The biblical flood date

[Audie]

Audie -- Because the passage I quoted Is part of God's Word and God Is real and He has told us / mankind/ Through Moses that That Did happen or it would Not be part Of God's Word.

You are insinuating that someone who Believes Otherwise is insane or Possibly insane. But then people have Also been trying to explain away the virgin birth of Jesus and His bodily resurrection for those same reasons. And God's Word Does tell us they Did happen and even Why.

You are assuning that there is a God, assuming ypu picked the right one, that the flood story is from that.god, thst you interpret it right. Thay is a lot of assuming.

I am not into "insinuating". I like to say things straight

I dont think flood believers are insane, morally weak, or have rickets, etc.
"Everyone" believed it up until the 18th century.

People can believe in astrology w/o being insane. I dont think scientologists are insane.

Your assunption concerning me is incorrect.

I am also not into "explaining away" anything. For that, see people
trying to get out of what the ice, (among scores of other things) so plainly says.

Some try to explain that all away with "embedded age". Others wit, well, never mind.

Comparing the disproof of flood with "explaining away" the miracles
associated with Jesus is a deeply false comparison.

The Jesus miracles are, well, miracles. A matter for faith.
I dont do faith in miracles, but, that is me.

Miracles are for faith, or lack of. Flood is about physical evidence.

Two very different considerations.

To say that world wide flood and miracles are "explained away"
for "the same reasons" is simply and obviously false.

As several posters such as Krink could doubtless explain.

Because God's Word To mankind says "In the beginning God....created'. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was With God and the Word Was God......All things were made through Him and without Him, nothing was made that was made."
Throughout Scripture God is Assumed / taken for granted as Being. His existence is Not questioned. And He Also tells us that there are 'gods' that people groups have chosen to follow / worship, but they are Not real 'gods'. They are statues that look like things that God has created. The Greek people had 'gods' of fertility, etc. that they worshipped. But those were Not the God of the Bible.
I have shared the Scripture that tells us about the flood. So you can see that I'm not assuming anything.

The miracles were done by Jesus to get our attention -- that He was Not the average Jewish man. There was something very unique about Jesus Christ. He was doing things that would be Impossible in real life.

So --what Is the lesson to be learned through Noah's flood. Because you said it's a ........story given for a reason.

Cautionary tale. Be good or be sorry.

What it says about a god who'd do such a thing, that is another matter.

[Nicki]

This idea that a flood took the fossils of all the animals and people, that have EVER lived, and that they all lived during the same time, and then this flood caused mayhem and mixed everything up, but yet the remaining result is we see the various species almost perfectly separated, with the simple organisms first, with more complex and similar organisms in upper layers, and with obvious and global layer stratification per the dominant species in the various layers - I just find that completely absurd!

In the first place, an argument from incredulity is no argument. In the second place, the argument is not that "a flood took the fossils of all the animals and people that have ever lived" . . . that's a straw man at best. If that's the basis on which you reject the global flood, then you are rejecting something no one believes.

Ever had a seen a cake with various bit specific layers of different flavors of icecream, chocolate, chocolate chips, whatever other flavors, with each layer with a specific flavoring ingredient. Now, let's drop the cake in liquid, into a large, powerful blender. Blend well, and pour the mixture into a pan, then bake it. Do you think that cake's previously neat, perfectly stratified per ingredient layers are then going to have the same perfect separation of ingredients per each layer? Of COURSE not! And that is precisely why asserting the flood did this is ridiculous.

No, it isn't "precisely why asserting the flood did this is ridiculous." Again, that's just more argument from incredulity. You've completed ignored the mechanisms whereby the flood would sort out the fossils and rocks as we have them today.

And the age of the layers is not even my point - it's what is IN them and that the layers are obviously separated by specie types. If all of these organisms lived at the same time, they would not be separated into very discernible layers! This is why just a bit of knowledge of geology is important, as one must understand exactly what the evidences are, before credibly arguing them from a scientific point of view.

