Flood Evidences — revised

[Audie]

And I'm sure there are some cases of really rude science teachers, just like I've had experiences with extreme religious indoctrination in public school. But the mistake they make is assuming that their experiences are indicative of how things are everywhere else too.

Rude, probably. I personally did not have rude teachers.

But if someone behaved as claimed, there would
be some serious repercussions.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

When I asked you why you thought the world's geologists, many of whom are Christian, have concluded that the Biblical flood didn't happen, you claimed "They have to, to be accepted by mainstream! They need to keep their jobs. Real easy to figure out.

But there are a few geologists who accept a global Flood as reality. In fact, some geologists are even YEC’s. (They are not in a mutually exclusive group, though.)

I’ve got other, more important things to do now.

 

[Jose Fly]

Rude, probably. I personally did not have rude teachers.

But if someone behaved as claimed, there would
be some serious repercussions.

Interestingly, I've actually seen a professor be rude over evolution v. creationism. In my undergraduate intro to evolutionary biology course, the professor began the first day by telling the class, "If there are any Bible thumpers in here who took this class to debate me over creationism, leave and I'll sign your drop slips later." Later he told the rest of us that he'd been teaching the class a long time and had grown tired of creationists derailing everything and causing him to waste time over the same ridiculous talking points every year. He also added that he was more than willing to discuss the subject with anyone who did show up in his office with a drop slip, but to date none of them wanted to talk to him one on one.

Later on I took more courses in evolutionary biology from different professors, and none of them did anything like that. If anyone raised questions or issues, they'd address them right then and there.

 

[Jose Fly]

But there are a few geologists who accept a global Flood as reality. In fact, some geologists are even YEC’s. (They are not in a mutually exclusive group, though.)

I’ve got other, more important things to do now.

You're still dodging....you're also contradicting yourself. Remember, you asserted that geologists who dared to believe in the Biblical flood would be fired from their jobs. You've done absolutely nothing to substantiate that accusation, and now you've contradicted it by saying there are geologists who believe in the Biblical flood.

One would think that if merely being challenged on an accusation you made causes you to behave like this, you'd be more cautious about throwing around accusations.

 

[Audie]

But there are a few geologists who accept a global Flood as reality. In fact, some geologists are even YEC’s. (They are not in a mutually exclusive group, though.)

I’ve got other, more important things to do now.

We are well aware of yec geologists.

My fav. example (bring in your own, too) is, yes,
Dr. K Wise...

, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

This is exactly the same position that all
creo geologists are in.

"Here the must stand", for lo, it is what the Bible
(get this) SEEMS (to them) to say.

His "stand" is not based on science/ Not on data.
Evidence be hanged. Not a one of them has any
actual evidence for a flood.

That is of course, the very definition of intellectual
dishonesty.

Terrif crew ya gots on your side.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Then too, there is the JW thing about avoiding all of
that academic larnin' stuff, on account of it might cure y'all
of your weird ideas.

Oh, grief!
I haven’t always been a Witness! My “academic larnin’ “ was before I began learning spiritual truths!

You know, I’m just wondering if your “hillbilly-like” jargon (i.e., “larnin’”) is an attempt at belittling me: calling me a rube?

 

[Audie]

Interestingly, I've actually seen a professor be rude over evolution v. creationism. In my undergraduate intro to evolutionary biology course, the professor began the first day by telling the class, "If there are any Bible thumpers in here who took this class to debate me over creationism, leave and I'll sign your drop slips later." Later he told the rest of us that he'd been teaching the class a long time and had grown tired of creationists derailing everything and causing him to waste time over the same ridiculous talking points every year. He also added that he was more than willing to discuss the subject with anyone who did show up in his office with a drop slip, but to date none of them wanted to talk to him one on one.

Later on I took more courses in evolutionary biology from different professors, and none of them did anything like that. If anyone raised questions or issues, they'd address them right then and there.

I dont blame him for not wanting his class
disrupted.

Warning people that he will not waste time
that way is only fair, to him, the potential time-waster
and the rest of the class.

I'd suppose that if bible classes were plagued with
the counterpart of those creos, profs would be similarly
inclined to say that is not what the class if for.

 

[Audie]

Oh, grief!
I haven’t always been a Witness! My “academic larnin’ “ was before I began learning spiritual truths!

You know, I’m just wondering if your “hillbilly-like” jargon (i.e., “larnin’”) is an attempt at belittling me: calling me a rube?

Just having some fun*, dont be touchy?
You can talk chinglish at me.

IF, though, you actually managed some academic
study of geology-which is far from apparent-
how do you get it so wrong every time you make
a comment?

You do, you know, actually kind of belittle yourself with
nonsense.

Where do you get your ideas?

*did you hear of the hillbilly kid who went to school?

His pappy said when he came home-

"Well, son, what did you learn in school?"

"Pa, I learned that Pi R Square."

"Well, you aint going back to that fool place
no more, everyone knows its pie are round,
and connbread are square!!!"

 

[Jose Fly]

I dont blame him for not wanting his class
disrupted.

Warning people that he will not waste time
that way is only fair, to him, the potential time-waster
and the rest of the class.

I'd suppose that if bible classes were plagued with
the counterpart of those creos, profs would be similarly
inclined to say that is not what the class if for.

