Jump to content


Photo

Fossil Predictions For A Flood


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 17 November 2017 - 08:30 AM

With a flood we can make a prediction that because the bible says all life on earth perished, the fossils should show that the lifeforms preserved were fossilised while living.

 

In other words it makes more sense that the fossils should show tremendous preservation because they were not fossilised while they rotted like with long age stories.

 

This isn't the only factor of course, we should expect to find things that would usually take weeks or months to rot, which may be preserved. 

 

 

Not only is the chemistry of earth’s sedimentary rocks consistent with the rapid formation of fossils, but many fossils could only have been preserved in that manner. How else to explain the fossilized impressions of soft-tissue animals like squid, jellyfish, sponge embryos, and fish brains?3 These would normally have rotted within weeks or days and never have left a trace. Similarly, fossil clams with both valves still articulated are relatively abundant in fossiliferous layers. But it only takes weeks or days in the wild for the shells of dead clams to separate.

from: http://www.icr.org/a...ossil-formation

 

Impressions of soft tissues means the soft tissue survived for example. Rapid deposition of living things, is expected.

 

FOSSIL GRAVEYARDS;

 

There have been many fossil graveyards we might expect from catastrophe, Centrosaurus Ceratopsian dinos have been found with no evidence of weathering, dessication, bacterial or fungal degradation or insect bores. In the site known as BB43 there is hundreds to thousands of such dinosaurs, it is estimated.
 
187 parrot-beaked dinosaurs have been found, in Mongolia, altogether. With each an average of almost 2 metres it would take a lot of sediment to bury them. 
 
In a fossil graveyard of Ichthyosaurs, in Chile, 50 fossils have been found, with soft tissue. Again even the evolutionists argue catastrophe from mud flows. One find was a mother in the process of giving birth.
 
MANY FOSSILS FOUND IN THE DEATH THROW POSITION;
 

 

Dinosaur and pterosaur skeletons are often found in this characteristic posture: head thrown back, hind limbs bent, tail extended. The “dead dinosaur posture” is found in other fossils too—the best known being the fossil bird Archaeopteryx shown here. There are so many fossils found in this posture that a recent article in New Scientist said there are “Too many, in fact, to be a coincidence.”

 

On the below picture we see some examples of what we might expect to see if fossils occur while things were in the process of living and were buried by catastrophe;

 

Attached File  Exquisite fossils1.jpg   208.89KB   0 downloads

 

CONCLUSION: This evidence might be explainable with long ages, several catastrophes, large floods or whatever, my claim isn't that it is impossible to explain in that way my claim is that the absence of all such evidence would falsify a flood scenario, but evidence of catastrophe consistent with a flood and which evolution scientists would also argue was catastrophe from things such as mud flows, can't be said to not be consistent with the biblical catastrophe, because you only want it to fit with chosen catastrophes. (double standard)

 

Please note all of the fossils shown are so well preserved that we can easily tell what they are despite semantics about their level of completeness pictures speak louder than words. You can literally create any google search for a fossil of anything, just type in one organism such as, "spider" and if they have been found in the fossils your search will bring hundreds of exquisite examples of spiders, try anything, frogs, fish, snakes, whatever, the preservation of these fossils is exquisite, and it seems to me from my basic search on google alone I must have found a thousand, and that's not including marine forms at all, of which most of the fossil record consists of.

 

The Wibble-wobbly reasoning is busted. :P



#2 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 17 November 2017 - 02:15 PM

CONCLUSION: This evidence might be explainable with long ages, several catastrophes, large floods or whatever, my claim isn't that it is impossible to explain in that way my claim is that the absence of all such evidence would falsify a flood scenario, but evidence of catastrophe consistent with a flood and which evolution scientists would also argue was catastrophe from things such as mud flows, can't be said to not be consistent with the biblical catastrophe, because you only want it to fit with chosen catastrophes. (double standard)

I'm skeptical of the idea that some of this stuff is expected, but I don't think anyone's going to argue that a global flood couldn't produce some of those things. That wasn't really the issue anyway. The issues are whether a global flood can explain all of the evidence as a whole, and whether one is necessary to explain it.

