The TRVE history of the Flood...

Please do not do this to me. I can't be expected to remember anything that's been posted without more description. Again the mention of something "we discussed before" is just mystification and I have to ignore it, knowing that you're a busy man who hates this whole discussion and shouldn't be asked to waste your time clarifying anything for a stubborn creationist who is only going to turn it to purposes of proving the Flood. You don't have a model unless it is based on the data. Why is that a problem? It's what I would expect.ABE: Have you explained the cause of the subsidence of a basin? Why is it confined to that limited local area? You've said the salt has nothing to do with it, but what does? If the basin subsides, why not the land around it? /abe I had in mind subsidence of the huge areas on which the layers are deposited so deep, not basins. As it is those huge areas seem to remain unsubsided. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

One commentary says:I do get confused about this because in Genesis 7:24 it says it prevailed 150 days. So it means the Flood rose for 40 and stayed at its peak for 150 days. Well, it's possible I need to learn more about tides. I figured that since they occur now that they would also occur during the Flood. Something to think about. Maybe someone else can contribute to this thought. Or maybe you could expand on 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.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But where have I said they have to move hundreds of miles? I don't think I've had a clear idea of how far inland the tide had to come, just a "long" way, and that its length would depend on how high the sea had risen, reaching father with each rise in sea level. That's what I said in what I was quoted as saying. Maybe somewhere I speculated on hundreds of miles? If so, consider this a correction. Even at a hundred miles an hour, the fact that high tides are twelve hours apart means animals would have time to run across the mudflat left behind -- during the time the water is at low tide or approaching or leaving it. But I don't want to argue for hundreds of miles anyway. How many miles I don't know, if miles at all. Soon as the water leaves I'd make a run for it myself; I figure so would an animal given the choice of swimming or running.For tracks to be preserved the mudflat would have to dry to some extent. If high tide is out for twelve hours (?) [either at low tide or coming or going between] wouldn't that be time enough?I suppose the water would have to be gentler than edge imagines me claiming, to preserve a dinosaur nest (?) but dinosaur nests did get buried in mud/wet sediment, did they not? That's how they were preserved. And all of them are found in the Jurassic-Cretaceous layers. Somehow they got covered by water full of sediments which preserved them by encasing them and burying them in those sediments. In other words this fits a Flood scenario even if human imagination fails at finding a really convincing description of how it could have happened.I have to keep coming back to this basic fact that being buried in mud describes all the fossils and that fits the Flood and can only be rationalized with unlikely tales to make it fit the Geological Time Scale scenarios.All this speculation is necessary I suppose, but in the end it IS all speculation based on bits and pieces of knowledge from here or there, and even the most reasonable guesses will never tell us what the Flood was really like, we'll always miss something. But focusing on the big picture, the strata, the former sediments/mud of which the strata are formed, their layering in stacks of different kinds of sediment with no evidence of the kind of surface effects that would occur from spending any time at the surface of the earth, the abundance of fossilized dead things buried in that mud, all fit the Flood and not the Geo Time Scale.

Yes, it couldn't. That's the problem with the forty-hour flood. The translation the guy with the Number Name used says the flood "prevailed" forty days, but when I looked up the KJV it just says it was on the earth forty days. You have to read the whole passage very carefully to see that in one verse it sounds like it happened and that's that, but when you read further you see it's describing a much more protracted time period. That's how I saw the Flood as rising over five months. And I'm going back to that even though it still needs some sorting out. If it rained for forty days and nights and the Flood got STARTED in those forty days (the waters kept increasing it says after that so that's not fudging anything) then there's room for the rain stopping after the first forty days. Stopping long enough for the tracks and trace fossils to be preserved. It's all guessing ringo. What keeps me going on it is just that 1) I know the Flood happened; and 2) there's no other reasonable interpretation of all that layered sediment with fossils in it than the Flood. The specifics are necessarily speculative.

