Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A

"Also, don't you suppose that "alot [sic] of water" would wear those mountains down until they had rounded tops? Or at the very least, leave deposits of frozen driftwood up there? Also note that water would leave extensive cross-bedding up there, and I'm not aware of any."
--Mountain ranges formed after the Flood, over quite a vast period of time, and up there you don't find much of anything, evolution or creation can explain why, everything the size of a tree would fall off! And it wouldn't be frozen if it was not a mountain yet.---------------

To tell you the truth this is one question that I have been meaning to ask, and I guess its time to ask it, what is the mothod used to date to know this is 'smack dab in the middle of the Old kingdom in Egypt'. The Egyptians, as you know, had writting. They wrote the names of their pharoahs on the walls of their temples and monuments. From these written acounts by the Egypitans themselves we know for certain the dates of the pharoahs. The Sumerians also had writing, and did the same thing with their rulers. So there is no dispute over the Egyptian and Sumerian chronologies. See the Sumerian timelime for instance:
http://www.usfca.edu/westciv/Mesochro.html
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MESO/TIMELINE.HTMThus as there is continues civilization during the time when the world was supposidly destroyed, the Genesis Flood is a myth.And on the First Intermediate Period, see
http://www.arab.net/egypt/history/et_1stintermediate.html
http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/digital_egypt/chronology/1stintermediateperkings.html (rulers during the 1st Intermediate Period)
http://gatewaytoancientegypt.users.btopenworld.com/firstint.htmSo Egyptian Civilization continued throughout the chaos of this period, so any attempt to put the Flood in here is useless. The bottom line is there is no way a global flood could have taken place in 2500 BCE. The continuation of the Egyptian and Sumerian civiliazation is the proof.

"Since you want to play Bible games, please explain the dialogue between God and Satan found in the Book of Job. It sounds to me like God intentionally "tempted" Satan to go tempt Job, simply because God needed to demonstrate something or feel superior."
--God will not tempt man, besides whats the use to tempt if he already knows the future, he knew that if he pointed out Job to Satan Satan would go after him."Wait--that entire book could be an allegory or a parable. Except that Creationists don't seem to accept the possibility of the Bible not being literally true..."
--A little far fetched Gene. I accept the Bible to be literally true in understandable explination of the people who wrote it. I won't go off topic but breifly, God did not write it, he inspred it (God Breathed) The authors wrote threw what God told them or showed them, they could only write what they understood, thus is their point of view, and is simple and understandable to the average person, and is able to be taken literally to this degree.----------------

"Well, I think I'll jump into this thread with a question for creationists concerning the flood: How exactly does hydrologic sorting explain the distribution of fossils? A good example of this is Nautoloid fossils. The higher we go in the geologic column, the more complex the sutures are for these creatures. The lower we go, the less complex the sutures are. Now, hydrological sorting is supposed to explain why dinosaurs appear on one geological level and hominids on another. Certainly, they are of different size and shape (generally). But Nautoloids are of the same size and shape, the difference is in their sutures. Why would hydrologic sorting sort them out according to the complexity of their sutures?"
--Considering the Creationists explination of why the fossils are sorted the way they are is much more complex than what someone would think, even more complex than I used to think days ago. I believe we breifly went threw this a little bit from my previous knowledge, though It I beleive was inconclusive, but really you can't come to a real conclusion unless you can do an experiment, and to do this experiment it would simply be emense to cooperate with all the factors that would take credit for the relevance of the non-randomness that we see in the Geologic Column. The experiment you would need to preform would have to consist of a controled environment in a massive biodome a couple square miles, room enough to account for a good amount of different kinds of animals, and for more accuracy use all generas of animals and contribute all of the observations for the different generas into what would have been the kinds. There are many factors, intelligence, agility/menuverability(could it climb treas or have the ability to menuver in the midst of chaos well), shape/structure (fur, density (muscle sinks and fat floats I believe from because of density), lungs and air, etc), environment, habitat (did it live on the bottom of the ocean, middle, top of the ocean, live on ground, could it fly, and if it could fly how long can it stay in the air and when it is on the ground what is its relevance to menuverability (pterosaurs are thought to 'waddle' simmilar to the way bats menuver on ground as is shown by pelvis structure), also how can this animal adapt to quick changing environments, ie ice age or rapid climate changes could have caused virtually all non-insulated animals to die quickly and be subject to quick burrial on the next sediment deposits with little rustling around of the bodies. Hydrologic sorting plays a very small part in the reason they are burried the way they are.--------------

