That would be YEC Flood Geologists can’t agree. YEC says they use “science” to prove the flood but it looks like that doesn’t work.
Of course they would. They are YEC geologists after all.
I demand no such thing, but the YEC should be able to point to where in the geologic column the flood occurred, if it did occur. Basically the YEC geologists showed that when you considered a wide array of evidence the flood was not world wide.
Doctrine is not science. It is human and fallible.
And yet another TLDNR.
Edit to add: I notice you didn’t bother to dispute the actual geological arguments in the article.
You can assume anything you like. But since you asked, no, I’m not a biologist, but I do have a degree in natural science including ecology and evolution. I’ve also spent a lot of time over the last four decades researching evolution/creation related topics. Not that it matters, since qualifications of lack of them aren’t an indication of correctness.
No.
I’ve cited and quoted Wikipedia, but I haven’t been parrotting it and it’s not the only source I’ve used.
You haven’t cited any source, despite repeatedly being asked to.
You appear to be just asking questions of an LLM and posting the answers you get.
I’m not just regurgitating Wikipedia. You can tell this because you won’t find the text of my posts in Wikipedia.[1]
I don’t know if you are just regurgitating text from somewhere because you have repeatedly failed to identify any sources at all for your (false) claims. That’s extremely suspicious.
More than you, unless you have some other degrees that you haven’t mentioned. A PhD for example.
As for checking things out, I did check your claims out (and found them to be false) and I’d love to check out your sources for myself - but you won’t say who/what you asked or who/what offered the alternative explanations you posted, so I can’t.
Instead, you keep dodging the question.
Ok.
I’m asking questions. You’re refusing to answer them.
I’d like to delve into greater complexity, but it’s difficult because you won’t say where you got your information or what your sources were.
I’ve asked you four times for the source of the ‘information’ about giant pandas you posted, and four times you’ve failed to provide it. You haven’t even admitted to having forgotten, or said that there were several different ones, you’ve just dodged. It’s a straightforward obvious question, so there’s no reason not to answer it, unless doing so would make you look even more foolish than you claim I look.
Did it fall into a wormhole and reappear in the 1990s? Was it concealed in a Middle Eastern cave and excavated by archeaologists? Maybe it was lost because of the destruction of all British libraries during the Blitz and rediscovered through translations of Arabic works on the topic.
Or, more likely, it was available, but you didn’t look for it because to you (and maybe your college teachers):
I mean you are refusing to answer questions. I was focussed on the questions about your sources of information, which you are refusing to disclose, but having just checked I notice that you haven’t answered any question I’ve asked.
So since asking you anything is waste of effort, I’ll stop.
Yes when you ask the same question over and over and receive no answer then it is quite reasonable to stop asking this question. Congratulations on FINALLY figuring that out!
This certainly does not demonstrate asking me ANYTHING is a waste of effort.
There many examples to the contrary on this forum.
Furthermore … I actually did answer the question. I said that I put the question to an internet search and look at many of the answers which came up. But I notice you have a habit of ignoring answers you don’t want to hear.
Frankly, I suspect that you are simply hunting for specious victories of some sort. Petty and tiresome… but perhaps you can correct this impression with the honest answers to a few general questions.
Why are you here?
What do you want from this forum?
What do you want from the people here?
Looking into your history on the forum you seem to be really into getting admission of when people are shown to be wrong, even though I have yet to see any such admission on your part. Do you believe that you are never wrong? Ok, since you love admission you have shown someone to be wrong so much, let’s see if I can find an example in what I said in this thread.
this comes really close to being wrong…
The full story is that they are herbivorous as tadpoles, and then they become carnivores in adolescence, then as adults they eat mostly plant materials and thus are classified as herbivores …though they are carnivorous because they do eat invertebrates as well. So while what I said is technically correct, it is at at the very least misleading and so I admit that I was wrong. Did that make you happy?
Another example… this idea that the Giant Pandas became herbivores because of the loss of a gene that made meat taste better might be considered a myth. Attempts to verify this hypothesis showed it was more likely an adaptation to their change of diet which rather than causing the change of diet, thus making a return to a carnivorous diet less likely. So I can be considered guilty in helping to promote that myth by mentioning this without asking enough questions.
