The biggest evidence of the Flood? The world ocean.

[Idolater]

Look at all that water!

 

[Stripe]

 

[Stripe]

Joel 2:30-32 “And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth: Blood and fire and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord. And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, As the Lord has said, Among the remnant whom the Lord calls."

 

[Right Divider]

Is this a Specific Ocean?

 

[Stripe]

Is this a Specific Ocean?

I think we should leave the jokes to me.

 

[Right Divider]

From the article:

Relative Age Dating​

Relative dating in geology depends on two assumptions and one observation:

I just wanted to revisit this referenced article for a moment: https://earthathome.org/quick-faqs/how-do-scientists-date-rocks-and-fossils/

Observation: Succession of Fossils​

When we examine sedimentary rocks, we often find that they contain fossils. Fossils are the remains or traces of organisms from the geological past that are preserved in rocks. When we look at fossils in stacks of sedimentary rocks from many places, we notice that different kinds of fossils occur in different layers and that the order of the various kinds of fossils from bottom to top is always the same. For example, sediments that contain woolly mammoth fossils are always found on top of rocks that contain dinosaur fossils, which in turn are always found on top of rocks that contain trilobite fossils (which are some of the oldest animal fossils known). This is called biological succession.​

So it turns out that their "one observation" is actually just another ASSUMPTION.

 

[Derf]

I just wanted to revisit this referenced article for a moment: https://earthathome.org/quick-faqs/how-do-scientists-date-rocks-and-fossils/

Observation: Succession of Fossils​

When we examine sedimentary rocks, we often find that they contain fossils. Fossils are the remains or traces of organisms from the geological past that are preserved in rocks. When we look at fossils in stacks of sedimentary rocks from many places, we notice that different kinds of fossils occur in different layers and that the order of the various kinds of fossils from bottom to top is always the same. For example, sediments that contain woolly mammoth fossils are always found on top of rocks that contain dinosaur fossils, which in turn are always found on top of rocks that contain trilobite fossils (which are some of the oldest animal fossils known). This is called biological succession.​

So it turns out that their "one observation" is actually just another ASSUMPTION.

I'm not sure that's exactly true. The "observation" is that "different kinds of fossils occur in different layers and that the order of the various kinds of fossils from bottom to top is always the same." Unfortunately, they don't always (never) have all the various kinds of fossils from bottom to top, so how can they say it is "always" the same. That's a generalization rather than an assumption. And then they take the generalization and apply it as if it means something to places where they don't have all (or very many) of the layers. That's the assumption, but it is based on an observation and a generalization.

 

[Right Divider]

I'm not sure that's exactly true. The "observation" is that "different kinds of fossils occur in different layers and that the order of the various kinds of fossils from bottom to top is always the same."

It's claiming a SUCCESSION of fossils. That is an opinion based on their theory that every form of life on earth has a single common ancestor. That's not science, that is fantasy.

Unfortunately, they don't always (never) have all the various kinds of fossils from bottom to top, so how can they say it is "always" the same.

Exactly...

That's a generalization rather than an assumption.

It is most definitely an assumption that lower layers are old and contain older life forms.

And then they take the generalization and apply it as if it means something to places where they don't have all (or very many) of the layers.

It's all fantasy ... bottom to top.

That's the assumption, but it is based on an observation and a generalization.

It's all fantasy.

 

[Derf]

It's claiming a SUCCESSION of fossils.

It's claiming that they "observe" a succession of fossils. Such a claim might be false, but if they actually are observing it, then we will need to deal with it. Succession, of course, doesn't mean that they lived so many years apart, but only that they died in that succession, which a number of creationists have attempted to explain, usually by zones of catastrophic flooding effects. The first zone would be undersea creatures (like trilobites, I suppose), then land creatures in swamp areas or coastal areas, then higher altitude creatures. That is still a succession of fossils (or fossil types), but the reason for the succession...the narrative used to explain it...is different.

That is an opinion based on their theory that every form of life on earth as a single common ancestor. That's not science, that is fantasy.

If they see a succession, then it's not a fantasy. Their explanation might be, but that shouldn't cast doubt on their actual observations.

Exactly...

It is most definitely an assumption that lower layers are old and contain older life forms.

The lower layers in the flood model would be assumed to be "older" as well. In other words, the lower layers were laid down first--the creatures that left fossils in the lower layers died, or were buried, before the ones in the upper layers.

It's all fantasy ... bottom to top.

It's all fantasy.

No, it's order--something that we as Christians appreciate. "Bottom to top" is a progression, an order. And if they always see that order, then it isn't fantasy, it's data.