"And also, no there were no dinosaurs on the ark."
--Why not? Being a creationist (I believe) there is no problem with dinosaurs on the ark.---------------

"Given a starting population of Adam and Eve and given that Cain was 2nd generation how could she be a cousin?"
--Sounds considerable, though irrelevant to the topic, who said she had to be born right in the 2nd generation? Cain's wife could could have been born in the 3rd generation, thus a cousin, or great cousin...or is it just getting late..I think I need some more of that always faithful caffine. "Wow you are pretty slow when it comes to genealogy...."
--Now now none of that! ----------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Well, I think I'll jump into this thread with a question for creationists concerning the flood: How exactly does hydrologic sorting explain the distribution of fossils? A good example of this is Nautoloid fossils. The higher we go in the geologic column, the more complex the sutures are for these creatures. The lower we go, the less complex the sutures are. Now, hydrological sorting is supposed to explain why dinosaurs appear on one geological level and hominids on another. Certainly, they are of different size and shape (generally). But Nautoloids are of the same size and shape, the difference is in their sutures. Why would hydrologic sorting sort them out according to the complexity of their sutures?"
--Considering the Creationists explination of why the fossils are sorted the way they are is much more complex than what someone would think, even more complex than I used to think days ago. I believe we breifly went threw this a little bit from my previous knowledge, though It I beleive was inconclusive, but really you can't come to a real conclusion unless you can do an experiment, [snip]

---

IOW: You have no idea. Face it FalseCreation. You don't have an answer, because there cannot be an answer. Hydrological sorting cannot explain the distribution of the fossils in the geological column. To argue so is patently ridiculous. Why would we find ferns throughout the geologic column, but angiosperms only since the Cretaceous? Dinosaurs of all sizes, appear only in the Mesozoic, while other animals, only appear in the Cenozoic even though they are of the same size as Dinosaurs. Trilobites disappear at the Mesozoic, but horseshoe crabs, lobsters and other arthropods are still around. The global flood cannot in the slightest explain the distribution of fossils, and your own post proves it.SLD

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"The fact is that the Galapagos are not part of a continent."
--I would agree today, but would you consider the Florida Keys part of the North American Continent? Whether you do or don't it doesn't make relevance, though that is slightly simmilar to what we would see after the flood (not exactly, it would have been connected).

---

Considering that the Florida Keys are on the North American continental shelf, yes.

quote:

---

"Now, my bathymetry is not very precise and I don't really want to quibble over depths but most mid-ocean ridges are over 1000 feet in depth and the limited map I have shows that these ridges are between 1000 and 3000 feet in depth."
--My Flaw in my reading of the scale. I would allow 1000-3000 (meters), my mind isn't the most reliable . Here is a good screenshot of an Ocean and Continental Floor depth and elevation topography map.

---

Oh, are you sure it wasn't 4,000 feet? Or maybe 5,000? Are you sure you aren't making this up as you go?

quote:

---

--The galopagose islands would have been an attachment to central america and you would have somewhat of a river flowing threw the channel dividing depth from South America.

---

Sounds like an unsupported assertion to me. Do you have anything to back this up? Do you realize that there is a deep sea trench between the Galapagos and both mainland bodies?

quote:

---

"Now if you are assuming that the tortoises traveled from some distant point on the globe where the ark landed and crossed several continents and several land bridges to get where they are without being completely predated and/or leaving behind any relict populations along the way, I have another land bridge you might be interested in buying."
--What kind of relic would you expect to find? Millions of buffalo were killed off by indians and then by white man in which white sport hunters left almost all of the flesh and keeping the tounge. Go there today and you will find virtualy no evidence of the massacre.

