Occam's Aftershave

AFDave, I notice you stopped talking about the 1 mi. of Flood sediment in Egypt. Why is that?

Let me guess your answer - "it's possible future geologists will find it, and won't the geologist of today look silly!"

You also cowardly avoided forgot to tell us which of those 174 major earth asteroid/comet impacts were early Flood, and which were late Flood.

Still too lazy to do a 15 second Google search for "limestone formation" I see.

Just another day at the office, right Davie-doo?

Faid

Non sequitur, my dear dave.

Imagine if scientists said: "Yup ... We were wrong about heavier-than air flight for man being impossible ... Maybe that weird guy who says you can fly if you flap your arms REALLY hard was onto something ... Maybe we should give his ideas a chance....*thud*"

Nice "logic", innit?

Calilasseia

[1] Got a citation for any scientist who said that cells were simple? I'll bet that was the prevailing view in the 19th century, at a time when cellular biology was in its infancy. That's the whole point though Dave - scientists have acquired a vast amount of extra knowledge since then. Indeed that's the whole point of science - updating hypotheses in the light of new experimental data. An approach that has yielded incalculable benefits, and the very antithesis of the approach you would have the world adopt, namely rigid adherence to the precepts of a 3,000 year old text as the last word on all scientific questions.

[2] People here and elsewhere have exhibited transitional forms that are accepted as such by legions of genuine scientists. Just because you don't accept them as such (or accept their ages) because doing so doesn';t conform to your religious preconceptions does NOT in any way invalidate this. In fact, Dave, biologists have been aware for decades that since the very concept of 'species' is a dynamic one, all organisms that are alive today and that have ever lived are 'transitional'. How else could it be given that dissemination of variation across generations via DNA is an established fact?

[3] I wasn't around when this was being dealt with at AtBC, but I gather that several other people here were, and can provide us with what MacNeill actually said in this regard. Might be intereting to see his full words to see if they match your interpretation (it would hardly be setting a major precedent if they did not) ...

[4] Actually, what geologists accept nowadays is a mixture of slow, gradual processes puncutated by intermittent larger scale events. They haven't "largely discarded Lyellinaism", they've refined their approach, which is somewhat different. I think you'll find that the typical accredited geologist accepts that quite a few important processes take a long time. Sedimentary deposition in lakes not subject to high-speed water flows being one of them.

ericmurphy

And how did Bretz overcome this "bashing"? By doing actual research, publishing papers, amassing evidence. And how do creationists deal with it? By whining that they're the victims of "discrimination."

Find some evidence that any biologist ever thought cells were simple.

Every fossil is transitional. This is the stupidest claim creationists make.

This is the stupidest claim you make. This claim has beaten bloody for months.
Bullshit. The same mechanisms that have shaped the earth throughout its history are still at work today. You've shown zero evidence that any mechanisms at work in the past no longer happen today.

You could go on and on being wrong, as you always do.

ericmurphy

Our purpose in discussing the geology of Egypt, in case you've forgotten, is to get you to point out what should be far and away its most obvious feature: a layer of flood-deposited sediment a mile or more thick. But unsurprisingly, you cannot find it. That's because it's not there.

None of these "catastrophes" were a year-long flood that inundated the world in a mile of water. If there had been such a "catastrophe," it should have been plain the geological column. It's not; it's completely absent.

We've looked at Brown's "hypothesis." It's about the stupidest thing I've ever seen. It's ruled out by observation on so many levels (continents zooming around at hundreds of miles an hour? GMAFB), I can't believe Brown can talk about it without embarrassment.

Occam's Aftershave

Er...because it's true. Is that a trick question?

And data that shows localized catastrophic events separated by thousands of miles and millions in years in time supports a 4500 year old global catastrophe by.....?

You mean besides the 150 years of chances the YEC Flood catastrophe idea has already had? The ones if failed miserably on?

Sure Dave, we'll give it a chance. All it has to do is provide its own positive supporting evidence, and explain the existing evidence better than the old theory. Like those pesky independent but cross-correlating C14 cal curves, remember?

Lies, evasions, cherry-picking data, and pulled-from-ass assertions just don't cut in the scientific community Davie. Never has, never will. You YECs need a new game plan.

deadman_932

Bretz managed to publish 12 articles during the time his theory was in question. It was in question due to his lack of a mechanism by which such flooding could occur. This could have been avoided on his part, back in 1925.

12 papers published puts the lie to the claim that science doesn't entertain novel theories.

The lack of such peer-reviewed papers by all creationists since that time speaks volumes about the lack of data supporting any global flood.

You could go back over the year and a half that you have been talking about a global flood and put it all onto one sheet of paper, Dave.

This sheet of paper would be laughed at because it contains nothing by way of specific evidence for a global flood at 2500-2800 or whatever BC, Dave.

End of story.

ericmurphy

Because we know he's not onto something. Just because geologists have been wrong about things in the past (plate tectonics wasn't fully accepted by the geological community until the 1960s, and do you honestly think continental drift is anything but "slow and gradual"?) does not mean Morris is "onto" something. Now, he may be "on" something, but he sure as hell does not have a workable model of geophysical processes. His "model" is laughable.

Stephen T-B

Another question for afdave which I think he'll find too difficult to answer: how long did the Flood last? (I mean 'til the grasslands appeared on which the grazers could feed)

Calilasseia

Because it's true?

Slight problem Dave. What decides which theories will survive and which will not is that little thing you have such trouble mastering the basic concept of ... evidence. Your creationist chums have never supplied any, so your futile attempt to suggest that there is some symmetry between Bretz (see other posters on the 12 papers he published in the struggle to establish his views) and Henry Morris (wrote lots of books aimed at fundie rubes but never had any peer reviewed material published that even remotely supported a creationist agenda) is precisely that - futile.