A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?

[LittlePig]

And I can't think of any reason you would make the comment you made if you weren't suggesting that the find favored your view of a worldwide flood.

Umm, because simply it's a better explanation? And the fact that it's more consistent with the Flood Model doesn't hurt either.

Except, of course, it isn't consistent with a 'Flood Model', since it isn't mixed in with any animals that we know are modern.

Before the rabbits multiply beyond control, I'll just leave my proposal as a rapid burial. Nothing more than that. For this thread, it can just be a giant mud slide.

Since it's still spring time, let's let the rabbits multiply.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

4) Have Global Flood Models ever been subjected to a formal peer review process?

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

"Workin' in the quote mine, going down, down, down..."

Stephen Gould wrote:
Lyell's gradualism has acted as a set of blinders, channeling hypotheses in one direction among a wide range of plausible alternatives. Its restrictive effects have been particularly severe for those geologists who succumb to Lyell's rhetorical device and believe that gradual change is preferable (or even required) a priori, because different meanings of uniformity are necessary postulates of method. Again and again in the history of geology after Lyell, we note reasonable hypotheses of catastrophic change, rejected out of hand by a false logic that brands them unscientific in principle.

It's called Punctuated Equilibrium, where species have long periods of little change, followed by rapid evolution with major changes. Stephen J. Gould is the scientist that first proposed it instead of the gradualism most evolutionists think happened.

Then you have to go and tell lies about what he was talking about(mixed in with the incoherent rant of your last post).

But worse yet, the integrity of the SG model was doubted by her near kin, Stephen J. Gould

Here's what he said about evolution...

"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."

Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Quote Mining is a dishonest and underhanded practice usually used by those who really have no valid argument of their own and so must lie about what others have said, or, by carefully selecting those quotes, give a false impression that they support their unsupportable arguments when in fact the exact opposite is true. Your quoting of Professor Gould is a perfect example of the later.

By the way, Cuvier was right, it takes way more than just a few thousand years for major changes to become obvious, but multicellular life has been around on Earth for 800 million years, in that time it went from single celled creatures(that have been around for over 3.5 BILLION years)to the diversity we see today, including us.


Grumpy

[Scotracer]

Sorry to appear as impersonating a moderator but could we please get back onto the topic at hand? This thread is already convoluted enough - we don't need to bring Biology into a Geology thread.

And as a side note, any quote brought up by a strong proponent or major researcher in the field of Evolution that the Creationist seems to think supports their cause has been, 100% of the time, shown to be a Quote-mine of some sort. Instead of bringing in quotes from authority (which is by the way, a logical fallacy) present data that goes against evolution.

The "destructive mutation" argument is an argument from incredulity as there are many well documented cases of positive mutation and it is a fact that each human zygote has on average 128 new mutations and if they were all negative, the human race would have long since diluted itself down to the level of biologically unviable. And as Grumpy properly outlined, a birth defect caused by a trauma in the womb is not a genetic mutation. Conjoined twins are not a genetic problem.

Mutations may be random but natural selection is the exact opposite of random - it is deterministic. And since we have the 128 new mutations per zygote that gives a lot of chance for there to be a positive mutation when you extrapolate over the 6billion+ people on the planet.

I really cannot believe the strength of the "arguments" being presented here against evolution. Yet the same things just pop up again and again - it really shows the level of our planets education system.

And as I stated at the beginning of this post, let's return to the Flood issue. I will spend the next few days reading through what I missed whilst on vacation and cover what I can.

[micatala]

Moderator Intervention


For future reference, any challenges or questions regarding a moderator action should be made via PM.

Let's stick to the topic, per Rule #4. Mutations and evolution are really only relevant to the extent that they have something to do with supporting or refuting either the FM or the SG.

Connect the dots. The SG model is based on an old-Earth interpretation in order to buy sufficient time for evolution to happen. Just as Charles Darwin married a woman, Darwinian evolution married a SG model. (SG = “Standard Geologic�, not “Super Girl�.) Nevertheless, the other looks pretty “on the surface�:

SG MODEL


But NO amount of time will suffice for mutations to create feathers on lizards. Too little time is available for mutations to create humans from single-cell organisms swimming in a primordial soup or baking on a crystalline substrate. The marriage of the SG model and the EM model (evolution model) is likened to an alcoholic whose “enabler� wife makes trips for him to the corner liquor store. If he dies, the wife will suffer because the monthly disability check will cease. You cannot discount the importance of the SG-EM marriage. The SG model’s husband suffered severely under the attacks of anatomist Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) who made this observation:

He [Cuvier] also pointed out that Napoleon's expedition to Egypt had retrieved animals mummified thousands of years previously that seemed no different from their modern counterparts. "Certainly," Cuvier wrote, "one cannot detect any greater difference between these creatures and those we see, than between the human mummies and the skeletons of present-day men."