---

No just a lot of Native Ameican arfifacts using bison bones, skins, etc.

quote:

---

...Not to mention how you are going to lose all of that water. Are you sure you don't want to revise your model just a bit?"
--Ofcourse I stand completely aware that it could encounter slight revision, though I don't think it will be drastically altered. An effect of magmatic activity in many areas in the earth massive amounts of water would evaporate and when drifting toward the poles would fall and freeze to encounter the ice age. We all know there was at least one ice age, though it is another post to discuss how many and what the evidence is, this was the cause of the Flood. And since then it has receded to what we see today (still alot of ice!). What do you mean by loosing water?

---

I mean: where did it go?

quote:

---

Realatively the same amount of water is being used throughout the Flood Theory.

---

What do you mean "relatively" the same amount?

quote:

---

"Interesting salamanders you've got. Funny how they leave prints that look just like dinosaurs. By the way, have you ever tried to leave a footprint under water? Interesting also that dinosaurs would build nests and lay eggs in the middle of a flood."
--Reptiles are also partly aquatic, many lizards swim threoughout water (Dinosaurs were just overgrown unique lizards from long lived lives, reptiles don't stop growing) Also Leviathan as told in the Bible (I freely admit assuming it could be a dinosaur) breathed fire per se and was a absolutely massive ferocious lizard that was untamable and swam in the depths of the waters. I could leave footprints under water easy as long as it is muddy and I was balanced enough or my body weight very much compaired to the volume of air in my lungs that would overcome floating and thus causing preasure to make the print, also it is possible that water was not massivly deep in this time period as we know that most all the sedimentary layers were deposited in 40 days plus a couple weeks during the active periods in the Flood deposition, also land was reletively equalized, there weren't any mountains, it was all terrain like the State of Florida with elevations of about 300ft at the heighest at the stress point of the flood before it started receding.

---

I think I'll just let this nonsense speak for itself. Do you have any idea how silly it sounds?

quote:

---

"So thousands of feet of water just disappeared and then returned? I don't get your model here. I thought the land was submerged for about a year. Perhaps you could give us a description of how this "fluctuating" model worked. Actual examples in the geological record would be helpful."
--I'll try to give a breif explination as my theory on the simplistic basics of the Flood fundimentals.

---

No, no. I've had enough of simplistic models. Give me references. Give me data and details.

quote:

---

Let us pretend that the 'periods' in the geologic column represent each mass deposit, this may give great difficulties for the Flood to explain but for the sake of simplistic explination lets pretend that these were the deposits. Cambrian would have been the first deposit, as the Fountains of the deep broke loose and killed all these microbes and caused slightly a small amount of water to come with the magma in the earths crust, though nothing to be made relevant. Now all these animals around are going crazy and they don't know whats going on but the flood isn't even puddles to them yet, now these would probley be small catastrophe's and then lets skip up to the 'Permian, Triassic, andJurrasic periods' and whatnot and now theres these rapid sea level rises comeing in and forcing them to start fleeing for their lives, find high ground from flooding. Now all the less intelligent or slow animals are going to get caught and their gonna die and some will be burried from the large sediment deposits coming in from flood sweeping the land and kicking up dirt sending it for roller coaster rides over miles of land to be high in some areas and lower in other areas. currents would kick up sediments and much more would be deposited on the continents than on sea floors. This continues and more verieties of animals die from different obsicles that they face that they can survive or not from. It is difficult to say exactly what my personal conclusive view would be on for the existence of ice caps before the Flood, but I would speculate that there were ice caps before the flood that would have broken up and melted from heat and then frozen again from its polar position over time after the Flood. What exactly would you mean by Fluctuating model?