Now, I don't trust them to always relay the data without interspersing their bias, but in general it seems that their progression is true, though their reason for it is false.

 

[Right Divider]

It's claiming that they "observe" a succession of fossils.

Anyone can make a claim.

Such a claim might be false, but if they actually are observing it, then we will need to deal with it.

They are not "observing it". They are claiming that they are observing it. That claim is false.

Succession, of course, doesn't mean that they lived so many years apart, but only that they died in that succession, which a number of creationists have attempted to explain, usually by zones of catastrophic flooding effects.

The "succession" is an assumption based on a bogus theory.
There is no "succession" in the "fossil record" as it was all laid down at roughly the same time (i.e., within a year).

The first zone would be undersea creatures (like trilobites, I suppose), then land creatures in swamp areas or coastal areas, then higher altitude creatures. That is still a succession of fossils (or fossil types), but the reason for the succession...the narrative used to explain it...is different.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the evolutionists claims about the "fossil record". It is claimed that the creatures found at the top are descendants of those found at the bottom and that millions/billions of years intervened.

That is all fantasy from beginning to end.

If they see a succession, then it's not a fantasy.

Again, you don't seem to understand that they mean by "succession".

Their explanation might be, but that shouldn't cast doubt on their actual observations.

They are NOT observations (i.e., the SUCCESSION of creatures from simple to complex over billions of years).

The lower layers in the flood model would be assumed to be "older" as well.

Again, do you not understand that they are claiming BILLIONS of years difference from bottom to top? And that single celled creatures turned into men?

That is NOT what is "observed".

In other words, the lower layers were laid down first--the creatures that left fossils in the lower layers died, or were buried, before the ones in the upper layers.

Over a SHORT period of time. It is NOT a history of single celled creatures turning in men.
That is what they mean by this "succession".

No, it's order--something that we as Christians appreciate. "Bottom to top" is a progression, an order.

Again, you are ignorant of what they mean by "succession".

And if they always see that order, then it isn't fantasy, it's data.

Now, I don't trust them to always relay the data without interspersing their bias, but in general it seems that their progression is true, though their reason for it is false.

 

[Derf]

Anyone can make a claim.

They are not "observing it". They are claiming that they are observing it. That claim is false.

The "succession" is an assumption based on a bogus theory.
There is no "succession" in the "fossil record" as it was all laid down at roughly the same time (i.e., within a year).

Perhaps you are not familiar with the evolutionists claims about the "fossil record". It is claimed that the creatures found at the top are descendants of those found at the bottom and that millions/billions of years intervened.

That is all fantasy from beginning to end.

Again, you don't seem to understand that they mean by "succession".

They are NOT observations (i.e., the SUCCESSION of creatures from simple to complex over billions of years).

Again, do you not understand that they are claiming BILLIONS of years difference from bottom to top? And that single celled creatures turned into men?

That is NOT what is "observed".

Over a SHORT period of time. It is NOT a history of single celled creatures turning in men.
That is what they mean by this "succession".

Again, you are ignorant of what they mean by "succession".

From ICR's Dr. Tim Cleary:
The geologic column has been under the scrutiny of numerous creationists for many decades. Critics have claimed the column is intimately tied to the evolutionary worldview and deep time, and cannot be trusted or used by creation scientists. Other creation scientists have argued that the geologic column, although incomplete at most locations, can provide useful correlations of rocks and fossils across the globe. This paper examines the sedimentary rocks across three continents in an attempt to test the validity of the global geologic column. We attempted to assess the data primarily from a lithologic viewpoint, and as independent of the fossil data as possible. To accomplish this, we constructed a new data set of over 1500 local, stratigraphic columns across three continents, recording the detailed lithologic information and Sloss-type megasequence boundaries at each site. A detailed 3-D lithology model was created for each continent using the local columns. We also constructed maps of the basal lithology for each megasequence. Unique lithologic units, like salt and chert-rich layers were also tracked from column to column. Results show extensive lithologic units (i.e. blanket sandstones) covered portions of every continent and are correlative across vast regions and even continent to continent. The correlation of these stacked basal megasequence units, and other unique lithologies (i.e. salt and chert layers) within the megasequences, confirm the validity of the geologic column on a global scale. The observable pattern in the fossil record further confirms these findings. Indeed, a global Flood could produce globally extensive, stacked lithologic units on an intercontinental scale. Creationists should not be critical of the geologic column, but embrace it as evidence of a global Flood event.

The bold, italic, and underline above are added.