Please note all of the fossils shown are so well preserved that we can easily tell what they are despite semantics about their level of completeness pictures speak louder than words. You can literally create any google search for a fossil of anything, just type in one organism such as, "spider" and if they have been found in the fossils your search will bring hundreds of exquisite examples of spiders, try anything, frogs, fish, snakes, whatever, the preservation of these fossils is exquisite, and it seems to me from my basic search on google alone I must have found a thousand, and that's not including marine forms at all, of which most of the fossil record consists of.

I did a search for "hominid fossil" and found this list. Looking through, I'm not sure I would describe the level of preservation of many of them as "exquisite".

#3 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,774 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 November 2017 - 03:14 PM

With a flood we can make a prediction that because the bible says all life on earth perished, the fossils should show that the lifeforms preserved were fossilised while living.

 

In other words it makes more sense that the fossils should show tremendous preservation because they were not fossilised while they rotted like with long age stories.

 

This isn't the only factor of course, we should expect to find things that would usually take weeks or months to rot, which may be preserved. 

 

 

Not only is the chemistry of earth’s sedimentary rocks consistent with the rapid formation of fossils, but many fossils could only have been preserved in that manner. How else to explain the fossilized impressions of soft-tissue animals like squid, jellyfish, sponge embryos, and fish brains?3 These would normally have rotted within weeks or days and never have left a trace. Similarly, fossil clams with both valves still articulated are relatively abundant in fossiliferous layers. But it only takes weeks or days in the wild for the shells of dead clams to separate.

from: http://www.icr.org/a...ossil-formation

Have you ever gone clamming, mike?

 

Clams live buried in the sand.  If they die in the sand, how would their valves separate or open?

 

 

Impressions of soft tissues means the soft tissue survived for example. Rapid deposition of living things, is expected.

We would expect the same of the local and regional floods we experience on a regular basis.

 

In what way does this show the floods were global rather than than those we are already familiar with?  Short answer .... it doesn't.

 

CONCLUSION: This evidence might be explainable with long ages, several catastrophes, large floods or whatever, my claim isn't that it is impossible to explain in that way my claim is that the absence of all such evidence would falsify a flood scenario, but evidence of catastrophe consistent with a flood and which evolution scientists would also argue was catastrophe from things such as mud flows, can't be said to not be consistent with the biblical catastrophe, because you only want it to fit with chosen catastrophes. (double standard)

You have conceded (above) that this evidence is explainable with "long ages, several catastrophes, large floods or whatever."  In other words, a global flood is NOT necessary as an explanation.

 

If you want to use your "fossil predictions" to show the flood of Noah was factual, it would be necessary to use evidence that would be unique to a single global flood event that can not be explained with the kind of flooding catastrophe we observe on a regular basis.

 

Occam's Razor dictates that in a case where the evidence is addressed equally well by the ordinary events or a single unique event, we should accept the ordinary rather than the extraordinary (and miraculous).



#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 19 November 2017 - 04:21 AM

 

 

Piasan: You have conceded (above) that this evidence is explainable with "long ages, several catastrophes, large floods or whatever."  In other words, a global flood is NOT necessary as an explanation.

 

That's not the point with confirmation evidence. Sure, I can't deny the antecedent and say, "if there was no flood we would not expect such evidence". But that's just a disclaimer, with a flood we would specifically expect such evidence, it is strong evidence for a flood really, in that such evidence MUST follow with a flood but it is not a "must" with long eons. That's my point in this topic, that had this evidence not existed there would be no way around it. I couldn't argue for example, that God done a miracle and made everything in the fossil record to be dead already so as to trick us, had we not found such examples. 

 

Meaning it's a clear example of a falsification that is guaranteed had such evidence not followed. The bible says a flood wiped out everything living, two predictions are guaranteed, that we should find evidence they were living when buried, and we should find all kinds of creatures of every phyla, if all life perished. There are more predictions which are also sound, I can give. Only if a prediction is sound can a falsification be sound, because the consequent must 100% follow the antecedent like this;

 

If I had my leg chopped off, then it follows a leg will be absent.

 

Falsification; A leg is not absent, therefore I have not had my leg chopped off.

 

(But note in this second example highlighted red, that the falsification isn't genuine if the consequent doesn't necessarily follow;

 

If he was a preacher he would have many followers.

