You can see the results of multiple transgressive/regressive cycles in the San Juan Basin here. No way this stratigraphy could be formed in a single “flood”.
1 Like
For those reading this, a fluvial geomorphologist studies how rivers form and change the landscape. They study the interactions between water, sediment, and vegetation in a river basin.
Fluvial geomorphologist was also my Halloween trick-or-treating costume last year.
For authenticity, in my shirt pocket and on my belt clips I had a compass and clinometer, hand lens, measuring tape, geological hammer, a coring auger, and some specimen sample bags for comparing the rock strata of different continents.
I agree, but I think you should go back farther. I’m pretty sure that if I had first dived into YEC in the 70s, I probably would have rejected it.
“I was wrong?”
4 Likes
Here’s a simple question. If Jeff knows of good evidence why is he wasting his time citing Neller and Clarey? Why not provide the good stuff?
4 Likes
Still waiting for that crucial post-70s or post-90s evidence favoring YEC. Geomorphology has failed you. What else?
2 Likes
You and I know that. I just worry about those listeners sometimes. 
It does. Thank you for taking that time.
Perhaps we should have started with these discussions (discussions on discussions) before me throwing out those two posts. But…those posts did serve as revealers of topics worth discussing, for instance: How individual personalities and histories effect how we see things (and communicate them). (Probably worth a sub-thread).
It’s laced behind every statement like:
- “overwhelming evidence,”
- “X is absurd,”
- “really poor arguments”
- “that [person/statement] is dishonest,”
- “that [person/argument] has been debunked/refuted” (phrases I now find meaningless btw)
Sometimes these phrases get over-used. At the same time these phrases are hard to avoid. For example, I really do see overwhelming evidence for The Global Flood.
When I hear these phrases being used by others, rather than accepting them, I find myself trying to decern the “why” behind these phrases. i.e. Good argument? That person’s personality (prone to exaggerations)? Their history?
Allen, if you don’t mind (and I want you to hear my sincerity in what I’m about to share) I want to give you some feedback on how to reach me better with your arguments; and know which ones aren’t very affective.
First, you’ve obviously had an adverse experience with some YECs, especially in the past. These observations come out in statements like:
[Emphasis mine]
In our dialogs so far, I’ve certainly seen evidence of how 1) poor and 2) dishonest arguments affect you. But I want to take a moment and give a few examples of posts that believe stem from that history, but really don’t impact me much in the way of arguments. Again, trying to do this with sincerity, in an effort to steer you towards more convincing arguments for me.
FIRST:
This was followed by a long explanation on why that was wrong, and was misrepresenting facts (while trying to avoid the “L” word: Lying).
(As I said before, I was hesitant to include that sentence because I was afraid it would derail the conversation.)
I do know we’d most likely eventually talk about this book. But within the context of this post: Your first post here didn’t dissuade me at all, because it just seemed to be a triggered response to one sentence that you (from your perspective) deemed misrepresenting facts.
My personal take on that sentence is simple: He probably had limited space to write a summary (or approve of the one written by others). I’m sure he would have unpacked what he meant by this specific comparison between the continents if he had the space. OR…worst-case, yes, a sentence that should have been worded differently.
Even if you could make a case of it being a poor statement, it was just in the summary. I’m more interested in the content of the book (but again, we’ll tackle the rest of the book later). And to me, focusing so much on that sentence seemed like too much of a distraction.
FIRST (PART 2):
There’s that word: “Debunk”
Just an observation: This is a 30 minute video you “just now came upon” and posted about 10 minutes after your post above it. And it didn’t have anything to do with the book. Perhaps you watched it, but I don’t really know. Maybe you just liked the title? I can’t help but think it just seemed like an ad hominem. Ad hominem’s have an inverse effect on me sometimes. Again just sharing with you what works for me, and what doesn’t.
SECOND:
[EMPHASIS MINE]
I do value the fact that you clarified that statement with that second sentence.
BUT… “gaslighting his follows” ??
Gotta use that phrase “absurd” here.
Honestly as I read back through your post, I have to really think about where you even come up with that. You asked me (or ‘us’) to explain how you’re wrong, but I don’t even get your logic here.
The best I could come up with (other than you believe the arguments are lame, which I disagree with) is this sentence:
“They disingenuously avoid telling their audiences…”
And to that: There are just too many reasons why that statement: “…avoid telling their audience…” is almost never convincing to me. For one thing it’s subjective. For another: people don’t always have time to list everything you feel they need to counter-list about what they are saying. Seriously contemplate how many times opponents could utter “They disingenuously avoid telling their audiences X,Y and Z.” Even to your posts. This is just another phrase that has very little meaning to me.
So really, I’m baffled by where ‘gaslighting’ comes in here.
THIRD
I don’t see how this is a “great example”. To me (just being honest) I feel you posted an entire sub-thread because the phrase “a vacuum of knowledge” that Darwin was working in seemed to bother you.
