Baraminology of the Flood

[John Harshman]

I posted this on the web site The Skeptical Zone. Oddly enough, of all
the resident creationists, only Robert Byers managed a response.

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/baraminology-of-the-flood/#comments

[RonO]

It looks like you have to subscribe to get the CORE article.

CORE Issues in Creation no. 5 (2009): 129–161
http://www.coresci.org/cgi-bin/ci.pl?a=005

Where does the Wise quote come from?

They do allow you to see the appendix which uses the geological
nomenclature. How do they expect the fossil record was created in 1500
years? There was obviously deposition before the flood.

So it looks like they have pakicetus on the Ark at Ark Park because they
believed that whales can evolve from a terrestrial mammal in a few
thousand years. This AIG article uses the same CORE source.

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/no-kind-left-behind/

Gish would likely be turning in his grave if he wasn't still alive. One
of his favorite pieces of creationist stupidity was his whale/cow
evolution speel. Now they believe that such evolution could happen
several orders of magnitude faster than Gish claimed was not enough time.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 04:22:55 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 11/2/2016 2:16 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> I posted this on the web site The Skeptical Zone. Oddly enough, of all
>> the resident creationists, only Robert Byers managed a response.
>>
>> http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/baraminology-of-the-flood/#comments
>>
>
>It looks like you have to subscribe to get the CORE article.
>
>CORE Issues in Creation no. 5 (2009): 129–161
>http://www.coresci.org/cgi-bin/ci.pl?a=005
>
>Where does the Wise quote come from?
>
>They do allow you to see the appendix which uses the geological
>nomenclature. How do they expect the fossil record was created in 1500
>years? There was obviously deposition before the flood.
>
>So it looks like they have pakicetus on the Ark at Ark Park because they
>believed that whales can evolve from a terrestrial mammal in a few
>thousand years. This AIG article uses the same CORE source.
>
>https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/no-kind-left-behind/
>
>Gish would likely be turning in his grave if he wasn't still alive.

Umm... the infamous Duane "the oil" Gish isn't still alive.

>One
>of his favorite pieces of creationist stupidity was his whale/cow
>evolution speel. Now they believe that such evolution could happen
>several orders of magnitude faster than Gish claimed was not enough time.
>
>Ron Okimoto

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[John Harshman]

On 11/3/16 2:22 AM, RonO wrote:
> On 11/2/2016 2:16 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> I posted this on the web site The Skeptical Zone. Oddly enough, of all
>> the resident creationists, only Robert Byers managed a response.
>>
>> http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/baraminology-of-the-flood/#comments
>>
>
> It looks like you have to subscribe to get the CORE article.
>
> CORE Issues in Creation no. 5 (2009): 129–161
> http://www.coresci.org/cgi-bin/ci.pl?a=005

I got the book by inter-library loan.

> Where does the Wise quote come from?

What Wise quote? I didn't quote him.

> They do allow you to see the appendix which uses the geological
> nomenclature. How do they expect the fossil record was created in 1500
> years? There was obviously deposition before the flood.

There are citations in the Wise paper that attempt to support the
chronology, if you really want.

> So it looks like they have pakicetus on the Ark at Ark Park because they
> believed that whales can evolve from a terrestrial mammal in a few
> thousand years. This AIG article uses the same CORE source.
>
> https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/no-kind-left-behind/
>
> Gish would likely be turning in his grave if he wasn't still alive. One
> of his favorite pieces of creationist stupidity was his whale/cow
> evolution speel. Now they believe that such evolution could happen
> several orders of magnitude faster than Gish claimed was not enough time.

It may be that Jesus helped push.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <nvevko$rei$1...@dont-email.me>, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>So it looks like they have pakicetus on the Ark at Ark Park because they
>believed that whales can evolve from a terrestrial mammal in a few
>thousand years. This AIG article uses the same CORE source.
>
>https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/no-kind-left-behind/

Why would whales, animals that spend their entire lives in water and in
fact die if they become "beached" out of water, need to be on the ark or
have an ancestor species on the ark? Could they not have survived the
flood in the water, just like the fish?

--
Please reply to: | "Try to imagine a row of computers programmed by
pciszek at panix dot com | hippies."
Autoreply is disabled | --Ayn Rand, The Anti-Industrial Revolution

[John Harshman]

On 11/3/16 9:47 AM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article <nvevko$rei$1...@dont-email.me>, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> So it looks like they have pakicetus on the Ark at Ark Park because they
>> believed that whales can evolve from a terrestrial mammal in a few
>> thousand years. This AIG article uses the same CORE source.
>>
>> https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/no-kind-left-behind/
>
> Why would whales, animals that spend their entire lives in water and in
> fact die if they become "beached" out of water, need to be on the ark or
> have an ancestor species on the ark? Could they not have survived the
> flood in the water, just like the fish?
>

First, Pakicetus would have to be on the Ark even if aquatic whales
weren't, unless it was the same "kind" as whales. And in that case,
whales would have evolved from land animals anyway, whether before or
after the Flood.

Second, Kurt Wise's logic requires whales, including Pakicetus, to be a
single kind.

Third, it's vaguely conceivable (though see what's next) that either
freshwater or saltwater organisms could have survived the Flood, but not
both.

Fourth, the fish couldn't have survived the Flood in the water, nor
could a boat, or anything, really. If the Flood had actually laid down
miles of sediment worldwide, its unimaginable violence wouldn't have
left anything bigger than a microbe alive.

Fifth, there wasn't a worldwide Flood anyway.

[Ray Martinez]

Prediction: If a worldwide flood occurred recently then earth should appear overrun with water. Fact: The present surface is three quarters water.

Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 10:25:19 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

>On 11/3/16 9:47 AM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
>> In article <nvevko$rei$1...@dont-email.me>, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> So it looks like they have pakicetus on the Ark at Ark Park because they
>>> believed that whales can evolve from a terrestrial mammal in a few
>>> thousand years. This AIG article uses the same CORE source.
>>>
>>> https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/no-kind-left-behind/
>>
>> Why would whales, animals that spend their entire lives in water and in
>> fact die if they become "beached" out of water, need to be on the ark or
>> have an ancestor species on the ark? Could they not have survived the
>> flood in the water, just like the fish?
>>
>First, Pakicetus would have to be on the Ark even if aquatic whales
>weren't, unless it was the same "kind" as whales. And in that case,
>whales would have evolved from land animals anyway, whether before or
>after the Flood.
>
>Second, Kurt Wise's logic requires whales, including Pakicetus, to be a
>single kind.
>
>Third, it's vaguely conceivable (though see what's next) that either
>freshwater or saltwater organisms could have survived the Flood, but not
>both.

Most, no. But there are a few anadromous and catadromous
exceptions.

>Fourth, the fish couldn't have survived the Flood in the water, nor
>could a boat, or anything, really. If the Flood had actually laid down
>miles of sediment worldwide, its unimaginable violence wouldn't have
>left anything bigger than a microbe alive.
>
>Fifth, there wasn't a worldwide Flood anyway.

Well, that *is* the telling point. But arguing (pardon me;
"discussing") the mythical details of what didn't happen can
be amusing.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Robert Camp]

I'd be interested in reading a source that discusses the hypothetical
physics and hydrology of this event in some detail. Do you know of one,
and if so could you post a link?

[John Harshman]

Prediction: If a worldwide flood didn't occur recently then earth should
appear overrun with water. I win too.

Your problem here is that your prediction is neither a necessary nor
sufficient consequence of a worldwide flood. There have been times in
the past when sea levels were much higher than today (and for millions
of years, not just one year), and other times when they were much lower.
And there have been many such times of each. Not one of the high-sea
times managed to completely cover the continents.

[John Harshman]

Not sure. Various aspects were covered in a book by Arthur Strahler
called Science and Earth History, and an entire early issue of
Creation/Evolution was devoted to the Flood. Don't know if either is
available online.

But just imagine all the processes that are happening right now going on
a billion or so times faster than they are now, for a whole year.

[John Harshman]

On 11/3/16 11:01 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:

Ray, I'm interested in your interpretation of the fossil record. Where
in the stratigraphic column are the sediments deposited by the flood?
What marks the boundaries between pre-flood, flood, and post-flood?

[jillery]

I have been told this is a good reference:

"The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth"

[RonO]

On 11/3/2016 5:40 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 04:22:55 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/2/2016 2:16 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> I posted this on the web site The Skeptical Zone. Oddly enough, of all
>>> the resident creationists, only Robert Byers managed a response.
>>>
>>> http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/baraminology-of-the-flood/#comments
>>>
>>
>> It looks like you have to subscribe to get the CORE article.
>>
>> CORE Issues in Creation no. 5 (2009): 129–161
>> http://www.coresci.org/cgi-bin/ci.pl?a=005
>>
>> Where does the Wise quote come from?
>>
>> They do allow you to see the appendix which uses the geological
>> nomenclature. How do they expect the fossil record was created in 1500
>> years? There was obviously deposition before the flood.
>>
>> So it looks like they have pakicetus on the Ark at Ark Park because they
>> believed that whales can evolve from a terrestrial mammal in a few
>> thousand years. This AIG article uses the same CORE source.
>>
>> https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/no-kind-left-behind/
>>
>> Gish would likely be turning in his grave if he wasn't still alive.
>
>
> Umm... the infamous Duane "the oil" Gish isn't still alive.

When did he die. The last thing that I ever heard was that he was
retiring from the ICR.

Ron Okimoto

[Ray Martinez]

"If a worldwide flood didn't occur recently" is not fulfilled, but contradicted by "then earth should appear overrun with water." You don't understand that?

My prediction (did occur recently) is fulfilled by the fact that the present surface of earth is overrun with water or three quarters water.

>
> Your problem here is that your prediction is neither a necessary nor
> sufficient consequence of a worldwide flood. There have been times in
> the past when sea levels were much higher than today (and for millions
> of years, not just one year), and other times when they were much lower.
> And there have been many such times of each. Not one of the high-sea
> times managed to completely cover the continents.

How should surface of earth appear if a worldwide flood occurred RECENTLY (3140 BC)?

Answer: It should appear overrun with water, or mostly aquatic. Since the current surface is three quarters water, including very many lakes and rivers, earth appears to have suffered a worldwide flood recently.

So the textual claim, as written in Genesis, has direct correspondence with material reality (word----thing = fact).

Ray

[RonO]

On 11/3/2016 10:20 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 11/3/16 2:22 AM, RonO wrote:
>> On 11/2/2016 2:16 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> I posted this on the web site The Skeptical Zone. Oddly enough, of all
>>> the resident creationists, only Robert Byers managed a response.
>>>
>>> http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/baraminology-of-the-flood/#comments
>>>
>>
>> It looks like you have to subscribe to get the CORE article.
>>
>> CORE Issues in Creation no. 5 (2009): 129–161
>> http://www.coresci.org/cgi-bin/ci.pl?a=005
>
> I got the book by inter-library loan.
>
>> Where does the Wise quote come from?
>
> What Wise quote? I didn't quote him.

I thought your source was quoting Wise, but it looks like he wrote a
chapter in the book.

>
>> They do allow you to see the appendix which uses the geological
>> nomenclature. How do they expect the fossil record was created in 1500
>> years? There was obviously deposition before the flood.
>
> There are citations in the Wise paper that attempt to support the
> chronology, if you really want.

What citiations could Wise possibly have? I'd like to see one, but my
guess is that if it is in a legitimate journal he likely isn't using it
in any way that the authors would have thought of.

[RonO]

On 11/3/2016 11:47 AM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article <nvevko$rei$1...@dont-email.me>, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> So it looks like they have pakicetus on the Ark at Ark Park because they
>> believed that whales can evolve from a terrestrial mammal in a few
>> thousand years. This AIG article uses the same CORE source.
>>
>> https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/no-kind-left-behind/
>
> Why would whales, animals that spend their entire lives in water and in
> fact die if they become "beached" out of water, need to be on the ark or
> have an ancestor species on the ark? Could they not have survived the
> flood in the water, just like the fish?
>

We went through this with KSJJ over a decade ago. The Bible claims that
everything with the breath of life died if it was not on the Ark.
Insects supposedly do not have to be on the Ark because they do not have
lungs and do not "breath" air even though some of them have alternate
pumping systems. His problem was that whales are warm blooded mammals
and they breath air like we do, therefore, they had to be on the Ark.