He does not have many followers therefore he is not a preacher.

 

(As you can see, if the implication is only a "maybe" or there is some uncertainty, then not only does the consequent not follow but neither does the falsification.)

 

Another example;

 

If there was a flood there would be no fossil assemblages.

There are so there was no flood.

 

This one fails because there is no way to test the notion is necessarily true. All such implications have to be watertight and to be watertight we have to show that the consequent in no uncertain terms, MUST follow the antecedent.

 

Now you may object, "but it still seems like a reasonable argument". It may be - you can make a case as evidence against a flood but you don't have a sound falsification of one if there is some possible explanation such as for example, geographical provincialism, differential escapage, ecological zonation or other things creation scientists have put forward as possible answers. Then there is simply our gaping lack of knowledge of global floods, we simply can't test. Catastrophes are messy, complicated things.

 

I only request that people don't argue dogma, like Wibble when he says a flood was impossible. That's false knowledge unless he can provide a scientific implication which is 100% tested to be sound, so that we can falsify it properly. Many evolutionists argue like this it seems, as they think it's enough to be a science fanatic without understanding the hypothetico deductive model.

 

 

 

Popoi: I did a search for "hominid fossil" and found this list. Looking through, I'm not sure I would describe the level of preservation of many of them as "exquisite". 

 

That makes sense to creationists though, given those fossils are found above the post-flood boundary. We don't argue quarternary rocks are flood, or even pleistocene. We argue "hominids" to be post-flood human cave dwellers and such. Though admittedly creation scientists don't agree with each other as to precisely where the pre-flood/post-flood boundaries are, there seems to be different models but I don't think any creationist would argue that hominid fossils are from flood deposits.



#5 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 19 November 2017 - 11:22 AM

The bible says a flood wiped out everything living, two predictions are guaranteed, that we should find evidence they were living when buried, and we should find all kinds of creatures of every phyla, if all life perished.

I don’t think either of those things necessarily follows. Dying in a months-long flood doesn’t seem to imply burial, and certainly doesn’t seem to imply exclusively burial while still alive. If differential escape, provincialism, and whatnot can explain why some things are missing or oddly arranged, it seems easy enough to have it explain why a whole phylum is missing. Leaving aside that phylum seems like an arbitrary choice to begin with.

 

Now you may object, "but it still seems like a reasonable argument". It may be - you can make a case as evidence against a flood but you don't have a sound falsification of one if there is some possible explanation such as for example, geographical provincialism, differential escapage, ecological zonation or other things creation scientists have put forward as possible answers. Then there is simply our gaping lack of knowledge of global floods, we simply can't test. Catastrophes are messy, complicated things.

How do you figure you’re coming up with a watertight implication if you admit you don’t actually know how a global flood would work?
 

That makes sense to creationists though, given those fossils are found above the post-flood boundary. We don't argue quarternary rocks are flood, or even pleistocene. We argue "hominids" to be post-flood human cave dwellers and such. Though admittedly creation scientists don't agree with each other as to precisely where the pre-flood/post-flood boundaries are, there seems to be different models but I don't think any creationist would argue that hominid fossils are from flood deposits.

I’m not sure why pre-flood hominids would be spared the requisite preservation, but shouldn’t it be pretty easy to tell where your pre/post flood line is by looking for where the exquisite preservation stops?

#6 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,774 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 November 2017 - 11:42 AM

 

Piasan: You have conceded (above) that this evidence is explainable with "long ages, several catastrophes, large floods or whatever."  In other words, a global flood is NOT necessary as an explanation.

That's not the point with confirmation evidence. Sure, I can't deny the antecedent and say, "if there was no flood we would not expect such evidence". But that's just a disclaimer, with a flood we would specifically expect such evidence, it is strong evidence for a flood really, in that such evidence MUST follow with a flood but it is not a "must" with long eons. That's my point in this topic, that had this evidence not existed there would be no way around it. I couldn't argue for example, that God done a miracle and made everything in the fossil record to be dead already so as to trick us, had we not found such examples. 

You are engaged in semantic hair-splitting and ignoring the significant portion of my comment .....

