I have a simple question.
Do you believe young earth is a valid interpretation of geological evidence?
Yes or No.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Please positive Evidence for a young earth
- Thread starter sayak83
- Start date
Do you believe young earth is a valid interpretation of geological evidence?
Yes or No.
So as not to have double standards, may I quote you?
My hat off to you and your accomplishments.
I have 32 years of pastoral studies and I am working on my doctorate.
I can quote also.
OK
I am sure I can assume your "I consider" as your personal viewpoint based on what facts you currently have available knowing that science continues to uncover new information that must then be applied to previous knowledge which must be adjusted accordingly.
Geologist J Harlen Bretz said that a drainage from Channeled Scablands cut the essential features of the channels 900 feet deep over 15,000 square miles.
How long did he say it took to happen? Am I correct that he estimated a day or two? Didn't he receive a Penrose Medal for his findings?
U.S. Geological Survey, The Channeled Scablands of Eastern Washington—The Geologic Story of the Great Spokane Flood(1976).
Again to emphasis what you said "there is absolutely no 'positive evidence' for a world nor regional flood on the proportions of a Biblical flood as described in the Bible.
Last edited:
I believe the earth is older that the "six day" position. I subscribe that the earth was created and then a cataclysmic event made it without form and void (Gen 1:2). Then the earth was recreated by God.
Again, I don't subscribe to the 24 hour 6/day creation (necessarily--leaving room for God to be God) because it was created in the LIGHT of God where time becomes irrelevant.
Time, as we know it (and with a Christian viewpoint) began when Adam sinned.
Of course.
This is the fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance,' and not a valid position in debate nor science.
Yes, this flood would not qualify for various reasons, and yes there is evidence of a number of glacial 'out wash' events such as this mostly because of the collapse of an ice dam in glaciers. I have been to various places on the 'scab lands' on a geology field trip, Actually there were likely repeated events here and not just one, They are 'out wash events' of short duration, and not comparable to a flood event described in the Bible. If you will reread my post I said a catastrophic flood event like what was described in the Bible, and not a sudden glacial catastrophic out wash event of short duration.
Last edited:
Since you do not believe in an young earth, there is nothing pertinent to discuss with regards to this thread.
I will not comment on your exegesis. I have no opinion on it either way.
I can deal with that too, as there is no evidence for such a global catastrophic event in the known earth history since the PreCambrian. There are of course local discontinuities and catastrophic events in the ancient geologic record, but not in recent history except for the end of the last ice age. and there are also location on earth where stratigraphy are continuous without interruption.
I believe the claim of a recent catastrophic recreation has similar problems as Young Earth Creationism.
Last edited:
Unless he is talking about the moon forming event...
When a book is that vague anything is possible.
The moon forming event wiped the slate clean many billions of years ago as far as the earth history is concerned, and represents the beginning of all we know of the surface of the earth.
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
Based on that i can prove to you that a kid named harry potter have magical powers, or that wolves eat little girls
Thats the same level of proof imo.
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
I Think theist are not acting on "immorality", I can imagine "letting go" theism as letting go of any other behavior. it is a hard process that requires you to slowly change your "habbit" to something else.
"Abraham" Fundamentalists, imo, are dangerous people.
So i value the fact that as the years go by, religion becomes more metaphorical than actual to many people.
It is probable that future generations will become more and more atheists.
Imagine how many years humans were "taught" to believe in a god.
It is so embedded in people, that one of their (funny) claim is that they treat this "embedment" as a divine thing that proves god exists.
Imagine how hard it is for someone to suddenly understand, that it is nothing but logical(for the time) attempts of ancient humans to explain thing that cannot explain.
It takes a big shift in your logic (when it comes to religion) to understand such a thing.
The problem here i think, is that the logic of theist works in a very different way (literally) than skeptics and likes.
Creation occurs in a tenth of a second. A tenth of a second is about how long it takes from the time a photon hits the retina until the brain interprets it and others, then respond as we walk a crowded sidewalk, drive a car, hit a ball. Creation is put together in that tenth of a second interval in a human conscious agent's brain. The Earth is put together each time we wake out of sleep into full consciousness with noticeable lapses that are so commonplace as to be accepted without a second (
) thought as to the significance of what waking means to the Creation Acts. That I have no inkling of how the brain manages to achieve this amazing process is all the more reason for me to hold it in awe and seek to promote the ongoing process against the forces aligned against it in PSED (Pain, Suffering, and Early Death.) A Tenth of a Second: A History by Jimena Canales, an excerpt
Logical fallacy.
