This is a great example of where attacks on science from the platform of religious belief start with absurdity and get worse from there. This is all just counting angels on the head of a pin at this point.
The idea of the biblical global flood is so utterly ridiculous and completely untenable scientifically and so obviously allegorical in origin that it is laughable that it is even being discussed or debated.
I am not sure what challenge you are referring to?
Also responding to your arguments is problematic. Firstly, to be called arguments they at least need to be formed into a syllogism. Eg. Premise 1, Premise 2, conclusion. Plus the argument needs to be sound, meaning that it needs to be based on actual evidence and not just wild assertions. The argument needs to be valid and not circular. Now everything I have seen from you so far fails these basic requirements, so you cannot claim that I am not responding to your arguments because in my view, you are yet to make one.
Secondly Patrick, my observations of your modus operandi with regards to points related to science, is that your lack of valid and sound argumentation (due mostly to false premises and lack of evidence) coupled with dismissing and or ignoring anything that you disagree with, and tending to fire back with yet more poor argumentation and unsubstantiated claims, means that not only attempting to respond to your faulty arguments is pointless because they are bad arguments, but the response to any response by me will result in more of the same. All of these problems come back to three things 1. Your commitment to YEC no matter what the evidence against it. 2. Your lack of understanding of science, and 3. Your need to be a good soldier for your faith and not give ground to the opposition.
If you only had an open mind and a preparedness to change your mind in the face of the vast evidence against you, and a preparedness to learn real science and how to put a valid and sound argument together, then we might be able to have a productive conversation.
That doesn’t answer the question.
What characteristics would a geologic formation need in order to falsify the claim that the Earth is young and that there was a recent global flood?
Or, will you claim that the Earth is young and that there was a recent global flood no matter what the observations are?
There isn’t much reason for us to engage with you if you are protecting a position that is immune to facts, evidence, logic, and reason.
One type of geologic formation that seems odd to find under a single, global flood deposition system is one with indications of repeated significant changes in sea level. Such a set of formations is abundantly clear from the marine faunas of the southeastern United States.
The specific points of evidence for repeated changes in sea level are the fact that most of the formations, or subunits of them, have indurated or leached upper sections (or are completely indurated or leached). Induration and leaching both require at minimum a few decades of fresh groundwater percolating through the layer. Thus, we can observe a sequence of layers that require many changes from above sea level to significantly below and back. In addition, each layer must have lasted long enough for large bivalves and corals to grow, and then their shells/skeletons to sit on the ocean floor with other things living on them (at minimum, about a century, given the lifespans of the organisms involved).
The Waccamaw Formation (which is among the shorter-duration ones) alone gives an absolute minimum total depositional time of about a thousand years, given the four separate indurated layers (ignoring sedimentation and erosion rates). This estimate makes some rather unrealistically high assumptions about how densely you could pack the organisms in life, thus the actual time is much longer.
Given the abrupt faunal changes, like Ecphora and Chesapecten disappearing between immediately overlying formations (most sites have significant unconformities, though), there is very little mixing of the formations, and, if the timescale is only a few thousand years, unreasonably rapid faunal turnover (i.e. a typical species goes extinct within 50 generations). |
There is also the problem of globally equivalent planktonic microfossil sequences, and globally equivalent stable isotope ratio sequences . Both require a few thousand years, at absolute minimum, to equalize around the globe.
Another example is formations made up of fossils. I don’t mean sediments with fossils here and there, but sediments that are mostly fossils. For example:
That’s 2,000 feet of disarticulated body plates from this animal:
There are enough crinoid bits from this one geologic formation to cover the entire Earth to 1/4 of an inch. How in the world does a flood produce that much life?
You can read about more of these types of deposits in Glenn Morton’s wonderful essay:
The Waccamaw Formation and many others have the same problem, as they mostly consist of shell hash.
But how many dead fish and other detritus would be mixed in with just a thousand years of time? Lots.