Multiplying no change times millions of years equals no change. Note that Darwin didn’t publish his “Origin of Species� until 27 years after the death of Cuvier. From this, we know that the ideas of the SG model’s husband were rejected even before he was popularized. But worse yet, the integrity of the SG model was doubted by her near kin, Stephen J. Gould:

Lyell's gradualism has acted as a set of blinders, channeling hypotheses in one direction among a wide range of plausible alternatives. Its restrictive effects have been particularly severe for those geologists who succumb to Lyell's rhetorical device and believe that gradual change is preferable (or even required) a priori, because different meanings of uniformity are necessary postulates of method. Again and again in the history of geology after Lyell, we note reasonable hypotheses of catastrophic change, rejected out of hand by a false logic that brands them unscientific in principle.

* The SG model photo was used to communicate a fundamental idea: Her outer beauty is not indicative of her ability to sustain happy relationships, bear children, or engage in philosophical discussions.

Now, I certainly would accept the notion that the SG and Evolutionary Science developed over roughly the same period and that the conclusions of the SG support evolution.

However, that is not the issue. The issue is that this thread is a debate about the FM versus the SG. References to evolution or biology should really only be made if they are directly relevant to the geological discussion. Whether mutations can be beneficial or not is not relevant to that debate.

I will ask everyone, even if you are responding to another poster, to please stay on topic.

[Alan Clarke]

Lyell's gradualism has acted as a set of blinders, channeling hypotheses in one direction among a wide range of plausible alternatives. Its restrictive effects have been particularly severe for those geologists who succumb to Lyell's rhetorical device and believe that gradual change is preferable (or even required) a priori, because different meanings of uniformity are necessary postulates of method. Again and again in the history of geology after Lyell, we note reasonable hypotheses of catastrophic change, rejected out of hand by a false logic that brands them unscientific in principle.

My quote of Stephen J. Gould was not abbreviated or misaligned as many claim. What I posted was a complete and unabridged paragraph of Gould’s belief that Charles Lyell’s theory of "gradualism" had in effect put “blinders� on people so as to make them oblivious to alternative and plausible hypotheses. Why is that quote mining? Gould went on to say that the "reasonable hypotheses of catastrophic change" had been rejected by "false logic". This exact scenario was played out with the catastrophic flood proponent J. Harlan Bretz in 1923.

BRETZ BEFORE ELDERS WITH "BLINDERS"


Bretz was rejected by critics because his interpretations resembled the Biblical flood. His opponents (Bretz referred to them as the "challenging elders") wanted "to defeat him in a public debate, and thus end the challenge his theories posed to the long standing uniformitarianism dogma." (ref.) After the advent of aerial photography, Bretz’s flood model was irrefutable and vindicated.

One "reasonable hypotheses of catastrophic change" is the Flood model as articulated by Dr. Walt Brown. Brown proposes a "hydroplate" theory which incorporates nothing but "natural" mechanisms. What’s more, some of the needed components for his theory to be plausible are already in place, such as the subterranean water discovered in the 7.6 mile Kola Superdeep Borehole and measurements confirming likely supercritical salt water 10 miles below the Tibetan Plateau. Formerly, water at such depths was thought not to exist. Brown has presented the energy requirements and the mechanisms for the water to be held and released. His theory is falsifiable and he makes 40 predictions. Predictions which have already been confirmed are given with their dates on the left and confirmations on the right:

1980 pooled salt water under major mountains (1984, 1999, 2001)
1995 hidden canyon under the Bosporus (1998)
1995 carbon-14 in “old� bones (2000, 2001, 2003)
2001 salt on Mars (2004)

If people don’t want to take responsibility for the meaning of words, then they shouldn’t talk. Gould spoke about "geology" loud and clear and the ill effects of rejecting "reasonable hypotheses of catastrophic change". I have nothing to recant or apologize for. The Flood model is hated for its philosophical implications and for the origin of its idea: the Bible. Nevertheless, if an idea can be tested empirically, it meets the "science" litmus test. Just as Darwin avoided the question of how life started in "Origin of Species", Brown likewise never calls upon the "goddidit" mechanism in his hydroplate theory. Darwin did voice his opinion elsewhere on how life began from non-living matter:

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871, Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".

