was evidence. HOW!?

You just kinda don't have an argument right now.

 

That kind of defeats the purpose of faith then, doesn't it?  If you have to subject it to falsifiablity, then you don't have faith it in at all!  You're testing it to make sure that it's true!  That's the opposite of faith.  That's called critical thinking.

 

But don't worry.  I didn't really mean that you don't have faith.  You do have faith.  Otherwise, you wouldn't put the answer in front of the investigation like you did with the Grand Canyon.

The second you assume faith ahead of scientific investigation, then you are no longer doing science.  But if you try to subject the Bible to falsifiability, you no longer have faith.

 

In my opinion, you're worse off than YoYo!  At least YoYo has faith.  You're a walking contradiction!

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I beleive what i beleive because of faith, and i happen to agree with kierkegaard here that faith is actually more meaningful than objective reasoning. But I also believe that there are many people in the world that require some scientific evidence to beleive, i mean thats why we're all here in the first place.

And believe i will give you some evidence for the flood tomorrow

i just don't want to make any mistakes when it comes to your soul bud.

[Mr. Neil]

I beleive what i beleive because of faith, and i happen to agree with kierkegaard here that faith is actually more meaningful than objective reasoning.

What do you mean by "more meaningful"?

 

 

But I also believe that there are many people in the world that require some scientific evidence to beleive, i mean thats why we're all here in the first place.

But then that's not faith. That's the opposite of faith. Using science is critical thinking.

 

You can't have it both ways, and you can't put the answer in front of the investigation.

 

 

And believe i will give you some evidence for the flood tomorrow

i just don't want to make any mistakes when it comes to your soul bud.

It had better be more competent than the so-called "evidence" you dropped here today, because if that's your idea of evidence, you're so owned.

 

I hope you also realize that I expect you to answer some of my objections. I want you to look into angular unconformities. If you ignore them, I'm only going to nag you until you address my point. I'm an asshole like that.

 

In the mean time, answer something for me. What is a soul? What do you refer to when you use that word?

[Flyby Stardancer]

if you expect that to account for a difference of 5.94 trillion people than maybe your the on thats cramming evidence around your dogma.  We're talking 30 million years here pal, compare that to the 100 year period your refering to. Be honest now how can you justify all three of these facts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1) I have no dogma to cram evidence around.

 

2) Human populations have grown EXPONENTIALLY, not GEOMETRICALLY. Exponential growth is much faster than geometric growth.

 

Exponential growth: x^2

 

Geometric growth: 2x

 

Try graphing those. Which gets you higher on the y axis faster?

[jcismyhomeboy]

yeah i do admit that in my first reply i didn't really leave any evidence, and in the second one i only gave the coles notes that didn't have anything to do with the subject, but i'll get back to you soon, promise.

And in the meantime, i can't explain to you what a soul is, why don't you give prayer a shot and see if you can't wake it up.

God bless

[Lokmer]

if you expect that to account for a difference of 5.94 trillion people than maybe your the on thats cramming evidence around your dogma.  We're talking 30 million years here pal, compare that to the 100 year period your refering to. Be honest now how can you justify all three of these facts.

 

 

Sorry, homeboy, but any competant survey of population curves will show you that the population explosion occurred at the Industrial Revolution. Period. Prior to that point, the Earth's population was fairly well in balance, swelling and dying off in cyclical patterns due to plague, famine, war, and natural disaster. In the most medically advanced society prior to our own - ancient Rome - the life expectancy was 30 in the privinces and 45 in the city. That figure held, with minor deviations of ten years one way or another, until 100 years ago. Now the average life expectancy in Western nations is over 70. People are living longer, breeding later, and those that are in the third world are breeding more as industrialization has brought in foods but not medicines (such as Birth Control) - therefore they breed until famine and the violence it creates cuts the population back again.

 

Also (and very importantly), the more technologically advanced a society is, the LESS its population is at risk for death at the hands of another human - be it the state or simply a neighbor, even when you include the numbers of the Soviet and Maoist concentration camps, Hitler's genocide, and all the deaths from all the wars fought in the 20th century. (Source: "The Blank Slate" by Steve Pinker).

 

Go back and check your figures, population does not grow on a straight curve. It's an undulating line. It floors me how Creation "Scientists" will use hardline uniformitarianism when it can suit their ends, but resort to hard-line catastrophism to support things like the flood et.al. For over 200 years, the best treatise on this subject is still the original, written by Thomas Malthus and available online in etext for free. U.S. CDC and any good physical anthropology or thorough history book will give you the data you need.

 

Your assertion is utter, unabashed poppycock.

 

-Lokmer

[Mr. Neil]

Already tried prayer a long time ago. Nothing extraordinary happens. Sometimes the desired effect happens. Sometimes it doesn't. But nothing that's actually outside the realm of possibility ever happens.

 

Prayer is attributed a whole bunch of garbage in which prayer is not actually required. For example, you always hear about the people with cancer who pray for recovery, but prayer didn't help them overcome cancer. A sergeon did! If the prayer did anything, then you wouldn't need the surgery in the first place. And unfortunately, there are people in this world who rely on prayer to heal things like cancer, and they die! Because prayer doesn't work!

