Jump to content


Photo

False Predictions Of Eons Fitting With The Rock Record


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 27 March 2018 - 12:25 PM

False predictions are argued posteriori where a cause isn't established as the cause because it is unknown. A true prediction means it is unavoidable that cause X would create effect P.

 

It is argued the fossils and the rocks were laid down over many eons by compaction, posteriori, (after the fact). That is to say, first the fossils were found, then people reasoned that the cause was slow, uniform compaction. This isn't the correct prediction because nobody can actually know that this would be the cause and it would seem that many of the evidences of fossils contradict this view and that catastrophic burial would be expected rather than things dying then being fossilised which makes less sense, as the more time to rot the less chances of preservation. Because it is possible slow compaction wouldn't create this record but it isn't possible a flood could NOT, logically the record is correctly predicted for a flood, not eons. (it is not actually possible to have a world scale flood not leave such evidence in the earth's crust given it's scale so the fossil order is actually a red-herring )

 

The fossil record seems to be a record of things buried while in the act of living. The fossils found in asphyxiation position, giving birth, eating, attacking prey, still digesting, or just being exquisitely preserved which fast burial is conducive to, but slow compaction is conducive to rotting. It makes sense to say they were buried while alive. Some evolutionists also now argue neo-catastrophe, that the record is uniform being punctuated by catastrophe.

 

So we can conclude that;

 

1. Even evolutionists admit a lot of the evidence fits with sudden catastrophe. (so it's a contradiction to say it can't be the flood catastrophe and a tacit admission that in fact such evidence was always consistent with the flood)

2. Catastrophic burial would correctly predict fossils preserved in the act of living

3. A correct prediction for a biblical flood would be organisms of every phyla evidenced as being killed by the flood, to be found represented in the fossils.

 

CONCLUSION: I think in this day and age, it is now impossible to pretend the fossil record would not be expected from a flood. The correct prediction is that we would get such a vast hydraulic action sweeping and scouring every surface and dumping wet sediments everywhere, and we would expect all lifeforms to be preserved as fossils for the remnant that were not obliterated or rotted away when drowned. 

 

The correct prediction is actually that a flood would cause such a record, and I think it was a mistake of the Victorian era we have inherited, to say that somehow such evidence of catastrophe is conducive to vast eons of time. That is a false prediction.

 

Think about it, to say, "that isn't what you would expect from a flood, you would expect no rock record and no fossils and you wouldn't expect any sediment being dumped." Okay, what would you expect? One flat crust of the earth with no history of any flood disturbing the ground? That's like saying if you find your fishbowl full of hardened cement with the fish hardened inside, that dumping wet cement on them would not cause this.

 

LOL!

 

Flume experiments have shown this happens under hydraulic action, and we know that this would cause fossils to be preserved because to say it would be conducive to fossilisation is like saying 2 add 2 will give us 4. I fail to see how you can escape that logically these things should follow had a flood occurred. It is impossible that such a world scale flood would not scour the earth and dump sediment and it is impossible that there would not be a portion of fossils caused by it, preserved in excellent condition. What else would follow? Please explain what else would follow. 

 

Because a flood would have to dredge up/scour, a lot of stuff, and that "stuff" has to go somewhere, so are you saying that a flood would transport all of that sediment it raked up, to the moon via Darwinian magic? What happened to the cement when it was dumped on your fish bowl? Are you saying there wouldn't be any cement if wet cement was dumped on your fish and your fish wouldn't be inside it? Please tell me you know that during mud flows and flows from volcanoes, even that is enough to create rock. And if such small scale things can cause flows that later harden, how much more stuff can a world scale flood rake up?

 

Please answer these questions.


  • KillurBluff likes this

#2 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 27 March 2018 - 09:56 PM

 

The fossil record seems to be a record of things buried while in the act of living. The fossils found in asphyxiation position, giving birth, eating, attacking prey, still digesting, or just being exquisitely preserved which fast burial is conducive to, but slow compaction is conducive to rotting. It makes sense to say they were buried while alive. Some evolutionists also now argue neo-catastrophe, that the record is uniform being punctuated by catastrophe.

 

They were either buried alive or shortly after death.  A flood is certainly one possibility.

 

There are also a number of other possible explanations such as pyroclastic flows; peat bogs will do because the bodies will come to rest in an anaerobic environment.  So will tar pits (the La Brea tar pit in in Los Angeles is an example.)  I can think of two or three more.

 

 

So we can conclude that;

 

1. Even evolutionists admit a lot of the evidence fits with sudden catastrophe. (so it's a contradiction to say it can't be the flood catastrophe and a tacit admission that in fact such evidence was always consistent with the flood)

2. Catastrophic burial would correctly predict fossils preserved in the act of living

3. A correct prediction for a biblical flood would be organisms of every phyla evidenced as being killed by the flood, to be found represented in the fossils.

Absolutely.

 

The problem is the conditions you speak of are not unique to a global flood.  There are catastrophes every year that can create fossils as you describe.

 

 

CONCLUSION: I think in this day and age, it is now impossible to pretend the fossil record would not be expected from a flood. The correct prediction is that we would get such a vast hydraulic action sweeping and scouring every surface and dumping wet sediments everywhere, and we would expect all lifeforms to be preserved as fossils for the remnant that were not obliterated or rotted away when drowned. 

Actually, what you call "vast hydraulic action" would probably be the exception rather than the norm.  This flood is said to have taken months to recede.  That's more likely to produce a Nile delta kind of flood rather than a Grand Canyon one.