That's how I saw it, especially after I got a taste of what he'd been dealing with. In my second year genetics class I gave a presentation on evaluating out of Africa v. multiregional hypotheses using mtDNA (it was the early 90's, so that sort of work was still new). After I was finished, I asked the class if they had any questions. About 7 or 8 hands went up and the first person I picked said, "Maybe you and the [n-word] came from monkeys, but us white Christians were created by God!" The prof jumped in and basically ended the class, but I certainly gained a better appreciation of what my intro to evolution prof was talking about.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hey, didnt you hear of "expelled"???

The claim that hock made is one that they get from
whatever creosites they frequent.

There is no way they got this from actual observation
within the hallowed halls of academe because:

A. They've never graced said halls with their presence
B. It does not happen.

Of course, they will bitterly cling to this falsehood, for lo,
to give it up is to risk everything.

It is almost a shame that there isnt some truth in it
because there would be such opportunity for people
in some less idiotic institution to get Nobel after Nobel,
just by publishing what the cowards wont.

They have to take this view. The minute they start recognizing facts and going where that takes them, they are disfellowshiped or worse.

 

[Audie]

They have to take this view. The minute they start recognizing facts and going where that takes them, they are disfellowshiped or worse.

Hence the pre emptive strike / smokescreen,
claiming it is actually the universities that
do so.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh, grief!
I haven’t always been a Witness! My “academic larnin’ “ was before I began learning spiritual truths!

You know, I’m just wondering if your “hillbilly-like” jargon (i.e., “larnin’”) is an attempt at belittling me: calling me a rube?

I am a hillbilly. Born and raised in the Ozark highlands.

What sort of book larnin' you got?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hence the pre emptive strike / smokescreen,
claiming it is actually the universities that
do so.

Their entire world view is contrived for them and they have to adhere to it or risk losing everything.

I think that is the main difference between a religion and a cult. If you are not free to leave without reprisal and cannot express questions or personal views without reprisal, it is very likely you are in a cult.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course, many members of more mainstream religions can share those exclusive feelings, but it is the overall sense of freedom that I am referring to. Often it is in opposition to the claim of free will and choice. How can you be exercising free will under coercion?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hence the pre emptive strike / smokescreen,
claiming it is actually the universities that
do so.

That global science conspiracy under the direction of Satan is an easy answer that requires no evidence.

 

[Audie]

That global science conspiracy under the direction of Satan is an easy answer that requires no evidence.

Creoism is for the lazy and dull witted as it
grants knowledge beyond any scientist on
Earth- sans the bothersome study.

It also of course works for the clever but dishonest.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Creoism is for the lazy and dull witted as it
grants knowledge beyond any scientist on
Earth- sans the bothersome study.

It also of course works for the clever but dishonest.

Agreed. It is lazy and requires little or no thought, while being very susceptible to manipulation for dishonest purposes.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

We are well aware of yec geologists.

My fav. example (bring in your own, too) is, yes,
Dr. K Wise...

, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

This is exactly the same position that all
creo geologists are in.

"Here the must stand", for lo, it is what the Bible
(get this) SEEMS (to them) to say.

His "stand" is not based on science/ Not on data.
Evidence be hanged. Not a one of them has any
actual evidence for a flood.

That is of course, the very definition of intellectual
dishonesty.

Terrif crew ya gots on your side.

My point was, there is evidence, in order for these degreed geologists to believe such things. Their interpretation of it just differs from mainstream.

Honestly, I’ve never studied YEC’s interpretation of the geologic evidences.
It does seem faulty.

But not so, the Flood!
Also to @Jose Fly ....
What high-elevation mountain ranges look like they’ve experienced millions of years of erosion to you both?
As an example...
The granite Huangshan range has been abraded for eons — but it is no where similar to the Himalayas (dolomitic limestone) or Canadian Rockies, both of which exhibit sharp, well-defined (I.e. , new-looking) features.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My point was, there is evidence, in order for these degreed geologists to believe such things. Their interpretation of it just differs from mainstream.

Honestly, I’ve never studied YEC’s interpretation of the geologic evidences.
It does seem faulty.

But not so, the Flood!
Also to @Jose Fly ....
What high-elevation mountain ranges look like they’ve experienced millions of years of erosion to you both?
As an example...
The granite Huangshan range has been abraded for eons — but it is no where similar to the Himalayas (dolomitic limestone) or Canadian Rockies, both of which exhibit sharp, well-defined (I.e. , new-looking) features.

Not necessarily. Some will claim the flood despite the evidence. For others, no amount of evidence will convince them. Still others, try to force evidence to their direction and ideology.

All the YEC evidence is scanty, ambiguous and the interpretations are faulty. To claim that vertical rock walls, like those of the Grand Canyon can form from saturated sediment is seriously faulty. How would soggy sediment achieve and maintain a vertical face? It would collapse under its own weight.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My point was, there is evidence, in order for these degreed geologists to believe such things. Their interpretation of it just differs from mainstream.

Honestly, I’ve never studied YEC’s interpretation of the geologic evidences.
It does seem faulty.

But not so, the Flood!
Also to @Jose Fly ....
What high-elevation mountain ranges look like they’ve experienced millions of years of erosion to you both?
As an example...
The granite Huangshan range has been abraded for eons — but it is no where similar to the Himalayas (dolomitic limestone) or Canadian Rockies, both of which exhibit sharp, well-defined (I.e. , new-looking) features.

If all the animals going into Noah's ark were vegetarian, including big predators like lions, tigers and bears and all the fossils are supposed to be the result of everything that died in the flood, how do you explain fossil evidence of predation?