If it is in the Bible it has to be true. Apparently the AIG has the
same issue, and pakicetus seems to be a solution. The obvious problem
is that if whales could evolve from pakecetus (within kind) in just a
few thousand years, what is the creationist "micro" evolution?

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

On 11/3/16 2:31 PM, RonO wrote:
> On 11/3/2016 10:20 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 11/3/16 2:22 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2016 2:16 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> I posted this on the web site The Skeptical Zone. Oddly enough, of all
>>>> the resident creationists, only Robert Byers managed a response.
>>>>
>>>> http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/baraminology-of-the-flood/#comments
>>>>
>>>
>>> It looks like you have to subscribe to get the CORE article.
>>>
>>> CORE Issues in Creation no. 5 (2009): 129–161
>>> http://www.coresci.org/cgi-bin/ci.pl?a=005
>>
>> I got the book by inter-library loan.
>>
>>> Where does the Wise quote come from?
>>
>> What Wise quote? I didn't quote him.
>
> I thought your source was quoting Wise, but it looks like he wrote a
> chapter in the book.

Still confused. What is "your source"? Is it the post I wrote on
Skeptical Zone, or is it Wise's paper?

>>> They do allow you to see the appendix which uses the geological
>>> nomenclature. How do they expect the fossil record was created in 1500
>>> years? There was obviously deposition before the flood.
>>
>> There are citations in the Wise paper that attempt to support the
>> chronology, if you really want.
>
> What citiations could Wise possibly have? I'd like to see one, but my
> guess is that if it is in a legitimate journal he likely isn't using it
> in any way that the authors would have thought of.

Citations to creationist literature. No, not any legitimate journal.

[John Harshman]

I don't. Explain why current sea levels are predicted by a recent
worldwide flood and not by the absence of a worldwide flood.

> My prediction (did occur recently) is fulfilled by the fact that the
> present surface of earth is overrun with water or three quarters
> water.

How would sea level have been different before the flood? What evidence
do you have that the earth was ever not "overrun with water"?

>> Your problem here is that your prediction is neither a necessary nor
>> sufficient consequence of a worldwide flood. There have been times in
>> the past when sea levels were much higher than today (and for millions
>> of years, not just one year), and other times when they were much lower.
>> And there have been many such times of each. Not one of the high-sea
>> times managed to completely cover the continents.
>
> How should surface of earth appear if a worldwide flood occurred RECENTLY (3140 BC)?

Depends on where the water came from and where it went. Almost all the
oceans are underlain by deep, oceanic crust, which we expect to be
covered with water all the time. Changes in sea level affect only
continental shelves. There have been times when much more of the
continents were covered than currently, and times when much less has
been covered. But I don't think the coverage has ever been less than
around 70%, so your "evidence" is nonsensical.

> Answer: It should appear overrun with water, or mostly aquatic. Since
> the current surface is three quarters water, including very many
> lakes and rivers, earth appears to have suffered a worldwide flood
> recently.

Once again, you fail to consider what the surface should look like if
there had been no worldwide flood. Answer: it would look just like we see.

> So the textual claim, as written in Genesis, has direct correspondence with material reality (word----thing = fact).

What textual claim?

[Ray Martinez]

If Adam Sedgwick couldn't answer, and he couldn't, then neither can I, however. Your question simply asks one to identify evidence of the flood IN strata. Since the flood occurred recently the current surface is the flood layer. If one could answer your question, as posed, then any answer would serve to falsify "recently."

Moreover, concerning your questions: Do you KNOW how strata and sediments should appear if a worldwide flood occurred? (Notice I didn't say "recently.") If the answer is yes then tell me how you know? The flood was a unique event.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

For the Record:

I am not a YEC.

I accept earth to be at least 100 million years old, but the current biosphere, because of the Genesis flood, is only a little over 5,000 years old.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

How do you know that? If you say you're only attempting to show me the invalidity of my reverse prediction then you're forgetting the fact that the very notion of a worldwide flood originates in many ancient texts, including the Book of Genesis. Surface of earth appears just like it should appear if a worldwide flood occurred recently.

>
> > So the textual claim, as written in Genesis, has direct correspondence with material reality (word----thing = fact).
>
> What textual claim?

So my previous observation, concerning what you're forgetting, is confirmed. The answer lies in the sentence above your question----"as written in Genesis" (= textual claim).

Ray

[jillery]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 16:24:33 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 11/3/2016 5:40 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 04:22:55 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/2/2016 2:16 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> I posted this on the web site The Skeptical Zone. Oddly enough, of all
>>>> the resident creationists, only Robert Byers managed a response.
>>>>
>>>> http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/baraminology-of-the-flood/#comments
>>>>
>>>
>>> It looks like you have to subscribe to get the CORE article.
>>>
>>> CORE Issues in Creation no. 5 (2009): 129–161
>>> http://www.coresci.org/cgi-bin/ci.pl?a=005
>>>
>>> Where does the Wise quote come from?
>>>
>>> They do allow you to see the appendix which uses the geological
>>> nomenclature. How do they expect the fossil record was created in 1500
>>> years? There was obviously deposition before the flood.
>>>
>>> So it looks like they have pakicetus on the Ark at Ark Park because they
>>> believed that whales can evolve from a terrestrial mammal in a few
>>> thousand years. This AIG article uses the same CORE source.
>>>
>>> https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/no-kind-left-behind/
>>>
>>> Gish would likely be turning in his grave if he wasn't still alive.
>>
>>
>> Umm... the infamous Duane "the oil" Gish isn't still alive.
>
>When did he die. The last thing that I ever heard was that he was
>retiring from the ICR.

According to Wiki, 5 March 2013 (aged 92)

<https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ministry/rescued-remembering-the-life-and-legacy-of-dr-duane-t-gish/>

<https://ncse.com/news/2013/03/duane-t-gish-dies-0014753>

***********************************
An essential component is to lard his remarks with technical detail;
whether that detail is accurate or relevant or based on unambiguous
evidence is of no concern. When confronted with evidence of his own
error, he resorts to diversionary tactics and outright denial."
**********************************

Sounds like some T.O. posters copied his style.

[jillery]

How much of the Earth's surface is covered with waters depends
entirely on two things:

1. the total volume of water on the Earth, and
2. the average depth of that water.

NOTA have anything to do with when an alleged Flood allegedly
happened. You're making up facts again.

[RonO]

On 11/3/2016 4:41 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 11/3/16 2:31 PM, RonO wrote:
>> On 11/3/2016 10:20 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 11/3/16 2:22 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2016 2:16 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> I posted this on the web site The Skeptical Zone. Oddly enough, of all
>>>>> the resident creationists, only Robert Byers managed a response.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/baraminology-of-the-flood/#comments
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It looks like you have to subscribe to get the CORE article.
>>>>
>>>> CORE Issues in Creation no. 5 (2009): 129–161
>>>> http://www.coresci.org/cgi-bin/ci.pl?a=005
>>>
>>> I got the book by inter-library loan.
>>>
>>>> Where does the Wise quote come from?
>>>
>>> What Wise quote? I didn't quote him.
>>
>> I thought your source was quoting Wise, but it looks like he wrote a
>> chapter in the book.
>
> Still confused. What is "your source"? Is it the post I wrote on
> Skeptical Zone, or is it Wise's paper?

Your article.

>
>>>> They do allow you to see the appendix which uses the geological
>>>> nomenclature. How do they expect the fossil record was created in 1500
>>>> years? There was obviously deposition before the flood.
>>>
>>> There are citations in the Wise paper that attempt to support the
>>> chronology, if you really want.
>>
>> What citiations could Wise possibly have? I'd like to see one, but my
>> guess is that if it is in a legitimate journal he likely isn't using it
>> in any way that the authors would have thought of.
>
> Citations to creationist literature. No, not any legitimate journal.

Why would he even bother?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Sounds like Trump.

[John Harshman]

You realize that this view is incoherent, right? Absent the geological
record and radiometric dating, there is no reason to have any idea of
the age of the earth. If you reject both, you have no evidence. If you
accept both, the earth is much older than 100 million years.

So what do you consider to be "the current biosphere"? What was the
previous biosphere? Where is the place in the fossil record where one
disappears and the other appears?

[John Harshman]

Cargo cult science must attempt to resemble real science, or there's no
point.

[John Harshman]

Because we know quite a bit about earth history, including past ocean
depths, and the current depth is not unusual. You have no idea what the
surface would look like after a worldwide flood.

>>> So the textual claim, as written in Genesis, has direct correspondence with material reality (word----thing = fact).
>>
>> What textual claim?
>
> So my previous observation, concerning what you're forgetting, is
> confirmed. The answer lies in the sentence above your question----"as
> written in Genesis" (= textual claim).

What is as written in Genesis? Just the claim of a flood? That can't be
used as evidence that a flood actually happened.

[Ray Martinez]

> >>> Your problem here is that your prediction is neither a necessary northeastward

> >>> sufficient consequence of a worldwide flood. There have been times in
> >>> the past when sea levels were much higher than today (and for millions
> >>> of years, not just one year), and other times when they were much lower.
> >>> And there have been many such times of each. Not one of the high-sea
> >>> times managed to completely cover the continents.
> >>
> >> How should surface of earth appear if a worldwide flood occurred RECENTLY (3140 BC)?
> >>
> >> Answer: It should appear overrun with water, or mostly aquatic. Since the current surface is three quarters water, including very many lakes and rivers, earth appears to have suffered a worldwide flood recently.
> >>
> >> So the textual claim, as written in Genesis, has direct correspondence with material reality (word----thing = fact).
> >>
> >> Ray
> >
> > For the Record:
> >
> > I am not a YEC.
> >
> > I accept earth to be at least 100 million years old, but the current biosphere, because of the Genesis flood, is only a little over 5,000 years old.
>
> You realize that this view is incoherent, right? Absent the geological
> record and radiometric dating, there is no reason to have any idea of
> the age of the earth. If you reject both, you have no evidence. If you
> accept both, the earth is much older than 100 million years.
>

When Darwin published in 1859 science accepted earth to be around 100 million years old. If not his theory would have been DOA. Scientific acceptance was based on observed layer stacked upon layer which gave the appearance of immense age. These scientists were not Evolutionists so I consider the 100 million figure unbiased.

Ray

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <51d740c3-6e53-442a...@googlegroups.com>,

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>When Darwin published in 1859 science accepted earth to be around 100
>million years old. If not his theory would have been DOA. Scientific
>acceptance was based on observed layer stacked upon layer which gave the
>appearance of immense age. These scientists were not Evolutionists so I
>consider the 100 million figure unbiased.

Actually, "evolution" predates Darwin. Naturalists (scientists had to
multi-task back in those days) had noticed that the fossils furthest
down in the stratigraphy bore the least resemblence to present life,
with the uppermost fossils looking almost normal. The idea that the
fossil record covers a long period of time over which the types of
animals and plants on Earth changed is one reason that geologists had
already rejected the idea that the fossil record was created by Noah's
flood well before Darwin. Darwin's contribution was a mechanism by
which this change could take place: natural selection.

--
Please reply to: | "Evolution is a theory that accounts
pciszek at panix dot com | for variety, not superiority."
Autoreply has been disabled | -- Joan Pontius

[RMcBane]

Ray, if you check I think that you will find that
the 100 million figure came from Lord Kelvin's
calculations of how long it would take a molten
earth to cool to current temperatures. Kelvin's
calculation were based on conduction of heat of a
molten mass the size of the earth reaching current
temperatures.

Geologist of the time thought that 100 million
years was too short for what they observed in the
"layer upon layer" stacking of sediments and other
features of the earth.

While Kelvin's calculations for cooling based on
his assumptions were correct, calculations base on
convection showed the age of the earth to be much
longer. And when heat given off by radioactivity
minerals is included, Kelvin's calculations were
shown to be way off.

But of course I believe you were involved in a
similar discussion on age of the earth years ago,
yet conveniently choose not to learn.