 

Also, the "sweeping and scouring" forces will probably disrupt a number of your examples, such as in the act of eating, giving birth, or one you didn't mention ... nesting.

 

 

The correct prediction is actually that a flood would cause such a record, and I think it was a mistake of the Victorian era we have inherited, to say that somehow such evidence of catastrophe is conducive to vast eons of time. That is a false prediction.

I think you are confusing a prediction with a conclusion.  Either way, I do agree that a flood can cause the kind of record you speak of.

 

 

Think about it, to say, "that isn't what you would expect from a flood, you would expect no rock record and no fossils and you wouldn't expect any sediment being dumped." Okay, what would you expect? One flat crust of the earth with no history of any flood disturbing the ground? That's like saying if you find your fishbowl full of hardened cement with the fish hardened inside, that dumping wet cement on them would not cause this.

What would I expect? 

 

Floods leave clear evidence they have taken place.... geologists have no problem identifying the remains of numerous floods.  A global flood should be a slam-dunk

 

In the Biblical account, the Earth was covered with water for 5 months (Gen 7:24).  It was ten months before the water receded to the point the tops of the mountains could be seen (Gen 8:5).  I always have a problem figuring the exact phases of the flood.  Ten months is ample time for sediments to settle creating a clearly identifiable global layer... much like the Iridium layer at the K-T boundary.

 

 

Flume experiments have shown this happens under hydraulic action, and we know that this would cause fossils to be preserved because to say it would be conducive to fossilisation is like saying 2 add 2 will give us 4. I fail to see how you can escape that logically these things should follow had a flood occurred.

I absolutely agree about the fossils would follow from A flood.  Because they would follow from all kinds of floods we see these days, there is no way to attribute them to THE flood.

 

 

It is impossible that such a world scale flood would not scour the earth and dump sediment and it is impossible that there would not be a portion of fossils caused by it, preserved in excellent condition. What else would follow? Please explain what else would follow. 

How much scouring took place would depend mostly on water flow rates.  It is most likely that as the tops of the mountains broke thru the surface of the flood waters and rose, water flow rates would be very slow.  As the waters continue to recede, you would have more and more water flowing which would require faster and faster currents.  It's highly likely you'd find the greatest scouring well away from the mountains.

 

 

 

Because a flood would have to dredge up/scour, a lot of stuff, and that "stuff" has to go somewhere, so are you saying that a flood would transport all of that sediment it raked up, to the moon via Darwinian magic? What happened to the cement when it was dumped on your fish bowl? Are you saying there wouldn't be any cement if wet cement was dumped on your fish and your fish wouldn't be inside it? Please tell me you know that during mud flows and flows from volcanoes, even that is enough to create rock. And if such small scale things can cause flows that later harden, how much more stuff can a world scale flood rake up?

 

Please answer these questions.

A world wide flood would do all of that.  So do local floods of the kind we see on a regular basis.  There is no need to invoke a miraculous flood to explain the fossil record.  It seems Occam's Razor would favor the mundane explanation.


  • mike the wiz likes this

#3 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 28 March 2018 - 03:04 PM

The fossil record seems to be a record of things buried while in the act of living. The fossils found in asphyxiation position, giving birth, eating, attacking prey, still digesting, or just being exquisitely preserved which fast burial is conducive to, but slow compaction is conducive to rotting. It makes sense to say they were buried while alive.

 
Why do you keep repeating this as if these actions are commonly preserved ? You are relying on a minuscule proportion of fossils for this claim.
You keep claiming there are many complete fossils because of the sudden burial nature of your flood. This would indeed be the result if your model was correct because there would be no scavenging (because of deep burial and because the scavengers would be wiped out in the same event). However, as I’ve told you before but you keep ignoring, complete skeletal fossils are extremely rare. If you think I’m wrong then give me a single example of a complete dinosaur skeleton. If you find there are none will you concede that this fact is more supportive of the mainstream understanding than yours ?
 

A correct prediction for a biblical flood would be organisms of every phyla evidenced as being killed by the flood, to be found represented in the fossils.

 
Yes but a vastly better prediction if verified would be modern representatives from each phylum equally distributed throughout the strata, for example for the phylum Chordata, not only primitive lancelet type fossils in the lowest layers but modern fish. Recognizably modern mammal families not just confined to the very top layers, always above dinosaurs and pterodactyls. Of course, the actual pattern fits sensibly with evolution in contrast to the mental contortions required to force fit the data with a "vast hydraulic action sweeping and scouring every surface and dumping wet sediments everywhere".
 

The correct prediction is that we would get such a vast hydraulic action sweeping and scouring every surface and dumping wet sediments everywhere, and we would expect all lifeforms to be preserved as fossils for the remnant that were not obliterated or rotted away when drowned.

 

You’re not appreciating the complexity of the geological strata (again). Please explain how a vertical column of sediment got perfectly separated into sandstone, mudstone, limestone in various arrangements, with features such as ripple marks, animal tracks, dried mud cracks etc. Don’t pretend flume experiments get close to explaining all this. Show me a flume experiment that separates a mud and lime mixture into respective, clearly defined layers, and not only that but also puts a different fossil assemblage in each with no shared species.



