Saturday, October 8, 2011

Restatement of a couple of old-earth misreadings of the Flood

Moose's topic proposal which I discuss in a post three or four down inspires me to make a list of some creationist concepts he and other old earthers get all mangled up.

1. TEENY TINY INCONSEQUENTIAL WORLDWIDE FLOOD: The waters of the Flood itself are thought of as strangely inconsequential, hardly leaving the slightest mark of their having come and gone, despite the fact that small local floods we know about are often devastating to their local environment. A mere few days of very heavy local rains can produce dangerous mudslides, tsunamis take out whole villages, but a flood that covered the entire earth for a whole year, well there's no evidence of THAT. **Hint: (whisper) the strata the strata the strata the fossils the fossils the fossils.**

2. THE STRATA COULDN'T BE EVIDENCE FOR THE FLOOD BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN SOME SEDIMENTS AND CREATURES THAT COULD ONLY FORM OR LIVE IN AIR. This simply imposes their own interpretation of the strata on Floodists, their assumption that they represent the way things were at that very spot in the past. They study the composition of individual strata to determine what sort of environment supposedly existed during the supposed epoch it represents according to standard geological theory. They think that the complexity of the contents of the layer that shows a variety of conditions under which the creatures must have lived and the sediments must have formed disproves the Flood because most of them couldn't have been formed in a Flood. But of course we don't claim the Flood formed anything -- except the strata themselves of course. Whatever is discovered about the original situation of the strata contents describes their disposition in the pre-Flood world before the Flood occurred. All the Flood did was wash them down hills in midslides or scoop them up, uproot them in some cases, and move them to their final grave in the strata.

That's all just to state the basic confusions. As for evidence for the creationist view of the strata, all I can say is that there's something utterly absurd about the standard idea that enormous layered stacks of rock could possibly represent eras in earth's history.

No comments:

Post a Comment

PLEASE just register somewhere, there seem to be many options. A Google account is easy. And give SOME kind of pseudonym at least. THANKS!