Evidence of the flood

Open your eyes, that's all it takes to get what I'm saying.But I get it. Character assassination is the game here, and misrepresentation, and silly straw man gambits.Oh well, I knew from the beginning this was a rigged game, guess I can't complain.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Zowie, lots more of the same smear campaign, lies galore too. In any other context I'd sue you. I'm not worried about my character but you should be worried about yours. And my answers to your "evidence" are really quite sufficient. I've given plenty of evidence and argument even on this very thread, but that doesn't count of course because Evo Decrees it's wrong. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know it proves the Flood. I've made the case multiple times, better on other threads but even this one says it in bare bones fashion. It's a matter of honest seeing, as I said But that isn't going to happen is it?

I don't have the patience to read through the last day's posts so I don't know how relevant this is, but I keep being asked about the fossil order. I can't answer it directly, but indirectly I believe there is no way the time periods conception of the geological column holds up. I know Stile made a heroic effort to justify it but as I recall he didn't account for the flatness over huge distances or the tight contacts, OR the fact that to get the layers we actually see would require that nothing be living there when they formed. That's an indirect objection to the fossil order in that there's no way the strata could have formed on the standard interpretation which destroys the whole idea of the time periods and therefore the whole idea of how the fossils occurred.Another indirect objection is the one about the trilobites and the coelacanths. It can be rationalized away but to my mind it's pretty telling on the face of it: two fossilized creatures that occur in many "time periods" amounting to I think hundreds of millions of years, without any changes that suggest anything close to a change from one species to another: they remain recognizable trilobites and coelacanths through all those supposed "time periods." While at the same time the ToE makes the huge leap of asserting that mammal evolved from reptile although they are only I think one "time period" apart? Also when you try to track out the steps that would have to be involved in the formation of the mammalian ear from the reptilian the complex changes that would have to occur in that time period defy all reason.But the trilobites and the coelacanths that just happen to have been buried in so many time periods demonstrate what we can see of the speed of microevolution in real time: it takes at most hundreds of years to get some striking new varieties of just about anything, and they always remain recognizably whatever it is they are.In millions of years any evolving creature would have long since been extinct, there would have been no reptile to become a mammal, and no trilobites or coelacanths at all. Each kind of trilobite would reach an end to its ability to keep on changing LONG before even one "time period" had passed.Sure you can rationalize this away: you can claim it just happened this way, there's no reason we have to assume any particular time frame. But we do. You don't have the necessary transitionals to prove mammal evolved from reptile, it's a huge leap based only on belief in the ToE.From these observations I conclude that assigning hundreds of millions of years to the geological column/fossil record is wrong.So there are two reasons why the whole standard interpretation of the fossil record is wrong, and that being the case this is indirect proof that the fossil order is also bogus.And of course rapid deposition of the strata makes far more sense, which is what would have happened in the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes you have varves and tree rings, but that just means there's evidence on both sides.ABE: And all those facts do is push back the timing of the Flood by a very very small amount in comparison to the OE anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There are other things wrong with the strata/fossil record as interpreted through the OE/ToE perspective.There's the fact that the geological column is FINISHED, and yet they actually absurdly claim it is continuing to build, in lakebeds and in the oceans. Lakebeds have bumpy sloped and rounded rounded bottoms, there is no such surface in the geological column, and lakebeds today are really small compared to the breadth of the strata. And the strata are not building on the geological column itself, which is the only way they could continue to be part of it, in the oceans. The geo column is on the land, not in the oceans.There is the consistency of the strata that supports the Flood scenario, the fact that the geo column does exist as a stack of flat slabs of sedimentary rock. There are no signs of any of it ever having been on the surface of the earth, which one would certainly expect after millions of years of "time periods" punctuated by, good grief, sedimentary deposition often of a single sediment, flat flat flat. And yet they go on and on and on pretending it makes sense to interpret all this in terms of millions of years. It makes no sense but they refuse to acknowledge this. Because they have OTHER evidence. Varves and tree rings which make the earth older than the Flood timing as understood from the Bible. But this doesn't answer the evidence against the strata as depositions millions of years apart. At best it suggests the Flood goes back farther than the Bible suggests, but not far enough to justify the millions of years of Old Earthism.The consistency of the strata is against the idea of periodic shallow floods too. The surface would have changed between floods, but it hasn't changed. The contacts are tight and flat.More when I think of it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

