Summations Only

While that may not be a lie, it is just another utter dishonest misrepresentation and not an honest response to the question.What is needed is more than the word model, it is you explaining HOW any flood, even one of the Biblical floods, can order the geology and critters as found in reality.It is impossible for a flood to order either geology or fossils as found in reality unless you can present the model, mechanism, process or procedure that will sort stuff as found in reality.That has been the issue all along and attempts by you to pretend you have presented a model, mechanism, process or procedure that will sort stuff as found in reality are just additional misrepresentations and falsehoods at best.

You have NO idea what number of fossils is "too great" for the Flood, and you certainly aren't taking into account the Biblical context which allows for many times what lives today, because the entire land mass was livable then as it now is not, and immensely more fertile.Here's a qjote you'll find on this Google page answering the question 'What percentage of the earth's land is habitable?" No ice caps either as I understand it, suggesting more livable space for marine life as well.Oh it is a MUCH better explanation than the standard Rube Goldberg idiocies that imagine whole living scenarios within what is now nothing but a sedimentary rock, one on top of another yet for hundreds of millions of years. Physically it's impossible.Evaporites precipitate out of the layers, what's the big deal? You can tell all the layers were deposited at the same time too, because they are all parallel to each other even when they've sagged to a great depth because of the salts that are pushing up through them.The fossil order is just a made-up concept. There was never any evolution, there was never an "earlier" life from which "later" forms of life evolved, there is no earlier or later, all living things were formed as themselves, each after its own Kind, at the Creation, and all the changes that have occurred since have accorred within each Kind, which is what microevolution is. Fossil order is a clever idea but it's not true, it's just the work of the fallen human mind.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Right you are, there is no fossil order. It's all just random. I'm with you. Do you think we should just declare this true, or should we say something about evidence?I have a similar question about the evolutionist claim of increasing radiometric age with increasing depth. Should we just declare it false, or should we say something about evidence? Same question again. Should we just declare this so, or should we say something about evidence? Yes, of course, I give you full credit, wouldn't have it any other way. Discussing the flood in the Biological Evolution forum instead of the Geology and the Great Flood forum - brilliant. And then introducing genetics in Message 266 in a thread about fossils - sheer genius!--Percy

Fossils are geological phenomena as well as biological and since Dr A uses them to prove evolution it's proper to answer him that if the Flood deposited them they don't prove evolution.You can't prove or disprove Flood versus Evolution with one or two observations. Put your radiometric evidence in the evolution column but you can't pretend it cancels out all the other observations that are evidence for the Flood. Radiometric dating is just as open to falsification as any other claim.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Right, exactly, the flood deposited the fossils, so evolutionists can't use them to prove evolution. But catch me up here - are we just declaring this so, or do we have evidence? Ah, that's great, so that means we have lots of observations for the fossils being deposited by the flood. Good argument. All claims are falsifiable, so radiometric dating can't counter all the flood evidence. Strategizing here, should we just refer to the flood evidence or describe it?I see that in Message 662 you hit them with Bible evidence, and not giving them chapter and verse was exceptional - keep 'em guessing.--Percy

Once again Faith, you are just posting falsehoods. In fact all the evidence shows that all of the Earths land mass is habitable. And most of the seas as well. And even the deeps.We find live on the Earth in rocks, under the ice, in the ice, in the sulfur springs, in the air, in the sea; everywhere.And you even misrepresent what the Bible itself says as usual.

The biblical evidence is inferential, the way it is for the Trinity. It is based on references to such things as the land being watered by a mist before the Fall, and to the Flood's beginning with the heavens opening for the rain to fall, which had never happened before, implying an entirely different climate, and by the curse given as a result of the Fall that food would be grown by the sweat of the brow in land where thorns now grow that didn't grow before. The Fall made the planet a difficult place to live, which it hadn't been before, and after the Flood things had to be even harder. People who have studied these passages more than I have postulate far more drastic changes affecting the whole cosmos. Certainly the ice age would have been the result of the Flood.The Bible is evidence of course.Physical evidence of the Flood has been collected on many threads.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no evidence to show that. This is particularly true as the flood never happened. You dates would be all wrong anyway. And besides, there were quite a few "ice ages" spread over huge amounts of time.Belief is just not good evidence.

A written record authored by the Creator is indeed evidence.

quote:

---

You have NO idea what number of fossils is "too great" for the Flood, and you certainly aren't taking into account the Biblical context which allows for many times what lives today, because the entire land mass was livable then as it now is not, and immensely more fertile.