--
Richard McBane

[Ray Martinez]

You asked what textual claim, and I answered, the one in Genesis. And I could use the text as evidence, but I'm not. In this particular instance I provided material correspondence----current surface of earth. So the textual or written claim is supported as true by the current surface of earth.

Ray

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <a6d471df-7ca5-4200...@googlegroups.com>,

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Prediction: If a worldwide flood occurred recently then earth should
>appear overrun with water. Fact: The present surface is three quarters
>water.

If a worldwide flood occured recently, then the Earth should appear
overrun with water--as in, still flooded. There is nowhere for that
water to go in a few thousand years.

A smaller planet such as Mars can lose its water over geologic time
scales, but if Earth had enough water to cover everything up to the
top of Mount Ararat arround 3000 BCE or whenever, it would still be
covered with water to about that depth. The only mechanism by which
sea level has managed to fall in recent geologic time is the formation
of land-bound ice; if sea level had been 2000m higher (or 5000m higher
depending on which "Mount Ararat" you want to use) that its current
level, no significant land-bound ice could have formed.

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

[Ray Martinez]

The above commentary is completely inaccurate because it attempts to say Victorian naturalists accepted species mutability. According to Darwin science accepted species immutability in 1859 (Darwin 1859:6,310; London: John Murray). And natural selection did not come into majority, widespread, or universal scientific acceptance until 1930-1950.

Ray

[John Harshman]

No. Your claim is that the current sea level is evidence of a recent
worldwide flood. Genesis says nothing about that claim.

[jillery]

Him too, but T.O. posters are always on-topic, even when they're
trolls.

[jillery]

That the Bible mentions a global flood is a trite truism not in
dispute. The basis of your claim is not that, but is instead whether
a global flood actually occurred. You're playing stupid word games
again.

[jillery]

On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 02:25:05 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
Ciszek) wrote:

>
>In article <a6d471df-7ca5-4200...@googlegroups.com>,
>Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Prediction: If a worldwide flood occurred recently then earth should
>>appear overrun with water. Fact: The present surface is three quarters
>>water.
>
>If a worldwide flood occured recently, then the Earth should appear
>overrun with water--as in, still flooded. There is nowhere for that
>water to go in a few thousand years.
>
>A smaller planet such as Mars can lose its water over geologic time
>scales, but if Earth had enough water to cover everything up to the
>top of Mount Ararat arround 3000 BCE or whenever, it would still be
>covered with water to about that depth. The only mechanism by which
>sea level has managed to fall in recent geologic time is the formation
>of land-bound ice; if sea level had been 2000m higher (or 5000m higher
>depending on which "Mount Ararat" you want to use) that its current
>level, no significant land-bound ice could have formed.

I should have remembered glaciers, as a third factor which determines
how much of the surface of the Earth water covers. But glaciers don't
change whether an alleged Flood occurred recently or long ago, either.

[Ray Martinez]

I said nothing about sea levels. Produce a quotation or drop what you're saying.

Ray

[jillery]

"Evolution" is not the same as "natural selection". It's the latter
which is Charles Darwin's contribution. Apparently you conveniently
forget Erasmus Darwin and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.

[jillery]

More word games. To refresh your oh-so-convenient amnesia, the
following is a copy from the quoted text above, which you posted just
a few hours ago:

***************************************

Prediction: If a worldwide flood occurred recently then earth should
appear overrun with water. Fact: The present surface is three
quarters water.

****************************************

Sounds like sea levels to me.

[Ray Martinez]

I included a scientific reference for what I said. Jillery in reply ignores while mentioning two persons that believed in mutability as if two persons constitutes the view of science or a majority. If a person takes the time to look up my references they will find the references supporting the majority of naturalists accepting immutability.

Ray

[jillery]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 20:17:43 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

>I included a scientific reference for what I said. Jillery in reply ignores while mentioning two persons that believed in mutability as if two persons constitutes the view of science or a majority. If a person takes the time to look up my references they will find the references supporting the majority of naturalists accepting immutability.

More of your word games. That the majority of naturalists accepted
immutability before 1859 is not in dispute. Mutability has nothing to
do with Paul Ciszek's wholly correct comment, that theories of
biological evolution preceded Charles Darwin, or with your wholly
incorrect claim, that the current state of Earth's oceans is evidence
of a Biblical Flood of any age.

I take the above to mean you don't know who are Erasmus Darwin and
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Of course, you could just look them up, but
even if you thought about that, it's almost certain you rejected the
thought.

Apparently you have no idea what you're talking about.

[John Harshman]

One grows tired of your inability to recognize any concept that's
paraphrased rather than stated in the exact words as previously.
"Overrun with water, or mostly aquatic" refers to sea level, even if you
can't see it. If sea level rises, a greater percentage of the world is
"aquatic"; if it falls, a lesser percent. A flood is a rise in water
level. Do you understand now?

[Burkhard]

He understands that that is your claim, but that you don't give any
reasons for it. So he offers the opposite claim, equally bereft of
support.

>
> My prediction (did occur recently) is fulfilled by the fact that the present surface of earth is overrun with water or three quarters water.

Though it's not a prediction, technically it's a retrodiction. And for a
retrodcition (or implication) you need to give reasons why you think the
implication between the observations and the explanation holds.

>
>>
>> Your problem here is that your prediction is neither a necessary nor
>> sufficient consequence of a worldwide flood. There have been times in
>> the past when sea levels were much higher than today (and for millions
>> of years, not just one year), and other times when they were much lower.
>> And there have been many such times of each. Not one of the high-sea
>> times managed to completely cover the continents.
>
> How should surface of earth appear if a worldwide flood occurred RECENTLY (3140 BC)?

Well, who knows? You'd need to study lots of similar events to see if
there is a pattern. But according to Genesis, the water rose within
days, so no reason to think it didn't get back to the original state
similarly within days.

>
> Answer: It should appear overrun with water, or mostly aquatic. Since the current surface is three quarters water, including very many lakes and rivers, earth appears to have suffered a worldwide flood recently.
>

> So the textual claim, as written in Genesis, has direct correspondence with material reality (word----thing = fact).
>

> Ray
>

[Greg Guarino]

> Ray
>
More sensible prediction:

If the Earth recently had enough water to cover the tops of the highest
mountains, it would still have that water somewhere.

I found a figure that suggested that if all of Earth's ice melted, the
seas would rise 230 feet. Is your argument that there simply weren't any
mountains before the flood? Or that 230 feet constituted a mountain? And
that the mountains we see now were made of "sediment" a mere few
thousand years ago?

[John Harshman]

Still incoherent. Genesis claims a flood. Material reality is the
current sea level. You have made no connection between the two. Why, if
there had been a worldwide flood, would we expect the sea to be now
covering 3/4 of the earth, no more, no less? Try for once to make a
rational argument.

[John Harshman]

On 11/3/16 2:45 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

>> Ray, I'm interested in your interpretation of the fossil record. Where
>> in the stratigraphic column are the sediments deposited by the flood?
>> What marks the boundaries between pre-flood, flood, and post-flood?
>
> If Adam Sedgwick couldn't answer, and he couldn't, then neither can
> I, however.

Why? Was Sedgwick the last real geologist, and everything since then
must be wrong?

> Your question simply asks one to identify evidence of the
> flood IN strata. Since the flood occurred recently the current
> surface is the flood layer. If one could answer your question, as
> posed, then any answer would serve to falsify "recently."

So you can answer. If the current surface is the flood layer, then all
sediments must have been deposited before or during the flood, and all
fossils must be products of the old creation, not the new. And that
means that any species known both from fossils and from living
populations must have been re-created, just as it was, in the new
creation. Does that actually make sense to you?

> Moreover, concerning your questions: Do you KNOW how strata and
> sediments should appear if a worldwide flood occurred? (Notice I
> didn't say "recently.") If the answer is yes then tell me how you
> know? The flood was a unique event.

This of course depends on the sort of flood you imagine. How violent was
it? What was the source of the water? Were mountains as high then as
they are now?

But we don't have to know what the flood would look like in order to
know what it wouldn't look like. I don't have to know exactly what a
dragon looks like in order to know that a frog isn't one. We know of
plenty of local flood, even worldwide major increases and decreases in
sea level. But there is nothing resembling any version of a world
completely covered in water. Further, such a thing is physically
impossible: where would the water have come from, and where would it
have gone? There is no possible explanation.

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/3/16 3:12 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 2:50:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 11/3/16 2:27 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

What you fail to mention is that those "many ancient texts" describe
very different and incompatible floods, showing that the general
category of ancient texts does not work as evidence, at least not for
anything worldwide.

> Surface of earth appears just like it should appear if a worldwide
> flood occurred recently.

Not true. If a worldwide flood occurred recently, we would expect a
great deal of sedimentary deposits in the deep ocean basins. Instead,
we find them on continents and continental margins. If a worldwide
flood occurred recently, we would expect thin Antarctic and Greenland
ice caps, or at least evidence of melting at the time of the flood.
Instead, we find thick, rather uniform layers. If a worldwide flood
occurred recently, we would expect a drastic worldwide mass extinction
event to coincide. Instead, the recent biota may be the most diverse in
earth's history.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"We are not looking for answers. We are looking to come to an
understanding, recognizing that it is temporary--leaving us open to an
even richer understanding as further evidence surfaces." - author unknown

[Ray Martinez]

I'm also frustrated by your inability to understand synonymous phraseology or sentencing. Will identify these instances in up coming messages in this thread. But your complaint here is hardly valid.

I used specific terms in my prediction that describe the earth as a whole----overrun with water. When earth is observed as a whole or on a worldwide scale one sees a globe overrun with water. Simply look at images taken from space. Earth is a planet dominated by water. The observed fact, as just described, corresponds to the claim that earth suffered a worldwide flood recently. In response you attempt to change the nature of the logic with a phrase that does not capture how earth appears from above.

Ray

[John Harshman]

Yes, you did. And those terms are synonymous with my terms.

> When earth is observed as a whole or on
> a worldwide scale one sees a globe overrun with water. Simply look at
> images taken from space. Earth is a planet dominated by water. The
> observed fact, as just described, corresponds to the claim that earth
> suffered a worldwide flood recently.

It doesn't correspond to that claim unless you can explain how it does.
As I said before, the earth has at various times been both more and less
dominated by water than it is now. None of those times was preceded by a
worldwide flood.

> In response you attempt to
> change the nature of the logic with a phrase that does not capture
> how earth appears from above.

But it refers to exactly the same thing. A higher sea level means less
land, more water as viewed from above. A lower sea level means more
land, less water.

[Burkhard]

it also appears just as it should appear if there was a world-wide
catastrophic drought - before "the Drought" the earth was covered to
98% in water, and still hasn't fully recovered.

And it also appears just as it should if neither the Flood nor the
Drought has happened, and the current water levels are just typical for
a planet like ours.

>>
>>> So the textual claim, as written in Genesis, has direct correspondence with material reality (word----thing = fact).
>>
>> What textual claim?
>
> So my previous observation, concerning what you're forgetting, is confirmed. The answer lies in the sentence above your question----"as written in Genesis" (= textual claim).
>

> Ray
>

[Ray Martinez]

One cannot appreciate the point I'm making, seen above, when "overrun with water" is replaced with "sea levels"----that's the point.

From outer space, or a reference globe, earth appears overrun with water, flooded, including very many rivers and lakes, which is unlike any other planet we know about. How hard pressed is NASA to identify dried up water on Mars? We live on a watery planet, and watery planets are unique? Where did ALL the water come from? Outer space? LOL! How did delivery objects manage not to hit the moon? Yet one can see the lunar landscape riddled with impacts.

As everyone well knows, ancient texts, specifically Genesis, speak of catastrophic flooding. Since there was no ability to communicate among the nations quickly, there was no borrowing. Common denominator facts found in this corpus confirm that there was a worldwide flood, a handful of human beings survived, and a handful of animals. Genesis provides the protected version of events. Are we to believe a worldwide conspiracy produced these common denominator facts? Simply impossible. The ***common denominator*** facts, found in these accounts, CONFIRM the major claims of Genesis concerning the flood. Darwinists, in response, simply ignore these arguments based on common denominator facts, and say each account was preserving a local flood. Again, the common denominator facts falsify this interpretation.