#4 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 28 March 2018 - 06:57 PM

The fossil record seems to be a record of things buried while in the act of living. The fossils found in asphyxiation position, giving birth, eating, attacking prey, still digesting, or just being exquisitely preserved which fast burial is conducive to, but slow compaction is conducive to rotting. It makes sense to say they were buried while alive. Some evolutionists also now argue neo-catastrophe, that the record is uniform being punctuated by catastrophe.

They were either buried alive or shortly after death.  A flood is certainly one possibility.
 
There are also a number of other possible explanations such as pyroclastic flows; peat bogs will do because the bodies will come to rest in an anaerobic environment.  So will tar pits (the La Brea tar pit in in Los Angeles is an example.)  I can think of two or three more.
 
 

So we can conclude that;
 
1. Even evolutionists admit a lot of the evidence fits with sudden catastrophe. (so it's a contradiction to say it can't be the flood catastrophe and a tacit admission that in fact such evidence was always consistent with the flood)
2. Catastrophic burial would correctly predict fossils preserved in the act of living
3. A correct prediction for a biblical flood would be organisms of every phyla evidenced as being killed by the flood, to be found represented in the fossils.

Absolutely.
 
The problem is the conditions you speak of are not unique to a global flood.  There are catastrophes every year that can create fossils as you describe.
 
 

CONCLUSION: I think in this day and age, it is now impossible to pretend the fossil record would not be expected from a flood. The correct prediction is that we would get such a vast hydraulic action sweeping and scouring every surface and dumping wet sediments everywhere, and we would expect all lifeforms to be preserved as fossils for the remnant that were not obliterated or rotted away when drowned. 

Actually, what you call "vast hydraulic action" would probably be the exception rather than the norm.  This flood is said to have taken months to recede.  That's more likely to produce a Nile delta kind of flood rather than a Grand Canyon one.
 
Also, the "sweeping and scouring" forces will probably disrupt a number of your examples, such as in the act of eating, giving birth, or one you didn't mention ... nesting.
 
 

The correct prediction is actually that a flood would cause such a record, and I think it was a mistake of the Victorian era we have inherited, to say that somehow such evidence of catastrophe is conducive to vast eons of time. That is a false prediction.

I think you are confusing a prediction with a conclusion.  Either way, I do agree that a flood can cause the kind of record you speak of.
 
 

Think about it, to say, "that isn't what you would expect from a flood, you would expect no rock record and no fossils and you wouldn't expect any sediment being dumped." Okay, what would you expect? One flat crust of the earth with no history of any flood disturbing the ground? That's like saying if you find your fishbowl full of hardened cement with the fish hardened inside, that dumping wet cement on them would not cause this.

What would I expect? 
 
Floods leave clear evidence they have taken place.... geologists have no problem identifying the remains of numerous floods.  A global flood should be a slam-dunk
 
In the Biblical account, the Earth was covered with water for 5 months (Gen 7:24).  It was ten months before the water receded to the point the tops of the mountains could be seen (Gen 8:5).  I always have a problem figuring the exact phases of the flood.  Ten months is ample time for sediments to settle creating a clearly identifiable global layer... much like the Iridium layer at the K-T boundary.
 
 

Flume experiments have shown this happens under hydraulic action, and we know that this would cause fossils to be preserved because to say it would be conducive to fossilisation is like saying 2 add 2 will give us 4. I fail to see how you can escape that logically these things should follow had a flood occurred.

I absolutely agree about the fossils would follow from A flood.  Because they would follow from all kinds of floods we see these days, there is no way to attribute them to THE flood.
 
 

It is impossible that such a world scale flood would not scour the earth and dump sediment and it is impossible that there would not be a portion of fossils caused by it, preserved in excellent condition. What else would follow? Please explain what else would follow. 

How much scouring took place would depend mostly on water flow rates.  It is most likely that as the tops of the mountains broke thru the surface of the flood waters and rose, water flow rates would be very slow.  As the waters continue to recede, you would have more and more water flowing which would require faster and faster currents.  It's highly likely you'd find the greatest scouring well away from the mountains.
 
 

Because a flood would have to dredge up/scour, a lot of stuff, and that "stuff" has to go somewhere, so are you saying that a flood would transport all of that sediment it raked up, to the moon via Darwinian magic? What happened to the cement when it was dumped on your fish bowl? Are you saying there wouldn't be any cement if wet cement was dumped on your fish and your fish wouldn't be inside it? Please tell me you know that during mud flows and flows from volcanoes, even that is enough to create rock. And if such small scale things can cause flows that later harden, how much more stuff can a world scale flood rake up?
 
Please answer these questions.

A world wide flood would do all of that.  So do local floods of the kind we see on a regular basis.  There is no need to invoke a miraculous flood to explain the fossil record.  It seems Occam's Razor would favor the mundane explanation.


"This flood is said to have taken months to recede. That's more likely to produce a Nile delta kind of flood rather than a Grand Canyon one."

Please tell us the methodolgy utilized that allowed you to come to this conclusion.. What were your models.. What observation, testing, experimentation, falsification, repeatability were employed?



Please tell us the methodolgy utilized that allowed you to come to this conclusion.. What were your models.. What observation, testing, experimentation, falsification, repeatability were employed?

"Ten months is ample time for sediments to settle creating a clearly identifiable global layer"..



Please tell us the methodolgy utilized that allowed you to come to this conclusion.. What were your models.. What observation, testing, experimentation, falsification, repeatability were employed?


"Because they would follow from all kinds of floods we see these days, there is no way to attribute them to THE flood."

