Why the Fossil Record Can't Be Due To Noah's Flood

[TB2]

btw, there is no necessary connection between YEC and the cataclysm. Myself am a RCW believer: recent creation week, on a older object. I'm not sure how old, and would not put that in the category of other objects around space because of the implication that it might have been for the confinement of rebellious entities.

What is RCW?

 

[CrowCross]

You have NOT solved the problem, so you have NOT debunked the argument.

You're right, I didn't debunk the argument...others prior to me debunked your argument many years ago. One day you'll catch up.

 

[EarlyActs]

What are you talking about??? What don't you understand??? Genesis 2.14 identifies the Pre-Flood Tigris River in relation to the Post-Flood ancient capital city of Assyria, Ashur whose ruins are still visible today. If YEC flood geology is true, then the Pre-Flood Tigris River should be buried underneath 5-6 miles of fossil record instead of being on the surface of the earth *on top* of the fossil record. I don't know why you're having difficulty understanding. Everyone else understands the point of the argument, even those who disagree with it.

Rivers keep flowing, even if a valley below them is substantially, but not totally filled. The Enuma Elish says Gilgamesh went way down to the great deep to get salvation or paradise, etc. So apparently it was deeper.

Maybe some people fled for the hills, surviving and started the cities over.

Let's say all that's true. And that means what about the continents of evidence of global event around the world? What rule of Lyellian geology is broken by it happening?

 

[TB2]

You're right, I didn't debunk the argument

Glad we agree

 

[EarlyActs]

What is RCW?

It says there...

Prob time to call it a day if things like that are happening!

 

[TB2]

It says there...

Prob time to call it a day if things like that are happening!

Recent Creation Week, I'm asking what you mean by that and how it's different from YEC. Do you not believe the fossil record was the result of Noah's Flood?

 

[CrowCross]

Glad we agree

Wow, cheap deceptive shot...you only posted 1/2 of what I said.

 

[EarlyActs]

Latency means that a reference can be used from way after for a location before it was a familiar location. What is so hard to understand about that? Oral tradition needs memory points to hang things on.

 

[TB2]

Wow, cheap deceptive shot...you only posted 1/2 of what I said.

Ohhhh really? You mean like how you do.

 

[TB2]

Latency means that a reference can be used from way after for a location before it was a familiar location. What is so hard to understand about that? Oral tradition needs memory points to hang things on.

What's hard is you're not being clear. Are you saying you reject what Genesis 2.14 says?

 

[EarlyActs]

Recent Creation Week, I'm asking what you mean by that and how it's different from YEC. Do you not believe the fossil record was the result of Noah's Flood?

YEC would say everything happened 6K ago. I say creation week was that long ago, but 1:2 is quite clear that something, not nothing, was already there and had a story.

Yes, as of right now, I believe the fossil record was due to the fast-moving, far-reaching sedimentary transports. Things like Mayan calendars ended up in sediment in Sydney AUS.

 

[TB2]

YEC would say everything happened 6K ago. I say creation week was that long ago, but 1:2 is quite clear that something, not nothing, was already there and had a story.

Yes, as of right now, I believe the fossil record was due to the fast-moving, far-reaching sedimentary transports. Things like Mayan calendars ended up in sediment in Sydney AUS.

You almost answered but not quite. Yes, you believe the fossils record is the result of fast moving, far reaching sedimentary transports from Noah's Flood?

And so you're saying you believe the earth was around for billions of years before the creation week?

 

[EarlyActs]

What's hard is you're not being clear. Are you saying you reject what Genesis 2.14 says?

Let's say I'm trying to locate an ancient site for a friend. I'm referring to an ancient site that was under ice 1500 years ago and call the place a modern town name that has only been there recently. Because ice was there before and there would not have been a town. So I have to use a label my current audience grasps.

 

[EarlyActs]

You almost answered but not quite. Yes, you believe the fossils record is the result of fast moving, far reaching sedimentary transports from Noah's Flood?

And so you're saying you believe the earth was around for billions of years before the creation week?

No, I have no idea. The Biblical description doesn't go in that direction. It refers to a place that has been destroyed, and it was watery and dark. There are other places where rebellious entities were imprisoned and they were dark. And there are 'cities' under the earth (ie within) that hold entities like this. That's all the clues I have.

This is why, as Lewis says, we need fantasy. We are horribly confined on what our universe is about, what can happen. The gradualists have reduced it all to mathematics of processes we see today. That is ridiculous. You have even referenced Lyell this way, which is ridiculous to me. Look for my audio "World Splitter" under the channel of David Over. Marcus Sanford.

 

[TB2]

The gradualists have reduced it all to mathematics of processes we see today. That is ridiculous. You have even referenced Lyell this way, which is ridiculous to me

And you keep misrepresenting what I say no matter how many times I correct you. How many times do I need to tell that NO GEOLOGIST TODAY ACCEPTS LYELL ANYMORE!!! Enough with the strawman argument

 

[EarlyActs]

I don't know how to compress several years of understanding about oral transmission, but I studied it under Waltke, Cassuto, etc. Then it is in Malone's MOSES CONTROVERSY explained fairly well.

 

[EarlyActs]

And you keep misrepresenting what I say no matter how many times I correct you. How many times do I need to tell that NO GEOLOGIST TODAY ACCEPTS LYELL ANYMORE!!! Enough with the strawman argument

You did about the current processes are the key to the past. Maybe the name wasn't there, but that is the association. And anyway, what don't they accept about him?

 

[EarlyActs]

Done for the day, have a good rest.

 

[TB2]

Let's say I'm trying to locate an ancient site for a friend. I'm referring to an ancient site that was under ice 1500 years ago and call the place a modern town name that has only been there recently. Because ice was there before and there would not have been a town. So I have to use a label my current audience grasps.

And it's an interesting theory, but you need to show that this is how people in Bible times understood Gen 2.14. Until then it's just unsupported speculation. It also still doesn't work. If what you say is true, then Gen 2.14 should say "what we call the Tigris River today that flows East of Ashur is just a marker to represent the approximate location of the original Tigris which is buried somewhere beneath it"

 

[TB2]

You did about the current processes are the key to the past. Maybe the name wasn't there, but that is the association. And anyway, what don't they accept about him?

No! I even posted photos of rapid deposition! Please get rid of that tired old strawman argument that "geologists assume Lyell's slow deposition uniformitarianism present is the key to the past." It is misrepresentation at worst, or ignorance at best, showing a complete lack of knowledge about modern geology. As I stated several times now, modern geologists recognize all rates, slow deposition, fast deposition, catastrophic, non-catastrophic based on the evidence, not assumptions