---

As I said this has previously been discussed. I note that - despite making the initial claim - you have produced no reason to think that the abundance is what we should expect from the Flood. Making ad hoc claims about the Biblical context hardly helps you - and I note that the idea that the entire land mass was livable is hardly relevant to crinoids, the example I mentioned.

quote:

---

No ice caps either as I understand it, suggesting more livable space for marine life as well

---

At the cost of reducing the amount of space for land life.But you are still arguing in generalities, without making any real case. At the least you have demonstrated that you have no sound basis for your original claim. You would think that after years of making that particular assertion you would have something better than that.

quote:

---

Oh it is a MUCH better explanation than the standard Rube Goldberg idiocies that imagine whole living scenarios within what is now nothing but a sedimentary rock, one on top of another yet for hundreds of millions of years. Physically it's impossible.

---

Your inability to understand the conventional view is hardly an argument in your favour. Spouting nonsense is not a convincing argument either.

quote:

---

Evaporites precipitate out of the layers, what's the big deal? You can tell all the layers were deposited at the same time too, because they are all parallel to each other even when they've sagged to a great depth because of the salts that are pushing up through them.

---

Evaporites only form when large amounts of salty water evaporate. That is not going to happen during the Flood, Nor is it likely to happen underground.

quote:

---

The fossil order is just a made-up concept.

---

And that is an outright lie. The order is an observed fact.

quote:

---

There was never any evolution, there was never an "earlier" life from which "later" forms of life evolved, there is no earlier or later, all living things were formed as themselves, each after its own Kind, at the Creation, and all the changes that have occurred since have accorred within each Kind, which is what microevolution is.

---

None of these assertions change the fact that there is an observed order in the fossil record.

quote:

---

Fossil order is a clever idea but it's not true, it's just the work of the fallen human mind.

---

If you could actually show that you would be addressing the topic of the thread!So come on. Let’s have an actual argument against the existence of the order in the fossil record. Or are you just going to go on with denial and excuses ?

Sorry Faith but once again, that is simply not the case. There is no written record authored by the creator nor is there any evidence of any written record authored by the creator.If you think there is such a thing then please present the evidence in support of such an assertion.

Oh honestly, the point is clear: the enormously greater habitable land -- and ocean for that matter - along with the enormously greater fertility of the land and the absence of difficulties in the production of food both domestic and natural would have made for a teeming abundance of living things not possible in today's fallen world.I'm just as tired of arguing this as you are. I wish I had the energy to muster all the points I've made on the subject over all those years you mention, but unless my new plant based diet does the miracle improvement in health so many claim for it I'm not up to it, but it's all there. No reason to think so since the volume of water before the Flood is unknown and the volume added by the Flood also unknown.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry you are so spiritually obtuse that you would deny what every true Christian knows. Nothing I can do to remedy that condition.

quote:

---

Oh honestly, the point is clear: the enormously greater habitable land -- and ocean for that matter - along with the enormously greater fertility of the land and the absence of difficulties in the production of food both domestic and natural would have made for a teeming abundance of living things not possible in today's fallen world.

---

It is quite clear that it is an ad hoc assumption. It is quite clear that you are making no attempt to quantify how much additional life should be present. And certainly you are making absolutely no attempt to show that the Flood is in any way a better explanation of the abundance of fossils.

quote:

---

I'm just as tired of arguing this as you are. I wish I had the energy to muster all the points I've made on the subject over all those years you mention, but unless my new plant based diet does the miracle improvement in health so many claim for it I'm not up to it, but it's all there.

---

That is my point. You are repeating assertions that have been thoroughly discredited in past discussions. It IS all there. You have no reasonable answers. You aren’t doing anyone any good.If you haven’t got anything worth saying, better to not say anything.

quote:

---

No reason to think so since the volume of water before the Flood is unknown and the volume added by the Flood also unknown.

---

That’s just silly. For a start the specific example I gave was crinoids that live on the sea bed. You can’t expand the sea bed without covering land. And of course, if you have more water - all else being equal - it will cover more land. Just more ad hoc excuses.

You are repeating what has already been answered by me, don't pretend you won the debate just because you made some silly rejoinder to my argument. This debate has been argued over and over and over because you refuse to acknowledge my claims, and I certainly refuse to acknowledge your silly stuff.There was at least 43% more habitable land mass before the Flood, according to the estimate I gave a few posts back, because there were no deserts or high enough mountains to be uninhabitable (by anything but bacteria anyway), and it wasn't just habitable space but lushly fertile land which would support a lot more life = an addition of more than 2/5 of what is living today == and I have no idea how to calculate how much more but perhaps it doubles or triples what the planet can sustain now plus doubling or tripling that additional 2/5 as well. The rough sketch of the differences should be enough to make the point.Certainly abundance enough to account for the fossils.What you are saying about crinoids is so nonsensical I have nothing to say about it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.