Please tell us the methodolgy utilized that allowed you to come to this conclusion.. What were your models.. What observation, testing, experimentation, falsification, repeatability were employed?


"It seems Occam's Razor would favor the mundane explanation"

YES!!!! And the mundane explanation is the Worldwide flood of Noah!!
Just like Jesus told us.. Or should we believe Piasan instead and make Jesus take a back seat to your omniscience..?

And Jesus said..


"But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be". Matt 24
  • Calypsis4 and mike the wiz like this

#5 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 01 April 2018 - 03:57 PM

However, as I’ve told you before but you keep ignoring, complete skeletal fossils are extremely rare. If you think I’m wrong then give me a single example of a complete dinosaur skeleton. If you find there are none will you concede that this fact is more supportive of the mainstream understanding than yours ?


No luck then Mike ?   :gotcha:



#6 Bmaxdlux

Bmaxdlux

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern Oregon

Posted 04 April 2018 - 09:04 PM


However, as I’ve told you before but you keep ignoring, complete skeletal fossils are extremely rare. If you think I’m wrong then give me a single example of a complete dinosaur skeleton. If you find there are none will you concede that this fact is more supportive of the mainstream understanding than yours ?

No luck then Mike ?   :gotcha:
"Known as a nodosaur, this 110 million-year-old, armored plant-eater is the best preserved fossil of its kind ever found."

https://www.national...ssil-discovery/

Just google and you'll find all sorts of interesting things.

Have a nice day.

Max :3
  • KillurBluff likes this

#7 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 05 April 2018 - 03:39 AM

"Known as a nodosaur, this 110 million-year-old, armored plant-eater is the best preserved fossil of its kind ever found."

https://www.national...ssil-discovery/

Just google and you'll find all sorts of interesting things.


Do I detect a little condescension there ?

Unfortunately you haven't supplied what I asked for, which was a complete skeleton of a dinosaur. Mike seems to think they are commonplace due to the sudden overwhelming nature of Noah's flood, and therefore a "false prediction of eons fitting with the fossil record".
 

The fossil record seems to be a record of things buried while in the act of living.


For dinosaurs (in fact all vertebrates), it seems that the opposite is true, it is exceedingly rare to find complete specimens, so by his own standard his flood prediction has failed and "long eons" fulfilled.

This nodosaur you mention, while remarkably preserved in terms of its armour plating and skin, is not complete, it even mentions that in the article if you read it. Referring to the original paper describing the specimen it states: The holotype is Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology (TMP) 2011.033.0001: an articulated specimen preserving the head, neck, most of the trunk and sacrum, a complete right and a partial left forelimb and manus, partial pes..



#8 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 06 April 2018 - 02:27 AM

"Known as a nodosaur, this 110 million-year-old, armored plant-eater is the best preserved fossil of its kind ever found."https://www.national...ssil-discovery/
Just google and you'll find all sorts of interesting things.

Do I detect a little condescension there ?
Unfortunately you haven't supplied what I asked for, which was a complete skeleton of a dinosaur. Mike seems to think they are commonplace due to the sudden overwhelming nature of Noah's flood, and therefore a "false prediction of eons fitting with the fossil record".
 

The fossil record seems to be a record of things buried while in the act of living.

For dinosaurs (in fact all vertebrates), it seems that the opposite is true, it is exceedingly rare to find complete specimens, so by his own standard his flood prediction has failed and "long eons" fulfilled.
This nodosaur you mention, while remarkably preserved in terms of its armour plating and skin, is not complete, it even mentions that in the article if you read it. Referring to the original paper describing the specimen it states: The holotype is Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology (TMP) 2011.033.0001: an articulated specimen preserving the head, neck, most of the trunk and sacrum, a complete right and a partial left forelimb and manus, partial pes..


"This nodosaur you mention, while remarkably preserved in terms of its armour plating and skin, is not complete,"

Yes but it is incredible that it was able to last the elements for over 4000 years isnt it?

#9 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 06 April 2018 - 03:28 AM

Still nothing worthwhile to say BK ?



#10 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 08 April 2018 - 06:59 PM

 

 

Think about it, to say, "that isn't what you would expect from a flood, you would expect no rock record and no fossils and you wouldn't expect any sediment being dumped." Okay, what would you expect? One flat crust of the earth with no history of any flood disturbing the ground? ...

What would I expect? 
 
Floods leave clear evidence they have taken place.... geologists have no problem identifying the remains of numerous floods.  A global flood should be a slam-dunk
 
In the Biblical account, the Earth was covered with water for 5 months (Gen 7:24).  It was ten months before the water receded to the point the tops of the mountains could be seen (Gen 8:5).  I always have a problem figuring the exact phases of the flood.  Ten months is ample time for sediments to settle creating a clearly identifiable global layer... much like the Iridium layer at the K-T boundary.
Please tell us the methodolgy utilized that allowed you to come to this conclusion.. What were your models.. What observation, testing, experimentation, falsification, repeatability were employed?

Since I was merely asked what I would "expect," nothing more than my opinion is necessary.  However, I'll humor you a bit ....

 

With respect to the settling of sediments ....  Get a tall jar.  Fill it with water to about 3 inches from the top.  Add dirt so the water level is an inch or two from the top.  Shake vigorously.  Set jar down.  Come back in 24 hours to see how much sediment is still in suspension.  Multiply that by 300 or so days.  Recall, I don't need all the sediment to settle, just enough to form an identifiable layer.

