Monday, July 1, 2013

Hunting for Creationism - Round 11 - Worldwide Catastrophic Evidence Is Everywhere

Seriously? Are you serious?

I wrote up a response to this argument, and apparently I accidentally obliterated it.

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

Fuck it. Index of the hunt here, blah blah.

Today's argument, "Worldwide Catastrophic Evidence Is Everywhere".

I think this was supposed to be the rest of Round 10. If you recall, that argument just seemed incomplete and direly missing making a point.

Catastrophic displacements of enormous plates of the earth’s crust provided the driving force for the global flood and produced the deep spaces for the oceans to drain into after the global flood.
Citation needed. I have no idea what they're talking about, or how they came to this conclusion.

The majority of our planet's sedimentary rock appears to have accumulated rapidly by means of a worldwide flood. Single layers were quickly formed that covered large parts of the globe.
I wonder if the author realizes that sedimentary is constantly forming, and being eroded? Does the author get that not all sediment is from the same time period?

Citation needed... again, for how they figure this.

As far as I can tell, they're just throwing out unsupported claims. At least provide a link for further reading.

Fault surfaces that contain zones characterized by microbreccias and pseudotachylite are evidences for rapid displacements.
Again - no explanation as to what this have to do with anything. I think they point they're trying to make is that we find evidence of sediment (which typically forms through water depositing sedimentary material)... and that indicates a flood... and that's close enough to being "evidence".

Clearly, there aren't any regional floods, ever, anywhere... right? I would have agreed with these people up front that floods happen... even floods from big regions (say, the Great Plains).

Additionally, given the constant turmoil of tectonic plate movements, of course we'd expect to see a varied history of sediment through the layers of rock.

Beveled surfaces below, within, and above thick strata sequences provide evidence of rapid flood and post-flood erosion. Sheetform beveled surfaces below and within thick strata sequences provide evidence of widespread sediment sublimation during a global flood (e.g., the paraconformity between Coconino Sandstone and Hermit Shale on Bright Angel Trail in Grand Canyon).
Woo! The closest they've come to a citation!

According to Wikipedia (please check the references, in general), the Hermit Shale and Coconino Sandstone layers were laid down 275 to 280 million years ago. Was that when they think this flood happened?

It's funny how they'll cherry pick the data only that confirms their predetermined conclusions, and ignore the preponderance of evidence. Actually no, it's not funny. That's SOP for them.

The idea of beveled surfaces dose indicate erosion, but it doesn't indicate how "rapid" it was. What evidence do they have that establishes the duration of this supposed flood?

The Grand Canyon also has beveled surfaces through the layers... because of a river eroding it. If the Grand Canyon, over a couple million years, got covered up by other material, and then another river in the distant future started cutting through the new combined later... they'd reveal the beveled surfaces of the canyon that was cut by a river... but slowly, over millions of years (link to Wiki article).

What evidence do they have this was from a global flood, instead of a local flood, or a river?

I'll award some points for at least attempting some kind of an explanation... which was mostly provided by me.

As further evidence for the worldwide nature of the flood, ancient human cultures across the globe appear to possess legends recounting a great global flood.
... and most mythology has creation stories... but that doesn't mean we accept that Creationism is true. Some elements of mythology are more psychological than anything else. When a group of primitives are pondering the question of how the world came to be, typically what they do is extrapolate from the observation that they see other people making things... therefore, a "super person" probably made the world.

That's not evidence for Creationism. It's evidence of a common reasoning error (which I'd call the overly-popular "common sense").

One of the major points of science is that it cuts through this curtain of human error. It usually reveals that our mythologies were wrong - lightning coming from Zeus, the world being flat with a "firmament" overhead, diseases being demons, etc.

If this is what they think "evidence" is, it's no wonder I've been face-palming through their entire site.

... and that's the end of the argument.

Meta Analysis

Outside of the failure of the asserted evidence to hold a candle to the preponderance of evidence, this argument is missing something... important.

What does this have to do with Creationism? Is covering the planet's surface with water a key aspect of creating planets/universes?

Are they also going to demonstrate that Warp Drive is possible because their dog is wet?

Allow me to venture a guess as to what the argument is supposed to be:

  • P1: The Bible states that Creationism is true
  • P2: The Bible states that a global flood happened
  • P3: A global flood is substantiated as true
  • C1: Since the Bible's assertion about a global flood is substantiated, and the Bible also says that Creationism is true, therefore, Creationism is true
Clearly, this is an Association Fallacy. One part of the Bible is not true because another is shown to be true. It doesn't work that way. Each individual assertion must be individually verified.

My classic example is - If we found a book, "1000 Facts about Electricity", and we find that the first 999 were actually scientifically true, that wouldn't mean that fact #1000, "Electricity comes from the god Zeus" is true.

There's a difference between whether a book has earned credibility in your eyes, versus whether the claims are demonstrably true.

Strangely, this argument actually kinda meet some of the standards of evidence, but is killed by a couple.

  • The idea of a global flood is technically testable/repeatable
  • It is falsifiable (and I dare say, thoroughly falsified already)
  • The evidence is presentable and objective
  • There's no logical connection to Creationism
  • It fails the "Exclusion" principle - where the presented evidence must strongly support one model over the others
And last, but not least, they failed to actually make their case for a global flood (maybe if they cited actual scientific data, they would have done better).

Keep in mind, I'm not omniscient. I'm not going to be familiar with every piece of "evidence" they throw at me. On a basic level of argumentation, they failed miserably at making a case. I shouldn't have to be searching all the internets to find out what they're talking about. That should be provided by them, as it is their burden of proof. That includes adequate references to information mentioned, particularly on the important points.

No comments:

Post a Comment