I take it you didn't read the article, because the article is not addressing the age of the layers. The entire point IS to address what is in them, particularly with reference to the species found in them.

I get it - the simpler life forms (those usually regarded as the most ancient) are supposed to have lived in the sea and at sea level; the dinosaurs lived a bit higher up on the land and mammals and humans higher still, so in the flood they could have been buried in about the same places. I find that hard to picture though - how could all the mammals and humans end up literally on top, spread out over all the dinosaurs, amoebae and so on below?

[crochet1949]

Audie -- 'cautionary tale' = be good or be sorry -- "what it says about a god who'd do such a thing...." -- The Bible / God's Word says that the people were evil, the earth was filled with violence. And, so, the God who created the world and the people Warned the people -- well ahead of time -- to repent of their evilness, violence. The building of the ark took 120 yrs. -- Plenty of time to hear and confess and get right with God. But They Refused To. The negative consequence was their death. They were even watching Noah build the boat / ark -- and they Still ignored the warnings. So - as per the warning, they ended up dying.
So -- what does it say about People. Are we supposed to be able to sin / commit wickedness / act violently, but with no negative consequences. Should we be allowed to laugh at God -- to not even believe that He exists? Simply because we don't like negative consequences? No. God DID save the lives of the only people who Did believe in Him. Noah and his family Were saved from the drowning by the Ark.

[Kurieuo]

• 9

What for?

The heckler seems to have re-sufaced methinks, though only God knows why.

Guess I wont unlike after hitting the wrong key. I might even mean it.

If your post is about me, have the courage to say so.

I am kind of scared of you Audie, whether you'll get your own AK47 and fire off some rounds or take a nice stroll in the park with us. Which is perhaps why I, on a subconscious level, perhaps remained a bit more ambiguous (however it was more in relation to your AiG thread opened). If I'm to answer now though, I'm feeling the tables are turned and it appears you felt a little heckled by myself. So, nevermind. It's just Krink perhaps misfiring, me misunderstanding.

I dunno about me either krink. Im never going to calm down.

Embrace it, it's got you far.

[Audie]

[

You can't have it both ways. You can't say science proves but that it doesn't disprove. To disprove is simply to prove false. If science doesn't prove, then it doesn't prove false. You can't even say that science doesn't prove true but can prove false, because to prove false would be to prove true that something is false.

Compromiose. I was kind of schooled in the "falsification" model, but really, what science does is probabilities. Neither proof nor disproof is entirely possible.

Ya-uh. If we are discussing whether or not the flood happened and someone quotes AiG, and then you reject AiG on the basis of them being a perjured witness on the basis that the flood did not happen[/i

]

No, AIG is worthless because their guiding principle is conclusion first, last, and always. Regardless of evidence.

, then you are assuming that the flood did not happen and using that as a basis on which to count AiG (or whomever) perjured.

It is not an assumption.

I have absolutely no idea what your example is supposed to illustrate--that the scrap of cloth is unrelated to the case?

Entering one more piece of evidence to try to show guilt (or that maybe there was a flood) is moot after it has been shown you had been in a body cast in Paris on the day the murder was committed near the summit of Everest.

The demonstration that there was no flood is at least that comprehensive, and a lot wider.

Again, our discussion is whether or not the flood happened. You say AiG is perjured because they argue scientifically that a flood happened.

What, in philosophy, do you call it when you just make something up to enter as evidence? I know what it is called in court.

But implicit in that claim (that AiG is so perjured) is that they are making a FALSE claim precisely because the flood did not happen

That is not the reason it is false. Tho its a good hint.

And thus the conclusion (that the flood did not happen) is embedded in the premise (that AiG is a perjured witness) and so cannot be used as a premise that the flood DID happen.

get off it, what a buncha crap

And that gets back to all this stuff that you say you get. I would expect you to see this very clearly

What I see is you inventing premises, and, getting so clogged up in the
maze that you cant see where you are going.

Now, you can always argue that AiG is perjured via a modus ponens or tollens in which one of the premises does presume the flood did not happen. That is, you could say,

I could but that is entirely your notion.