Militate against which hypothesis?Fossilized forests are forests the Flood overtook and buried in wet sediments. What's wrong with that hypothesis? Maybe my last few posts have answered some, I hope.

OK. I have no idea what "a generalized craton" could refer to. The craton is that hard rock foundation of the continent that covers about all of Canada and most of the US to the east. I can't visualize where it fits on the chart, I can't visualize the transgressions and have no idea how they were arrived at, I can't visualize the "erosion" stuff, I simply cannot make ANY sense of that chart.Supposedly it describes six shallow sea transgressions that laid down the sediments of the associated time periods. That's about all I know about it. And from that I added up the depth of the strata associated with each and came to that conclusion that altogether the transgressions had to amount to the level of Noah's Flood. Subsidence of the land has not been shown to answer this so I still think that. Sorry about that. I'm glad it now seems to be straightened out. At least that much anyway.

Sorry, that's all incomprehensible to me. I get some of it but not much. OK but a link would have made it easier. {There is an easy way to link to an in-thread message: Message 613 See "peek."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Unless I missed it somehow, what edge said about petrified forests wasn't specific enough to identify the kind of situation you're talking about, the layered petrified trees. I'd seen a presentation on the Spirit Lake trees and how they got into their upright positions in layers. It does seem like a reasonable model for the Yellowstone trees as well, after seeing the diagram and reading the descriptions.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know my view is only tangentially in tune with most creationist thinking but I've spent a lot of time thinking about it so I'm willing to be at odds with creationists if necessary. First I don't give the environment the weight in variation/microevolution that many do, which is really natural selection. It has to occur sometimes but it seems to me most variation occurs as the simple result of reproductive isolation of a portion of a population. Natural selection brings about change by doing this too but it's a more costly method.As animals came off the ark they'd have gone in different directions, built up their populations, and fairly soon those of one Species or Kind would break up into smaller populations, and as those populations continued to migrate and get geographically isolated they would develop/microevolve into new varieties or races. This happens because of having their own set of gene frequencies among them compared with the other populations of the same Species. Each small population that split off would eventually by inbreeding develop a completely new type of the animal, race, variety, species, subspecies, whatever the right term is.This assumes greater genetic diversity on the Ark than exists in most/all species now, to allow such a great degree of diversifcation, and I believe that was the case and was due to a higher level of heterozygosity among them, which is a reflection of higher genetic diversity -- more alleles per gene at least, perhaps more genes as well.As population splits occur and new populations become isolated from the others, the genetic diversity is less in each new group because new phenotypes emerge based on specific alleles, leaving behind other alleles for other traits and types. The others stay in the overall Species, in other races and subspecies but are lost to a particular population. So tigers have the genetic material for tigers and don't have the relevant genetic material for bobcats or leopards, which have their own group genome or genetic makeup, etc. Each group has decreased genetic diversity in relation to the whole Species of Cat, while over time in reproductive isolation inbreeding produces a characteristic phenotype.But you say this: ...which is the reverse of what I would say. Reduced genetic diversity is one of the most likely ways a population would get to the point of speciation, which is the loss of ability to breed with other populations. Over time of course after many different species or subspecies have developed within the Kind there would be less evolution going on because of the reduced genetic diversity. In other words even if current populations split up into smaller isolated populations there probably wouldn't be a lot of differences between them. I could be wrong, maybe we could get two distinctly different species of lion or wildebeest, depends completely on the genetic diversity still available for selection (using that word in its broadest sense as what happens when populations do split. If twenty people got isolated on an island with twenty cats, even if all different races and types, in a few hundred years of inbreeding they'd be a recognizable race unto themselves, both humans and cats. The new breed of cat would become highly prized around the world, the people would get rich from breeding them and move off their island and lose their special characteristics but anyway. More likely all the inbreeding would start bringing out genetic diseases, but oh well.But I digress. Again I don't think ecology has much to do with variation or speciation, I think it's all about reduced genetic diversity due to a long history of population splits since the Ark. All the high genetic diversity on the Ark produced a huge variety of species or races, but since each new species forms because of a loss of genetic diversity, eventually the possibilities for new variation/evolution/speciation reach an end point. Always the best example of this condition is the cheetah with its extremely high number of fixed loci making them near-clones of one another. Presumably they got to that point through a bottleneck, but that's what a series of population splits would end up with too. Unfortunately this involves an increase in genetic diseases, making the condition undesirable; that's why old-fashioned selective breeding to produce more and more exotic breeds had to give way to the more modern methods of including cross breeding even at the cost of losing a pure breed. Again I'd say it's all a function of genetic diversity. If a species still has high genetic diversity (basically a high percentage of heterozygosity) then you can continue to get new varieties and species.I haven't read your link yet but "speedy species" in my view is always the case wherever you have population splits and reproductive isolation. In a large homogeneous population that doesn't split, say a population of a million wildebeests that always herd together then you won't get much change. But if some split off and get isolated they will become a new species or subspecies. Where there are such population splits it takes very little time to produce new species if the genetic diversity is still available. Inbreeding within an isolated population will produce a new species within whatever time it takes to mix together the gene frequencies of the group. The smaller the population the speedier it will be, but even a much larger group will change into a recognizable type in far far less than a million years, a couple hundred perhaps for a large population of herd animals. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's OK but I do think of the Flood as occurring in stages so that the tides would only be a factor as it was rising, possibly also as receding; then after it reached its highest level (and I'm still not clear how long each of these phases would have lasted) the water would have been fairly quiet and sediments would be precipitated out of it. And I've not decided about the subsidence factor, merely consider it as a possibility. The water could have risen three miles according to at least one commentary I read. The vast majority, all the fossils in the strata. But the others are formed how and where? The nests are buried inside the layers, the "rivers and canyons" aren't really rivers and canyons, but burrows do appear on the surface of buried layers.But the overall point is that what we see is stacks of lithified sediments/'mud with fossils in them; we don't see anything that suggests time periods of millions of years except by extreme stretching (imaginative interpretation) of the facts.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

