Have you ever seen a scientific model for Noah’s flood that was wholly consistent with known physics? I haven’t.
Yes, I could do that. It would be entirely reasonable to do so. But it turns out we do have plenty of evidence to go on beyond just the fact that God said it. We just don’t have the answers to every possible question one might want to pose about why things may be found in exactly the position they are found. The dishonest part of this is the implicit claim by evolutionists that they do in fact have all these explanations. Making up unfalsifiable stories is something anyone can do.
And yet you presumably reject the Bible’s clear indication that the earth is immobile, flat, and covered with a solid dome. Go figure.
4 Likes
Yes, of course there was turbulence on a scale we’ve never seen since. However the flood moved in successive waves spanning 150 days to the zenith, and we have pretty much no idea what the world actually looked like at that time biogeographically (other than what we can glean from the flood layers themselves!). So the idea that everything should be homogenously mixed is just a caricature of reality.
No, turbulent waters can certainly deposit sediment. It all depends upon the specifics of the sediment load and the dynamics of the water.
Well, certainly not when your whole conception of it is based on a series of caricatures, misconceptions, oversimplifications and outright false claims.
What sediment? We’re there giant reservoirs of unconsolidated sediments just lying around, ready to be picked up by the flood and moved to new spots? Already pre-sorted by particle size?
I note that you haven’t answered my very first question so here it is again: just so we are on the same page, do you agree that there is a very strong signal of vertical zonation when it comes to fossil pollen and planktonic microfossils, or are you even disputing that? There is no point discussing the fossil distribution unless we start from the same observations and data.
2 Likes
Some-one interested in getting basic facts right might have said that the flood took 40 days to reach its zenith, after which the rain stopped falling, and stayed at that zenith until 150 days had passed.
It is not a matter of exactness. The segregation of the history is life is massive, pervasive, distributed around the planet, and universally supported by independent lines of investigation. Geological time is incontrovertibly evidenced. There is no controversy.
Scientists do in fact have a coherent and robust explanation in keeping with the evidence, because unlike creationists they do not seek to impose on nature some statement of faith, but are informed by the workings of nature. Reality gets the last word.
Stories that are true are ultimately unfalsified. But much in nature does not abide by neat little syllogisms, distinctions, and slogans so adored by creationists. Do all mammals give live birth? Is all DNA passed down from parents? Are all feathers for flight? Is the genetic code universal? Just because an explanation is nuanced does not mean it is suspect, it is simplistic apologetics that fails to capture reality. Creationism, however, is a train wreck, a mess in all its parts and worse in its sum. There is not a single significant YEC claim that withstands scrutiny.
2 Likes
Nobody is expecting that. The problem is that there is an observed order in the fossil record - discovered before Darwin - and Flood geology doesn’t seem to make sense of it at all. But it does make sense if deep time is correct and the species existing on the planet change over time.
Since it is only implicit in your invented strawman it isn’t the evolutionists who are being dishonest.
3 Likes
It would be reasonable if and only if we accept two assumptions: 1) that the Bible is the infallible word of God and 2) that you are interpreting it entirely correctly. But how would we test these assumptions? I suggest we use data. If the assumptions are both true, the data should fit your understanding of what the Bible says. If the data don’t fit, you must abandon at least one of the assumptionis.
I submit that the data don’t fit. To the extent that your undrstanding of the text makes testable predictions, those predictions are falsified. The OP in this very thread is a case in point, and in response to the great bulk of the data mentioned, your response is to raise a doubful, outlying case, and later to suggest that your understanding is not testable. Neither is a useful response.
The most recent post contains no reference to data whatsoever, merely invective. Also not a useful response.
2 Likes
Yes, correct, thanks for catching that mess up. The point I was making is that it was a process that happened over many days, not an instantaneous process. Throughout the rise there would have been ebbs and flows (Mike Oard refers to this as the BEDS model).
Yes I agree we should use data. The best way to do that is to look at the big picture, not cherry picked details that fit your preferred narrative.
2 Likes
By this standard, evolutionists are not scientists, for they insist that life appeared and evolved on earth exclusively through a blind, unguided, purposeless natural process, which is a pure statement of faith.
5 Likes
It’s a remarkable talent to to know that Dan was thinking about the Coconino sandstone, and not one or more of the many other deposits that look like modern aeolian sand dunes.
You mean like dirt and mud and sand? Yeah, I would assume so. We have that all over the surface of the earth today, why not then?
You should watch this. Moving water sorts sediments by particle size.
I’m out of town and unable to reply at length right now. This whole thread has been more wide-ranging and more heated then I had hoped.
@UncensoredPilgrims the basic question I posed was to say “this pattern of pollen in the fossil record exists; can YEC explain it?” It seems like your response, apart from a possible exception to the pattern (which is at best very tenuous), has been to say that you weren’t aware of the pattern, you’re not sure if it’s real, and that YEC can probably explain it.
It would be much more useful if you would give evidence that the large scale pattern does not exist, or else point to a specific mechanism by which YEC might explain it. General statements about a gradually rising flood don’t say anything about why, for example, there would be no fruit trees or fruit tree pollen In the lower “flood” layers. Flowering plants grew before the flood and are found at all elevations, and pollen by its nature blows everywhere. There’s no apparent reason why a plant and its pollen would be exactly the same buoyancy in every case, or why it should mix thoroughly through the flood sediments at a certain level and up but not at all below that point.
It would also be fine to not respond at all. But the whole point of the thread was to elicit a specific YEC explanation for this specific pattern. Not having one to discuss does not move the conversation forward.
5 Likes
Except that evolution is based on observable mechanisms. That’s the opposite of faith.
3 Likes
Agreed. And yet you’re the cherry-picker, in this thread at least. Your sole contributions have been to raise one dubious, marginal case, and to deny that your idea of the flood makes any predictions.
How deep do dirt and mud and sand go? Is it miles deep everywhere, as required by using the flood to account for sedimentary rock? And were these miles of sediment created in situ, there being not enough time to erode that much rock from the original creation?
Sorry, not watching your videos.
Generally, not. It’s still water, or water that comes to a stop, that does, generally. Thus the fining upwards in a turbidity flow. Turbulent flows do little sorting, other than a bit of separation between the suspended load and the bed load.
3 Likes
It’s normally the ones who don’t have an actual argument who have to resort to mockery.