 

[Right Divider]

From ICR's Dr. Tim Cleary:
The geologic column has been under the scrutiny of numerous creationists for many decades. Critics have claimed the column is intimately tied to the evolutionary worldview and deep time, and cannot be trusted or used by creation scientists. Other creation scientists have argued that the geologic column, although incomplete at most locations, can provide useful correlations of rocks and fossils across the globe. This paper examines the sedimentary rocks across three continents in an attempt to test the validity of the global geologic column. We attempted to assess the data primarily from a lithologic viewpoint, and as independent of the fossil data as possible. To accomplish this, we constructed a new data set of over 1500 local, stratigraphic columns across three continents, recording the detailed lithologic information and Sloss-type megasequence boundaries at each site. A detailed 3-D lithology model was created for each continent using the local columns. We also constructed maps of the basal lithology for each megasequence. Unique lithologic units, like salt and chert-rich layers were also tracked from column to column. Results show extensive lithologic units (i.e. blanket sandstones) covered portions of every continent and are correlative across vast regions and even continent to continent. The correlation of these stacked basal megasequence units, and other unique lithologies (i.e. salt and chert layers) within the megasequences, confirm the validity of the geologic column on a global scale. The observable pattern in the fossil record further confirms these findings. Indeed, a global Flood could produce globally extensive, stacked lithologic units on an intercontinental scale. Creationists should not be critical of the geologic column, but embrace it as evidence of a global Flood event.

The bold, italic, and underline above are added.

• The "geologic column" is defined as billions of years old.
• The "observation" that was referred to in the article (about dating) was supposedly "biological succession"... from simple to complex over billions of years.

This article that you quote sounds a lot like the "compromise" that people like Hugh Ross use to conform the Bible to billions of years. I'm not buying it.

 

[Derf]

• The "geologic column" is defined as billions of years old.
• The "observation" that was referred to in the article (about dating) was supposedly "biological succession"... from simple to complex over billions of years.

This article that you quote sounds a lot like the "compromise" that people like Hugh Ross use to conform the Bible to billions of years. I'm not buying it.

Here's what you wrote before, including the part of the article you wanted to highlight.

I just wanted to revisit this referenced article for a moment: https://earthathome.org/quick-faqs/how-do-scientists-date-rocks-and-fossils/

Observation: Succession of Fossils​

When we examine sedimentary rocks, we often find that they contain fossils. Fossils are the remains or traces of organisms from the geological past that are preserved in rocks. When we look at fossils in stacks of sedimentary rocks from many places, we notice that different kinds of fossils occur in different layers and that the order of the various kinds of fossils from bottom to top is always the same. For example, sediments that contain woolly mammoth fossils are always found on top of rocks that contain dinosaur fossils, which in turn are always found on top of rocks that contain trilobite fossils (which are some of the oldest animal fossils known). This is called biological succession.​

So it turns out that their "one observation" is actually just another ASSUMPTION.

It doesn't say anything about billions of years old. They defined what they meant by "biological succession", which was referring to a consistent ordering of fossils in the rocks from bottom to top. Dr. Cleary (and others, by the way. His was just from a quick web search) agree that the succession appears legitimate. Sure, they make some assumptions to go along with their observation, some of which they admit to, but the observation appears to be correct that some animals always seem to appear in the lower layers while other animals appear only in upper ones, relative to the lower ones.

This seems to be established well enough that creationists are trying to explain it as a mechanism of the flood. Why would they do that? Perhaps they haven't read your posts yet.

 

[Right Divider]

Here's what you wrote before, including the part of the article you wanted to highlight.

I did not highlight anything in their article. The "biological succession" was highlighted by them.

It doesn't say anything about billions of years old.

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the background of the claims that they were making.

They defined what they meant by "biological succession", which was referring to a consistent ordering of fossils in the rocks from bottom to top.

Which is in the context of billions of years.

Dr. Cleary (and others, by the way. His was just from a quick web search) agree that the succession appears legitimate.

The "biological succession" that they were referring to is the goo to you evolutionary theory.

Sure, they make some assumptions to go along with their observation, some of which they admit to, but the observation appears to be correct that some animals always seem to appear in the lower layers while other animals appear only in upper ones, relative to the lower ones.

And those observations of various layers are NOT "biological succession" from a single celled creature to a man. That is the claim that they were making in the larger context (which is not included in my quote).

This seems to be established well enough that creationists are trying to explain it as a mechanism of the flood. Why would they do that? Perhaps they haven't read your posts yet.

Thanks for reaffirming my need to put you on ignore again.