"I consider" remains an opinion.
Argumentum ad logicam
An ice dam break is the same causes the same damage as a flood in the magnitude that we have talked about. Indeed the collapse of an ice dam creates a flood.
Thus, your position of no regional flood of biblical propositions has been proven false.
The ice jam breakages do not meet the criteria for a Biblical flood because they were of a very short intense duration as the references describe. There was not one event, but many events over time during the Ice Age, and over time each out wash event lasted only at most weeks when the lake emptied. Your debating this with a professional geologist and geomorphologist, and you loose, because you are motivated not by the evidence, but by a religious agenda.
If you want to argue for evidence of a Biblical flood as described in the Bible you need to come up with evidence of a long term regional or world flood that at least impacted the Middle East. There is no evidence of any such event.
1) It meets the criteria because it was a short duration and created massive destruction as the flood would have to have created massive destruction
2) It meets the criteria because you GAVE the criteria when you said there was nothing local that would create such destruction
3) It meets the criteria if we use that as a measuring stick for a larger flood event.
Argument of Authority. This is not permissible in a debate. It shows that you don't have much to stand on.
Red Herring or Ad Hominem... pick your choice.
Apparently, you have decided that the local point was disproved by scientific evidence I gave...
Are we now ready to move to point two?
Of course it is. The *invalid* form for an argument from authority is one where the 'authority' mentioned is either NOT an authority in the subject matter or is out of touch with current evidence.
The *valid* form of argument from authority is when the 'authority' involved actual *is* an authority and has personal knowledge of the topic being discussed.
In this case, the person *in the debate* is the authority and has the requisite knowledge and experience.
An short duration 'out wash event,' which is common in geologic history does meet the criteria for a Biblical type flood.
[/quote]
2) It meets the criteria because you GAVE the criteria when you said there was nothing local that would create such destruction.[/quote]
I made no such claim, and this response in bold is dishonest. Many types of geologic events cause destruction, but nothing like the Biblical flood. Please cite where I made this claim. My criteria is absolutely clear, there is no evidence of any flood comparable to the Biblical flood in the recent geologic record.
No, because this type of event is a common event in geologic history and in no way represents anything close to the description of the Biblical flood believed almost universally
False claim of fallacy as described correctly by Polymath257.
both meaningless when you fail to respond . . .
If you want to argue for evidence of a Biblical flood as described in the Bible you need to come up with evidence of a long term regional or world flood that at least impacted the Middle East. There is no evidence of any such event.
No, you failed to provide any 'positive evidence' of a Biblical type flood any time in recent geologic history. Still waiting for you to respond to the main issue. Where is the positive evidence for a Biblical flood?
My original post "The flood?!?!? I would love to. There is absolutely no 'positive evidence' for a world nor regional flood on the proportions of a Biblical flood as described in the Bible."
You are definitely misrepresenting my original post.
Still waiting . . .
Last edited:
[
If you are not honest enough to admit you are wrong and then quote fallacies to me when you use them yourself to the point that it looks more like a strawman effort.
Then you are a biased scientist spewing biased viewpoints.
2. Appeal to Authority
This sort of error is also known as “Argumentum Verecundia” (argument from modesty). Instead of concentrating on the benefits of an argument, the arguer will attempt to append their argument to an individual of power or authority in an effort to give trustworthiness to their argument.
Touting oneself as THE authority instead of on the benefits of an argument is NOT a valid form of argument.
If you are not honest enough to admit you are wrong and then quote fallacies to me when you use them yourself to the point that it looks more like a strawman effort.
Then you are a biased scientist spewing biased viewpoints.[/QUOTE]
No, you failed to provide any 'positive evidence' of a Biblical type flood any time in recent geologic history. Still waiting for you to respond to the main issue. Where is the positive evidence for a Biblical flood?
My original post "The flood?!?!? I would love to. There is absolutely no 'positive evidence' for a world nor regional flood on the proportions of a Biblical flood as described in the Bible."
You are definitely misrepresenting my original post.
The sort term 'out wash' events do not meet the criteria I specified in my original post.
Still waiting . . .
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
We have a pretty good historical record for the Earth existing thousands of years ago, the further back we go the more speculative/ less empirical things get