---

Yeah, let's just skip the Permian, Triassic, Jurassic and the rest...Now if slower organisms were going to be covered by the flood and buried first, why are flowering plants only found in the latest part of the geological record? Were they more intelligent and faster than dinosaurs for instance? And what is this about killing off all of the microbes? I'm sorry but your model is gibberish.

quote:

---

"And you think that this rock looks like a humanoid skull?"
--I thought the same untill I read further.

---

Then you understand the power of suggestion.

quote:

---

"And those other logs or roots look like femurs?"
--I beleive that this is another article, and this 'rock' wasn't a 'rock' and is evident that it is actual bone.

---

That cannot be inferred from the article.

quote:

---

"Sorry, but if you believe these, you will believe anything and there is nothing I can do for you. As to the big conspiracy to cover up discordant data, do you realize how hard it would be to perpetrate such a conspiracy among paleontologists and geologists?"
--Is there not reason to believe that this is not bone? You can't really refute anything by saying, well it isn't a bone, its a rock, look at it, its a rock. I could simply say anything such in this nature and would get nothing but critisizm from you for the same assertions. I see how hard it would be to perpetrate such a conspiracy, this is why these papers are real, do you believe these faxes/letters were frauds?

---

The lack of scientific description is suspicious. I respectfully suggest that I have seem more geologica frauds than you. And, oh yes, there have been very nice letters connected with them.

quote:

---

"Really, I hate to burst your bubble but CSC is hardly considered to be a credible reference."
--For one, why so, they have a brain just as compadible with reality as we all do. Second, it isn't really CSC reference, it is their source, the page is theirs, but their sources arent.

---

Right. I stand by my assessment.

quote:

---

"I looked at this last night and don't remember much, but I think it was Walt Brown. In that case, your argument is self refuted. Maybe some more on this later."
--There really isn't anything such as a 'self refutation' from an assertion of it being the relevance of an individual. I would like some more on this, this does not excuse the relevance of these findings.

---

It is just a joke. Walt Brown has been refuted so many times that I consider anything he writes to be erroneous before I read it.

quote:

---

"Okay then how did the flowering plants run to higher ground way ahead of dinosaurs for instance so that they would only occur in deposits younger than Jurassic (I think)?"
--The existence of pollen grains shows that they were existing in pre-cambrian time, this is relevant until it can be refuted by logic, not by methodology.

---

This has been adequately refuted also. Pollen grains in the Hakatai shale are exactly the same as those falling on the ground today. They are found only in cracks and open spaces. They are contamination permitted by sloppy sampling, probably by a creationist.

quote:

---

"The flood model has been abandoned by mainstream science for nearly a century. It is simply not supported by the facts. Don't you think it is time for you to move on?"
--I would have to abandon it if it was not supported by the facts, I find the contrary. I think that when I move on, there will be good reason.

---

I'm sure it will be good.