First it would be nice if anyone would recognize evidence I've already given before bringing on some other issue. There can be evidence on both sides. although I really think the OE/ToE evidence is a bunch of sophistry, self-delusion and garbage.I don't get this "silt" business since silt is a particular sediment that occurs in particular blocks and doesn't characterize all that much of the geo column. And where are you getting this ridiculous idea of millions of layers of silt anyway?I'm aware that the strata were at least in some cases laid down in shallow layers, including those all of one sediment. What's the problem? There would have been a lot of wave action with rising and falling sea water, long long tides, and then when the water was deep and quiet enough precipitation of particles would occur as well.What makes the "time period" explanation any better for such a water-borne scenario anyway?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've only touched on the evidence, against the ToE and for the Flood. I've spent most of my time {abe: at EvC} arguing on the basis of cross sections, particularly of the Grand Canyon, which show that the strata are remarkably uniform, straight, flat, with no erosion between the layers beyond the little that could easily be accounted for by water runoff after the strata were all in place. The cross sections all show that the strata WERE all in place before any real disturbance occurred to the stack, such as, say, the cutting of a humongous canyon three miles deep perhaps? The cutting of huge cliffs and more canyons in the Grand Staircase. Also they show that the strata curve in blocks over obstacles, which shouldn't happen if there are millions of years difference in age between them.Everything I pointed out was clearly not taken into account by the makers of the OE and ToE explanation, or noticed by anybody else either for that matter. But then it was rationalized away by the most pathetically absurd scenarios. Oh that really IS erosion that occurred on the surface during millions of years. Can't have been of course but they'll say anything. Or so what's the big deal, why couldn't there have been hundreds of millions of years of relative calm before the massive disturbance of the cutting of the Grand Canyon. And so on and so ridiculously forth.I also showed cross sections where the fault lines cut through the entire stack. Why would that be the case if they were laid down millions of years apart?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What on earth do the Green River varves have to do with the Flood? Obviously your varves were not formed accvording to the timing you have in mind and you have no way of proving they were. You can have that hypothesis if you like, but the Flood would have wiped out the Green River so however they formed it was after the Flood.Chalk it up for your side if you like. But I've given plenty of reason to chalk up a bunch of points on my side, stuff that undermines all the claims of great age. So you point your evidence of it on one side and I'll put mine on the other. You can't ignore my evidence just because you have some very iffy evidence for your claims.;

No, one tree can be reinterpreted, varves timing can be reinterpreted We know the world was different before the FLood. The huge humber of fossils is evidence of incredible fertility and vitality. There were no harsh conditions, there were probably not even seasons as we know them, and in that case the timing of tree rings and varves both can't be explained by today's conditions. If the weather was perpetually warm and moist you could have had many tree rings in a year. And even after the Flood the fertility and vitality could have continued for centuries, just as people continued to live long lives, though progressively shorter.There obviously weren't ANY locations that weren't flooded. Three miles of strata at a minimum is an enormous depth. If it flooded that deep in even one place it flooded that deep all over the earth. And besides, that idiotic six transgressions scenario shows that water had to have covered the earth even on that scheme. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Chalk up your evidence on your side, but don't ignore mine, which is really a killer for the ToE and the OE if honestly faced.

As a breath of fresh air in the context of your ridiculously stupid crazy taxonomic system. LOOK at the trilobites, DUH. They are all trilobites, all of the same species, all the result of microevolution within the trilobite genome. Perhaps it says I'm one of the honest few here, and someone who can see reality where the ToE makes a confusing mess of it.I've also made the case, as I'm sure you recall, for microevolution's necessarily decreasing genetic diversity (sometimes known as "information"} down to the hypothetical inevitable point that evolution must become impossible. I put all my theories and observations together, of course, so that if this is true, the trilobites are all trilobites, all variations within their own genome. It ought to be clear just from looking at them without any other argument, but the other argument does enhance the point. It all hangs together, and it's one of the many facts that destroy the absurd theory of the geo time scale, and without your geo time scale you have no meaningful "fossil order" at all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Just noticed this. Eh whut? Whoever said these varves formed DURING THE FLOOD? What an utterly ridiculous idea. They had to have formed afterward, over the millennia SINCE the Flood. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

RAZD, I HAVE NEVER EVER said the varves formed DURING THE FLOOD. I say only that the STRATA that make up the GEOLOGICAL COLUMN, on which the GEOLOGICAL TIME SCALE is based, were formed in the Flood, by waves and tides and precipitation. What on earth are you talking about? I take the position that the varves support the Old Earth as usually presented, and don't try to address that particular issue except to conjecture that they are not a yearly phenomenon but occur much more frequently. Nevertheless I put it in the column for your side because I can't prove it. But from the Flood perspective, which I prove by many other means, they had to have formed after it. Don't throw this opaque pseudoproblem at me, spell it out if it matters so much to you. See above. The arguments I've given are quite solid. You can't answer an argument about one thing with an argument about another. Address MY arguments if you can instead of changing the subject. I've given what, four or five arguments that should be chalked up to my side. You can have the varves and the tree rings on your side until further evidence is available to explain them better.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I said, put varves on your side. I do not have an answer and don't normally attempt one except to suppose they had to have occurred far more frequently than you allow.But all you are doing is changing the subject and distracting from my good arguments against the OE/ToE. If you can't answer those then chalk them up to my side. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.