Evidence FOR Creationism

[Chukchi Husky]

Marla: that black sea flood thing doesn't hold up the sedimentary analysis of the sea floor - the water ran the other way!

Of course the water would flow the other way, there are rivers flowing into the Black Sea.

 

[carlosMM]

Of course the water would flow the other way, there are rivers flowing into the Black Sea.

there are rivers flowing into the mediterranean directly, too.


no, the theory said that the black sea had a lower level than the med, then the med rose high enough to go over the Bosporos isthmus and 'suddenly' flooded the fertile valley around the Black sea. That's not how it happened though. The only sedimentary eidence ALWAYS shows OUTflow from the Black sea to the med whenever the 'doorstep' sill got low enough. And yes, that has to do with the fact that the Black Sea gets and got more freshwater compared to its evaporation than the Med.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Of course the water would flow the other way, there are rivers flowing into the Black Sea.

Despite the fact the Volga and the Ural rivers get into the Caspian Sea, that doesn't avoit it to be a locked sea with a water level below the one of the ocean.

 

[Marla_Singer]

there are rivers flowing into the mediterranean directly, too.


no, the theory said that the black sea had a lower level than the med, then the med rose high enough to go over the Bosporos isthmus and 'suddenly' flooded the fertile valley around the Black sea. That's not how it happened though. The only sedimentary eidence ALWAYS shows OUTflow from the Black sea to the med whenever the 'doorstep' sill got low enough. And yes, that has to do with the fact that the Black Sea gets and got more freshwater compared to its evaporation than the Med.

You forget something important CarlosMM. The climate wasn't the same in 5000BC than it is today. As such, maybe there are more freshwater coming from the Black Sea today, but that doesn't mean it was the case in 5000 BC when Northern Africa was a lot more fertile and the Nile a river with a much more massive water flow.

We know that in 10,000 BC, Great Britain was actually connected to Europe because the level of the sea was lower. If I say this, it's simply because we always tend to believe the world in 5,000 BC was the same as today. This is wrong. The world was still a lot more colder, the Sahara desert was a lot smaller and the level of the sea was a lot lower.

 

[carlosMM]

You forget something important CarlosMM. The climate wasn't the same in 5000BC than it is today. As such, maybe there are more freshwater coming from the Black Sea today, but that doesn't mean it was the case in 5000 BC when Northern Africa was a lot more fertile and the Nile a river with a much more massive water flow.

We know that in 10,000 BC, Great Britain was actually connected to Europe because the level of the sea was lower. If I say this, it's simply because we always tend to believe the world in 5,000 BC was the same as today. This is wrong. The world was still a lot more colder, the Sahara desert was a lot smaller and the level of the sea was a lot lower.

Marla, I am not forgetting anything here - remember I took about 4 courses in that stuff? The sea level was lower, but so was rainfall.

I can't find that old thread, I'll go looking for the uploaded files instead.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Marla, I am not forgetting anything here - remember I took about 4 courses in that stuff? The sea level was lower, but so was rainfall.

And so was the evaporation of the Nile river.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Despite the fact the Volga and the Ural rivers get into the Caspian Sea, that doesn't avoit it to be a locked sea with a water level below the one of the ocean.

There are other things that can take place, like evaporation.
Once the Black Sea was joined to the Mediterranian, where does the excess water from the Black Sea rivers flow?

 

[carlosMM]

There are other things that can take place, like evaporation.
Once the Black Sea was joined to the Mediterranian, where does the excess water from the Black Sea rivers flow?

excess water?

OK, here's what the theory said:
imagine the Black Sea is disconnected from the Med through a Bosporus barrier. Will happen through glaciation, or other means.

Imagine also that the Black Sea has a decidedly lower water level than the Med. Same as e.g. the Dead Sea has today.

Now the Med rises and rises with global sea levels. At some point it will flow over the barrier. And if this happens suddenly, through an earthquake treariung it down, you have an instant flood. hte water will fill he depression the Black Sea is in until the water levels are as even as they ca be, given the maximum possible flowing speed of the waters.

From now on, the rivers will still flow into the Black Sea (albeit with far less slope, essentially they will be stalled back). And the global sea level will rise a tiny fraction.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Ok I've found this story about this hypothesis which is a lot better explained than my little summary.

Here is the story : The real life basis for Noah's Flood

Ok so according to this story. I was wrong since the flooded valley wasn't located in Marmara but actually in today's black sea. CarlosMM was by the way partly right since what he's describing was true in 20,000 BC but not anymore in 5,000 BC. Well, read the story for details.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Posted by Steph
There's a monk in a ship, somewhere in the Pacific. His theory is that God was standing near the line of date change in the Pacific, and took water on the right (the day before), and put it on the left (the current day). This way, he could take as much water has he needed. After 40 days, he simply put it back.

Or he could simply bring the Moon closer and make it spin very fast around the Earth, a symilar effect to churning water in a bucket. There isn't more water but there is a flood.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

OK, here's what the theory said:
imagine the Black Sea is disconnected from the Med through a Bosporus barrier. Will happen through glaciation, or other means.

Imagine also that the Black Sea has a decidedly lower water level than the Med. Same as e.g. the Dead Sea has today.

Now the Med rises and rises with global sea levels. At some point it will flow over the barrier. And if this happens suddenly, through an earthquake treariung it down, you have an instant flood. hte water will fill he depression the Black Sea is in until the water levels are as even as they ca be, given the maximum possible flowing speed of the waters.

That's what it said in the book.

 

[Perfection]

Creationism IS NOT a religion only thing any more than the ToE, in fact we could just as easily refer to creationism as ToC or the theory of creationism, sure as christians we can believe it as part of our religion, but just because it can be excepted by our religion does not make it any less or more scientific than ToE

Correct, but you still haven't given any evidence.