Oh no!! I’ve committed sacrilege for quoting someone!! Get a life. If you don’t like it, then complain to Wikipedia for their quote mining.

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

The catastrophic change Gould was talking about in the quote was not the flood, he would say the FM is not plausable. Your use of him is still dishonest quote mining.

"Bretz's remarkable work was built painstakingly over many years, but he had to fight great opposition for many decades for its final acceptance. Finally, in 1979, the geological establishment publicly acknowledged Bretz's work by awarding him the prestigious Penrose Medal - the most prestigious honor in the field of geology.3 Bretz was in his late 90s, and had been holding the line for more than 50 years before finally realizing general acceptance of his "insane" catastrophic model for the formation of the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington State."

Scientists can hold on to dogma just like anyone else(you holding on to a Biblical flood, for instance). But the difference between science and religion is that scientists will eventually recognize their dogmas are false(as the geological scientists did in Bretz's case), but religionists hold on to their dogma LONG after it is obviously irrational to do so. Religions dogma is written in "god's word" and can not be updated no matter what the evidence. So while scientists now accept that catastrophic things DO happen(Gould, Bretz), religionists can not admit that catastrophies(the flood in particular) are not the only operating force of nature, there is also extremely long ages and evolution of forms. It is the ability of science to accept self correction(however painful and arduous the process)that gives it the power to give us the wonders of the modern world and the understanding of our Universe. The INABILITY of religion to ever accept new and better explanations in place of the dogma based on the understanding of ancient men and their mythical stories gave us the Dark Ages and the Inquisitions.

Creationism is wrong. There was no real Adam and Eve, it was a story(myth) meant to teach obediance(or else). The Flood was a story that was old long before Judeism was invented. To try to claim that this dogma is science is simply non-sense. There is nothing of scientific value in Genesis, though some of it may be loosely based on actual facts it is buried in fantastic tales of magical beings. As Bretz showed, there have been stupendous floods in this world, but they left unmistakable evidence of their occurrence, there is no sign of a world wide flood. Maybe a similar flood event occurred in the Mediteranian at the end of the last ice age, but as stupendous as that event would be it is not worldwide. But like the fish that got away, it grows bigger with each telling around the campfire, and the tale of one man and his family surviving in a boat or raft becomes an epic tale of mighty deeds.

I also find it funny(strange) that a creationist, who claims the world is only 10,000 years old, is arguing his case using events that happened toward the end of the last ice age, from about 25,000 to 12,500 years ago. The sedimentary rock that was carved by these floods was on the order of 250,000 years old and up, the Basalt that the floods scoured the sedimentary rock off of are a couple of BILLION years old. Do you not see the irony in this??? Arguing using events that, if the argument were valid, could not have occurred because the world did not exist yet. OHHH...I am getting a headache!

So your dogma is WAY out of date(centuries), while science's dogma changes, sometimes over night, as new information and understanding are gained. Science gives us real results, new abilities, technical wonders, easier, longer and healthier lives(no, Adam didn't live 900 years, in fact Adam never existed), the ability to control our world and our destiny. Religion has given us...? Mostly wars and religious strife, ignorance and brutality, misery for the masses and comfort, riches and power for the few(the Divine Right of Kings, the Pope), TV evangelists and misguided politicians. I choose science.

Grumpy

[Scotracer]

Let's stick to the topic, per Rule #4. Mutations and evolution are really only relevant to the extent that they have something to do with supporting or refuting either the FM or the SG.

Connect the dots. The SG model is based on an old-Earth interpretation in order to buy sufficient time for evolution to happen. Just as Charles Darwin married a woman, Darwinian evolution married a SG model. (SG = “Standard Geologic�, not “Super Girl�.)

Lord Kelvin, the father of Thermodynamics and who was a Christian worked out that the earth must be at least on the order of millions of years old due the core of the earth...and he said that is only if the earth doesn't heat itself from within - which it does! So it's even older than that. So no, it's not some conspiracy, it's an evident fact.

[otseng]

OK, after being on vacation, getting the forum back up, trying to repair my laptop, neighborhood HOA issues, and work, I have a little breather to get back into debating.

otseng

Figure A has layers formed. Over time, erosion occurs and forms B. New layers are deposited and forms C. Over time, we should see D as commonplace.


http://origins.swau.edu/papers/geologic ... fault.html

A completely unrealistic strawman when it is misrepresented as being typical of ALL areas. Few areas would follow this pattern(though we DO see similar patterns to D in the Appalachian mountains, where I live).