1. If anyone argues scientifically that there was a global flood, then they do not understand science (and so should not be cited in scientific discussion);

no, its not like that.

It is a pretty good guess that they either do not know much geology, biology or physics, or, that they are being disingenuous, to put it mildly.

Also, of course, I seriously doubt that there is any "scientific" argument, tho
anyone is always welcome to come up with one, and i'd like to see it if they did.

2. AiG argues scientifically that there was a global flood

AIG puts conclusion first. is there any problem with that, where logic and philosophy are concerned?

3. Therefore, AiG does not understand science (and should not be cited in scientific discussion)

No therefore after a false premise.

Again, these are legitimate arguments. But please notice clearly that in both cases the premise that the flood did not happen (at least, not a global flood) is assumed in the premise

Uh no. The religious websites are the ones with the assumed premises,
that you know they would never give up. As in "if all the evidence in the universe" that you so weirdly find to be intellectual honesty.

The body of evidence that demonstrates beyond any reasonable jor possibly even sane doubt is hardly an "assumption".

. So while it's a fine argument in and of itself, you cannot use this argument to discredit AiG when discussing whether or not there was a global flood to begin with

I dont, wouldnt, and you have used up an awful lot of space saying that voer and over.

To so use it is to beg the question and to commit a genetic fallacy. And for someone as interested in being rational as you say you are, then you ought to abhor illogical arguments, even if you accept their conclusion, as you say you already understand from my previous post

Ok; you are carrying on both sides of a conversation. You decide what i said
and what I think, then say its all a fallacy. I guess I'd have to agree, there sure is a fallacy there somewhere.

.

[Jac3510]

*shrug*

I'm sorry you don't see what I'm saying to you, Audie. You are simply and factually wrong. I'm not telling you what you are saying or putting words in your mouth. I am telling you how what you are saying is classified in logical (not philosophical) terms. That you refuse to interact with that is the same as denying that 2+2=4. You are just denying simple facts. Given that, it feels in large part that you simply don't really care about what I'm trying to get across. So if you aren't going to interact with what I am trying to say, then there's nothing else to say. Perhaps if you would stop being so defensive and relax a little, we could actually have something resembling a conversation after all, but it certainly appears that is not to be. It feels, again, like there's an automatic reflex of sorts that just swats away any argument without providing any sort of respect for its potential merits. I wish it were otherwise, but there's nothing more to do about it on my end. I'll simply note to myself what you like to say about kites being in sewers, hope you manage to get it out, and look forward perhaps to having a meaningful back and forth someday. Until then, and I mean this with absolutely all sincerity, all the best to you.

[Audie]

*shrug*

I'm sorry you don't see what I'm saying to you, Audie. You are simply and factually wrong. I'm not telling you what you are saying or putting words in your mouth. I am telling you how what you are saying is classified in logical (not philosophical) terms. That you refuse to interact with that is the same as denying that 2+2=4. You are just denying simple facts. In any case, if you aren't going to interact with what I am saying, then there's nothing else to say. Perhaps if you would stop being so defensive and relax a little, we could actually have something resembling a conversation after all, but it certainly appears that is not to be. I wish it were otherwise, but there's nothing more to do about it on my end. I'll simply note to myself what you like to say about kites being in sewers, hope you manage to get it out, and look forward perhaps to having a meaningful back and forth someday. Until then, and I mean this with absolutely all sincerity, all the best to you.

You are 'simply and factually" wrong in claiming that I said the things
you attribute to me.

I am sorry you choose to interpret my words into your format.

As for kites, there may be some school of philosophy that approves it, but there is no intellectually honest way of using 'science" to
derive that there really was a flood, or to do science of any sort (other than pseudo), via a premise that the conclusions from a chosen interpretation of "revealed truth" is correct, and then setting out to show it.

That takes a little more work to understand than 2 plus 2, partly as it requires that one attempt one of those usually uncomfortable "paradigm shifts".