 

[Derf]

I did not highlight anything in their article. The "biological succession" was highlighted by them.

You quoted a portion of their article. That's a way of highlighting a particular part. You talked about their "2 assumptions and 1 observation", and then narrowed your focus to the 1 observation. That's a way of highlighting a particular part. You claimed that their "observation" was really just a third assumption, which means you were focusing on their claim of having 1 observation. That's a way of highlighting a particular part. You highlighted a particular part of their article in 3 different ways. You definitely did highlight something in their article.

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the background of the claims that they were making.

No, I don't think I am.

Which is in the context of billions of years.

Yes.

The "biological succession" that they were referring to is the goo to you evolutionary theory.

That is the unwarranted assumption that resulted from their bias and their observation. That wasn't their observation, which was fairly clear from the article.

And those observations of various layers are NOT "biological succession" from a single celled creature to a man. That is the claim that they were making in the larger context

Which claim was derived from 2 assumptions and an observation...not from the one observation alone. Did you actually read the article?

(which is not included in my quote).

Oh, so now you're admitting to highlighting a particular part of their article? How gracious of you.

Thanks for reaffirming my need to put you on ignore again.

Right, so you won't learn anything. Nice.

 

[Right Divider]

Had Derf actually followed the link to the article that I quoted from, he could have seen this chart:

So, yes, they were talking about billions of years.

 

[Right Divider]

You quoted a portion of their article.

Yes, you idiot... I had already talked about the two ASSUMPTIONS previously. This time I was FOCUSING on the supposed observation that is NOT really an observation.

That's a way of highlighting a particular part.

No, it's not. I was readdressing that part as I mentioned.

You talked about their "2 assumptions and 1 observation", and then narrowed your focus to the 1 observation.

Indeed, I did.

That's a way of highlighting a particular part.

You don't know what the word "highlighting" means with regards to Internet text.

You claimed that their "observation" was really just a third assumption, which means you were focusing on their claim of having 1 observation. That's a way of highlighting a particular part. You highlighted a particular part of their article in 3 different ways. You definitely did highlight something in their article.

No, I FOCUSED on one particular aspect that I had previously not FOCUSED upon.

 

[Derf]

Yes, you idiot... I had already talked about the two ASSUMPTIONS previously. This time I was FOCUSING on the supposed observation that is NOT really an observation.

No, it's not. I was readdressing that part as I mentioned.

Indeed, I did.

You don't know what the word "highlighting" means with regards to Internet text.

Maybe you should consider what I meant, since I was the one who used the term. Isn't that part of communicating?

Highlight:
pick out and emphasize.
"the issues highlighted by the report"
synonyms: call attention to, focus attention on, focus on, spotlight, foreground, underline, underscore, feature, point up, play up, show up, bring out, accentuate, accent, give prominence to, bring to the fore, zero in on, bring home to one, weight, stress, emphasize, place emphasis on, give emphasis to

No, I FOCUSED on one particular aspect that I had previously not FOCUSED upon.

Yeah, that's what I said...Are you really that hung up on a word you don't seem to know the meaning of?

 

[Right Divider]

Did Mr. Brown (no deliberate disrespect intended just that "Dr. Brown" doesn't really mean anything like how in contrast "Dr. Phil" and "Dr. Oz" are true unique identifiers) actually model "nuclear winter"? Is "nuclear winter" mechanically possible? Enough to cause "extinction events"?

Dr. Phil is also not a medical doctor:

From https://www.drphil.com/about-dr-phil/
Dr. McGraw earned a doctoral degree in clinical psychology from the University of North Texas, followed by a post-doctoral fellowship in forensic psychology from the Wilmington Institute. Dr. McGraw was a licensed psychologist in the state of Texas where he practiced clinical psychology until moving to California to launch Dr. Phil.​

 

[Idolater]

Dr. Phil is also not a medical doctor:

From https://www.drphil.com/about-dr-phil/​

Dr. McGraw earned a doctoral degree in clinical psychology from the University of North Texas, followed by a post-doctoral fellowship in forensic psychology from the Wilmington Institute. Dr. McGraw was a licensed psychologist in the state of Texas where he practiced clinical psychology until moving to California to launch Dr. Phil.​

Yes, doctor means teacher, and so Dr. Brown is in fact a doctor of mechanical engineering, so we are justified in listening to him and learning from him when he teaches about mechanical engineering.

Just as we are justified in learning from Dr. Phil when he teaches about psychology, and Dr. Oz when he teaches about medicine.

But there's such a thing as a "second opinion" because not even all doctors all agree with each other.

Buyer beware.