A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?

[LittlePig]

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

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

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

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

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

Questions for Debate:

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

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

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

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

[micatala]

You didn't read my post. So there's no point in responding to this one of yours. Suffice it to say, making up skin and lives around skulls and bones is as imaginary as finding bones in the desert and constructing lives around them that no one in the world can verify. Those are called fairy tales.

I most certainly did read your post.

I did not address the "skin" issue as it seemed to me a digression from your previous claims.

You claimed that those who believe in the Bible would never look for alternative explanations other than the Bible for the evidence they found.

You said this after making this claim.

But because the goal of secular scientists is to deny the bible, they'll look at the evidence and make up stories that no one in history has passed along.

You have yet to provide evidence for this claim, or the following claims related to it.

If you claim that secular scientists have the goal of denying the Bible, then you are obliged by the rules of the forum to provide some evidence for this. Assumptions and tautologous statements based on them are not evidence.


Evidence would consiste of statements by the individuals or other evidence concerning their beliefs and how they may or may not have changed.


I found, for example, some information on Charles Lyell.

Here is his obituary. It indicates he never gave up his Christian beliefs, although it does not specify the nature of these beliefs.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fr ... 838E669FDE

Here is a short bio from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell

Here, Lyell's inner struggle is alluded to:

Later, Darwin became a close personal friend, and Lyell was one of the first scientists to support On the Origin of Species, though he did not subscribe to all its contents. Lyell was also a friend of Darwin's closest colleagues, Hooker
and Huxley, but unlike them he struggled to square his religious beliefs with evolution. This inner struggle has been much commented on. He had particular difficulty in believing in natural selection as the main motive force in evolution.

Clearly, Lyell was not motivated by a desire to deny the Bible, but rather, struggled with the implications of what the evidence indicated for his beliefs. In fact, he seems reluctant to accept some of the statements of his friends specifically because of his beliefs. This is almost the opposite of what you claimed about scientists who differ with your view on Genesis.






Even Darwin, though never particularly devout, did not move away from orthodox views until after his journey on the Beagle.

http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com ... arwin.html

Charles Darwin came from a Nonconformist background. While on the Beagle Darwin was quite orthodox and would quote the Bible as an authority on morality, but had come to see the history in the Old Testament as being false and untrustworthy.

Upon his return, he investigated transmutation of species. While secretly developing his theory of natural selection, Darwin even wrote of religion as a tribal survival strategy, though he still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver. His belief continued to dwindle over the time, and with the death of his daughter Annie in 1851, Darwin finally lost all faith in Christianity.

Notice Darwin ultimately rejected Christianity not because of science, but because of personal tragedy.

There is no indication in his writings or statements that Darwin was EVER motivated by an intention to deny or disprove the Bible.

[TXatheist]

You didn't read my post. So there's no point in responding to this one of yours. Suffice it to say, making up skin and lives around skulls and bones is as imaginary as finding bones in the desert and constructing lives around them that no one in the world can verify. Those are called fairy tales.

Do you have any evidence for anything you have claimed on this site? Do you have anything intelligent to add? So far all I see is speculation, insults, rude remarks, ridiculous claims, and a ton of smiley faces and winks. If you are going to get anywhere in any argument, you need to have some sort of evidence to back up your claim. Simply telling everyone that they are "wrong" means nothing.

[Celestial Dragon]

Waited until I logged out before ripping on my responses, eh Carico? How kind of you.

*cracks knuckles*

Scientists find what they want to find. Making up stories about the skulls and bones they find are called fairy tales, not facts.

Scientists do no such thing. In fact, it is the "creationist scientists" who ignore all contradicting evidence, but trumpet any in favor of their (unscientific) theory. Paleontologists and anthropologists do not concoct stories about bones and fossils; you have yet to provide evidence for these and other claims, and I am beginning to suspect you never will.

For example, there's no way to know what kind of skin those "dinosaur" bones had without the skin to prove it.

And we don't pretend to know. Who said scientists did? Parenthetically, this assertion is irrelevant anyway.