Moreover, the very purpose of textual evidence is to preserve knowledge so it's not lost. How does anyone today know there was a flood in Johnstown in 1889? Does any natural or geological evidence exist? People today only know about the Johnstown flood because of textual and photographic evidence.

Genesis says a worldwide flood occurred and we have a planet overrun with water: three quarters aquatic/one quarter land. Word (= Genesis) thing (= surface of earth) = fact. Surface of earth appears as it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently (3140 BC).

>
> > When earth is observed as a whole or on
> > a worldwide scale one sees a globe overrun with water. Simply look at
> > images taken from space. Earth is a planet dominated by water. The
> > observed fact, as just described, corresponds to the claim that earth
> > suffered a worldwide flood recently.
>
> It doesn't correspond to that claim unless you can explain how it does.

Done that above and elsewhere. And it's not complicated. In fact, it's synonymous with how a noun is defined. Supernatural epistemology is superior.

word----thing = fact.

> As I said before, the earth has at various times been both more and less
> dominated by water than it is now. None of those times was preceded by a
> worldwide flood.

We already know you reject a worldwide flood.

Again, the point I'm making is that Genesis, an ancient text, says there was a worldwide flood. Current surface of earth clearly supports the claim. We have our explanation as to why the surface appears flooded.

In addition: Not only does earth appear overrun with water, flooded, we know vast amounts of water are contained in the mantle. How did it get there? Earth was created.

We both believe the Grand Canyon was a product of water. You believe one river carved out the canyon, simply ridiculous! The GC is a giant sinkhole caused by the flood.

>
> > In response you attempt to
> > change the nature of the logic with a phrase that does not capture
> > how earth appears from above.
>
> But it refers to exactly the same thing. A higher sea level means less
> land, more water as viewed from above. A lower sea level means more
> land, less water.

The gravity of my point is lost when replaced with your phraseology. And my point is undeniably true: surface is dominated by water. One can see and easily conclude a worldwide flood occurred. So the textual evidence in this case is supported by material evidence----abundant material evidence.

Ray

[John Harshman]

None of this is relevant to a worldwide flood, as the earth was
presumably a water planet before it happened. An earth without water
would have been uninhabitable and uninhabited. You have no point here.

> As everyone well knows, ancient texts, specifically Genesis, speak of
> catastrophic flooding. Since there was no ability to communicate
> among the nations quickly, there was no borrowing.

Only creationists know this. Other people know that there are various
mutually contradictory stories of various sorts of disasters, only a few
of which are floods.

> Common denominator
> facts found in this corpus confirm that there was a worldwide flood,
> a handful of human beings survived, and a handful of animals.

As Mark Isaak has shown frequently right here, that just isn't true.

> Genesis
> provides the protected version of events. Are we to believe a
> worldwide conspiracy produced these common denominator facts?

No. Neither are we to believe that stories of giant blue oxen and
talking bears are the result of conspiracy. All that's required is
exaggeration of commonplace events.

> Simply
> impossible. The ***common denominator*** facts, found in these
> accounts, CONFIRM the major claims of Genesis concerning the flood.
> Darwinists, in response, simply ignore these arguments based on
> common denominator facts, and say each account was preserving a local
> flood. Again, the common denominator facts falsify this
> interpretation.

None of this is at all relevant to the stimulus that launched this rant.

> Moreover, the very purpose of textual evidence is to preserve
> knowledge so it's not lost. How does anyone today know there was a
> flood in Johnstown in 1889? Does any natural or geological evidence
> exist? People today only know about the Johnstown flood because of
> textual and photographic evidence.

I suspect that isn't true. But so what? A worldwide, catastrophic flood
is different. There is, for example, copious geological evidence for
annual flooding of the Nile and for the flood that produced the
Channeled Scablands. Nothing of the sort for a worldwide flood.

> Genesis says a worldwide flood occurred and we have a planet overrun
> with water: three quarters aquatic/one quarter land. Word (= Genesis)
> thing (= surface of earth) = fact. Surface of earth appears as it
> should if a worldwide flood occurred recently (3140 BC).

Why should the surface appear that way given a recent worldwide flood?
What did it look like before the flood? You have to make some kind of
argument, not just repeat your unsupported claim.

>>> When earth is observed as a whole or on
>>> a worldwide scale one sees a globe overrun with water. Simply look at
>>> images taken from space. Earth is a planet dominated by water. The
>>> observed fact, as just described, corresponds to the claim that earth
>>> suffered a worldwide flood recently.
>>
>> It doesn't correspond to that claim unless you can explain how it does.
>
> Done that above and elsewhere. And it's not complicated. In fact,
> it's synonymous with how a noun is defined. Supernatural epistemology
> is superior.

You may think you did, but it's just a repetition of the original
assertion. But I love your last sentence; it's like verbal croutons.

> word----thing = fact.
>
>> As I said before, the earth has at various times been both more and less
>> dominated by water than it is now. None of those times was preceded by a
>> worldwide flood.
>
> We already know you reject a worldwide flood.

I merely point out that the geological evidence does too.

> Again, the point I'm making is that Genesis, an ancient text, says
> there was a worldwide flood. Current surface of earth clearly
> supports the claim. We have our explanation as to why the surface
> appears flooded.

The surface doesn't appear flooded. It appears that there are oceans.
Unless you are claiming that there were no oceans before the flood, you
have nothing. And a claim like that would be difficult to defend.

> In addition: Not only does earth appear overrun with water, flooded,
> we know vast amounts of water are contained in the mantle. How did it
> get there? Earth was created.

Or perhaps earth accreted from a nebula rich in hydrogen and oxygen. Is
that conceivable?

> We both believe the Grand Canyon was a product of water. You believe
> one river carved out the canyon, simply ridiculous! The GC is a giant
> sinkhole caused by the flood.

I don't think you know what "sinkhole" means. Flood-carved canyons, to
the extent they even exist, do not have incised meanders.

>>> In response you attempt to
>>> change the nature of the logic with a phrase that does not capture
>>> how earth appears from above.
>>
>> But it refers to exactly the same thing. A higher sea level means less
>> land, more water as viewed from above. A lower sea level means more
>> land, less water.
>
> The gravity of my point is lost when replaced with your phraseology.
> And my point is undeniably true: surface is dominated by water. One
> can see and easily conclude a worldwide flood occurred. So the
> textual evidence in this case is supported by material
> evidence----abundant material evidence.

Again, you have presented no argument showing that the current
percentage of ocean is evidence for a worldwide flood, or even that it's
unusual in earth history.

[jillery]

Where to even start to unsort your nonsensical non sequiturs. Even
accepting for argument's sake your unique use of "overrun", it still
doesn't imply Earth was recently and completely covered over with
water. That just shows your illogical Creationist overreach.

As for the Moon, there's actually lots of water there, frozen inside
the craters at the Moon's poles, where the Sun's rays never touch it.
The Moon is too small to hold any water as a liquid or gas. Your
failure to know that just shows your Creationist willful stupidity.

>As everyone well knows, ancient texts, specifically Genesis, speak of catastrophic flooding. Since there was no ability to communicate among the nations quickly, there was no borrowing. Common denominator facts found in this corpus confirm that there was a worldwide flood, a handful of human beings survived, and a handful of animals. Genesis provides the protected version of events. Are we to believe a worldwide conspiracy produced these common denominator facts? Simply impossible. The ***common denominator*** facts, found in these accounts, CONFIRM the major claims of Genesis concerning the flood. Darwinists, in response, simply ignore these arguments based on common denominator facts, and say each account was preserving a local flood. Again, the common denominator facts falsify this interpretation.

As Mark Isaak repeatedly points out, there are lots of very different
flood myths. The only common denominator required is the common
experience of being flooded out of house and home. Anybody who has
experienced major river valley floods can be forgiven for imagining
the entire world covered with water.

>Moreover, the very purpose of textual evidence is to preserve knowledge so it's not lost. How does anyone today know there was a flood in Johnstown in 1889? Does any natural or geological evidence exist?

False equivalence. The first-person testimony and photographs are not
comparable to Biblical texts. A better analogy to the Bible's Flood
narrative would be Homer's Odyssey.

>People today only know about the Johnstown flood because of textual and photographic evidence.
>
>Genesis says a worldwide flood occurred and we have a planet overrun with water: three quarters aquatic/one quarter land. Word (= Genesis) thing (= surface of earth) = fact. Surface of earth appears as it should if a worldwide flood occurred recently (3140 BC).

And how 'bout them Mets.

>> > When earth is observed as a whole or on
>> > a worldwide scale one sees a globe overrun with water. Simply look at
>> > images taken from space. Earth is a planet dominated by water. The
>> > observed fact, as just described, corresponds to the claim that earth
>> > suffered a worldwide flood recently.
>>
>> It doesn't correspond to that claim unless you can explain how it does.
>
>Done that above and elsewhere. And it's not complicated. In fact, it's synonymous with how a noun is defined. Supernatural epistemology is superior.
>
>word----thing = fact.
>
>> As I said before, the earth has at various times been both more and less
>> dominated by water than it is now. None of those times was preceded by a
>> worldwide flood.
>
>We already know you reject a worldwide flood.
>
>Again, the point I'm making is that Genesis, an ancient text, says there was a worldwide flood. Current surface of earth clearly supports the claim. We have our explanation as to why the surface appears flooded.
>
>In addition: Not only does earth appear overrun with water, flooded, we know vast amounts of water are contained in the mantle. How did it get there? Earth was created.
>
>We both believe the Grand Canyon was a product of water. You believe one river carved out the canyon, simply ridiculous! The GC is a giant sinkhole caused by the flood.
>
>>
>> > In response you attempt to
>> > change the nature of the logic with a phrase that does not capture
>> > how earth appears from above.
>>
>> But it refers to exactly the same thing. A higher sea level means less
>> land, more water as viewed from above. A lower sea level means more
>> land, less water.
>
>The gravity of my point is lost when replaced with your phraseology. And my point is undeniably true: surface is dominated by water. One can see and easily conclude a worldwide flood occurred. So the textual evidence in this case is supported by material evidence----abundant material evidence.
>
>Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Self-evidently false. We have a written or textual claim followed by identification of material support. Word----thing = fact. Existence of a world overrun with water falsifies your claim that no support exists. Since the support is the second element of a two part claim, and since nothing here is the least bit complicated, your denia, if you persist, would amount to brazen dishonesty.

> My prediction (did occur recently) is fulfilled by the fact that the present surface of earth is overrun with water or three quarters water.
> Though it's not a prediction, technically it's a retrodiction. And for a
> retrodcition (or implication) you need to give reasons why you think the
> implication between the observations and the explanation holds.

Is failure to find a rabbit in Precambrian strata a retrodiction or a prediction?


Ray

[Burkhard]

Ray, someone who struggles as much as you do with reading comprehension
and reasoning skills should be careful throwing around accusations of
dishonesty, it makes you look even more stupid.

You still don't get why people have taken your "argument" apart. To
support a claim, it is not enough to point at any arbitrary observation
and exclaim "see!"

To use an analogy, I could "disprove" the flood account by pointing at
carrots and say "see, there are lots of carrots, hence no flood". Even
though it has the exact same form as your claim, it obviously would not
be in any meaningful way a support for my claim. Rather, I would need to
show why exactly the amount of carrots that we observe is inconsistent
with a flood. Not enough though would be to simply add: "But
self-evidently, observing carrots is inconsistent with a flood" - that
would be "begging the question"

So in general, supporting a claim requires (at least) two things, some
(minor) premises stating observations, and a major premise in the form
of a general law that links these observations to the claim made. That
general calm in turn can be in need of support - why should anyone
believe that this general premise is true?

In your case, you offer an observation: 70% of the earth surface are
water. That's fine and dandy, nobody doubts that. You then claim that
this is evidence for the flood. That means you now need a major premise
of the form : "Only when there has been within a few thousand years a
major flood should we expect to find more than X amount of the earth
surface covered in water"

It is this premise for which you have failed to give any support. And as
I said, you could, using the same observation, build as easily a claim
that there was a major drought. In this case, I simply proclaim that the
fact that only 70% are covered in water shows that there must have been
a massive loss of water at some point from which the earth has not
recovered yet.