• The Ark was well stocked.
• There was at least an olive tree the dove plucked a leaf from, so that means there would have been other trees that survived as well.
• Plants would have already started to grow as soon as some of the land was exposed and that was in less than a year.
• Plants that had lived in the pre-Flood world, like all other living things, would have been much more vigorous than those today, possibly growing much faster.

The far less lush new environment would have taken a toll on all of them however, as time went by.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't think speciation -- or diversification -- occurred any faster after the Flood than before, or now if the circumstances permit, but creatures on the Ark would have had much higher genetic diversity than those today. After the Flood they would have increased in population over some number of years, many of them probably not moving too far from the Ark (ABE: Rethink: Actually they'd following the plants that were growing/abe), and then spread out into isolated groups that formed new species. In a couple hundred years there could have been very large populations of every animal already diversified into new species. People too. This is all normal genetics, nothing especially rapid about it as long as the Species/Kind starts out with sufficiently high genetic diversity. The only reason it isn't going on as rapidly today is that many groups are genetically decreased to the point that change is slowed.CRR may disagree with me about this of course.I'm sure he's right, however, that many new species did become extinct in the less friendly new environment after the Flood. This is surely what happened with the dinosaurs that needed an environment lush with vegetation.; Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Wha? All that has to happen is that they be buried in mud/wet sediments, decomposition before burial is unnecessary. The decomposition occurs during burial and then the hard parts are fossilized. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Comparing a local flood to a worldwide flood is ridiculous.The rain was not the only source of the Flood water: the "windows of heaven" and the "fountains of the deep" were the main source, neither of which had been opened before.The main idea for how the Flood waters drained is that the sea floor dropped.

Ringo, you've obviously not followed former discussions of this subject, you're coming at this as a complete newbie knowing nothing. I'll answer what I can when I can but be advised all of it has been answered before many times. Maybe I can dig up some links to earlier threads.Yes, my fault for the lack of clarity, the windows of heaven are rain.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.