Talk:Oard's Flood Follies (EvoWiki)

I have worked very hard on this article and much work in needed. If you see ANYTHING wrong please tell me. Also, if you have any data that would fit into the article to reinforce the rebuttal, feel free to add it. I e-mailed Oard for his opinions, so I hope this turns into a great article. --Nlawrence 23:13, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Oard has approved of this article

To quote him

Nathan,

I am finally getting to your response after being out of town 2 weeks. It is very good. I am glad that some creationists are writing answers to evolutionary challenges on the internet. I could not assess the EvoWiki article, but that is alright. You quoted it enough that I really do not want to read it anyway. If they still believe the Flood is only 40 days, it really is not serious scholarship.

Keep up the good work and thanks for addressing this issue.

Mike

References

Sorry about that edit -- I forgot about the "in progress" tag. Anyway, why is there a separate sublist of References for December 2003? ~ MD Otley (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

It was an erroneous line-break.--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Ashcraft is right, however if you see any grammar/spelling flaws feel free to fix them. I am nearing the end of writing this article. I am talking with Mr. Oard him self and will add his comments in about a week. All that is in the present article is my own creation.

Please go over the article and point out ANYTHING wrong.--Nlawrence 21:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

So, you don't mind us fixing typos, but you would like us to point out more substantial issues? ~ MD Otley (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

go for it.--Nlawrence 11:45, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Titles

Article headings should be 4 words or less. Try to shorten them. --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I'll get to work right away!--Nlawrence 10:46, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Duration of the Flood

You mention that Evowiki erroneously states that the flood lasted 40 days and point out that the waters prevailed for 150 days. However, the actual flood lasted longer, and it was over a year before Noah and company left the ark. PrometheusX303 19:37, 16 October 2007 (EDT).

That was a slight error on my part. I just wasn't paying attention. I will make changes accordingy.--Nlawrence 22:17, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't call it an error per se. It was accurate and backed by scripture. ETA: Speaking of scripture, if you'd like to add references as to how long Noah was on the ark, here they are:

And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. ... In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. Genesis 7:6,11 (ASV)

And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dried.

And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dry.

And God spake unto Noah, saying,

Go forth from the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee. Genesis 8:13-16 (ASV)

That makes it a year and ten days.PrometheusX303 02:17, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

I have noted those references (Gen. 7 and 8:13-16) to the timeline of the flood in the section titled, "The Flood Lasted 40 Days" near the bottom, just to let you know. --Tony Sommer 04:58, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the section, Root markings from plants

There is a blue quote that I do not know if it is your original writing Nlawrence or a quote from somebody. If it is a quote, we should identify who it is from, if it is your writing I don't think it should be in a blue quote box. --Tony Sommer 03:46, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

I fixed the problem and thank you for going through the article and editing it. Feel free to fix anything you wish.--Nlawrence 13:40, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Right on man! Very good article, and I am glad I can add to it. I cannot believe the material on EvoWiki is taken seriously by evolutionists, the fact they think the flood waters lasting longer than 40 days as being blasphemous is quite hilarious. I mean all it takes to realize that their content on the site is wrong is to read the darn Bible, couldn't get any easier but they refuse to be honest about the debate in the first place. --Tony Sommer 16:07, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Maybe an article going through EvoWiki's biblical "scholarship" is in order. Maybe just listing a number of examples of their lack of knowledge concerning the Bible. I would be glad to start such a page.--Nlawrence 16:53, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

If you start it, once you have gotten it to where I can edit I will definately spend time doing what needs to be done to make the article its best. As long as we stick with an exegesis more so a historical-grammatical method of approaching interpretation rather than literal which a lot of anticreationists don't do, we should do just fine dismantling the lack of logic of EvoWiki's "scholarship."

It looks as if Oard's Flood Follies (EvoWiki) is quite good and pretty close to being finished. --Tony Sommer 16:57, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Yup, just a few minor changes here and there. I wonder how EvoWiki will respond? Or if they will respond.--Nlawrence 17:15, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Any attempt is already severely damaged by the fact they kept the gross error regarding Mr. Oard being blasphemous because he suggested the flood water lasted 150 days. Since that is still up, I don't think they will respond. If they do respond it will be to attack personally probably as they have been caught being VERY misleading and VERY dishonest about representing the biblical record. --Tony Sommer 17:23, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

---

The article says, "Plant roots imply that the soil was loose, or else the roots couldn't found to way into the ground and they don't grow into solid rocks."

Depending what you mean by "loose", this may be incorrect. My personal experience is that weeds in particular will easily penetrate even heavily compacted soil. Growing plants can break through tarmac. I agree that they wouldn't grow through dense, cemented sedimentary rock. --Oelphick 23:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Predator trap theory or Predator-trap theory?

And what is it, anyway? ~ MD Otley (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Imagine when the Indians would chase buffalo off cliffs to kill massive herds all at once. Kinda the same thing, predators killing off a massive herd of prey all at once. This is a oversimplification, but it gets to point across.

It is a common theory proposed by evolutionist to explain large dinosaur fossil beds when there is a lack volcanism and etc in the intermediate area. So they have to come up with an explanation that would leave no geological evidence. --Nlawrence 13:47, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

OK, then the article needs either a little bit of that explanation, or a link to an article with a full description. Also, is it spelled with a hyphen between "predator" and "trap", or not? It needs to be consistent in the article, even if one way is not more correct than the other. ~ MD Otley (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Evowiki and PLAGIARISM. (please read)

Compare the two following quotes. First, one from evowiki's oard's flood follies

"Oard claims that the sediments were formed by Noah's flood while ignoring the fossil burrows, the walking tracks, local paleosols (ancient soils), desiccation mud chips, burrows, root markings from plants, some polygonal desiccation cracks, casts of salt crystals, and clay pellet aggregates."

Now one from a Kevin Henke article found here:

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/yec_mumbo_jumbo_henke.htm

"If the Brushy Basin Member, which is located at the top of the formation, is part of the "Flood" deposits, why does it contain so many features that indicate prolonged subaerial conditions, including: local paleosols (ancient soils), desiccation mud chips, burrows, root markings from plants, some polygonal desiccation cracks, casts of salt crystals, and clay pellet aggregates"

This is a clear example of plagiarism!--Nlawrence 16:50, 25 November 2007 (EST)

I think you'll have a tough time making a case of plagiarism stick when the text in question is just a list of three or four word summaries of well-known issues. ~ MD Otley (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2007 (EST)

You do have a point and even if it was a copy/paste (which I still think it is) it isn't enough to hold it against them. But it is clear that Henke it EvoWiki's source.

Reasons why I still think it's a copy/paste.

1: Look at EvoWiki's article and the other written by the same person. It is completely of his/her to use words like aggregates, which is a technical term in geology. The writer of the section clearly has at least a basic understanding of geology.

2: The phrase "local paleosols (ancient soils), desiccation mud chips, burrows, root markings from plants, some polygonal desiccation cracks, casts of salt crystals, and clay pellet aggregates" is copied word perfect by EvoWiki.

3:The EvoWiki article doesn't explain WHY these features contradict Flood geology even though some of the features are not common arguments against it.(Example: clay pellet aggregates) But when you put it in the context of Henke, it's makes perfect sense. --Nlawrence 20:10, 30 November 2007 (EST)