Oh… and look… I am not giving sources. why? Because this is not a professional paper and I simply have no responsibility to do so. But by all mean, if you are obsessed with such things provide all the documentation on whatever conclusions you wish.
Floods do not stratify victims of drowning. Floods jumble and disperse. So desperate is the allegiance to the 4500 year ago global flood, that YEC not only denies science, but lives in denial of common experience people can directly see for themselves.
I’ve hiked deeply into the Grand Canyon, and it doesn’t show anything supportive of YEC. I was on a backpacking trip down with a bunch that included a lot of YEC types, who were making jokes about the age of the canyon, and at one point I got tired of it and challenged one to explain just what about the strata indicated a young age. Every single point he claimed was just ludicrous! I asked another to randomly pick a section of layers and explain how it could have ended up in its condition in case of a flood, and he had nothing, so I explained just what – according to laboratory testing! – it took to form each layer, and being at just the right place to point it out, indicated a volcanic layer from a known eruption that could be dated using dendochronology to to over 7500 years ago, and reminded them of a similar layer higher up that dated to 6k years ago, also datable by dendochronology.
Then I tackled the silliness that the Canyon was carved out of soft sediments, dragging a civil engineering student in to talk about strength of deposited materials and angle of deposition; he conceded that the only way to get the formations in the Canyon was if they were carved slowly out of hard stone.
My audience wasn’t happy, but I did get some questions later in private from some folks who had never actually thought about it.
The original picture at the start of the thread is of phytosaurs, which were Triassic distant relatives of crocodiles and dinosaurs.
Only the earliest dinosaurs overlapped with phytosaurs.
Flood geology totally fails to credibly explain geological layers. To explain anything, a global flood model must give specific details about how the flood functions. What is the pattern of water movement - fast, slow, etc.? Salinity? What layers are during versus before versus after the flood? Then an honest comparison of what floods do versus other geological processes is necessary. Realistic assessment of the time involved is also necessary. Likewise, sound exegesis is needed to consider parameters for the possible flood model.
The Grand Canyon is a popular topic of young-earth claims, but actually checking the data shows that the young-earth claims are untrue. Sime of the rock layers show unambiguous evidence of being solid and eroded before the next layer was deposited, such as karst. The Coconino Sandstone has characteristic features of layers from wind-blown sand dunes, another point where young-earth sources make untrue claims.
then how can they disagree when the main premise they agree upon? You are plucking at straws there Bill…its not evidence that proves anything other than, scientists even within YECism disagree on things. You are “pot calling kettle black”.
Google AI would seem to dissagree with you there Roy…it seems to me that the study of glaciers is fundamental to Darwin’s idea of deep time.
Darwin’s observations of glaciers, particularly during the voyage of the Beagle, significantly influenced his thinking about geological processes and time. He saw how glaciers could transport and deposit large boulders (erratics) far from their source, and how the action of ice could shape landscapes.
Darwin’s understanding of the power of these slow, gradual geological processes, like glacial erosion and deposition, led him to grasp the concept of “deep time” – the vastness of geological history stretching back far beyond what was commonly believed at the time.
Darwin’s work on glaciers in Tierra del Fuego, as documented in his “Voyage of the Beagle,” helped him to recognize the power of glacial action and the vastness of geological time, which indirectly supported his later development of evolutionary theory
why should this be a problem for YEC scientists? They do not claim that there was no drying during the flood and re deposition of layers…im not sure why you dog bark up trees about this kind of thing?
No one cares whether or not some of the layers were set down rapidly and others slowly…this is not inconsistent with flood models. The earth after the flood experienced considerable change…we cannot know what the water levels were immediately after the flood. The Bible simply tells us “the ground was dry”…that in no way explains what the ground was like further a field or whether or not ongoing significant weather events continued. I would suggest that the fact that God set the rainbow in the sky, that this gives a strong indicator that Noah and his family were still very afraid of what was going on around them after they exited the Ark. Im not sure why you think it was some kind of utopia they walked out into?