 

 

 

......  This flood is said to have taken months to recede.  That's more likely to produce a Nile delta kind of flood rather than a Grand Canyon one.

Please tell us the methodolgy utilized that allowed you to come to this conclusion.. What were your models.. What observation, testing, experimentation, falsification, repeatability were employed?

Typically, where water needs a long time to recede, it's because of flat topography which does not lend itself to high flow rates.  Excavating a major canyon requires the use of a lot of energy.  The easiest way to gain energy is to increase velocity. 

 

 

 

I absolutely agree about the fossils would follow from A flood.  Because they would follow from all kinds of floods we see these days, there is no way to attribute them to THE flood.

Please tell us the methodolgy utilized that allowed you to come to this conclusion.. What were your models.. What observation, testing, experimentation, falsification, repeatability were employed?

In terms of the ability to form fossils, why would a local flood be different than a global flood?

 

 

 

A world wide flood would do all of that.  So do local floods of the kind we see on a regular basis.  There is no need to invoke a miraculous flood to explain the fossil record.  It seems Occam's Razor would favor the mundane explanation.

YES!!!! And the mundane explanation is the Worldwide flood of Noah!!

Since when is miraculous intervention by God "mundane?"

 

Is this one of those crazy creationist definitions.

 

Google "define mundane"

1)  Lacking interest or excitement; dull....

2)  of this earthly world rather than a heavenly or spiritual one. 

 

Definition (2) would seem to specifically rule out Noah's flood as being a "mundane" explanation.



#11 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 08 April 2018 - 07:56 PM

 

 

 

Think about it, to say, "that isn't what you would expect from a flood, you would expect no rock record and no fossils and you wouldn't expect any sediment being dumped." Okay, what would you expect? One flat crust of the earth with no history of any flood disturbing the ground? ...

What would I expect? 
 
Floods leave clear evidence they have taken place.... geologists have no problem identifying the remains of numerous floods.  A global flood should be a slam-dunk
 
In the Biblical account, the Earth was covered with water for 5 months (Gen 7:24).  It was ten months before the water receded to the point the tops of the mountains could be seen (Gen 8:5).  I always have a problem figuring the exact phases of the flood.  Ten months is ample time for sediments to settle creating a clearly identifiable global layer... much like the Iridium layer at the K-T boundary.
Please tell us the methodolgy utilized that allowed you to come to this conclusion.. What were your models.. What observation, testing, experimentation, falsification, repeatability were employed?

Since I was merely asked what I would "expect," nothing more than my opinion is necessary.  However, I'll humor you a bit ....

 

With respect to the settling of sediments ....  Get a tall jar.  Fill it with water to about 3 inches from the top.  Add dirt so the water level is an inch or two from the top.  Shake vigorously.  Set jar down.  Come back in 24 hours to see how much sediment is still in suspension.  Multiply that by 300 or so days.  Recall, I don't need all the sediment to settle, just enough to form an identifiable layer.

 

 

 

......  This flood is said to have taken months to recede.  That's more likely to produce a Nile delta kind of flood rather than a Grand Canyon one.

Please tell us the methodolgy utilized that allowed you to come to this conclusion.. What were your models.. What observation, testing, experimentation, falsification, repeatability were employed?

Typically, where water needs a long time to recede, it's because of flat topography which does not lend itself to high flow rates.  Excavating a major canyon requires the use of a lot of energy.  The easiest way to gain energy is to increase velocity. 

 

 

 

I absolutely agree about the fossils would follow from A flood.  Because they would follow from all kinds of floods we see these days, there is no way to attribute them to THE flood.

Please tell us the methodolgy utilized that allowed you to come to this conclusion.. What were your models.. What observation, testing, experimentation, falsification, repeatability were employed?

In terms of the ability to form fossils, why would a local flood be different than a global flood?

 

 

 

A world wide flood would do all of that.  So do local floods of the kind we see on a regular basis.  There is no need to invoke a miraculous flood to explain the fossil record.  It seems Occam's Razor would favor the mundane explanation.

YES!!!! And the mundane explanation is the Worldwide flood of Noah!!

Since when is miraculous intervention by God "mundane?"

 

Is this one of those crazy creationist definitions.

 

Google "define mundane"

1)  Lacking interest or excitement; dull....

2)  of this earthly world rather than a heavenly or spiritual one. 

 

Definition (2) would seem to specifically rule out Noah's flood as being a "mundane" explanation.

 

 

"Since I was merely asked what I would "expect," nothing more than my opinion is necessary."

 

I'm sorry, my fault.. Next time please try to put the acronym IMHO in front of these kinds of statements

because otherwise they can be misinterpreted to be seen as an Ipse Dixit Declaration of Fact.. Thanks..

 

("Ten months is ample time for sediments to settle creating a clearly identifiable global layer")

 

 

 

"Since when is miraculous intervention by God "mundane?"

 

Again my mistake, I took the word 'Mundane" to mean things like below..

 

earthly,temporal,worldly average,common

,commonplace,customary,familiar,

garden,generic,normal,ordinary,plain,

popular,routine,,standard,

typical,,usual frequent,habitual,regular

 

I guess that exposes the difference in out WORLDVIEWS!!

 

What I consider to be ordinary and Mundane (God did it) YOU

consider to be Miraculous, and what I consider to be Miraculous

(It did it by itself by accident for no reason) YOU consider to be

"ordinary" and Mundane!!