[Nicki]

This idea that a flood took the fossils of all the animals and people, that have EVER lived, and that they all lived during the same time, and then this flood caused mayhem and mixed everything up, but yet the remaining result is we see the various species almost perfectly separated, with the simple organisms first, with more complex and similar organisms in upper layers, and with obvious and global layer stratification per the dominant species in the various layers - I just find that completely absurd!

In the first place, an argument from incredulity is no argument. In the second place, the argument is not that "a flood took the fossils of all the animals and people that have ever lived" . . . that's a straw man at best. If that's the basis on which you reject the global flood, then you are rejecting something no one believes.

Ever had a seen a cake with various bit specific layers of different flavors of icecream, chocolate, chocolate chips, whatever other flavors, with each layer with a specific flavoring ingredient. Now, let's drop the cake in liquid, into a large, powerful blender. Blend well, and pour the mixture into a pan, then bake it. Do you think that cake's previously neat, perfectly stratified per ingredient layers are then going to have the same perfect separation of ingredients per each layer? Of COURSE not! And that is precisely why asserting the flood did this is ridiculous.

No, it isn't "precisely why asserting the flood did this is ridiculous." Again, that's just more argument from incredulity. You've completed ignored the mechanisms whereby the flood would sort out the fossils and rocks as we have them today.

And the age of the layers is not even my point - it's what is IN them and that the layers are obviously separated by specie types. If all of these organisms lived at the same time, they would not be separated into very discernible layers! This is why just a bit of knowledge of geology is important, as one must understand exactly what the evidences are, before credibly arguing them from a scientific point of view.

I take it you didn't read the article, because the article is not addressing the age of the layers. The entire point IS to address what is in them, particularly with reference to the species found in them.

I get it - the simpler life forms (those usually regarded as the most ancient) are supposed to have lived in the sea and at sea level; the dinosaurs lived a bit higher up on the land and mammals and humans higher still, so in the flood they could have been buried in about the same places. I find that hard to picture though - how could all the mammals and humans end up literally on top, spread out over all the dinosaurs, amoebae and so on below?

Any thoughts on this?

[Jac3510]

Not especially. As I said, my goal isn't to defend Snelling or to say he is right. I appreciate that you "find that hard to picture," but I'm sure you can appreciate that difficulty in conceptualizing something is much of a criteria for rejecting a claim.

Still, you asked, so off the top of my head--and I emphasize this is only off the top of my head--it would seem to me that if early humans were pack hunters that they would need to live in areas that had sufficient amount of game to hunt successfully without too much interference from other, more powerful predators. If the claim of some YECs that humans and dinos overlapped at some point is held, it makes sense to me that they would still live geographically some distance apart. In the first place, it wouldn't seem that herbivorous dinos would be very good game, and second, it would seem that such animals would be preyed upon by much larger, more powerful animals (carnivorous dinos). So humans would stay away from them on both counts. And not only humans, but other mammals as well.

To press that point, I further seem to recall that mammals appear much "later" in the fossil record than dinos, with the normal interpretation being that they were allowed "room" to grow after the dinos left the scene. But by the same logic, wouldn't mammals just stay out of those lands occupied by dinos all the way around? Seems possible enough to me, and depending on what maps you look at, it's not like dino fossils are uniformly scattered over the whole planet. So bottom line, it would make sense to me to see simpler life forms at the bottom of layers, marine animals next, and dinos and "smarter" animals higher, with hominids at the highest levels.

But let me be very clear: just like I don't think incredulity is much of an argument against Snelling's view, I don't think that credulity is an argument for it. Just because I can see how it might work out doesn't mean I think that the argument does work. That assessment goes way, way, way beyond my capacity to make. So I don't know how to be any clearer than to say that I don't think Snelling is right. I also don't think he's wrong. I just hold in very serious skepticism claims from people like phil that a global flood simply could NOT produce the stratification we see when there are people who disagree with whom whose understanding of geology is deeper than anyone's on this board by orders of magnitude. Does that make them right and phil wrong? Of course not. Does it mean that I don't take phil's bald assertion very seriously? That's exactly what it means. As Audie would say, that's just putting the conclusion before the evidence, which is the opposite of science. And that's something nobody should do.