"Oh, are you sure it wasn't 4,000 feet? Or maybe 5,000? Are you sure you aren't making this up as you go?"
--Tell you the truth, I was in your shoes, I would suspect the same from myself. Though in truth, it was about the depth of the continental shelf, which is deeper than 1000ft, which is what my memory told me."Sounds like an unsupported assertion to me. Do you have anything to back this up? Do you realize that there is a deep sea trench between the Galapagos and both mainland bodies?"
--Yes I am aware of the deep sea trench from south america as is seen in the screen shot of my last post. Though I would disagree for the attachment to central america as there isn't such a trench in the location."No just a lot of Native Ameican arfifacts using bison bones, skins, etc."
--I didn't read the first question right, so let me just emphesize that the ark wasn't going anywhere, landing in the Middle east region, assuming the bible is right, landing in the mountains of Arrarat. Also something to consider is that Before the Flood there wasn't the killing of animals as we were all vegetarian. And in response to the comment, the reason is because they were preserved by the people, not left to decay and rot."I mean: where did it go?"
--a majority of it is still in the pollar regions, some of it is out in space as is shown by water vapor floating around, though this could also be explained by comets or other sources, but the rest is right where it is now, the ocean basins sank and mountains were uplifted and as it is told in the bible God changed the earths topography so that it would never again return to flood the earth, God's promise."What do you mean "relatively" the same amount?"
--I mean relatively the same amount because, for some people they say that much of the water came from in the earths crust, which is certainly possible, in which the more water that came out in contrast with magma is less problems with heat. Some even go for the vapor canopy theory, which isn't needed but could be relevent for catastrophic causes of the Flood. People reach in different areas for their sources of water, though it still remains no less and no more water is needed."I think I'll just let this nonsense speak for itself. Do you have any idea how silly it sounds?"
--Because this is irrelevant as I point out all throughout my posts with out a reason or explination, an emphesis is needed for your assertion to be in the least relevant."No, no. I've had enough of simplistic models. Give me references. Give me data and details."
--Entire books and series of books are written on the subject, and like evolution there are different theories, I am not ready for a massive post of a couple hundred thousand words to explain to you the details, I think you would agree that starting and going threw the subject throuroughly, smoothly and in small quantities is much more effective for the discussion. Pick an area to start and we can work our way through."Yeah, let's just skip the Permian, Triassic, Jurassic and the rest..."
--I can't write you a book, your question was very vague and non specific."Now if slower organisms were going to be covered by the flood and buried first, why are flowering plants only found in the latest part of the geological record?"
--Pollen grains are found in early strata and untill you can refute that with reason it remains valid."And what is this about killing off all of the microbes?"
--Microbes are found all throughout the geologic column because they are all throughout water, they would be burried and would die quickly from the heat and unlike fish, they don't float to the top."I'm sorry but your model is gibberish."
--Can you give a relevant reason why it is."Then you understand the power of suggestion."
--So your admitting you didn't read furthur? It sertainly would explain your assertion."That cannot be inferred from the article."
--Sertainly can, why can't it? Did you read it all, and where did the femurs come from?"The lack of scientific description is suspicious."
--What would you like more emphesis on?"I respectfully suggest that I have seem more geologica frauds than you."
--Besides making no relevance to the discussion, I have seen many frauds, and have extreamly rarely seen even close to the specifics on such faxes and letters."And, oh yes, there have been very nice letters connected with them."
--Care to point out a few of simmilar nature to this one?"Right. I stand by my assessment."
--Anyone can stand by a statement, but whether you can or can't, it can still be a silly or even wrong statement. I will just give you the benefit and consider it withdrawn."It is just a joke. Walt Brown has been refuted so many times that I consider anything he writes to be erroneous before I read it."
--Reference..Tell you the truth, I have found very little refutation of his work, accept for his Hydroplate theory (I believe this is Walt Brown's theory). For any evolutionist, I would avoid considering something as you have, even Kent Hovind making a few quite erronious claims (though their years old and they were possibly good in that time) though some of his reference is very good."This has been adequately refuted also. Pollen grains in the Hakatai shale are exactly the same as those falling on the ground today. They are found only in cracks and open spaces. They are contamination permitted by sloppy sampling, probably by a creationist."
--Whats the reference? Also, how far did you have to dig to find these pollen grains in the cracks? Also, being they are the same ones falling down today would be expected. Whats the source of your claim, I'd like to read it anyways."I'm sure it will be good."
--It would sure have to be!--------------------