#12 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 14 April 2018 - 03:52 PM

Please answer these questions.


 

The fossil record seems to be a record of things buried while in the act of living. The fossils found in asphyxiation position, giving birth, eating, attacking prey, still digesting, or just being exquisitely preserved which fast burial is conducive to, but slow compaction is conducive to rotting. It makes sense to say they were buried while alive.

 
Why do you keep repeating this as if these actions are commonly preserved ? You are relying on a minuscule proportion of fossils for this claim.

You keep claiming there are many complete fossils because of the sudden burial nature of your flood. This would indeed be the result if your model was correct because there would be no scavenging (because of deep burial and because the scavengers would be wiped out in the same event). However, as I’ve told you before but you keep ignoring, complete skeletal fossils are extremely rare. If you think I’m wrong then give me a single example of a complete dinosaur skeleton. If you find there are none will you concede that this fact is more supportive of the mainstream understanding than yours ?

 


Are you not going to respond to my question Mike ? You started this thread with the claim that the fossil record does not fit with standard processes but instead fits better with a global flood but you have gone very quiet since the responses have been posted. I'm sure you have tried to find a complete skeleton in the literature. Since you have been unable to provide even one, let alone show that they are commonplace as your model would predict, then are you going to stand up and admit you have lost this one ?



#13 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 15 April 2018 - 03:17 PM

 

 

Wibble: Are you not going to respond to my question Mike ? You started this thread with the claim that the fossil record does not fit with standard processes but instead fits better with a global flood but you have gone very quiet since the responses have been posted. I'm sure you have tried to find a complete skeleton in the literature. Since you have been unable to provide even one, let alone show that they are commonplace as your model would predict, then are you going to stand up and admit you have lost this one ?

 

As of yet you still don't understand the point of the thread, which is hypothetical. Piasan understood this, why can't you? But instead you nitpick. As for my not responding if I deem something is relevant I might but even if I don't may I refresh your memory as to rule #10 and perhaps rule #11 of the forum rules;

 

 

 

Rule 10. Nagging or complaints that an opponent is not responding -- We are all busy, and there is no requirement to respond.

Rule 11. Needless repetition.



#14 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 15 April 2018 - 03:50 PM

I made a polite request for a response after over two weeks of waiting for a reply to my simple question, and you call that nagging ?

You could have just answered yes or no right there and then but you have chosen again to evade answering a very simple point which I have also asked before in other threads only to be ignored. It is you who repeatedly claim a global flood is evidenced by ample fossil vertebrates that are exquisitely preserved so is it too much for me to ask for evidence to back this claim ?



#15 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 15 April 2018 - 04:03 PM

 

Wibble: I made a polite request for a response after over two weeks of waiting for a reply to my simple question, and you call that nagging ?


You could have just answered yes or no right there and then but you have chosen again to evade answering a very simple point which I have also asked before in other threads only to be ignored. It is you who repeatedly claim a global flood is evidenced by ample fossil vertebrates that are exquisitely preserved so is it too much for me to ask for evidence to back this claim ?

 

 

The correct view of this situation is that in each thread you seem to employ the same tactic, to take one thing that from my point of view seems like side-salad, and turn that thing into the whole topic, by continually asking for an answer, but my intention with this thread is to highlight the hypothetics of the expected evidence from a flood, rather than chasing red-herrings. 

 

You want to turn it into bickering over whether a flood is true, I want to discuss the hypothetics of what we could expect evidentially given we can never experience such a flood, the actual truth-value and the evaluating of the claims of the flood, aren't really the issue at hand and I believe Piasan detected that subtle difference in his initial response.

 

What I'm really against is the PRETENCE that the fossil record is totally contrary to a flood. I think in modern times this Victorian view has been shown for what it is, and the evolutionary neo-catastrophists now argue themselves that a lot of the evidence fits with catastrophe. 

 

In other words, Wibble, I grow a bit tired of your style of debate, the bickering and side-salad rhetoric. Get a new tactic my lad, like accepting mikey-truth for example. :D



#16 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 15 April 2018 - 05:24 PM

You want to turn it into bickering over whether a flood is true, I want to discuss the hypothetics of what we could expect evidentially given we can never experience such a flood, the actual truth-value and the evaluating of the claims of the flood, aren't really the issue at hand and I believe Piasan detected that subtle difference in his initial response.

Yeah, I noticed.  And I'm still trying to keep it to that ....

 

 

What I'm really against is the PRETENCE that the fossil record is totally contrary to a flood. I think in modern times this Victorian view has been shown for what it is, and the evolutionary neo-catastrophists now argue themselves that a lot of the evidence fits with catastrophe. 

I'm diverting this slightly to something I would not expect to see, but do.

 

Some aspects of the fossil record are totally contrary to a single global flood event.  There are areas with patterns of alternating marine and terrestrial habitats. That is completely inconsistent with the strata being formed by a single event.



#17 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 15 April 2018 - 11:54 PM

 

You want to turn it into bickering over whether a flood is true, I want to discuss the hypothetics of what we could expect evidentially given we can never experience such a flood, the actual truth-value and the evaluating of the claims of the flood, aren't really the issue at hand and I believe Piasan detected that subtle difference in his initial response.

Yeah, I noticed.  And I'm still trying to keep it to that ....

 

 

What I'm really against is the PRETENCE that the fossil record is totally contrary to a flood. I think in modern times this Victorian view has been shown for what it is, and the evolutionary neo-catastrophists now argue themselves that a lot of the evidence fits with catastrophe. 