But scientists aren't interested in evidence, only acting out of very vivid imaginations.

Science is based completely on evidence, in other words: things we know as objectively true. This is why the word science derives from the root "sci-," which implies "to know". That said, I challenge you to give me a reference for a real scientist (no creationists, paranormal investigators, etc. are allowed) not basing his theories on experimental data.

So they make up their own skin and pass it along as facts.

No we do not.

There's also no way to know which teeth belong to which animal or which bones belong to which animals. Even forensic scientists can't tell which bones belong to the same body without DNA to prove it.

Haven't you ever watched CSI?

Bones can tell us a person's height and size, health and diet, sex, race, approximate age at death, and even ancestry (via comparable anatomy). Dental records are so unique to each individual that they can easily replace fingerprint evidence. We can usually tell from all this data which humans and animals fossils belongs to each respective organism. If we can't, then we postulate hypotheses (and later on, when evidence well-supports such hypotheses, theories) to explain them (References: This entire site).

This is how science works. Once again.

Keep in mind that bone marrow contains DNA, since bone marrow is tissue (Reference).

The "dinosaurs" in museums are nothing more than skulls and bones pieced together from many different animals. That's why they look so funny.

They are not. All bones must be meticulously documented and analyzed. Scientists take into account the location of the fossil found (where on the earth and in which rock stratum), surrounding fossils, all existing known data, etc., and classify it to the best of their knowledge (Reference, in addition to the above site).

Now scientists aren't always correct, but since we base our assertions on evidence and experimental data, science always tends to correct itself. That's the beauty of it; if a theory comes along that demolishes the existing one, the scientific community must accept it. Nothing else matters but the pursuit for truth.

[Celestial Dragon]

Provide evidence that Charles Lyell, Lamarck, and Alfred Wallace were motivated by anti-biblical or anti-Christian views in creating their science.

I jsut did. If they really believed the biblical account of creation, then why look for alternate explanations? The answer is simple; because they never belied the biblical account of creation. That's logic 101.

Again, I don't think you understand the Scientific Method. If a theory or explanation arises that is better than yours (in terms of being more correct), you must accept it. If you don't, you're not following the evidence. It doesn't matter how special your previous theory was to you; it doesn't matter how beautiful or aesthetic it was; it doesn't matter how popular it was; it doesn't matter how intelligent the person was who came up with it; it is now less truthful than an alternative and must be discarded.

This may be hard to accept at first, but that is one of the qualities of progress, which science is always in a state of (Reference:The Scientific Method).

Now as a Biology major, I have read much about Darwin in particular. He believed wholeheartedly in Christianity and Paley's watchmaker argument. Just go to the library look at his autobiography. He eventually found viable alternatives to Creationism and thus (reluctantly) accepted them.

Please do some research before you affirm something; it seems slightly unfair to me that you are wildly throwing your opinions about, without really providing any sources.

[Carico]

Waited until I logged out before ripping on my responses, eh Carico? How kind of you.

*cracks knuckles*

Scientists find what they want to find. Making up stories about the skulls and bones they find are called fairy tales, not facts.

Scientists do no such thing. In fact, it is the "creationist scientists" who ignore all contradicting evidence, but trumpet any in favor of their (unscientific) theory. Paleontologists and anthropologists do not concoct stories about bones and fossils; you have yet to provide evidence for these and other claims, and I am beginning to suspect you never will.

For example, there's no way to know what kind of skin those "dinosaur" bones had without the skin to prove it.

And we don't pretend to know. Who said scientists did? Parenthetically, this assertion is irrelevant anyway.

But scientists aren't interested in evidence, only acting out of very vivid imaginations.

Science is based completely on evidence, in other words: things we know as objectively true. This is why the word science derives from the root "sci-," which implies "to know". That said, I challenge you to give me a reference for a real scientist (no creationists, paranormal investigators, etc. are allowed) not basing his theories on experimental data.

So they make up their own skin and pass it along as facts.

No we do not.