"IOW: You have no idea."
--You mean In your words."Face it FalseCreation. You don't have an answer, because there cannot be an answer."
--I just gave you the fundementals."Hydrological sorting cannot explain the distribution of the fossils in the geological column."
--Hydrologic sorting sertainly can't on its lonesome and as I explained earlier, it plays quite the small part in it."To argue so is patently ridiculous."
--Really?"Why would we find ferns throughout the geologic column, but angiosperms only since the Cretaceous?"
--I think I'd like to ask a relevant question, what exactly is it that the scientists are looking at to determin when angiosperms entered the fossil record? I'd like to start here, where I should have started earlier."Dinosaurs of all sizes, appear only in the Mesozoic, while other animals, only appear in the Cenozoic even though they are of the same size as Dinosaurs."
--Size doesn't matter hardly at all, size is relevant to probley 2-4% (thus hydrologic sorting) of the reason we find things the way they are. Also, dinosaurs are all unusual reptiles, one thing to start us off with a discussion of this is that they are pretty much extinct so we dont' know exactly what their antomy would be in botany, we can only speculate."Trilobites disappear at the Mesozoic, but horseshoe crabs, lobsters and other arthropods are still around."
--The first sediments would have been deposited in the oceans, and buried marine animals. Slow movers such as the trilobites would have been entombed first, while fish could have more easily escaped the underwater avalanches. Strata up to the Mesozoic gives abundance of time for trilobites to be burried. Horseshoe crabs and lobsters have a much more vast amount of menuverability than the trilobite."The global flood cannot in the slightest explain the distribution of fossils, and your own post proves it."
--Were just getting started, im expecting this thread to rage for thousands of posts. Also you have pretty much just joined lately.-----------------

---

TrueCreation writes:
A majority of it [the water from Noah's flood] is still in the polar regions, some of it is out in space as is shown by water vapor floating around, though this could also be explained by comets or other sources, but the rest is right where it is now. The ocean basins sank and mountains were uplifted and as it is told in the bible God changed the earths topography so that it would never again return to flood the earth, God's promise.

---

I think this explanation is okay as a preliminary attempt at an explanation, but where is the supporting geologic evidence?We were discussing the Grand Canyon a while back, and there were several messages you didn't have the opportunity to reply to. I think if you examine the responses from me, Mark and Moose in messages 78, 80, 87 and 88 you'll understand why it is widely believed the Grand Canyon is a relatively ancient formation on the order of millions of years old.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"IOW: You have no idea."
--You mean In your words.

​

"Face it FalseCreation. You don't have an answer, because there cannot be an answer."
--I just gave you the fundementals.

​

"Hydrological sorting cannot explain the distribution of the fossils in the geological column."
--Hydrologic sorting sertainly can't on its lonesome and as I explained earlier, it plays quite the small part in it.

---

??? It's the only creationist explanation offered for the distribution of fossils. The fossils were put in place by the great flood and hydrological sorting is responsible for explaining the location of each in the geologic column.

quote:

---

​

"To argue so is patently ridiculous."
--Really?

​

"Why would we find ferns throughout the geologic column, but angiosperms only since the Cretaceous?"
--I think I'd like to ask a relevant question, what exactly is it that the scientists are looking at to determin when angiosperms entered the fossil record? I'd like to start here, where I should have started earlier.

​

---

Scientists are looking at fossils of both pollens and leaves of angiosperms.

quote:

---

"Dinosaurs of all sizes, appear only in the Mesozoic, while other animals, only appear in the Cenozoic even though they are of the same size as Dinosaurs."
--Size doesn't matter hardly at all, size is relevant to probley 2-4% (thus hydrologic sorting) of the reason we find things the way they are. Also, dinosaurs are all unusual reptiles, one thing to start us off with a discussion of this is that they are pretty much extinct so we dont' know exactly what their antomy would be in botany, we can only speculate.

​

"Trilobites disappear at the Mesozoic, but horseshoe crabs, lobsters and other arthropods are still around."
--The first sediments would have been deposited in the oceans, and buried marine animals. Slow movers such as the trilobites would have been entombed first, while fish could have more easily escaped the underwater avalanches. Strata up to the Mesozoic gives abundance of time for trilobites to be burried. Horseshoe crabs and lobsters have a much more vast amount of menuverability than the trilobite.

​

---

So, fast moving conches out raced the slow moving trilobites? Gee, wouldn't one modern creature get entombed in the Cambrian? It's funny how creationists want to talk about the alleged improbability of evolution and biogenesis, but then make up stories to explain their data that are so patently impossible. What are the odds that a flood would put all the fossils in their place just so; giving the appearance of evolution?

quote:

---

​

"The global flood cannot in the slightest explain the distribution of fossils, and your own post proves it."
--Were just getting started, im expecting this thread to rage for thousands of posts. Also you have pretty much just joined lately.