 

Yes, I agree 100% that floods (among other causes) will cause the kinds of evidence you mention.  But you are not trying to simply prove these findings are a result of just any flood.  Your argument is that they are evidence of THE (global) flood of Noah.

 

The problem is that the things you mention are NOT unique to a global flood.  Pretty much any major flood will create evidence you cite.

 

I repeat the significant portion of my comments:

 

If you want to use your "fossil predictions" to show the flood of Noah was factual, it would be necessary to use evidence that would be unique to a single global flood event that can not be explained with the kind of flooding catastrophe we observe on a regular basis.

 

Occam's Razor dictates that in a case where the evidence is addressed equally well by the ordinary events or a single unique event, we should accept the ordinary rather than the extraordinary (and miraculous).

You have not justified your failure to consider the obvious explanation of observed (local/regional) floods in favor of a unique (global) event.



#7 Lion of Judah

Lion of Judah

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I love to serve the Lord Jesus Christ. This is my first and most important interest.

    Biblical history; Creation Science; Intelligent design; Reading and writing; Debating Creation/Evolution; Social work stuff; YouTube videos; college football
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Idaho

Posted 25 November 2017 - 03:52 PM

Mike - Great post!

 

"the fossils should show that the lifeforms preserved were fossilised while living."

 

Mike - I agree that sea dwelling creatures were fossilized while alive, but land dwelling creatures were first drown and then they were placed in the soft sedimentary material or fossilized in place (as the fighting dinosaur picture indicates). 

 

"Impressions of soft tissues means the soft tissue survived for example. Rapid deposition of living things, is expected."

 

Absolutely. Rapid burial is necessary for fossilization to occur. Slow fossilization is simply not scientifically feasible. We know that fossilization does not occur today, for it requires sudden death, sudden burial and great pressure. As a result, a catastrophic event is required which qualifies the Genesis flood as a plausible explanation for the fossils. 

 

Blessings!



#8 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 842 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 25 November 2017 - 05:47 PM

Mike - I agree that sea dwelling creatures were fossilized while alive, but land dwelling creatures were first drown and then they were placed in the soft sedimentary material or fossilized in place (as the fighting dinosaur picture indicates).


A question - why wouldn't bloated carcasses of dinosaurs and recognizably modern large mammals float around for a while before being deposited in the upper sedimentary layers together ? And another thing, I haven't seen the supposed picture of a "fighting dinosaur" but Mike keeps repeating this kind of stuff, how would a sudden inundation preserve behavioural positions ? Common sense suggests that a pair of fighting dinosaurs would be somewhat separated under such a circumstance of violent flow. Of course the same would probably be true (if they were really fighting) under secular explanations of fossilisation (which is why I doubt they were actually preserved fighting).
 

"Impressions of soft tissues means the soft tissue survived for example. Rapid deposition of living things, is expected."
 
Absolutely. Rapid burial is necessary for fossilization to occur. Slow fossilization is simply not scientifically feasible. We know that fossilization does not occur today, for it requires sudden death, sudden burial and great pressure. As a result, a catastrophic event is required which qualifies the Genesis flood as a plausible explanation for the fossils.


Hang on, you do know that fossilisation of soft tissue is the rare exception rather than the norm, don't you ? Mike makes out its commonplace. And what is the basis for your assertion that fossilisation does not occur today ? Fossilization of bones, or shells of molluscs does not require sudden death and burial. Nor does it necessarily require great pressure, else you would never have non flattened fossils.



#9 Lion of Judah

Lion of Judah

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I love to serve the Lord Jesus Christ. This is my first and most important interest.

    Biblical history; Creation Science; Intelligent design; Reading and writing; Debating Creation/Evolution; Social work stuff; YouTube videos; college football
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Idaho

Posted 26 November 2017 - 02:26 PM

"how would a sudden inundation preserve behavioural positions ?"

 

Wibble - I agree that the interpretation could be wrong. It may just be that the two animals were in close proximity and were encapsulated next to each other as a result. 

 

"Hang on, you do know that fossilisation of soft tissue is the rare exception rather than the norm, don't you ?"

 

Whether it's an exception or the norm is not important. The fact that "there are" soft tissue fossils is suggestive of rapid preservation, which is what I think Mike is trying to emphasize.