And that should give you some idea of what is required for your
observation to really become support for your claim: It needs at the
very least a well supported theory that tells us how much water we
should observe, after X years, absent a flood - that is a theory about
normal water levels.

That is what you have failed to do - you simply assume, implicitly,
that it looks like too much to you to be simply the normal, to be
expected level. That has no basis in science, and in this case not even
in scripture (there is nothing in the Bible that would indicate that the
water did not as quickly disappear as it appeared, leaving the world
just as it was before - if anything the text indicates the opposite)

> > My prediction (did occur recently) is fulfilled by the fact that the present surface of earth is overrun with water or three quarters water.
>> Though it's not a prediction, technically it's a retrodiction. And for a
>> retrodcition (or implication) you need to give reasons why you think the
>> implication between the observations and the explanation holds.
>
> Is failure to find a rabbit in Precambrian strata a retrodiction or a prediction?

Technically speaking, the way you expressed it, neither. The "failure to
find a rabbit" is simply a fact.

It can be turned into a retrodiction: "The failure to find a rabbit in
the Cambrian is best explained by rabbits evolving much later."

It can also be turned into a prediction: "we will never find a rabbit in
the precambrian"

Both have their uses, depends what you try to argue.

[jillery]

On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 06:59:05 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

Excellent analysis and summation of Ray's comments. That took more
thought than his comments deserve, and almost certainly more than Ray
will apply in reply.

The only point I add to your comments above is that "rabbits in
Precambrian strata" is in fact a refutation of Creationist claim, a
point Ray has never acknowledged.

>>>>> Your problem here is that your prediction is neither a necessary nor
>>>>> sufficient consequence of a worldwide flood. There have been times in
>>>>> the past when sea levels were much higher than today (and for millions
>>>>> of years, not just one year), and other times when they were much lower.
>>>>> And there have been many such times of each. Not one of the high-sea
>>>>> times managed to completely cover the continents.
>>>>
>>>> How should surface of earth appear if a worldwide flood occurred RECENTLY (3140 BC)?
>>>
>>> Well, who knows? You'd need to study lots of similar events to see if
>>> there is a pattern. But according to Genesis, the water rose within
>>> days, so no reason to think it didn't get back to the original state
>>> similarly within days.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Answer: It should appear overrun with water, or mostly aquatic. Since the current surface is three quarters water, including very many lakes and rivers, earth appears to have suffered a worldwide flood recently.
>>>>
>>>> So the textual claim, as written in Genesis, has direct correspondence with material reality (word----thing = fact).
>>>>
>>>> Ray
>>>>
>>
>>

[RonO]

On 11/3/2016 5:55 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 11/3/16 3:48 PM, RonO wrote:
>> On 11/3/2016 4:41 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 11/3/16 2:31 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>> On 11/3/2016 10:20 AM, John Harshman wrote:

>>>>> On 11/3/16 2:22 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/2/2016 2:16 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> I posted this on the web site The Skeptical Zone. Oddly enough, of
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> the resident creationists, only Robert Byers managed a response.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/baraminology-of-the-flood/#comments
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks like you have to subscribe to get the CORE article.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CORE Issues in Creation no. 5 (2009): 129–161
>>>>>> http://www.coresci.org/cgi-bin/ci.pl?a=005
>>>>>

>>>>> I got the book by inter-library loan.

>>>>>
>>>>>> Where does the Wise quote come from?
>>>>>

>>>>> What Wise quote? I didn't quote him.
>>>>
>>>> I thought your source was quoting Wise, but it looks like he wrote a
>>>> chapter in the book.
>>>
>>> Still confused. What is "your source"? Is it the post I wrote on
>>> Skeptical Zone, or is it Wise's paper?
>>
>> Your article.

>>
>>>
>>>>>> They do allow you to see the appendix which uses the geological
>>>>>> nomenclature. How do they expect the fossil record was created in
>>>>>> 1500
>>>>>> years? There was obviously deposition before the flood.
>>>>>

>>>>> There are citations in the Wise paper that attempt to support the
>>>>> chronology, if you really want.
>>>>
>>>> What citiations could Wise possibly have? I'd like to see one, but my
>>>> guess is that if it is in a legitimate journal he likely isn't using it
>>>> in any way that the authors would have thought of.
>>>
>>> Citations to creationist literature. No, not any legitimate journal.
>>
>> Why would he even bother?
>
> Cargo cult science must attempt to resemble real science, or there's no
> point.

The show that I watched had islanders building a fake control tower and
there was a fellow who sat in it with fake head phones and pretend
microphone trying to call back the planes.

Sort of like the ID perps creating their "think tank" and Biologic
Institute and pretending to do science, or the ICR and AIG creating
their creation science "museums". What is even worse is that I recall
that the Biologic Institute put out a publicity photo where they green
screened in their people into another lab picture. I wonder what their
actual " research lab" looked like. The coffee maker and copy machine
were likely their most sophisticated pieces of equipment that did
anything of use for them.

Ron Okimoto

>
>>>>>> So it looks like they have pakicetus on the Ark at Ark Park because
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> believed that whales can evolve from a terrestrial mammal in a few
>>>>>> thousand years. This AIG article uses the same CORE source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/no-kind-left-behind/
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Gish would likely be turning in his grave if he wasn't still alive.

>>>>>> One
>>>>>> of his favorite pieces of creationist stupidity was his whale/cow
>>>>>> evolution speel. Now they believe that such evolution could happen
>>>>>> several orders of magnitude faster than Gish claimed was not enough
>>>>>> time.
>>>>>

>>>>> It may be that Jesus helped push.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[J. J. Lodder]

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> I posted this on the web site The Skeptical Zone. Oddly enough, of all
> the resident creationists, only Robert Byers managed a response.
>
> http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/baraminology-of-the-flood/#comments

And you didn't even use the quantitative argument.
There are far too many fossils (by many orders of magnitude even)
to fit into those few years,

Jan

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 4:05:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 11/3/16 3:12 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> > On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 2:50:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

> >> On 11/3/16 2:27 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 11:45:03 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 11/3/16 11:01 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 10:30:03 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/3/16 9:47 AM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <nvevko$rei$1...@dont-email.me>, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> So it looks like they have pakicetus on the Ark at Ark Park because they
> >>>>>>>> believed that whales can evolve from a terrestrial mammal in a few
> >>>>>>>> thousand years. This AIG article uses the same CORE source.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/no-kind-left-behind/
> >>>>>>>

> >> I don't. Explain why current sea levels are predicted by a recent
> >> worldwide flood and not by the absence of a worldwide flood.
> >>

> >>> My prediction (did occur recently) is fulfilled by the fact that the
> >>> present surface of earth is overrun with water or three quarters
> >>> water.
> >>

> >> How would sea level have been different before the flood? What evidence
> >> do you have that the earth was ever not "overrun with water"?
> >>

> >>>> Your problem here is that your prediction is neither a necessary nor
> >>>> sufficient consequence of a worldwide flood. There have been times in
> >>>> the past when sea levels were much higher than today (and for millions
> >>>> of years, not just one year), and other times when they were much lower.
> >>>> And there have been many such times of each. Not one of the high-sea
> >>>> times managed to completely cover the continents.
> >>>
> >>> How should surface of earth appear if a worldwide flood occurred RECENTLY (3140 BC)?
> >>

> >> Depends on where the water came from and where it went. Almost all the
> >> oceans are underlain by deep, oceanic crust, which we expect to be
> >> covered with water all the time. Changes in sea level affect only
> >> continental shelves. There have been times when much more of the
> >> continents were covered than currently, and times when much less has
> >> been covered. But I don't think the coverage has ever been less than
> >> around 70%, so your "evidence" is nonsensical.
> >>

> >>> Answer: It should appear overrun with water, or mostly aquatic. Since
> >>> the current surface is three quarters water, including very many
> >>> lakes and rivers, earth appears to have suffered a worldwide flood
> >>> recently.
> >>

> >> Once again, you fail to consider what the surface should look like if
> >> there had been no worldwide flood. Answer: it would look just like we see.
> >
> > How do you know that? If you say you're only attempting to show me
> > the invalidity of my reverse prediction then you're forgetting the
> > fact that the very notion of a worldwide flood originates in many
> > ancient texts, including the Book of Genesis. Surface of earth
> > appears just like it should appear if a worldwide flood occurred
> > recently.
>
> Because we know quite a bit about earth history, including past ocean
> depths, and the current depth is not unusual. You have no idea what the
> surface would look like after a worldwide flood.

If a unique worldwide flood occurred recently then the current surface should appear flooded, mostly aquatic, overrun with water----and it does: three quarters water and one quarter land.

The above statement is true.

Ray

>
> >>> So the textual claim, as written in Genesis, has direct correspondence with material reality (word----thing = fact).
> >>

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 7:15:02 PM UTC-7, RMcBane wrote:
> On 11/3/2016 9:25 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 4:00:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 11/3/16 2:51 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> >>>> My prediction (did occur recently) is fulfilled by the fact that the present surface of earth is overrun with water or three quarters water.
> >>>>
> >>>>>

> >>>>> Your problem here is that your prediction is neither a necessary northeastward

> >>>>> sufficient consequence of a worldwide flood. There have been times in
> >>>>> the past when sea levels were much higher than today (and for millions
> >>>>> of years, not just one year), and other times when they were much lower.
> >>>>> And there have been many such times of each. Not one of the high-sea
> >>>>> times managed to completely cover the continents.
> >>>>
> >>>> How should surface of earth appear if a worldwide flood occurred RECENTLY (3140 BC)?
> >>>>

> >>>> Answer: It should appear overrun with water, or mostly aquatic. Since the current surface is three quarters water, including very many lakes and rivers, earth appears to have suffered a worldwide flood recently.
> >>>>

> >>>> So the textual claim, as written in Genesis, has direct correspondence with material reality (word----thing = fact).
> >>>>

> >>>> Ray
> >>>
> >>> For the Record:
> >>>
> >>> I am not a YEC.
> >>>
> >>> I accept earth to be at least 100 million years old, but the current biosphere, because of the Genesis flood, is only a little over 5,000 years old.
> >>
> >> You realize that this view is incoherent, right? Absent the geological
> >> record and radiometric dating, there is no reason to have any idea of
> >> the age of the earth. If you reject both, you have no evidence. If you
> >> accept both, the earth is much older than 100 million years.

> >>
> >
> > When Darwin published in 1859 science accepted earth to be around 100 million years old. If not his theory would have been DOA. Scientific acceptance was based on observed layer stacked upon layer which gave the appearance of immense age. These scientists were not Evolutionists so I consider the 100 million figure unbiased.
>

> Ray, if you check I think that you will find that
> the 100 million figure came from Lord Kelvin's
> calculations of how long it would take a molten
> earth to cool to current temperatures. Kelvin's
> calculation were based on conduction of heat of a
> molten mass the size of the earth reaching current
> temperatures.
>
> Geologist of the time thought that 100 million
> years was too short for what they observed in the
> "layer upon layer" stacking of sediments and other
> features of the earth.
>
> While Kelvin's calculations for cooling based on
> his assumptions were correct, calculations base on
> convection showed the age of the earth to be much
> longer. And when heat given off by radioactivity
> minerals is included, Kelvin's calculations were
> shown to be way off.
>
> But of course I believe you were involved in a
> similar discussion on age of the earth years ago,
> yet conveniently choose not to learn.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Richard McBane

The jest of what I'm saying about what I accept age of earth to be is that I accept the age science accepted before the rise of Darwinism. That's all I'm saying.

And while one can learn a lot here at Talk.Origins the same is a two-way street. I think you forget that.

Ray

[John Harshman]

You understand that saying it's true does nothing to show that it's
true. You have done nothing to address my objections and nothing to
support your claim. It's true that 3/4 of the world's surface is water.
But that's the normal situation throughout the history of the world. It
was true before whatever date you ascribe to the hypothetical flood and
it was true after, so the flood can't be the cause of the situation.

[Ray Martinez]

Ridiculous.

