[Coyote]But the flood had to occur at some time in the past. And that time had to include humans.Unfortunately there are so many non-YEC creationists who have capitulated to the geologic time table Coyote can make this point quite fairly. Perhaps his reply should be regarded as the definitive answer to them that should shake them off their ridiculous capitulation. He's right, if one accepts ANYTHING about the geo time table, such as the notion of the "Cambrian" or the "K-T boundary" then you have to accept the whole thing, which includes the idea that there were no human beings around at that time. It's really quite a good point and it ought to wake up some of these so-called creationists.
This would seem to eliminate the Cambrian and the K-T boundary, two time periods favored by posters here but millions of years before humans walked the earth.
What it comes down to is that flood has to be at some specific time--it can't always be "not here, over there!" -- which is what we get from many creationists.Quite true. The problem IS that creationists disagree about the timing, and that's a BIG problem.
That's the old shell game.
So at some point creationists should figure out when the flood occurred and let us all look for the evidence at that time.
Otherwise one might begin to think that it's all a myth.
Since I'm convinced the Flood accounts for the entire column of strata and its fossils, and that it occurred when the Bible says it occurred, which I understand to be about 4500 years ago, I wish all Biblical creationists would see the logic of this and agree about it. THEN we could maybe proceed to a real discussion about it.
There is of course a problem with Coyote's idea that "creationists should figure out when the flood occurred and let us all look for the evidence at that time" because of course he's committed to the timing notions of conventional geology and he has a very limited idea of what sort of evidence the Flood would have left as well. A layer deep in some archaeological dig perhaps. Won't do. The evidence for the Flood is all over the earth and quite visible for the most part.
[kbertsche]Yes, I agree. As you probably know, many evangelical scholars think that the biblical account is describing a local or regional flood, not a worldwide flood. Some (e.g. Dick Fischer) would put this recently, in the last 10,000 years. Others (e.g. Glenn Morton) would associate it with the infilling of the Mediterranean, and push it back much further. Still others (e.g. Paul Seely) would make it semi-mythical but based on a real, local flood.These creationists are a sad bunch. The language of the Bible couldn't be clearer. This Flood covered the entire earth and anything else is playing fast and loose with God's word. Also I have no idea where they get their 10,000 years. No matter how you cut it the time comes down to about 6000 total. The Jewish calendar gets it close.
But again, these various interpretations are the purview of Bible study, not science. You are right to restrict this science thread to a single, popular interpretation.However, nobody really discussed that interpretation that I've seen and the disagreements among the creationists make it impossible anyway.
Where are all of the YEC Flood Geology advocates? Why aren't they here defending their views? I would have expected them to try to present some sort of evidence for their position (e.g. Sir Leonard Wooley's flood layers at Ur).Yeah, those "flood layers at Ur" show the usual inability to envision what a worldwide flood would have done, as if it would have left barely discernible traces that have to be sought deep in an archaeological dig.
Then Pressie responds to kbertsche:
Hi Dr Bertsche"Getting slaughtered" really just means getting ganged up on to such an extent that your voice doesn't get a hearing, it doesn't mean the evidence has defeated you.
Yes, I would love to talk to them, too. The problem here is that not even one of the YEC's here have any geology training at all.
I would love to see one of the handful YEC's with geological training in the world (maybe ten?), to come and defend their positions. My only guess is that they don't want to try it on forums like this, because they know they will get slaughtered. They just want to preach to novices!
I do know that Dr. John Baumgardner tried to do it once on a similar forum. The problem with him is that he has no geological training, but is an Engineer with a Ph.D. in Geophysics. Boy, did he get slaughtered! In the end he tried outright untruths (like referring to a real expert on dating methods as a "self-styled specialist"). Then he mentioned something about "no respect for the Word of God" (or something to that effect) and then he disappeared from the forum.Would very much like to hear more about the Baumgardner event, some quotes, or a link.
I guess we won't get anything better than that. That's all they have.
But as long as they are insisting on their dating methods we probably can't get anything said. My angle is to try to make the case for the Flood well enough that they will have to rethink their dating methods in the end to accommodate the other overwhelming evidence for the Flood. I think I've already collected quite a bit of killer evidence for it.