I'm diverting this slightly to something I would not expect to see, but do.

 

Some aspects of the fossil record are totally contrary to a single global flood event.  There are areas with patterns of alternating marine and terrestrial habitats. That is completely inconsistent with the strata being formed by a single event.

 

 

 

"Some aspects of the fossil record are totally contrary to a single global flood event. "

 

:burp:

 

Yawn.. OK,  Humor us with some examples and the methodology that was used to arrive

at such a conclusion.. HINT  "Piasan Ipse Dixits it to be so" Aren't good enough in this classroom!



#18 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 16 April 2018 - 04:08 AM

"Some aspects of the fossil record are totally contrary to a single global flood event. "
 
:burp:
 
Yawn.. OK,  Humor us with some examples and the methodology that was used to arrive
at such a conclusion..


I'm sure Piasan will be able to help you out there (if only you would listen :rolleyes: ).

Chalk formations are irrefutable demolishers of your global flood model. We can see that chalk is built almost entirely of algal coccoiths (I have seen them myself under a high powered microscope), along with a few foraminifera. There is no way your flood can account for a 1500m thickness (measured via boreholes etc.) of pure chalk. It can't have been scooped up and dumped from a wider area as for one, it would inevitably be contaminated with mud etc. so would no longer be white, and secondly, the evolutionary progression which is OBSERVED in a bottom to top sequence in the chalk of organisms such as sea urchins and clams would not be preserved.

 

YEC attempts at reconciling chalk with the flood (e.g. Snelling) ignore these organisms and try to make you believe that a nonsensical amount of coccolith deposition occurred in a few days/weeks at the end of the flood when the waters were still, totally ignoring the fact that chalk is buried beneath other formations where not exposed (e.g. under 150m of London Clay) in SE England.

If you think that not irrefutable, then please attempt a rational response.



#19 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 16 April 2018 - 11:58 AM

 

 

Wibble: Chalk formations are irrefutable demolishers of your global flood model...... There is no way your flood can account for a 1500m thickness (measured via boreholes etc.) of pure chalk

 

"There's gotta be a way" - Captain Kirk. 

 

I won't argue with you. I did write a response but it was long-winded. Instead I shall try the more conversational approach. Instead of bickering I'll just try and explain some things and you can take them or leave them, that's up to you. I'll try and remain as neutral as I can. 

 

First I will just ask you this Wibble; would you concede that even if to your mind there seems to be no way by which a flood could create the chalk beds, would you concede that at least technically speaking, there could possibly be some unknown factor, you aren't aware of, that might mean that somehow a flood could have laid them down? I am sure you would concede that neither you nor I nor anyone else here, is all-knowing, that for something as unknown as a world-scale catastrophe which we cannot test, it would seem at least somewhat probable there may be factors involved we do not know?

 

If your answer is, "yes, it's possible there is some unknown factors, at least technically", then obviously if that is true, the conclusion "there is no way a flood could do it", is really this conclusion; "it is impossible". And if that is your conclusion, then it doesn't follow if in fact it is physically possible but we either don't know how or don't quite know how.

 

Do you see my point? It's a very strong, dogmatic and absolute, anti-scientific statement to state that "there is no way", for if there is no way then you are stating you have 100% knowledge that it is impossible.

 

THIS IS WHY SCIENCE CLAIMS HAVE TO BE GOVERNED BY RULES.

 

Have you heard of conditional implications? "if P then X". P is the antecedent and X is the consequent. A sound conditional implication is only logically valid and sound if the consequent is 100% known to follow the antecedent.

 

Spot the genuine conditional implication;

 

A. If that man is still single then it follows he must surely be G*y.

B. If all men are humans then all pigs are male.

C. If X amount of sediment requires P amount of time then if I have P amount of time then it's possible to have it accumulate in that time span.

 

Did you get it? The correct one is C. But why? because we KNOW 100% that as long as all it takes to get X amount is P amount of time then as long as we have P amount of time we can get X amount.

 

EXAMPLE:

 

It takes me 3 minutes or less to urinate.

 

"If I have 3 minutes to urinate then it is possible for me to urinate under normal circumstances."

 

So where am I going with all this? I proving that you need to have consequent follow but it has to be known, 100%. If there is the slimmest chance it is unknown, even as a technicality, then the implication is fallacious.

 

So what you don't realise is that you can't argue these implications;

 

- If there was a flood there would be chalk beds. (not based on 100% knowledge)

- If there was a flood there would be no chalk beds. (not based on 100% knowledge)

- If there wasn't a flood then we would expect chalk beds. (not based on 100% knowledge)

- If we have chalk beds therefore there wasn't a flood. (not based on 100% knowledge)

- If we have chalk beds therefore there was long ages. (not based on 100% knowledge)

 

CONCLUSION: There is only one thing you can prove as a sound implication which is this;

 

- If we have long ages, then given modern accumulation-rates it follows there would be time enough to accumulate chalk beds.

 

That is to say, if we can calculate that certain rates of the amount of organisms are possible in one year, then logically if you have enough years to add up those amounts, it would follow that it's physically possible. 

 

Please note, it isn't that the implication highlighted in blue, is a false implication, NOT because it is false, because if in history, chalk beds were actually caused by the flood then obviously it can still be a true statement. But the reason it is a false/unsound implication is because we don't know. We only know that with long ages, we would have enough time to accumulate the chalk at the present rates, but that implication on it's own depends on the assumption that chalk exists because of slow compaction over eons.