Once again: A surface three quarters water and one quarter land supports a recent worldwide flood.

We have always said evolutionism is really about illogical explanations of evidence, and here we see the claim supported clearly in the replies of Atheist John Harshman. We have also always said Supernaturalism, or explanations of evidence supporting the existence of God, are completely logical. Only Evolutionists deny.

Genesis says a worldwide flood occurred recently. Consequently, current surface of earth is three quarters water and one quarter land----described accurately, by myself, as "overrun with water" and "dominated by water."

The first sentence written above receives its support from the second sentence written above. So the current surface of earth equates to beyond massive evidence supporting a supernatural claim.

What have the Evolutionists said in response? Answer: They have denied the second sentence as supporting the first sentence. This particular reply denies the evidence via illogical reasoning.

> Why, if
> there had been a worldwide flood, would we expect the sea to be now
> covering 3/4 of the earth, no more, no less? Try for once to make a
> rational argument.

This statement is actually rhetorical. Author has no other intentions. And said statement is egregiously illogical. It downplays a surface covered in water
as not supporting a recent worldwide flood.

Supernaturalism logic: A textual claim that reports a recent worldwide flood receives high quality support from the current surface of earth (three quarters water/one quarter land.)

Naturalism logic: A textual claim that reports a recent worldwide flood does not receive any support from the current surface of earth (three quarters water/one quarter land.)

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

You don't know that. You believe it, but you don't know it. Besides: The total amount of time the flood took until Noah left the ark was **about** a year. Evo-geology can't deal with such small intervals of time.

We know the assumptions of Uniformitarianism are false. You believe the model has validity and you believe in a contradictory Catastrophism when forced to do so. You also believe no contradictions exist. You co-fuse both concepts which makes discussion nearly impossible because you can't reason logically and you have no awareness of the fact.

And the current surface resulting from a recent worldwide flood receives corollary support from the fact that you cannot explain the origin of water on earth. And you actually believe one river carved out the Grand Canyon! Absurd as explanations get.

And where did you obtain the idea that the Genesis flood should be identifiable in geological strata? Are you forgetting the fact that if it happened it occurred recently?

And were did you obtain the idea as to how rocks and other materials behave and settle in churning waters?

> It
> was true before whatever date you ascribe to the hypothetical flood and
> it was true after, so the flood can't be the cause of the situation.

The real question is: What evidence can you produce that justifies your uniformitarianistic assumptions? And what about sunken land masses? Evolutionists deny and cross their fingers concerning Atlantis. One day you'll be forced to accept existence. Just like when you were forced to accept other catastrophes.

Ray

[jillery]

On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 10:32:14 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>If a unique worldwide flood occurred recently then the current surface should appear flooded, mostly aquatic, overrun with water----and it does: three quarters water and one quarter land.
>
>The above statement is true.

The above statement is Rayspeak for incoherent babble.

[John Harshman]

Once again: Why?

> We have always said evolutionism is really about illogical
> explanations of evidence, and here we see the claim supported clearly
> in the replies of Atheist John Harshman. We have also always said
> Supernaturalism, or explanations of evidence supporting the existence
> of God, are completely logical. Only Evolutionists deny.

Was that the royal we, the editorial we, or the tapeworm we?

> Genesis says a worldwide flood occurred recently. Consequently,
> current surface of earth is three quarters water and one quarter
> land----described accurately, by myself, as "overrun with water" and
> "dominated by water."

> The first sentence written above receives its support from the second
> sentence written above. So the current surface of earth equates to
> beyond massive evidence supporting a supernatural claim.

Again, why?

> What have the Evolutionists said in response? Answer: They have
> denied the second sentence as supporting the first sentence. This
> particular reply denies the evidence via illogical reasoning.

>> Why, if
>> there had been a worldwide flood, would we expect the sea to be now
>> covering 3/4 of the earth, no more, no less? Try for once to make a
>> rational argument.
>
> This statement is actually rhetorical. Author has no other intentions. And said statement is egregiously illogical. It downplays a surface covered in water
> as not supporting a recent worldwide flood.

That's because it doesn't. Once more: the surface was 3/4 water before
any supposed flood, and still after that flood. It isn't evidence.

> Supernaturalism logic: A textual claim that reports a recent worldwide flood receives high quality support from the current surface of earth (three quarters water/one quarter land.)
>
> Naturalism logic: A textual claim that reports a recent worldwide flood does not receive any support from the current surface of earth (three quarters water/one quarter land.)

All you can do is repeat your claim. That still isn't an argument.

[RMcBane]

And my point was that while Kelvin's estimate was
accepted by many because of his prestige, there
were others that did not accept it based on other
observations.

The rise of Darwinism had nothing to do with our
current estimates of the age of the earth which is
based on a better understanding of the chemistry
and physics of the earth than existed when Kelvin
made his estimate.


--
Richard McBane

[John Harshman]

Yes I do. For example, the overwhelming number of sedimentary rocks are
marine. Why? Geological records of ancient sea levels are all within a
few hundred meters of current levels which, given the topography of
continental shelves and deep ocean basins, means that the percentage of
land and water surface has changed only by a modest percentage.

> You believe it, but you don't know it. Besides: The total amount of
> time the flood took until Noah left the ark was **about** a year.
> Evo-geology can't deal with such small intervals of time.

If the flood left no traces in world sediments, you are correct. But
that would be a very odd flood. And the sheer scale of a influx of water
to cover the tops of mountains and then disappear within a year is not
compatible with such an undetectable flood.

> We know the assumptions of Uniformitarianism are false. You believe
> the model has validity and you believe in a contradictory
> Catastrophism when forced to do so. You also believe no
> contradictions exist. You co-fuse both concepts which makes
> discussion nearly impossible because you can't reason logically and
> you have no awareness of the fact.

Catastrophism is incompatible with your claims of an undetectable flood.
Of course your claims are self-contradictory, which you would be able to
see if you were capable of thinking about them.

> And the current surface resulting from a recent worldwide flood
> receives corollary support from the fact that you cannot explain the
> origin of water on earth. And you actually believe one river carved
> out the Grand Canyon! Absurd as explanations get.

I actually can explain the origin of water on earth, and have done so in
this very thread. I have also explained why the Grand Canyon cannot be
the result of a flood, a flood which, by the way, you require to have
left no evidence behind.

> And where did you obtain the idea that the Genesis flood should be
> identifiable in geological strata? Are you forgetting the fact that
> if it happened it occurred recently?

If there were such a global flood, it should have left a great many
sedimentary deposits behind, and some of those geological strata should
be its result. This is evidence against your flood.

> And were did you obtain the idea as to how rocks and other materials behave and settle in churning waters?

Ah, so you agree that the flood was a violent one. So it must have left
behind a lot of sediment, given that it could carry a large sediment
load. Geologists understand the behavior of rocks and other materials in
churning waters quite well.

>> It
>> was true before whatever date you ascribe to the hypothetical flood and
>> it was true after, so the flood can't be the cause of the situation.
>
> The real question is: What evidence can you produce that justifies
> your uniformitarianistic assumptions? And what about sunken land
> masses? Evolutionists deny and cross their fingers concerning
> Atlantis. One day you'll be forced to accept existence. Just like
> when you were forced to accept other catastrophes.

The rock record provides that evidence. Marine sediments were laid down
under water. Terrestrial sediments were not. How does an expert like you
not know this?

There are no sunken land masses. Tectonics doesn't work that way. There
are small-scale isostatic rises and falls; for example, some shallow
bits of the North Sea were briefly above water after the end of the last
ice age, rising as the weight of glaciers left but being submerged as
sea level rose. There was no Atlantis; Plato made it up. It's
interesting to see that your religion is not your only crackpot belief,
though.

[Ray Martinez]

I think it most relevant to point out that the author of the above comment is an Atheist Evolutionist and I am a Christian IDist.

> You still don't get why people have taken your "argument" apart. To
> support a claim, it is not enough to point at any arbitrary observation
> and exclaim "see!"
>

The observation at issue isn't arbitrary. It describes the current surface of earth accurately: overrun with water/dominated by water.

> To use an analogy, I could "disprove" the flood account by pointing at
> carrots and say "see, there are lots of carrots, hence no flood". Even
> though it has the exact same form as your claim, it obviously would not
> be in any meaningful way a support for my claim. Rather, I would need to
> show why exactly the amount of carrots that we observe is inconsistent
> with a flood. Not enough though would be to simply add: "But
> self-evidently, observing carrots is inconsistent with a flood" - that
> would be "begging the question"
>

Since the issue is amount of water, and its origin, your analogy about carrots is irrelevant, meaningless.

> So in general, supporting a claim requires (at least) two
things, some
> (minor) premises stating observations, and a major premise in the form
> of a general law that links these observations to the claim made. That
> general calm in turn can be in need of support - why should anyone
> believe that this general premise is true?

These comments describe the goals of positivism: identify laws in nature to explain how nature operates. First off, supernatural epistemology explains nature differently. We do not assume absence of God. Therefore we do not assume a material origin automatically. Supernaturalism uses Biblical epistemology to establish origins and facts about nature. Thus natural laws or nomianism isn't a goal of Supernaturalism.

Biblical epistemology assumes Theism true thus words spoken by Theos, by definition, should have direct correspondence with reality past, present, and future. Case in point: Theos said a worldwide flood occurred. Reality today corresponds: surface appears flooded, overrun with water. This is how we establish facts: word----thing = fact.

>
> In your case, you offer an observation: 70% of the earth surface are
> water. That's fine and dandy, nobody doubts that. You then claim that
> this is evidence for the flood. That means you now need a major premise
> of the form : "Only when there has been within a few thousand years a
> major flood should we expect to find more than X amount of the earth
> surface covered in water"
>
> It is this premise for which you have failed to give any support. And as
> I said, you could, using the same observation, build as easily a claim
> that there was a major drought. In this case, I simply proclaim that the
>fact that only 70% are covered in water shows that there must have been
> a massive loss of water at some point from which the earth has not
> recovered yet.
>

These comments contend correspondence epistemology somehow deficient. When understood correctly correspondence epistemology is not deficient, but far superior because anyone can plainly see how a fact is determined.

Will finish ASAP

Ray

[jillery]

On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 15:59:33 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The observation at issue isn't arbitrary. It describes the current surface of earth accurately: overrun with water/dominated by water.

Your observation isn't the problem here. It's your conclusion from
it. It's a fundamental non sequitur, both literally and
metaphorically.

[Burkhard]

I think it is mos relevant to point out that when confronted with an
argument he can't refute, Ray resorts to his favorite fallacy, the
"poisoning the well".

>> You still don't get why people have taken your "argument" apart. To
>> support a claim, it is not enough to point at any arbitrary observation
>> and exclaim "see!"
>>
>
> The observation at issue isn't arbitrary. It describes the current surface of earth accurately: overrun with water/dominated by water.

It is arbitrary because you have consistently failed to establish its
relevance to your claim.

>
>
>> To use an analogy, I could "disprove" the flood account by pointing at
>> carrots and say "see, there are lots of carrots, hence no flood". Even
>> though it has the exact same form as your claim, it obviously would not
>> be in any meaningful way a support for my claim. Rather, I would need to
>> show why exactly the amount of carrots that we observe is inconsistent
>> with a flood. Not enough though would be to simply add: "But
>> self-evidently, observing carrots is inconsistent with a flood" - that
>> would be "begging the question"
>>
>
> Since the issue is amount of water, and its origin, your analogy about carrots is irrelevant, meaningless.

So let's add "analogy" to the list of words you don't understand the
meaning of. The purpose of an analogy is always to change the context or
content to illustrate an issue with something that is structurally similar.

My carrot argument has the exact same structure as your water claim.
That is all that is needed for an analogy

>
>
>> So in general, supporting a claim requires (at least) two
> things, some
>> (minor) premises stating observations, and a major premise in the form
>> of a general law that links these observations to the claim made. That
>> general calm in turn can be in need of support - why should anyone
>> believe that this general premise is true?
>
> These comments describe the goals of positivism: identify laws in nature to explain how nature operates.

A commitment shared with "natural" theology (as opposed to revealed
theology), the paradigm you claim you are using, and to which you commit
yourself anyway the moment you are talking about observation as evidence
for your claims.