ToE has a large body of evidence accumulated for it (which may or may not be true)

There's stacks of evidence

ToE most easily conforms to a single philosophical viewpoint, atheism, when using ToE as a basis the logical conclusion is atheism.

No, ToE is accepted by many philosophical viewpoints. ToE is not athiesm, athiesm is not ToE. Just because you want to blast us as heathens doesn't make it true.

ToE is a totaly scientifically untestable theory by its very nature, and thus requires faith to believe in.

Incorrect,
It predicted the emergance of more tranistional fossils
It predicted the discovery of a means of inheritance as well as a means of changing genes without recombination (mutations)
It predicted the emergence of more vestigial structures, embryological homologies, and a correspondance between DNA, and chemical activity in a branched phylogeny
It predicted that the branched nature of taxonomy would remain branched and not intertwined
It predicted the existance of beneficial mutations

These are but a few of the many many predictions that evolution has made, and subsequently verified showing a strong case for its validity.

All these tests were applied to evolution, and all came back positive

Creationism has a large body of evidence accumulated for it (which may or may not be true)

It has evidence?!?!?! Where?!?!?!

Creationism most easily conforms to a single philosophical viewpoint, theism, largely christianity and islam.

In fact it requires a certain philosophical viewpoint, unlike evolution.

Creationism is a totaly scientifically untestable theory by its very nature, and thus requires faith to believe in.

There ya go, it's not testible it's not science, evolution is testible, it's science.

Neither being taught in a church, nor being held by some as religious belief or being held as true by any majority classifies ToE or ToC as true, and neither are scientifically testable, due to there very nature.

ToE is testible

The reason why the creationism vs evolutionism conflict has considered so long is because neither can be proven OR disproven via the scientific method, you can try and provide evidence, but your evidence could be misinterpreted (in the middle ages people believed maggots were created by rotting meat, there observations supported this, of course now we consider this foolish, but only because a better way of testing it was developed) or influenced by preconcieved notions.

That's true with all science, you can't absolutly prove anything, but it does provide an excellent tool on how to view evidence and how to assess theories. Using the scientific method I find a very strong case for evolution and view it as scientific. The real reason it's been considered so long is not because of evidence, but because it steps on a literal interpretation of the bible.

 

[MajII]

Can Creationists produce a valid argument through induction without quoting ancient texts?

In other words, can the Creationist camp successfully promote their angle through analysis of verifiable facts that do not in any way rely on corroboration from unverifiable and contradictory accounts from the authors of a two thousand year old primary source?

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

Sorry for taking so long to respond..

Yes, but the point being to proof the text(The Bible) is true. What do you mean by contridictions btw?

Perfection: Largely you are correct, I was not speaking that Evolution is 100% incorrect. All lifeforms, including Mankind, came from distant forebearers. The Horse and the Zebra, for example, share an ancestor.

It is the "From the Primordial Ooze" part that cannot be tested, because in order to do so one must go back and observe it happening. Plus, even a virus is a very complex creature. In order for it to survive, it would have to be immune to the ravages of this Primordial Earth from the instant of its formation. And it couldn't evolve because it would cease to exist before that could happen. And this assumes the conditions would even form a virus to begin with.

 

[Perfection]

Yes, but the point being to proof the text(The Bible) is true.

Are you claiming to have proof that the Bible's text is true? (Might I remind you that finding instances where it is correct, doesn't mean it's all around correct)

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

Typo, sorry, I ment "The Point being to proove the Bible's text is true"...sorry..

 

[Perfection]

Perfection: Largely you are correct, I was not speaking that Evolution is 100% incorrect. All lifeforms, including Mankind, came from distant forebearers. The Horse and the Zebra, for example, share an ancestor.

So if you can accept some evolution what's holding back from all sharing a common ancestor?

It is the "From the Primordial Ooze" part that cannot be tested, because in order to do so one must go back and observe it happening.

Incorrect, we can test the ability of earth to produce life by simulating early earth conditions and observing the results. We've shown that the building blocks as well as more complex structures can be created through relatively simple processes. This adds testibility and credence to abiogenesis theory.

Plus, even a virus is a very complex creature.

Which have been produced from scratch in labs

In order for it to survive, it would have to be immune to the ravages of this Primordial Earth from the instant of its formation. And it couldn't evolve because it would cease to exist before that could happen.

You're presupposing that it couldn't survive, do you have any evidence for that? Also, abiogenesis is a very slow process, it's not as if life instantly forms rather several stages of quasi-life develop and through mechanisms akin to natural selection start to give rise to the stuff seen today.

And this assumes the conditions would even form a virus to begin with.

Abiogenesists don't believe that viruses came first.

Typo, sorry, I ment "The Point being to proove the Bible's text is true"...sorry..

Well, good luck with that!

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

Well, believe what you will. Faith is faith in the end anyway, no matter how much proof I'd have, or how much you have...it all leads back to that in the end.

 

[Perfection]

Well, believe what you will. Faith is faith in the end anyway,

Sorry, that doesn't fly here! As a scientist I strive to base my ideas on the evidence and not on faith! How am I using faith?

no matter how much proof I'd have,

No, if you can prove it I'll listen, just because you can't show me proof doesn't mean I can't accept it.

or how much you have...it all leads back to that in the end.,

If you don't think evidence is important then why did you create a thread about showing its evidence? If your source is faith then why do you feel the need to back it up with evidence?

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

I don't think I can debate if my only sources of information backing my stance are cut off from me I suppose.(According to someone's post above)

Assuming I can use my sources we can continue....