And this is where I tell you that you are offended because another religion calls your out. Can’t have that when you have ultimate truth, can you? Naturalism and humanism and atheism appeal to so many because they deny what they are: religions. Dogma.
Straight from the Eastern religions even older than Christianity. Which one is it that believes in reincarnation and karma, and that we begin as lower creatures and keep reincarnating until we are perfect?
As I said, every necessary step to building the universe is impossible in a naturalistic setting. Not just some of them. All of them.
@Patrick_S I am never offended. My reactions to you are not emotionally driven. I am interested in what is true. When I read your posts I am confronted with an attempt to distort reality to fit your literal views of genesis, and someone who resists all attempts to help you break free of your misconceptions. It is saddening and frustrating to see but I am always hopeful that you and others like you who are still trapped in this cult, might be persuaded out of it at some point. It has been my experience though, that unless the YEC is prepared to learn basic scientific concepts, learn about evolution, genetics, physics just enough to understand the basic concepts, then really no progress is ever made.
Another point I should say here is that you assume you know what my beliefs are, but I have never stated them. Acceptance of evolution is of course not a belief so that doesn’t count.
Lastly, the pursuit of truth requires a preparedness to be wrong and be informed and corrected and to change your mind if the evidence demands. This is not what you are doing here. What I see is someone who is locked in and expecting everyone else to just listen to you. That is not really the way forums work. Try just listening, understanding and learning. There are some very smart, reasonable and educated people here and you could profit from building bridges with some of them, but you will need to open your mind up first.
Patrick…
“As I said, every necessary step to building the universe is impossible in a naturalistic setting. Not just some of them. All of them.”
@Patrick_S I responded to you already. I am not going down the rabbit hole with someone who rejects science and doesn’t understand it. What possible point could there be in doing that with you? I have seen your conversations with others who have attempted to discuss science with you and it goes nowhere because you don’t understand or accept science and you simply cannot accept you are wrong. So again, what would be the point?
Please read my previous post about this which is more detailed.
Even AIG admits there are fossils embedded in the chalk. But they occur in distinct bands not from chaotic mixing.
That seems to be a bit of projection on your part. You are incapable of telling us what evidence would falsify a young Earth and a recent global flood.
Is this from the same YEC genius astrophysicists who gave use missing neutrinos, the shrinking sun, and called into question fusion? Do you honestly believe that the gas laws have escaped attention in the theory of star formation?
If you want to challenge the theory, here is a open, online book you can wade through so that you at least are not making uninformed comments concerning gas laws:
Notes on Star Formation
Or just take the easier route and just believe your own eyes:
The Pillars of Creation
You are easily impressed with no actual facts.
No. The actual experts agree with the laws, not the theories. Which is more certain, after all? Not that I agree with the following, but at least they don’t bypass the basic laws.
Rather than reading 400 pages of pdf, I word searched it.
Could - 48 times
Could be - 15 times
Possible - 84 times
Possibly - 6 times
Possibility - 8 times
We think - 8 times
Boyle - 0 times
If you have a particular point in mind, that would be better than something this size.
As for the Pillars. Nice renderings, but they are literally smoke and mirrors. Once they clear out or move, you see what is behind them.
No, because there are no reliable dating methods once direct observation, including history, is not available.
Do you understand the difference between laws and theories in science? It seems like you think theories graduate to laws if they are good ones. That isn’t the case. Laws are mathematical representations of physical realities. They relate constants and measurements in equations. Theories are models based on well supported hypotheses. They often incorporate laws into the theoretical model, but theories cannot be represented by an equation or formula like a law can.
Sure looks like classic projection. But then the only thing you’re willing to allow as settled facts are those you learned in Sunday school. Nothing wrong with keeping the faith but doing so with your eyes wide open to all the facts is so much more impressive. I’d love to see you take the leap.
Then we can’t tell when manuscripts of the Old Testament were written, and we can’t verify that texts were preserved fairly accurately over many centuries. The Dead Sea Scrolls could have been written just before they were discovered – unless one allows that there are reliable dating methods.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.