And again, even if this couldn’t be explained, why would ‘a Global Flood’ be the default answer?
There are many things SG cannot explain. And even if an explanation is offered, they are ad hoc explanations (like any explanation for unconformities).
Why is a global flood a better answer than SG? We can deduce it from the evidence of the sedimentary strata pattern. Anyone can deduce it for themselves simply by having a unbiased look at the evidence. Looking at all the photographic evidence I’ve already presented so far (and which I can provide plenty more of if necessary) and not assuming whether SG is true or FM is true, then by logical inference, the conclusion is closer to a global flood. And this is just simply looking at one data point – the sedimentary strata pattern. There are many other empirical evidence to support the FM, but we’ve just touched on the sedimentary pattern and it’s almost already 20 pages.
If one assumes SG is true a priori and then you look at the sedimentary strata pattern, then it is not objectively looking at the evidence.
Note the question I ask of the sedimentary rock pattern does not presuppose either SG or FM is true.
otseng wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 6:13 pm Do we see a general pattern in the sedimentary rock strata around the world where parallel layers are deposited (with relatively little evidence of any geologic activity) and then after the layers were formed we see massive geologic activity (erosion, faults, mountain building)?
It is simply looking at the raw evidence, gathering facts from the evidence, and making inferences on what we see. After we view the evidence, then we come up with what is the most logical explanation to explain the facts.
But, if you assume an explanation is true before making the inferences, then it is just confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is evident when ad hoc explanations are added to explain away things. And when sufficient ad hoc explanations are added, it makes the position practically useless. An example of this which we’ve talked about earlier is the doctrine of inerrancy. Many ad hoc explanations have been added to it to hold it up. And to the unbiased observer, it makes the doctrine of inerrancy not tenable.
Even though nobody else has agreed to the pattern existing, the pattern is quite clear to me. The reason the pattern is not acknowledged to exist by others is because SG is assumed to be true, and then ad hoc explanations are invented in order to uphold SG.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1058058#p1058058