I'm not saying it should be typical of all areas. But, I'm saying it should be a pattern that we should see. Actually I think what should be more typical would be gradient patterns rather than abrupt strata changes. But even with abrupt strata changes, shouldn't the above pattern D be the norm?

Each area will have a different pattern determined by it's history. It's history is the various forces and conditions unique to that area distributed over time.

Each area with stratas should be a record of a significant amount of time (measured on the millions of years). Though I guess it could be possible that no faulting, folding, uplifts would be experienced for a period of millions of years, erosion would certainly have happened. One cannot prevent water or wind from acting on any place on the Earth. Especially for a period of millions of years. And in the diagram above, only erosion is a factor.

[Grumpy]

otseng

But even with abrupt strata changes, shouldn't the above pattern D be the norm?

There is no "norm", each area is unique according to the forces and history of that area.

Each area with stratas should be a record of a significant amount of time (measured on the millions of years).

SOME areas with strata are a record of significant amounts of time. SOME areas are a record of single events or a series of events(Mt. St. Helens), SOME areas have never seen significant periods of erosion, only long periods of sedimentation. SOME areas have seen long periods of sedimentation followed by uplift and then long periods of erosion(the Grand Canyon).

Each area MUST be evaluated seperately, no "norm" can be expected ANYWHERE. The Earth is 4.5 thousand million years old(4.5 billion) or 4,500,000,000 years old. Most of it's crust has been recycled several times(the oldest rock yet to be found is ~3.9 billion years old). The history of life is almost as old as the oldest rocks to be found. The various and different histories of different areas cannot be generalized in any way whatsoever with any accuracy at all. This I have told you several times now, but you haven't even acknowledged it, going so far as to claim no one has disputed your "prediction", that is not true.

Grumpy

[otseng]

The various and different histories of different areas cannot be generalized in any way whatsoever with any accuracy at all. This I have told you several times now, but you haven't even acknowledged it, going so far as to claim no one has disputed your "prediction", that is not true.

Yes, I realize that you have said this many times. I think we might need to go back to what we mean by prediction.

As I've mentioned before, a prediction is based on the model/theory. A prediction is not based on observations.

In a scientific context, a prediction is a rigorous, (often quantitative), statement forecasting what will happen under specific conditions, typically expressed in the form If A is true, then B will also be true. The scientific method is built on testing assertions which are logical consequences of scientific theories. This is done through repeatable experiments or observational studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction

Observations that confirm predictions then will support the theory. Observations that do not confirm predictions is evidence against the theory.

The order is not looking at the data first and then saying what predictions can we make from the data.

From what you have been saying about each place being unique, that is of course true. But, saying that gives no value to the discussion regarding predictions.

I am only looking at the models themselves to make the predictions. I have not even reached the step of looking at the data. So, from only the model themselves, what predictions can be made? If no prediction can be made from SG, then I would argue that it cannot then be debated scientificially.

[Grumpy]

otseng

I am only looking at the models themselves to make the predictions. I have not even reached the step of looking at the data.

THE DATA ALWAYS COMES FIRST!

Forming theories(say, the FM)then making predictions before even examining the data IS NOT CONDUCTING SCIENCE.

The proper steps are...

1. Gather the data.

2. Form hypotheses.

3. Test these hypotheses, if they are not consistent with step one, repeat step two. It is here that predictions are made and then compared to what is seen in step one.

4. Try your very best to falsify these hypotheses(IE experiment and test, repeat).

5. Have others do their very best to falsify these hypotheses(IE peer review).

What you(and other creationists)are doing...

1. Form hypotheses(IE the FM)

2. Make predictions. Based on what, I don't know.

3. Look for evidence that supports the original hypotheses and, more often than not, ignore anything which would falsify them or get very vague in explaining them.

You predictions in no way fit the data in any generalized way. You may find some areas that do fit your expectations, but they are in no way representative. Therefore this line of reasoning is of no value in determining anything at all.

Neither the geological record, nor the biological record can be adequately explained by the FM, that is why main stream scientists discarded it long ago. I don't care how much you believe in the FM, it just isn't so. Even if our understanding of evolution was to be overturned by new evidence tommorrow we would not be going back to the Bible and creationism for answers, for they are even more inadequate than what we have now if what we have now is not true.

Grumpy