 

"And what is the basis for your assertion that fossilisation does not occur today ?"

 

There is a large quantity of animal and plant life in the strata, but these things do not harden into fossils today. It was estimated that on the North America plains some 20 to 50 million buffalo lived, and millions died after European expansion. However, buffalo fossil graveyards do not exist. This is because their flesh was eaten by wolves and vultures within hours or days. Even their bones crumbled, liquefied and turned to dust under weathering. Fossilization requires special conditions. Floods, volcano eruptions and earthquakes could provide those special conditions, but the fossils are so widespread that we would have to assume that these events occurred millions of times in diverse places. The other options is to assume that one big event occurred. In my opinion, the fossils suggest that the latter scenario occurred.  

 

Best wishes.   

 

 


  • mike the wiz likes this

#10 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 26 November 2017 - 06:57 PM

Kinda makes you wonder how we have so much crude oil, eh?

If all the organisms buried in the flood were fossilized, would it be enough to turn into the amount of oil that we have?

Is oil documented before Noah's time?

Is oil actually made from fossils?

I know this isn't directly relevant, but all this talk of fossils got me thinking of oil, which I suppose is regarded as fossils by many, albeit a different form of it.

#11 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 27 November 2017 - 05:03 AM

 

 

Lion Of Judah: Mike - Great post!

 

Bless you Sir, just occasionally I am appreciated. Seldom, but occasionally. ;)



#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 27 November 2017 - 07:17 AM

 

CMI: The earth’s underground oil reserves are generally thought to result from organic matter (dead plants and animals) accumulated over millions of years. Therefore, one would expect production from oil wells to decline as oil is pumped out.

But instead of declining, seismic analysis and other tests at many oil wells around the world (e.g. Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, Uzbekistan and the Middle East) show that oil reserves are being replenished from some deeper and previously unknown source.

So, some researchers are now saying that crude oil may be a natural non-biological product and therefore ‘not a stepchild of unfathomable time and organic degradation’. They suggest that streams of methane gas rapidly rise from huge concentrations deep in the earth. These form into crude oil at the mantle-crust interface, roughly 6,000 m (20,000 ft) below the earth’s surface.

Researcher Dr Thomas Gold says that oil is a ‘renewable primordial soup continually manufactured by the earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attacked by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs.’

American Assoc. of Petroleum Geologists, , 18 August 2004.
World Net Daily, , 27 May 2004.

https://creation.com...eation-magazine

 

(oh the beauty of the CMI search engine, my lads! ;) :P


  • Sleepy House likes this

#13 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 27 November 2017 - 07:40 AM

Good objectivity anyway Sleeph House, a shame evolutionists seem to have a *blank* in their minds, when it comes to objectivity, I don't think I have ever known an evolutionist on forums like this to even concede that any evidence might follow had a flood occurred. That should raise alarm bells for any critical thinker! (Think about it, many times I have conceded there is evidence that may be regarded as consistent with evolution such as homology or certain candidates which may at least, "fit" with a possible evolutionary scenario but have I ever known an evolutionist to show scientific objectivity? I struggle to remember Wibble or Piasan ever doing so.)



#14 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 29 November 2017 - 08:27 AM

I don't think I have ever known an evolutionist on forums like this to even concede that any evidence might follow had a flood occurred.

Did you spot where it happened twice in this thread?

#15 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 03 December 2017 - 08:56 AM

Drops of oil were found in rocks aged 3 billion years in Australia.

Interesting because that's twice the age of the oldest known oil, and predates algae by a billion years as well as flourishing plants by a lot more (360mya is when plants were said to start flourishing).

#16 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 December 2017 - 11:07 AM

 

 

Drops of oil were found in rocks aged 3 billion years in Australia.

Interesting because that's twice the age of the oldest known oil, and predates algae by a billion years as well as flourishing plants by a lot more (360mya is when plants were said to start flourishing). 

 

So basically you're saying that plants flourish, and blots of oil? :rotfl3: 

 

http://pottermore.wi...rish_and_Blotts



#17 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,774 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 10 December 2017 - 03:21 PM

Good objectivity anyway Sleeph House, a shame evolutionists seem to have a *blank* in their minds, when it comes to objectivity,

That's funny coming from a creationist when every single creation scientist who ever worked for a creation science ministry has signed a declaration that any evidence in conflict with a literal Genesis is invalid by definition

 

How objective is that? 

