mung bean

Gressil, if you're in the mood for a comedy novel check the Great Flood Debate and associated comments thread over at Dawkins. Dave got flogged and still didn't have enough sense to give up.

mitschlag

[the pedantic logician]

1. The genesis flood was a catastrophe
2. Other floods are catastrophes
3. Therefore other floods prove the truth of the genesis flood

Boys and girls, what we have here is a fallacy of equivocation so naively constructed as to be obvious to a five-year-old.

[/the pedantic logician]

ck1

Dave said:
On what basis do you say this? The fact that science does not agree with your biblical literalism? What are the "chains" you speak of? - (doesn't sound like fun)

Dave also said:
Oh no, not again! I thought we went through this thoroughly, and you had come to some understanding about rare beneficial mutations.

Are polls taken after debates on IIDB?

Dave Hawkins

Normal rivers and sea tides? No, no. Here's how it worked. The Flood dumped all the deposits that formed Holland and everyplace else. Then the waters began to recede from the continents. This receding water -- or water which flowed from broken ice dams -- formed the Palouse Canyon, the Grand Canyon, the English Channel and many other erosional features in the still-soft sedimentary layers laid down by the recent Flood. The Ice Age lasted for several hundred years after the Flood, causing a lower sea level than we have today. This created many land bridges, such as at the Bering Strait, which is how the Native Americans walked over from Asia to N. and S. America.

Dave Hawkins

No Mitschlag ... you missed it. Here's the logic again ... just for you.

* Conventional geologists were horrendously wrong for over a hundred years about how the English Channel was formed
* Therefore, conventional geologists might be wrong about sedimentary layers and the Flood of Noah as well
* Open minded geologists would admit this and investigate the possibility of a Global Flood

Are you open minded?

ck1

Dave said:
And Dave, this statement makes no sense, because the Modern Synthesis is the combination of Darwin's theory and genetics. As defined by Wikipedia, the term "Modern Synthesis":

Dave Hawkins

I have not come to any new recent understanding. Some time ago, I came to understand -- thanks to the information about the Ames test -- that reversions happen in about 25% of the bacteria in a given study. This is fine and dandy. But what about the other 75%? They are mistakes ... and the very slightly deleterious ones (VSDMs) do not get eliminated by natural selection. And the debate we had about Sanford and Crow and Kondrashov should have made clear to you that these "mistakes" accumulate ... disastrously! So much so that Kondrashov asked "Why have we not died 100X over?" in the title of his paper. In our discussion, I failed to see any solid evidence presented by anyone here that Kondrashov's proposed solution to what he considers to be a serious problem--synergistic epistasis--is actually capable of eliminating the gradual accumulation of VSDMs. I know you think you posted an article which gave evidence of this, but I think you need to reread that paper. It does not do what you think it does.

deadman_932

I'd like some evidence that the deposits in question date to 4500 years ago. The Nature article on the English Channel doesn't support your dates at all, and neither do any sea core dates.

And by the way, Dave...where did the flood water in your scenario flow off TO? Don't say the basins of the oceans, because they would already be full.

The Nature article in question says quite clearly that "catastrophic flooding was caused by a large pro-glacial lake in the southern North Sea" and gives the following supporting reference:
Gibbard, P.L. (1995) in "Island Britain: A Quaternary Perspective" (ed. Preece, R.C). Geological Society Special Publication. pp. 15-26

As for drainage causing the Grand Canyon...why don't the dates match for it and the Palouse and English Channel? Why are there Oxbows and other erosional features in the Grand Canyon that are nothing like the Scablands braided channels?

If you say the Ice Age lasted many hundred years AFTER the flood, why don't we see any writing on this and why do you have NO confirmed dates showing the Bering land bridge at all in the required Time frame? All the palynological, fossil, geological, ice cores, sea floor cores, varve, radiometric and archaeological data are against you. What do you have to offer to support your claim of an ice age at 2800-2300 BCE?

I'll tell you what evidence you have...NOTHING. Just wild fantasies and empty claims, per usual. Now run off and make sure you avoid answering direct questions!

Dave Hawkins

Yes, I realize what the modern synthesis is ... and it is dead according to MacNeill and many others. If you read my link to MacNeill's statement, you can even read his own definition. I'm quite aware of the definition.

deadman_932

What POSITIVE geological evidence have you ever provided?
You can't even name a BASE STRATA for this alleged flood. NOT ONE. Please show me the BASE strata for your flood under the English Channel, or the Grand Canyon...

We already discussed why the Grand Canyon doesn't fit your model in the least, so you had to resort to simply running off and not addressing any of the major issues put directly to you.
Examples:

Dated layers that you cannot and HAVE NOT EVER SHOWN TO BE INCORRECTLY DATED USING RADIOMETRICS.

Spider tracks in the Coconino

Multiple dates on a meteor strike/crater (The Barringer) that penetrates layers of the Grand Canyon, but is older than 40 kya.

Why not address the issues of faunal assemblages and how they don't match your scenario?

Why not present some actual evidence that supports your claims at all?