That's how natural theology is meant to work, so either do it right or
not do it at all.

> First off, supernatural epistemology explains nature differently. We do not assume absence of God.

You don't have to. My argument shows the flaws of your claim with or
without a god intervening.

> Therefore we do not assume a material origin automatically. Supernaturalism uses Biblical epistemology to establish origins and facts about nature. Thus natural laws or nomianism isn't a goal of Supernaturalism.

It is for natural theology, though it interprets these laws as being
grounded in and evidence for god.

>
> Biblical epistemology assumes Theism true thus words spoken by Theos, by definition, should have direct correspondence with reality past, present, and future.

Fine, then you do revealed theology. Reason and observation stop to
matter at this point.

>Case in point: Theos said a worldwide flood occurred. Reality today corresponds: surface appears flooded, overrun with water. This is how we establish facts: word----thing = fact.

Even if one grants the first part, "theos said that worldwide flood
occurred", the second part still does not follow. Your argument is
fallacious whether or not there is a deity involved. in fact, it is even
more inconsistent if you take a theological position (i.e., what you say
is not just illogical, but also blasphemous)

Assume god caused a flood, in just a few days. Does this mean we should
expect 3000 years or so more water than there was before?

Well, only if you think God was able to cause a flood in a very short
time, but was unable to then clean it up in the same short period of
time. God, the way you describe it, is then more a petulant teenager who
manages to thrash his bedroom, but is too lazy/stupid/incompetent to
clean up after himself.

And that is just one of your problems. Again, the observation of an
earth covered by 70% water does not mean that there is an excess of
water that needs/can be explained by a flood. For this you would need
scriptural support (if you go by revealed religion) It is just as
possible that God created the world initially covered with 90% water,
and after the flood it was drier, not more wet then before.

Or he could have created it with 70% water, and restored it after the
flood to just the way it was before This is the most natural reading of
the Genesis story, I would argue - after all, Gen 8.14 says: "By the
twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.
Note: "completely dry". Not: "a bit drier but still incredibly wet."

Or he could as your model says have created the world with less than 70%
of it covered in water, and the flood increased water levels.

All these three are compatible with observing that the earth is now
covered with 70% water. It you want to decide which of these three is
true, you need, in your "theological" epistemology, scriptural evidence
on how much water there was before the flood. You have not given any,
and there is indeed none in the bible.

But of all the 3, your reading is the one least supported by scriptural
(or revealed) evidence. I already mentioned Gen. 8.14 which directly
contradicts your claim. There is other, more circumstantial data that
contradicts your reading. God simply advice Noah to "build an Ark",
specifying only its general size and form. That is more consistent with
a reading that Noah knew already about shipbuilding and shipping - which
in turn means that in his part of the world ( probably Egypt) the water
levels pre-flood were high enough to allow seafaring. Just as they are
today of course - you need today's water levels to have a maritime
culture in Egypt. And after the flood is over, there is no mentioning
that any of the countries that existed previously were now gone, which
would after all be quite remearkable and require instructions to Noah on
how to survive in such a radically altered world ("going home" e.g.
would not be an opinion)

So your argument fails on logical, scientific and theological grounds -
quite an achievement!

>
>>
>> In your case, you offer an observation: 70% of the earth surface are
>> water. That's fine and dandy, nobody doubts that. You then claim that
>> this is evidence for the flood. That means you now need a major premise
>> of the form : "Only when there has been within a few thousand years a
>> major flood should we expect to find more than X amount of the earth
>> surface covered in water"
>>
>> It is this premise for which you have failed to give any support. And as
>> I said, you could, using the same observation, build as easily a claim
>> that there was a major drought. In this case, I simply proclaim that the
>> fact that only 70% are covered in water shows that there must have been
>> a massive loss of water at some point from which the earth has not
>> recovered yet.
>>
>
> These comments contend correspondence epistemology somehow deficient.

Nothing in there about correspondence epistemology whatsoever. You offer
one explanation of an observation, I simply show that the very same
observation that you offer is just as consistent with two others that
directly contradict your claim. And that, as a mere matter of logic,
means you have failed to support your claims.

[Oxyaena]

> Ray
>
Wow, you not only miserably failed to answer any of the questions, you
used an example of circular reasoning to support your original thesis
that the Noachian Flood actually occurred. Has it ever occurred to you
that the Hydrosphere of the Earth may have originated by natural causes,
like by comet impacts? Has it ever occurred to you that water is one of
the most common elements in the universe?

Why is it that during the time the Flood supposedly occurred, that
Egyptian records never mention a flood once, and Egyptian life went
through the Flood as if nothing had happened (besides the annual
flooding of the Nile). How come Chinese legends never mention a flood
that occurred circa 2000 BCE? Instead having tales of the Xia Dynasty,
founded by Yu the Great, and its historicity possibly confirmed by the
existence of the Erlitou Culture of Bronze Age China? How come
Mesopotamian cultures at the time still lived as if no flood took place.
Nowhere in the Akkadian records does it mention a flood.


How come there are historical precursors to the Noachian Flood, as
recorded in the *Epic of Gilgamesh*, complete with two of every animal
going on a boat, a usage of a dove and a raven, and the olive tree, as
well as a global flood, but with polytheistic elements? In Sumerian
mythology, the Flood also took place, but not because of a sinful
people, but because the Gods couldn't sleep due to all the noise.

How come floods of a Noachian archetype only occur in Mesopotamia, and
nowhere else? Other cultures have flood myths, yes, some dating back to
the Ice Age as folk memory, but they are drastically different from the
Noachian Flood archetype recorded in the Levant. Here's an FAQ on the
subject:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html


I doubt you will provide a reasonable, sound answer grounded in reality
to these questions, no-one ever does.

--
http://oxyaena.org/

also see: http://thrinaxodon.org/

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." -
Theodosius Doubzhansky

[Ray Martinez]

Here we have a stereotypical ordinary Evolutionist who cannot understand any claim or claims, no matter how straightforward, that supports the Genesis flood. As I redundantly said, common denominaor facts, seen in the link our Evolutionist pasted, supports everything I said.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 10:25:02 AM UTC-8, Oxyaena wrote:

And the reason the Genesis flood does not appear in Egyptian historical records is because the flood predates the advent of Egyptian civilization. And we know the nation was founded when the Nile river was successfully contained, which overflowing state was caused by the flood.

Ray

[jillery]

Apparently reading the Bible, with all of its repetitive passages,
makes simple-minded folks think that repetition makes false things
true.

[Oxyaena]

No, the Nile floods (or used to, before the building of the Dam in the
60's) its banks annually, and was not started by the "flood", but by
monsoons overflowing the banks of the Nile, causing it to spill over
onto land, thus providing life-giving nutrients to the crops needed to
sustain the Ancient Egyptian civilization.

When did the Flood occur, Egyptian civilization has been around since
the 4th Millennium BCE, with the pharaohs Narmer, Iry-Hor, and Aha-Hor.
Typically, by creationists using the Ussher Chronology, the flood is
dated to circa 2000 BCE, but Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Chinese records
indicate life went on as if nothing had happened.

You fail to address my other points, they are printed below for readers'
convenience:

Your inability to address my other points indicate that you have no
logical, sound answers grounded in reality to them, thus you implicitly
admit defeat. Intellectual bankruptcy at its finest, my friend.

[Oxyaena]

Ad hominem, you refuse to address my questions (intellectual bankruptcy)
and attack me instead, because you KNOW you cannot refute my objections
to your ludicrous "theory".

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 12:20:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> I posted this on the web site The Skeptical Zone. Oddly enough, of all
> the resident creationists, only Robert Byers managed a response.
>
> http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/baraminology-of-the-flood/#comments

Conclusions: John Harshman started this topic hoping a YEC would engage. Instead a OEC replied. John argued where in geological strata is the flood layer? He seems to believe that he knows a flood layer does not exist. How would anyone know what a flood layer should look like? The flood was of course a unique event. Thus he could NOT possibly KNOW what a flood layer should look like. Moreover, I identified the current surface of earth, three quarters water, as the flood layer. Surface appears flooded, overrun with water. In response John denied any connection between current surface and a recent flood claim. Then I observed that since the flood occurred about 5000 years ago a geological layer, one that John says should exist, shouldn't exist because 5000 years is too short a time geologically. John didn't respond.

Ray

[jillery]

<facepalm>

Rather than decide where to begin, perhaps a more relevant question
here is IF one should begin. It should be enough to point out it's
known that individual layers can be created almost immediately; it's
the accumulation of different and multiple layers which takes geologic
time. But considering the respondent, it almost certainly won't be.

[RMcBane]

All your questions would be answered if you took
an introductory physical geology course.

But some simple things for you to think about. A
lot of people have looked at a lot of rock layers
and we can explain how all of them were formed by
looking at rocks are being formed today. If
anyone could point to a layer of rock that can't
be explained by those processes, then we might
have an Aha moment and consider whether or not it
might be the flood layer.

One would think that if there had been a flood, we
would find massive amounts of sediments in ocean
basins, but we don't other than those close to
continents. And those sediments can be explained
by existing processes.

We also have soils that should have been eroded
away by a global flood but weren't such as the
thick saprolites i.e. soils formed by rock
weathering in place. In the Eastern US there are
saprolites tens of feet thick formed from granite
which could not have formed in the time since your
global flood.



--
Richard McBane

[Harry K]

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 2:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 11:45:03 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

> > Prediction: If a worldwide flood didn't occur recently then earth should
> > appear overrun with water. I win too.
>
> "If a worldwide flood didn't occur recently" is not fulfilled, but contradicted by "then earth should appear overrun with water." You don't understand that?
>

> My prediction (did occur recently) is fulfilled by the fact that the present surface of earth is overrun with water or three quarters water.
>
> >

> > Your problem here is that your prediction is neither a necessary nor
> > sufficient consequence of a worldwide flood. There have been times in
> > the past when sea levels were much higher than today (and for millions
> > of years, not just one year), and other times when they were much lower.
> > And there have been many such times of each. Not one of the high-sea
> > times managed to completely cover the continents.
>
> How should surface of earth appear if a worldwide flood occurred RECENTLY (3140 BC)?
>

> Answer: It should appear overrun with water, or mostly aquatic. Since the current surface is three quarters water, including very many lakes and rivers, earth appears to have suffered a worldwide flood recently.
>
> So the textual claim, as written in Genesis, has direct correspondence with material reality (word----thing = fact).
>
> Ray

If it were that recent, one could dig anywhere on earth and find a flood deposit layer dated to that time. There isn't one.

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, November 25, 2016 at 1:45:01 PM UTC-8, RMcBane wrote:
> On 11/25/2016 1:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 12:20:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> I posted this on the web site The Skeptical Zone. Oddly enough, of all
> >> the resident creationists, only Robert Byers managed a response.
> >>
> >> http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/baraminology-of-the-flood/#comments
> >
> > Conclusions: John Harshman started this topic hoping a YEC would engage. Instead a OEC replied. John argued where in geological strata is the flood layer? He seems to believe that he knows a flood layer does not exist. How would anyone know what a flood layer should look like? The flood was of course a unique event. Thus he could NOT possibly KNOW what a flood layer should look like. Moreover, I identified the current surface of earth, three quarters water, as the flood layer. Surface appears flooded, overrun with water. In response John denied any connection between current surface and a recent flood claim. Then I observed that since the flood occurred about 5000 years ago a geological layer, one that John says should exist, shouldn't exist because 5000 years is too short a time geologically. John didn't respond.
>
> All your questions would be answered if you took
> an introductory physical geology course.

I didn't ask any questions. I made conclusions.

>
> But some simple things for you to think about. A
> lot of people have looked at a lot of rock layers
> and we can explain how all of them were formed by
> looking at rocks are being formed today. If
> anyone could point to a layer of rock that can't
> be explained by those processes, then we might
> have an Aha moment and consider whether or not it
> might be the flood layer.

All this says is that evidence has been explained using the assumptions of Naturalism and uniformitarianism. Again, uniformitarianistic explanations and the assumptions of Naturalism are not at issue here.