 

 

I don't think I have ever known an evolutionist on forums like this to even concede that any evidence might follow had a flood occurred.

 

Not true.  I cite post #3

 

With a flood we can make a prediction that because the bible says all life on earth perished, the fossils should show that the lifeforms preserved were fossilised while living.....

 

Impressions of soft tissues means the soft tissue survived for example. Rapid deposition of living things, is expected.

We would expect the same of the local and regional floods we experience on a regular basis.

Notice, I did not dispute that the things you listed would result from a flood.  By implication, it follows I "concede" the evidence you listed "might follow had a flood occurred."

 

I was much more explicit in post #6:

Yes, I agree 100% that floods (among other causes) will cause the kinds of evidence you mention. 

I went on to point out that the next step is to show they result from a single flood event rather than the kind of local and regional floods we're familiar with.

 

 

That should raise alarm bells for any critical thinker!

So should the fact that you simply discard Occam's Razor without justification.


  • StormanNorman likes this

#18 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,774 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 10 December 2017 - 05:08 PM

 

Piasan: You have conceded (above) that this evidence is explainable with "long ages, several catastrophes, large floods or whatever."  In other words, a global flood is NOT necessary as an explanation.

 

Only if a prediction is sound can a falsification be sound, because the consequent must 100% follow the antecedent like this;

 

....

Another example;

 

If there was a flood there would be no fossil assemblages.

There are so there was no flood.

 

This one fails because there is no way to test the notion is necessarily true. All such implications have to be watertight and to be watertight we have to show that the consequent in no uncertain terms, MUST follow the antecedent.

 

Now you may object, "but it still seems like a reasonable argument". It may be - you can make a case as evidence against a flood but you don't have a sound falsification of one if there is some possible explanation such as for example, geographical provincialism, differential escapage, ecological zonation or other things creation scientists have put forward as possible answers. Then there is simply our gaping lack of knowledge of global floods, we simply can't test. Catastrophes are messy, complicated things.

Interestingly, I agree with everything you have said.

 

My point is that your argument in this topic amounts to:

 

Floods cause fossil assemblages.

We find fossil assemblages.

 

Therefore, there was a global flood.

 

To quote what you said (above). 

This one fails because there is no way to test the notion is necessarily true. All such implications have to be watertight and to be watertight we have to show that the consequent in no uncertain terms, MUST follow the antecedent.  (Emphasis Mike's)

 

You have acknowledged that the local and regional floods we now experience will also create"fossil assemblages."

 

You have failed to meet your own stated standard.

 

My position is that if fossils are consistent with both regional and global flooding, then they can not be used as convincing evidence of either.  In order to show the fossils result from a global flood, they must be UNIQUE to such an event.

 

 

I only request that people don't argue dogma, like Wibble when he says a flood was impossible.

Why is it not dogma to argue a miracle by God?

 

I can give you probably a hundred reasons the global flood of Noah is impossible without divine intervention.  Fossils aren't even on the list....

 

That's false knowledge unless he can provide a scientific implication which is 100% tested to be sound, so that we can falsify it properly.

When we discussed ways to transmit energy, you argued for a fourth way known only to God.  Is that not dogma?  Can you falsify that properly?  BTW, that's what Gilbo would have called an "argument to the future fallacy."

 

Creationists have a long history of inserting dogma into the discussion.

 

 



#19 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 10 December 2017 - 06:24 PM

Drops of oil were found in rocks aged 3 billion years in Australia.

Interesting because that's twice the age of the oldest known oil, and predates algae by a billion years as well as flourishing plants by a lot more (360mya is when plants were said to start flourishing).

 

I did a quick google search on this and found these two links.  Both state that the oil is ~1.4 billion years old, not 3 billion.  Do you have a link that cites it as 3 billion??

 

http://www.nytimes.c...ever-found.html

 

https://d28rz98at9fl...ews_03_p001.pdf



#20 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 10 December 2017 - 08:33 PM

I can't find it online. The article is from Science News The article is called "squeezing oil from ancient rocks" p.307




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users