Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

Still waiting for an answer to the questions raised in Message 119This message has been edited by jar, 03-07-2006 09:30 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Faith says that the evidence she's already presented is sufficient and that she doesn't believe further discussion is necessary, but most others in this thread are having difficulty understanding why Faith thinks anything she's mentioned supports a flood scenario.Are there any other YECs out there who would like to pick up where Faith has left off by describing and interpreting the evidence for a global flood?--Percy

And who gets to decide whether the geologic 'evidence' you posted was sufficient, people who don't know anything about geology or people who know a thing or two about geology?In a scientific discussion, what you presented is far from being sufficient to adequately support the assertion that the Flood explains the lithologic and fossiliferous observations "better."In post 190 I provided you with examples of how mainstream geologists decode and interpret the rocks. How is the Flood model better? Mainstream geology can account for all the details whereas you have a problem explaining how the fossils are ordered and how a flood precipitates limestone. You don't debate or discuss anything that you KNOW you can't support. And since you have YET to tell us about carbonate deposition, you haven't proven your case at all or shown us how it's better or even "good evidence." See my post linked above and tell me why your model is better than mine.Otherwise, keep your ignorant and unsupported opinions in the Theological Creationism thread where all you need for supporting evidence is the Bible.

Faith has every right to post what she considers her best case for the flood in the science forums. Whether or not it flies is up to those reading the threads.Your last paragraph is not helpful.

---

Hi PD,I think we have a lot to learn from your point of view. You're catching some of the backlash to what many perceive as Faith's 'tude, but I think it's important that we try to hear what you're saying. Unfortunately, this probably isn't the right thread for that.If I opened a new thread would you be willing to explore this further? I'm interested in better understanding what you see as the shortcomings of the way evolutionists are presenting their arguments here in this thread, or any other appropriate thread. I'd also like to touch on how you assess the opposing arguments, and we could probably do this by going through one or two examples of flood versus geology disagreements. Is this something you'd consider?--Percy

Faith in message 83, you said about sediments:

quote:

---

all these DIFFERENT sediments, so dfiferent from each other. Different colors of limestone even. Each independently laid down in its own time period of millions of years.

---

- if the flood deposited the sediment, how do we get different layers with different types of sediments from one event? Different well defined layers? Wouldn't we expect to see one big layer instead of lots of different ones?If they were all formed at the same time, why do different layers return different radiometric dates?

I'm game if you are truly interested.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This is what is wrong with this whole argument. "What we expect" is pretty much meaningless (in relation either to a worldwide Flood or to evolution, since both are unobserved and unobservable and we have no way of knowing what conditions existed in the distant past}, but it's the level on which the whole argument is conducted. I have no idea how we get different layers with different types of sediments from the Flood, but there are creationist theories that try to explain it and they are intelligent theories.My only point is that the appearance of the strata in such neat sharply demarcated depositions of homogeneous sediments and just-so collections of fossils within their own peculiar layers suggests relatively rapid deposition of heavily sedimented water (mud basically), already full of whatever life forms will eventually be fossilized within it.The second part of my observation is that the slow-accumulation theory doesn't make sense IF YOU THINK IT THROUGH, which nobody so far has been willing to do. {abe: I mean, how NICE of Father Time to do such a neat job of dividing the eras and periods with such particular sedimentary deposits and such precise fossil contents that stay put in their designated deposit.}In contrast with all the speculative musings about how this or that might have formed, the abundance of fossils throughout the earth remains TERRIFIC evidence for a worldwide Flood.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-07-2006 01:07 PM

Faith, That's a prediction of what a global flood would do, is it?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

No, it isn't a prediction, it's what it looks like it might have done.

Again I point you to post 190. I HAS been thought through. Faith, think about it.Those nice little dividing lines are there for a reason. They are there either because of an extinction event or significant changes in lithology or fossil variety.Geologists didn't just blindly think up these divisions one day at the lab and then head out to the field to prove themselves right.Besides, you've already stated that fossils are a problem for Flood theory. Why are you contradicting yourself now?Also, I'd still like to know how floods precipitate carbonate. Until you do, your Flood theory is FALSIFIED.

Hi again Faith.

quote:

---

This is what is wrong with this whole argument. "What we expect" is pretty much meaningless (in relation either to a worldwide Flood or to evolution, since both are unobserved and unobservable and we have no way of knowing what conditions existed in the distant past}, but it's the level on which the whole argument is conducted. I have no idea how we get different layers with different types of sediments from the Flood, but there are creationist theories that try to explain it and they are intelligent theories.

---

You are saying that different layers with different sediments are "Terrific evidence" for the flood, correct? Then shouldn't "Terrific evidence" show us what we should expect to find? Terrific evidence for a flood SHOULD be one big layer, shouldn't it? We don't have that. We have many different layers. So I don't see how different layers of sediment is evidence for the flood?May we see some of these Creationist theories? If they exist?

quote:

---

In contrast with all the speculative musings about how this or that might have formed, the abundance of fossils throughout the earth remains TERRIFIC evidence for a worldwide Flood.

---

You may have answered this already, but why does the abundance of fossils throughout the earth support a worldwide Flood rather than animals living (and dying) globally?Thank you for your time

Faith, How would you know, you've never seen a global flood so you can't possibly know what evidence of one would look like.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-07-2006 01:11 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Here's a fun experiment you kids can do at home.Step 1: Put a stone on the ground.Step 2: Wait ten minutes.Step 3: Place another kind of stone on top of the first one.Step 4: Wait another ten minutes.Step 5: Place yet another kind of stone on top of the other two.Step 6: Leave for a full day. Come back. Check to see if the different layers of rock have moved around, or stayed put.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

Interesting...Faith states: and then states: More contradictions. You appear to be having trouble keeping track of your arguments and it makes for a very confusing disussion.Which is it? Can we or can we not determine what flood deposits look like?This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-07-2006 01:18 PM