[Philip]

The problem with the guys that say flood dynamics could cause the uniformity of the fossil record is that they don't base it upon comprehensive data, but upon speculations akin to string theorists, or those who have cooked up ways for non-life to become life without a God. Their narrative is VERY thin on substantiating data. IF all these species co-existed on a very young earth, then the fossil record makes little sense. Now, if one says that God didn't allow for this immense flood to do what every other giant flood would have naturally done (churn and mix everything up where it touches, pushing things out, mixing them, allowing them to sink together), well, that raises other questions. But if God allowed natural processes of an immense flood to play out, then the order and highly distinct separations of the fossil record and layers make little sense.

[Jac3510]

*shrug* So you say. All I see are a bunch of assertions. When you get your PhD is geology and publish geology papers in peer reviewed journals I'll cite you as an expert who thinks that the flood couldn't do it, not to prove you are right, of course, since I won't have the credentials to make that judgment, but when pointing out that scholars have serious differences of the (im)possible.

[Audie]

The problem with the guys that say flood dynamics could cause the uniformity of the fossil record is that they don't base it upon comprehensive data, but upon speculations akin to string theorists

It is a whole lot worse than that. Comprehensive data, to the extent we have it, does not as far as I know make string theory people look like fools.

, or those who have cooked up ways for non-life to become life without a God

"Cooked up" might be a bit on the invidious side, but in general, do you have a problem with people trying to think things thru, or experiment?

My general take-this is far from my field- but my understanding is that all
manner of organic molecules have a way of self assembling under a wide variety of conditions, to produce a wide variety of products.

And of course, the old "insanity is doing the same thing, expecting different results" is kind of a joke to organic chemists, who kinda sometimes wish they would get the same results.

Regardless, the speed with which chemical reactions can take place, the
rather large number of available ions and molecules to work with, 330 million cubic miles of water, and some few million years, I'd kind of think most any
combo that can happen would happen.

Their narrative is VERY thin on substantiating data.

That is made up for, for the hydrostatic sorting etc folks, with the considerable abundance of incompatible / contrary data. Of course, the Snellings and etc write for a pop culture audience that lacks any sophistication in in geology. Their flood-work gets no respect whatever from the scientific community as a whole. And, not least, they commit themselves to anti science and intellectual dishonesty from the word go.

IF all these species co-existed on a very young earth, then the fossil record makes little sense.

Another thing that could be said to make little sense would be burrows and footprints in strata that are in between other strata said to have been deposited in the same event.

[IceMobster]

I don't want to open up a new topic to ask this question posed to YECs:

How do you explain volcanic activity which happened in a period before 10 000 years (or whatever is the amount you believe the Earth is old)?

[RickD]

I don't want to open up a new topic to ask this question posed to YECs:

How do you explain volcanic activity which happened in a period before 10 000 years (or whatever is the amount you believe the Earth is old)?

That's simple. The answer would be that it didn't happen before 10,000 years ago. The measurement used to determine the age of the volcanic activity, was wrong.

[IceMobster]

I don't want to open up a new topic to ask this question posed to YECs:

How do you explain volcanic activity which happened in a period before 10 000 years (or whatever is the amount you believe the Earth is old)?

That's simple. The answer would be that it didn't happen before 10,000 years ago. The measurement used to determine the age of the volcanic activity, was wrong.

Yeah, well, there are people (scientists) who have devouted most of their lifetime studying volcanoes, but then comes some random whoever and says: "naaaaaaah he sux son he needz tu git gud."
Why so ignorant?
I am certain that such a method could be researched upon with a google search (I haven't done so as I am not really interested in such, but I mean it for anyone saying the measurement is false. Well, prove it false. And no, Bible verses don't count.)
Is there some rational explanation to that except "he knows nothing" type of answer?