>
> One would think that if there had been a flood, we
> would find massive amounts of sediments in ocean

> basins....

You don't KNOW how sedimentation should appear if a unique worldwide flood occurred recently.

> .....but we don't other than those close to

> continents. And those sediments can be explained
> by existing processes.
>
> We also have soils that should have been eroded
> away by a global flood but weren't such as the
> thick saprolites i.e. soils formed by rock
> weathering in place. In the Eastern US there are
> saprolites tens of feet thick formed from granite
> which could not have formed in the time since your
> global flood.
>
>
>
> --
> Richard McBane

Again, Richard's points assume that he KNOWS how earth should appear if a unique worldwide flood occurred recently. In reality he does not possess this knowledge. He should not have used the word "should."

When we observe current surface of earth we see a surface overrun with water, flooded. Thus we see massive of evidence of a recent worldwide flood (3140 BC).

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Comment assumes knowledge that the flood would create or leave a layer. Author does not possess this knowledge. He actually conveyed an assumption that was portrayed as fact.

Moreover, IF a layer is identified as a flood layer Darwinian geology would not accept because their assumptions of evidence do not allow any conclusion that supports a supernatural claim. The same is true regarding Supernaturalism. Our assumptions do not allow any conclusion that supports a non-supernatural claim.

The point is: We can admit, Darwinists cannot.

And current surface of earth, appearing overrun with water, flooded, equates to very satisfying evidence that a worldwide flood occurred recently, just like the Bible says.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, November 25, 2016 at 1:45:01 PM UTC-8, RMcBane wrote:

Can you identify natural (non-man made) evidence that a flood occurred recently in Johnstown, Pennsylvania?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, November 25, 2016 at 1:45:01 PM UTC-8, RMcBane wrote:

How about this recent flood:

https://www.kcet.org/departures-columns/the-flood-st-francis-dam-disaster-william-mulholland-and-the-casualties-of-la

Identify non-man made evidence whereby one could conclude that this flood did indeed occur?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, November 25, 2016 at 1:45:01 PM UTC-8, RMcBane wrote:

How about the tsunami that occurred in Japan five years ago?

Twenty years from now will anyone be able to tell that it occurred based only on natural evidence?

Ray

[RMcBane]

Yes, it is possible to identify evidence of both
erosion and deposition due to a flood whether in
Johnstown, PA or elsewhere. Although often that
evidence is removed by man made processes.



--
Richard McBane

[RMcBane]

On 11/26/2016 3:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, November 25, 2016 at 1:45:01 PM UTC-8, RMcBane wrote:
>> On 11/25/2016 1:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 12:20:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> I posted this on the web site The Skeptical Zone. Oddly enough, of all
>>>> the resident creationists, only Robert Byers managed a response.
>>>>
>>>> http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/baraminology-of-the-flood/#comments
>>>
>>> Conclusions: John Harshman started this topic hoping a YEC would engage. Instead a OEC replied. John argued where in geological strata is the flood layer? He seems to believe that he knows a flood layer does not exist. How would anyone know what a flood layer should look like? The flood was of course a unique event. Thus he could NOT possibly KNOW what a flood layer should look like. Moreover, I identified the current surface of earth, three quarters water, as the flood layer. Surface appears flooded, overrun with water. In response John denied any connection between current surface and a recent flood claim. Then I observed that since the flood occurred about 5000 years ago a geological layer, one that John says should exist, shouldn't exist because 5000 years is too short a time geologically. John didn't respond.
>>
>> All your questions would be answered if you took
>> an introductory physical geology course.
>
> I didn't ask any questions. I made conclusions.

Isn't "How would anyone know what a flood layer
should look like?" a question?

>> But some simple things for you to think about. A
>> lot of people have looked at a lot of rock layers
>> and we can explain how all of them were formed by
>> looking at rocks are being formed today. If
>> anyone could point to a layer of rock that can't
>> be explained by those processes, then we might
>> have an Aha moment and consider whether or not it
>> might be the flood layer.
>
> All this says is that evidence has been explained using the assumptions of Naturalism and uniformitarianism. Again, uniformitarianistic explanations and the assumptions of Naturalism are not at issue here.

If it isn't an issue, then I take it that you have
no problem with the idea that moving water eroded,
transported and deposited sediments in the past
the same way moving water does today. We can
study those processes in the laboratory and field
to see how they work.

>> One would think that if there had been a flood, we
>> would find massive amounts of sediments in ocean
>> basins....
>
> You don't KNOW how sedimentation should appear if a unique worldwide flood occurred recently.

Actually we do based on what we see today. We
know that large flood scour material from a
landscape and deposit that material downstream.
We know that deposition is controlled by particle
size and velocity of water. That tells a lot
about what we should expect to find had Noah's
flood occurred 5000 years ago.

>> .....but we don't other than those close to
>> continents. And those sediments can be explained
>> by existing processes.
>>
>> We also have soils that should have been eroded
>> away by a global flood but weren't such as the
>> thick saprolites i.e. soils formed by rock
>> weathering in place. In the Eastern US there are
>> saprolites tens of feet thick formed from granite
>> which could not have formed in the time since your
>> global flood.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard McBane
>
> Again, Richard's points assume that he KNOWS how earth should appear if a unique worldwide flood occurred recently. In reality he does not possess this knowledge. He should not have used the word "should."
>
> When we observe current surface of earth we see a surface overrun with water, flooded. Thus we see massive of evidence of a recent worldwide flood (3140 BC).

And Ray assumes his conclusion that no one could
possibly know what the earth would look like after
a global flood 5000 years ago, to protect his
worldview.

Ray, if what you say is true that a surface
overrun with water is evidence of The Flood, then
perhaps you could tell us what the surface of the
earth looked like before the flood. Then tell us
what we would need to do to confirm your description.



--
Richard McBane

[RMcBane]

The picture shows the evidence in the scour below
the dam.


--
Richard McBane

[RMcBane]

Yes, there should be ample evidence of materials
washed back out to sea and deposited in sediments
along the coast.


--
Richard McBane

[John Harshman]

So you're saying that a worldwide flood could cover the highest
mountains within 40 days, disappear in a year, and leave no trace
behind. Works for me.

> Moreover, IF a layer is identified as a flood layer Darwinian geology would not accept because their assumptions of evidence do not allow any conclusion that supports a supernatural claim. The same is true regarding Supernaturalism. Our assumptions do not allow any conclusion that supports a non-supernatural claim.
>
> The point is: We can admit, Darwinists cannot.
>
> And current surface of earth, appearing overrun with water, flooded,
> equates to very satisfying evidence that a worldwide flood occurred
> recently, just like the Bible says.

Nope. The current surface was the same surface before 5000 years ago
too. The earth is no more overrun with water than it was before the time
you assign to this mythical flood.

[Ray Martinez]

T> >>>y

> >>> Answer: It should appear overrun with water, or mostly aquatic. Since the current surface is three quarters water, including very many lakes and rivers, earth appears to have suffered a worldwide flood recently.
> >>>
> >>> So the textual claim, as written in Genesis, has direct correspondence with material reality (word----thing = fact).
> >>>

> >>> Rayy

> >>
> >> If it were that recent, one could dig anywhere on earth and find a flood deposit layer dated to that time. There isn't one.
> >>
> >
> > Comment assumes knowledge that the flood would create or leave a layer. Author does not possess this knowledge. He actually conveyed an assumption that was portrayed as fact.
>
> So you're saying that a worldwide flood could cover the highest
> mountains within 40 days, disappear in a year, and leave no trace
> behind. Works for me.

Not what I said. I said current surface is the evidence. In recent past you complained about a deficiency in understanding claims and arguments. So current surface is the evidence of the flood.

> > Moreover, IF a layer is identified as a flood layer Darwinian geology would not accept because their assumptions of evidence do not allow any conclusion that supports a supernatural claim. The same is true regarding Supernaturalism. Our assumptions do not allow any conclusion that supports a non-supernatural claim.
> >
> > The point is: We can admit, Darwinists cannot.
> >
> > And current surface of earth, appearing overrun with water, flooded,
> > equates to very satisfying evidence that a worldwide flood occurred
> > recently, just like the Bible says.
>
> Nope. The current surface was the same surface before 5000 years ago
> too. The earth is no more overrun with water than it was before the time
> you assign to this mythical flood.

Your dismissal doesn't account for the the textual claim. Moreover, you've been asking for a person to identify a flood layer. Is that possible geologically since the claim is that it happened only five thousand years ago?

Ray

[Mark Isaak]

> How about the tsunami that occurred in Japan five years ago?
>
> Twenty years from now will anyone be able to tell that it occurred based only on natural evidence?

There was a tsunami of similar size which hit the northern US coast in
1700, and geologists recognized it from natural evidence.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"We are not looking for answers. We are looking to come to an
understanding, recognizing that it is temporary--leaving us open to an
even richer understanding as further evidence surfaces." - author unknown

[John Harshman]

I don't know what that means. You don't know what that means. Evidence
of a flood would lie in a combination of erosion and deposition (in
different spots, that is). "The current surface" is a meaningless phrase.

>>> Moreover, IF a layer is identified as a flood layer Darwinian geology would not accept because their assumptions of evidence do not allow any conclusion that supports a supernatural claim. The same is true regarding Supernaturalism. Our assumptions do not allow any conclusion that supports a non-supernatural claim.
>>>
>>> The point is: We can admit, Darwinists cannot.
>>>
>>> And current surface of earth, appearing overrun with water, flooded,
>>> equates to very satisfying evidence that a worldwide flood occurred
>>> recently, just like the Bible says.
>>
>> Nope. The current surface was the same surface before 5000 years ago
>> too. The earth is no more overrun with water than it was before the time
>> you assign to this mythical flood.
>
> Your dismissal doesn't account for the the textual claim.

The textual claim has nothing to do with the earth being currently
"overrun with water". Or with reality, now, 5000 years ago, 10,000 years
ago, whenever.

> Moreover,
> you've been asking for a person to identify a flood layer. Is that
> possible geologically since the claim is that it happened only five
> thousand years ago?

Yes, that is indeed possible geologically. Flood layers from last year
can be identified. Recent events are not a problem.

[jillery]

Incorrect. Flood geology is well understood. If a global flood
happened recently, it would leave unambiguous evidence. Unless you
think your god deceptively removed that evidence, your claim that
evidence of a recent global flood would not be recognized is absurd.

>When we observe current surface of earth we see a surface overrun with water, flooded. Thus we see massive of evidence of a recent worldwide flood (3140 BC).

Of course, there is nothing at all about the current surface of the
Earth which suggests a global flood. You're just making stuff up
again.

OTOH there are several objects in the Solar System which are
completely covered with water or water ice. Perhaps Noah lived on
Europa.

[jillery]

All of your claimed counter-examples are mere trickles compared to a
global flood. Since you imply a global flood would necessarily look
different, why do you even bring them up?

[Ray Martinez]

Pity.

How about when 500 years go by? 2000? 4000?

Ray

[RMcBane]

Of course, every flood will leave behind a layer
of material that can be identified and dated with
proper research, unless that layer has been
removed by natural or man-made causes.

But for the moment I would like to go back to your
statement, "Moreover, I identified the current

surface of earth, three quarters water, as the
flood layer. Surface appears flooded, overrun with
water."

In a discussion we had years ago, you claimed that
the Great Pyramid was built before Noah's flood.
And I pointed out that it that were true then all
the materials beneath the Great Pyramid must have
been there before the Great Pyramid was built.
And you agreed.

There are something like 10,000 feet of
sedimentary rocks below the Great Pyramid, most of
which, perhaps all, are water lain sediments. And
if we look around the world, there are thousands
of sediments on every continent much of which is
the same age as the rocks below the Great Pyramid.

Something on the order of 60-70% of continents are
covered with sedimentary rocks. Of course not all
are water lain sediments, often there are wind
blown and other terrestrial sediments interbedded
with the water lain sediments. But, these rocks
are clear evidence that before the flood, in fact
long before the flood you claim happened, that the
earth had a surface that appeared flooded, overrun
with water. Unless of course you no longer
believe that the Great Pyramid was built before
the flood.

--
Richard McBane