I fail to see what the problem is with Karst? We know factually that heavy rain has a significant impact on how quickly these form…sinkholes, caves, underground rivers and disappearing springs found in such formations…those things forming rapidly, that is entirely consistent with the flood model there is no issue there for me.
When you talk about rock layers showing unambiguous evidences…I have to point out that the Siccar Point debate rages entirely because of ambiguity even within the Darwinian model. It struggles to explain some very significant observations about that formation that are consistent with massive global flood rather than a localised event.
Below i have collated some evidences from Creation Ministries regarding this formation…
the lower rock Greywacke is clearly indicative of rapid deposit…it has radomised grains of varying sizes which are also jagged and not smooth…both of which support very rapid deposition and not millions of years. There is evidence of crossbedding due to water flow and folding due to the rocks being quite plastic as a result of water saturation…the contact layer between vertical and horizontal formations shows evidences of no differential weathering, further supporting the idea of rapid deposition.
-the upper sandstone beds there is a metre thick layer of broken rocks (breccia) which are dumped on top of an eroded surface over a huge area and the alignment is such that it tends to face the same direction…the rocky pieces are blocky and angular, indicative of a large flood where they did not roll against each other much during deposition.
-The Siccar deposit is large… 400km long and about 100km wide and contains pebble beds, sand and silt mixed with volcanic lava up to 7km thick.
Red Sandstone in that formation contain well preserved fossils that are indicative of rapid burial.
The successive beds of the Old Red Sandstone show they were deposited one after the other without significant time breaks between them. For example, there is no evidence of ancient soil layers, or of organic matter incorporated into a soil or of plant roots.13 Some sandstone horizons contain animal tracks, so there was not much time involved.16 There are no canyons or valleys cutting across the beds. Yet there should be if, for long periods, the weather had been eroding them. Tas Walker- Creation Ministries
Now i do not doubt that Darwinian model offers solutions to these problems. However, for you to say that that is the only view that is consistent with the evidence is simply untrue…there are a now increasing number of Creation Science evidences that remain consistent with evidences in many geological formations around the world…i would argue that quite often they are more consistent with the evidence than the Darwinian model.
For the Christian, what is important is that the evidences and conclusions are not only consistent with the observed, but also consistent with the historical record found in the bible via a normal reading of language. Twisting language in order to make an ancient text fit with modern “non biblical” world views is dangerous…entire religions have derived from that which are well known to the false…two examples being Mormonism and Islam.
If you’re just going to post promptless AI-generated text, you might as well replace all your posts with “insert Google AI response here”. It’ll be quicker for you to write, and quicker for us to ignore.
It is nowhere near as boring as hearing this accusation and response over and over again to everyone. Getting things from Google AI is an improvement on his part over copying things from AIG. And his response is more interesting than yours. Your contempt for Google AI and its lack of accuracy is not an informative response to the points Adam was making. Google AI may get things wrong sometimes but it doesn’t just make things up. Should we doubt that Darwin made observations of glaciers? Or is it really relevant that Darwin did not use the phrase “deep time” when we know he made calculations of processes which took hundreds of millions of years? The real question to address is whether these facts really support Adam’s overall argument.
More importantly, Adam asking questions is far far far more admirable than you getting huffy about someone daring to question your claims and posts!!! The question we should be asking is whether scientists use the depth of objects under the ice sheet as a measure of its age and what goes into such calculations. In this Google AI is more informative than this response of yours. I certainly made more progress in understanding the flaws in Adam’s argument by looking at the Google AI responses than by looking at yours.
The main premise is the global flood happened and it left evidence behind. What the YEC geologists showed is there actually isn’t any evidence for a global flood. And you can’t say it is just the atheist (ignoring all the Christian) geologists saying this.
Adam I would suggest when you use a Google AI response you include the query you used. For example, using the query “does Google AI taylor responses based on search history” I get the following.
WOW that is interesting. It would be very interesting to see how far that goes. Does this mean Google AI is giving us what we want to hear to some degree?
I mostly see it as a search engine and thus take a look at where it is getting its information.