There's also no way to know which teeth belong to which animal or which bones belong to which animals. Even forensic scientists can't tell which bones belong to the same body without DNA to prove it.

Haven't you ever watched CSI?

Bones can tell us a person's height and size, health and diet, sex, race, approximate age at death, and even ancestry (via comparable anatomy). Dental records are so unique to each individual that they can easily replace fingerprint evidence. We can usually tell from all this data which humans and animals fossils belongs to each respective organism. If we can't, then we postulate hypotheses (and later on, when evidence well-supports such hypotheses, theories) to explain them (References: This entire site).

This is how science works. Once again.

Keep in mind that bone marrow contains DNA, since bone marrow is tissue (Reference).

The "dinosaurs" in museums are nothing more than skulls and bones pieced together from many different animals. That's why they look so funny.

They are not. All bones must be meticulously documented and analyzed. Scientists take into account the location of the fossil found (where on the earth and in which rock stratum), surrounding fossils, all existing known data, etc., and classify it to the best of their knowledge (Reference, in addition to the above site).

Now scientists aren't always correct, but since we base our assertions on evidence and experimental data, science always tends to correct itself. That's the beauty of it; if a theory comes along that demolishes the existing one, the scientific community must accept it. Nothing else matters but the pursuit for truth.

Boy are you misinformed. The following comes from a website describing the "scientific" process of piecing skulls and bones together:

"Only rarely are complete dinosaur skeletons found. Sometimes there are even extra pieces from different dinosaurs at the same site, adding to the confusion. It is very difficult to piece together fossilized bone fragments to reconstruct a whole skeleton. A thorough knowledge of animal anatomy is necessary in order to piece the fossils together and guess what the missing pieces are. "

Again, it's called artwork, not science.

[Celestial Dragon]

"Only rarely are complete dinosaur skeletons found. Sometimes there are even extra pieces from different dinosaurs at the same site, adding to the confusion. It is very difficult to piece together fossilized bone fragments to reconstruct a whole skeleton. A thorough knowledge of animal anatomy is necessary in order to piece the fossils together and guess what the missing pieces are. "

I know that. I never said paleontology was easy work, nor did I say it was 100% accurate in every detail. Of course there are gaps in the fossil record; please remember that fossils are extremely scarce in the first place. We are lucky enough to have as many of them as we do. It would be absurd to expect every piece of every dinosaur to survive at least 65 million years and still be intact.

Did you even read my references?

Again, it's called artwork, not science.

Most of it isn't. Paleontologists mainly use comparative anatomy to decide which bones are contingent and where they belong; very little is guesswork and conjecture. Why? Because it is based on evidence, once again.

[Grumpy]

Carico

But they always look foolish

The scientists are not the ones being made to look foolish here.

Grumpy

[micatala]

I will remind Carico he has made a number of claims for which he has provided no evidence.

These include:

Those who believe the bible don't even think of alternate explanations for the events in the bible, much less look for them.

To prove this claim, Carico must show that no one who has ever believed in the Bible has even thought of looking for alternative explanations for Biblical events. It is a very sweeping claim, and so will be extremely difficult to prove.

It only takes one counter example to disprove this. Consider the discussion on Lyell on the previous page.

But because the goal of secular scientists is to deny the bible, they'll look at the evidence and make up stories that no one in history has passed along.

Carico is obliged to provide evidence that secular scientists goal is to deny the Bible.

Carico is obliged to provide evidence that they make up stories.

[otseng]

My understanding of the current theory regarding the water saturated layer in
the super-deep bore hole, is that the tremendous pressure involved created
the water by fusing hydrogen and oxygen. The water was unable to be forced to the
surface because of an impermeable layer above the saturated layer.

It's also worth noting the temperature/pressure they encountered was hot enough
to make the rock they were drilling plastic. When they removed the drill bit
for replacement, the hole would fill in.

Could you provide references for these?

[otseng]

Where did all the water come from? Is there enough in the atmostsphere to cover all the land there was then? Or did it start raining and then the land sank at the same time?

Practically all of the water came from underground. Please see the Global Flood thread for more.