I actually went in and found that part of the video to get some context. I get what he meant by that.
Personally: He was just trying to express a point in the middle of an interview. Interviews produce several “off the cuff” statements like these. Yes, I get the point that it got highlighted at the beginning of the video, but still, I just don’t see it as a great example. That’s my point.
If that phrase garnered a break-out thread as a “great example,” invoking a “loud face-palm”, I’m certain I’ll accidentally use the wrong phrase at some point, and be relegated to the long list of YECs who give lame arguments. Can we just get that “loud face-palm” on me out of the way now? (maybe someone has already, I wouldn’t know).
…
Allen, I probably can’t say enough about the sincerity of this post: Again, I’m just sharing with you what works, and what doesn’t with me.
I’m seeing how your history as made you very sensitive to “Lame” and “Dishonest” arguments (btw, not only is “lame” subjective, even “dishonest” is). But understand, I don’t have that history. In all my interactions with organizations like CMI, ICR and CRI, I’ve developed a great respect for them. I just haven’t seen the evidence of dishonesty.
And even if there are isolated cases (such as the summary in Clarey’s book), I look at each argument in isolation (as in, continue to read the rest of his book). And I would do that for you, or anyone else here. I come across the lamest statements in here. But I just try and throw out the bone, and look for the meat.
…
Darn, this post got way too long. And took a while because I wanted to word it correctly (or as best I could).
Yeah, probably need to make this a break-out thread since it’s so off topic (yet important!).
BTW everyone else, Just FYI: I stopped reading all other posts in the thread due to lack of time (but not lack of interest).
Or the evidence can be put forward, and you may believe what you will. It is fine if you are not convinced. It’s your life.
There is no obligation, but then what is the point of using a public forum when you could just carry on with a two way private correspondence? I’m just asking the void I suppose.
The thread so far gives me little hope that we will get to see evidence for YEC.
4 Likes
I think this thread is misnamed.
3 Likes
YEC is literally physically impossible. Solved the heat problem yet? No.
Forget about evidence then. Your adherence to YEC is not really about evidence. This is about politics and sociology.
3 Likes
Ok, I promised myself I wouldn’t look at posts other than Allen’s, due to my limited time, and the temptation to reply to each one I read. But I happened to glance at a few like this one, and sure enough, find myself replying to it.
BUT, it was a good comment:
Understandable observation, to which I agree with a slight change to that: This thread needed a break-out thread (I just don’t know how to create those).
There’s a deeper underlying topic that’s worth discussing here.
In fact, I’m realizing it’s a big enough topic, perhaps I needed a Part 0.
I propose “Unsupported hearsay for YEC.”
5 Likes
Thank you - I do my best.
A ‘Part 0’ explaining what you mean by ‘evidence’ would, I think, be a good idea.
1 Like
What is offered as evidence is creationist interpretations of the evidence.
We were told to believe Neller’s version of his story. But we’re not given any reason to other than Neller’s say-so. But his views have not been accepted at all by his peers - we’re offered no evidence that they are taken seriously - and he happily parrots false YEC claims. Even without knowing the evidence against a Young Earth or Flood Geology there would be more than adequate reason to doubt these claims.
The Clarey quote at least offers a bit of evidence. But it hardly seems reasonable to interpret the three megasequences as phases of a single global flood. Indeed, it seems clearly untrue. This is, if anything, even worse than Neller.
So, we are asked to take these two people as such credible sources that we should unquestioningly accept their opinions over those of the vast majority of qualified experts. But no reason for that is given. There isn’t even enough that we should accept their views over our own evaluations of the evidence - which very clearly point to the falsity of the Young Earth and Flood Geology.
On the evidence so far, the Young Earth still seems no better than the Flat Earth.
7 Likes
Including detailed evidence supplied by a qualified geoscientist firsthand in this thread.
But you do not need to be a geologist. YEC including Clarey proposes that tsunami’s buried the dinosaurs under tons of sediment, and yeah, floods do that. But the dead animals generally do not generally zombie up and walk around and leave footprints throughout the layers of mud that killed them, so there is that, for one thing to figure out for oneself.
4 Likes
YEC including Clarey proposes that tsunami’s buried the dinosaurs under tons of sediment
The abundant dinosaur fossils found at the Dinosaur National Monument are hosted by the Jurassic Morrrison Formation, deposited primarily from low-energy rivers and flood plains. Ironically, evidence shows that many of the larger species died during droughts, when vegetation was stressed and food supplies dwindled.
7 Likes
Of course, there are some dinosaur fossils buried by tsunami, notably the Tanis site in North Dakota, recording the Chicxulub impact tsunami. But that doesn’t seem to fit the Flood of Noah at all.
To be technical, the Tanis site was formed by a seiche in the Western Interior Seaway rather than a tsunami which did occur in the Gulf of Trump and the Atlantic.