Dave Hawkins

Smyth and his "ilk" were not mistaken ... as I have shown rigorously. You need to understand something. Smyth was not just some guy who played on the internet like these naysayers you've been linking to. He was one of the most eminent astronomers of his day ... he was highly respected by the likes of Herschel and Petrie. Petrie actually accepted his theory until he got tripped up with the hollowed-in face thing. I think the only thing he wound up disagreeing with Smyth on was the perimeter standing for the length of the solar year and that only because he failed to account for the hollowed in faces, as Davidson later showed. Were you asleep during that whole lecture? Look, if you don't want to believe Smyth's theory that's fine, but if you are going to try to debunk him, please at least try to understand your own arguments, then explain them to the rest of us.

mung bean

Nice try on the trolling there, but we've seen you're attempts at winding people up enough to bite far too often.

@mods: Yes, I am attacking his arguments. This is one of the ways he argues.

Sauron

Sounds like *your* problem then, doesn't it? Did you really think you could engage in this discussion, without having to do a little self-education?

Translation: "explain all the big words to me, because I'm too lazy to educate myself to understand the argument."

Sven

I doubt that there's anyone beside Dave in this thread who failed to understand Jim Loy's (and by extension, Pappy Jack's) argument.

If there's indeed someone here who needs it explained once more, please speak up!

The Evil One

As far as I recall, the very first debunking linked to was that of Gardner, which - if you'd read it which clearly you didn't - you would have noted was published in the 1950s.

FYI, the 1950s were forty years before the 1990s, which is when the World Wide Web was invented. For convenience you can think of "forty years" as being about ten times the lifespan of a squirrel.

Calilasseia

So when are you going to put up or shut up on this Dave?

Ever going to visit this thread I have waiting for you? The one that specifically asks you to point to this 'massive global flood deposit' you keep claiming exists but somehow can never point to?

Any chance you will answer the question?

ericmurphy

Dave, are you ever going to take a position on which sediment layers, specifically, were deposited by your "flood"? Because there are no sedimentary layers in the Grand Canyon that are global. Not one.

Which layers—specifically—were deposited by your "flood"? If you think all sediment was laid by the flood, I've got some hard questions for you.

The first one would involve hominid fossils.

Sauron

Funny how you can never seem to provide us with that "abundance of evidence" that you say exists.

Also funny how you dodge questions about the flood layers, even though an "abudance of evidence" exists (your words).

You're kidding, right? Reading creationist materials is precisely what convinced me that a worldwide flood did NOT happen.

Johnny Skeptic

What are edifying discussions?

Not evidence of a flood, merely evidence of mountains rising from sea level and taking some marine fossils along for the ride. Modern geologists would be surprised if marine fossils were not on the tops of mountains. Mountains originally came from sea level, right? There are marine fossils at sea level, right? It is to be expected that as mountains rose from sea level, some marine fossils would rise with them, right?

Consider the following:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/flood.htm

Does the flood story make the whole Bible less credible? Davis Young is a working geologist who also is an Evangelical Christian. He has personal doubts about some aspects of evolution,
but he makes a devastating case against "Flood Geology." He writes:

(Christianity and the Age of the Earth (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 163):

"The maintenance of modern creationism and Flood geology not only is useless apologetically with unbelieving scientists, it is harmful. Although many who have no scientific training have been swayed by creationist arguments, the unbelieving scientist will reason that a Christianity that believes in such nonsense must be a religion not worthy of his interest...Modern creationism in this sense is apologetically and evangelistically ineffective. It could even be a hindrance to the gospel.

"Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the
lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be
false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense
of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done...."

Johnny Skeptic: Davis Young is certainly not the only Evangelical Christian geologist who has those opinions.

A Christian web site at http://www.kjvbible.org/sediment.html further refutes your absurd claim that there was a global flood.

Are you an inerrantist?

Dave Hawkins

Maybe you guys should go get Dean Anderson to come back and try to present your "Smyth-was-chasing-ghosts" arguments. You guys have yet to explain your argument convincingly.

As for Flood deposits in Egypt, here you go ...

http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/geo/geology.html

Limestone and sandstone.

Flood deposits.

Is that what you were looking for?