 

So as you can see, I am a creationist, but logic has led me to an implication which would favour long ages. That means I have the ability to use critical thinking objectively without involving my own personal agenda.

 

So what can we can conclude from your argument, according to logical rules in science?

 

This;

 

"If long ages existed then it follows based on the rates we would have enough organisms to produce chalk beds."

 

Here are the fallacies which do not logically follow, which is why your argument is refutable, even though you called it, "irrefutable";

 

"If there wasn't long ages then there wouldn't be enough to produce chalk beds or there wouldn't be chalk bes". - (fallacy of the denial of the antecedent)

 

"If there are chalk beds, then it follows there was long ages." (fallacy of affirming the consequent.

 

CONCLUSION: All you can scientifically prove with your chalk-bed argument, is that we might expect that amount from long eons of time which would indeed provide the time to accumulate the organisms necessary, and the material. Nothing more. You certainly can't say it is impossible for a flood, based on something less than 100% knowledge. Indeed, it has been shown that there can be a change in the rate of the production of the necessary organic ooze if there are blooms. There is enough we don't know to rule out your dogmatic conclusion that it, "can't" be a flood.

 

 

 

Wibble: If you think that not irrefutable, then please attempt a rational response

 

I have provided that, but your argument wasn't a sound argument, it is a mixture of some science facts and some statements of incredulity. That is why your argument can be rebutted, because the conclusions you draw from the facts don't truly follow as knowledge. You simply can't know whether a flood somehow done it, which isn't sufficient to conclude that it is impossible that it did.

 

I would agree that certainly long ages would provide the material and organic ooze, the problem for a flood scenario is how to squeeze so much of that material into a small amount of time, which is a reasonable complaint from evolutionists but it needs more investigation. In that regard it is more of a problem for short ages and a flood than long ages but we can't ignore logic, for all we know the chalk was caused by a flood but it merely looks like something impossible but is really in fact counter-intuitive. Counter-intuitive things are pseudo-impossibilities, they appear to be impossible or contradictory but aren't really. I can admit intellectually it seems more conceivable for long ages, but in itself this is only one line of evidence. 

 

This is why historical cases are so hard to take a dogmatic position on, intellectually. This is why I only take it on God's word there was a flood, but of course there are also many types of evidence that fit with it also, as they would certainly follow as correct implications. (see message one)



#20 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 16 April 2018 - 02:50 PM

First I will just ask you this Wibble; would you concede that even if to your mind there seems to be no way by which a flood could create the chalk beds, would you concede that at least technically speaking, there could possibly be some unknown factor, you aren't aware of, that might mean that somehow a flood could have laid them down? I am sure you would concede that neither you nor I nor anyone else here, is all-knowing, that for something as unknown as a world-scale catastrophe which we cannot test, it would seem at least somewhat probable there may be factors involved we do not know?

 

If your answer is, "yes, it's possible there is some unknown factors, at least technically", then obviously if that is true, the conclusion "there is no way a flood could do it", is really this conclusion; "it is impossible". And if that is your conclusion, then it doesn't follow if in fact it is physically possible but we either don't know how or don't quite know how.

 

Of course nor I or anyone else is all knowing but you can’t get out of every crushing argument against the flood/YEC by appealing to some unknown factor to rescue your position. Perhaps all those coccoliths rained down from outer space ?

 

So as you can see, I am a creationist, but logic has led me to an implication which would favour long ages. That means I have the ability to use critical thinking objectively without involving my own personal agenda.

 

That’s good, I don’t think a couple of others on here I could mention would have the honesty to admit that.

 

You certainly can't say it is impossible for a flood, based on something less than 100% knowledge. Indeed, it has been shown that there can be a change in the rate of the production of the necessary organic ooze if there are blooms. There is enough we don't know to rule out your dogmatic conclusion that it, "can't" be a flood.

 

Yes incredible coccolithophore blooms is the standard creationist argument given by Snelling in CMI and ICR articles, which in turn is based on the earlier work of creationists Roth and Woodmorappe. They have to think of something to counter the stark evidence of massive chalk beds but their argument fails completely (astonishingly, they claim that it all could have been laid by three successive blooms in six days !!).

 

While blooms are a real phenomenon when conditions are favourable, the creationist arguments ignore the obvious limiting factors that would inevitably prevent a bloom becoming so dense that it could deposit 1500m of calcareous ooze in a few days. It is not possible to dissolve anywhere near that much calcium carbonate in water and a bloom would quickly strip it out anyway as the algal cells died and the coccoliths slowly sank to the seabed. A dense bloom would also be self limiting because being photosynthetic algae, they require light (and indeed coccolithophores can only reproduce in the photic zone which limits the depth of the bloom to 100m at best, which further limits ooze production potential).

 

There are fossils from benthic (seafloor dwelling) fauna like sea urchins throughout which should only exist at the base of the chalk if subjected to sudden burial by hundreds of metres of ooze. As mentioned before, they can’t have been all scooped up by flood currents and dumped with the ooze because there is a clear evolutionary progression of the aforementioned urchins and other organisms.

 

All these problems are not even mentioned by the creationist authors let alone tackled. That’s because they don’t want their readers to be aware of these issues.

 

You can appeal to unknown factors as much as you like but whichever way you look at it you are snookered because attempts at solving one problem only creates others.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users