 

Even in circumstances of supposed improbability, I'm not impressed. For example, let's say somebody prays to win the lottery, and they win. Well, that's not amazing. In a nation that is primarily Christian, it's likely that someone who prays to win will actually win. And when you consider that people win the lottery all the time (it's a game that never ends), then you see that it's not only likely that a someone prays to win might win, it's only a matter of time until one of them does!

 

In order to be impressed by prayer, I'll need to see an extraordinary event happen in which only a miracle could have occurred.

 

 

Why don't you give critical thinking a try? Question your faith. Put to all the rigorous testing that you would anything else. Unless yer yellah.

 

 

And what about the grand canyon supports flood geology?  I'm pretty sure it falsifies flood geology (talk to Mr. Neil about that.).

Am I that predictable?!

 

I totally bitchslapped him already for that. I'm patiently waiting for his rebuttal about angular unconformities. Whatever he comes up with, he'll have to find something fast. Unfortunately for him, he's not going to be able to use Answers in Genesis or ICR. Those irresponsible organizations have no articles about these formations, because they're as ignorant about geology as the typical creationist layman!

 

In other words, unless our buddy is a geologist and has some real arguments set up ahead of time, he's totally screwed!

[Asimov]

The earth's population is currently at approx 6 B people.  We know that the tendancy for humans, as with most organisms is to reproduce geometrically. With the rate of growth we've experience since we started keeping count there is no way we would only be at 6 billion in the 30 millions years or so we've been around. We'd be at more like 6 trillion. And its not due to over population we could fit the entire poplation of the earth in Charleston South Carolina.

 

Bahahahahaha!! The population growth rate nowadays is 1.4% per year. It hasn't been like that for the entire time humans have been around.

 

Second the Salt levels. We know the rate at which erosion decays salt into the oceans. assuming a 4Billion year old earth, we would have no water left, it would all be salt.

 

You're also assuming that it's not being taken out as well.

 

Carbon dating measures the age of a subject by referencing the half-live of the carbon 14 atom to the rate of decay in the atmosphere. Carbon 14 takes about 27 000 years to settle to a constant rate. When they invented carbon dating they assumed that the earth was millions of years old. Now whenever they measure carbon levels they get very conflicting numbers. For instance they measured a snail that was alive to be well over 14 000 years old. They measure the leg of a mammoth to be 10000years older than the other leg of the same mammoth. Maybe we should wait 21000 years until carbon is at a constant rate in the atmosphere and try it again, huh?>

 

You need to substantiate claims like that. You're silly.

[crazy-tiger]

alright i got 10 minutes so i'm gonna do this quick and i'll prolly leave some stuff out by mistake.

Or just make a mess out of it... wonder which?

The earth's population is currently at approx 6 B people.  We know that the tendancy for humans, as with most organisms is to reproduce geometrically. With the rate of growth we've experience since we started keeping count there is no way we would only be at 6 billion in the 30 millions years or so we've been around. We'd be at more like 6 trillion. And its not due to over population we could fit the entire poplation of the earth in Charleston South Carolina.

Just convieniently forgetting to take into account the differing population growth rate throughout most of history and assuming that the rate we've experienced since records began is the rate we've always had...

 

Not the best of starts.

Second the Salt levels. We know the rate at which erosion decays salt into the oceans. assuming a 4Billion year old earth, we would have no water left, it would all be salt.

Also assuming that there is nothing to take the salt OUT of the oceans...

 

You're not doing that well so far...

Carbon dating measures the age of a subject by referencing the half-live of the carbon 14 atom to the rate of decay in the atmosphere. Carbon 14 takes about 27 000 years to settle to a constant rate. When they invented carbon dating they assumed that the earth was millions of years old. Now whenever they measure carbon levels they get very conflicting numbers. For instance they measured a snail that was alive to be well over 14 000 years old. They measure the leg of a mammoth to be 10000years older than the other leg of the same mammoth. Maybe we should wait 21000 years until carbon is at a constant rate in the atmosphere and try it again, huh?>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh boy... carbon dating "errors" like that have yet to occur.

 

Except in the minds of some Creationists who desperately need something that proves "science" wrong... (ie. they're lying about it)

 

 

3 out of 3 fails there.

 

I'd say you made a mess of it.

[Mr. Neil]

And believe i will give you some evidence for the flood tomorrow

BEEP-BEEP-BEEP-BEEP-BEEP!!!! Time's up! Pencils down!

 

Where's your argument? You said this on the tenth. It's now the twelveth. I don't see any evidence at all.

 

Don't worry, though. You did your best. You provided all the evidence that you had at your disposal (i.e., nothing).

[Mr. Neil]

Hmm... Seems you've run away. Another exposed creationist hack.

 

Maybe this humiliation will teach you next time not to not use awful arguments you read at drdino.com on a non-Christian website. Come back when you learn something about critical thinking and not putting the answer ahead of the investigation.