​

-----------------

​

​

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Oh, are you sure it wasn't 4,000 feet? Or maybe 5,000? Are you sure you aren't making this up as you go?"
--Tell you the truth, I was in your shoes, I would suspect the same from myself. Though in truth, it was about the depth of the continental shelf, which is deeper than 1000ft, which is what my memory told me.

---

I think you are deep enough here. I rest my case. Your explanation is an ad hoc theory that makes little sense when viewed with all of the data.

quote:

---

"No just a lot of Native Ameican arfifacts using bison bones, skins, etc."
--I didn't read the first question right, so let me just emphesize that the ark wasn't going anywhere, landing in the Middle east region, assuming the bible is right, landing in the mountains of Arrarat. Also something to consider is that Before the Flood there wasn't the killing of animals as we were all vegetarian. And in response to the comment, the reason is because they were preserved by the people, not left to decay and rot.

---

Egad, you really believe this, don't you?

quote:

---

"I mean: where did it go?"
--a majority of it is still in the pollar regions, some of it is out in space as is shown by water vapor floating around, though this could also be explained by comets or other sources, but the rest is right where it is now, the ocean basins sank and mountains were uplifted and as it is told in the bible God changed the earths topography so that it would never again return to flood the earth, God's promise.

---

Perhaps you can answer my question then since you know so much about the ocean basins. Why do we even have ocean basins?

quote:

---

"No, no. I've had enough of simplistic models. Give me references. Give me data and details."
--Entire books and series of books are written on the subject, and like evolution there are different theories, I am not ready for a massive post of a couple hundred thousand words to explain to you the details, I think you would agree that starting and going threw the subject throuroughly, smoothly and in small quantities is much more effective for the discussion. Pick an area to start and we can work our way through.

---

Wrong. You are the one who says there are books written about this stuff. Assume that I have never seen one. What is your best piece of data supporting a young earth and/or a flood.

quote:

---

"Yeah, let's just skip the Permian, Triassic, Jurassic and the rest..."
--I can't write you a book, your question was very vague and non specific.

---

So, you wish to ignore wide tracts of the geological record? Give us something to talk about. Enough arm waving.

quote:

---

"Now if slower organisms were going to be covered by the flood and buried first, why are flowering plants only found in the latest part of the geological record?"
--Pollen grains are found in early strata and untill you can refute that with reason it remains valid.

---

You are the one saying that they exist. Seems that it's up to you to produce the data. Funny how we find all kinds of branches, roots, stems and leaves in Mz/Cz rocks but only pollen in the Precambrian shale... How do you explain that?

quote:

---

"That cannot be inferred from the article."
--Sertainly can, why can't it? Did you read it all, and where did the femurs come from?

---

You don't get it. They are NOT femurs.

quote:

---

"It is just a joke. Walt Brown has been refuted so many times that I consider anything he writes to be erroneous before I read it."
--Reference..Tell you the truth, I have found very little refutation of his work, accept for his Hydroplate theory (I believe this is Walt Brown's theory).

---

Good. Then you know how silly it is.

quote:

---

"This has been adequately refuted also. Pollen grains in the Hakatai shale are exactly the same as those falling on the ground today. They are found only in cracks and open spaces. They are contamination permitted by sloppy sampling, probably by a creationist."
--Whats the reference? Also, how far did you have to dig to find these pollen grains in the cracks? Also, being they are the same ones falling down today would be expected. Whats the source of your claim, I'd like to read it anyways.

---

The point is that they didn't dig very deep. Don't have the ref any more. Someone named Chadwick, I think. Maybe someone here has it. Doesn't matter anymore. Creationists have rebutted it all after the fact, saying oh yeah, forgot to tell you, we did that! Of course it's never been done again...

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 01-21-2002]

"I think this explanation is okay as a preliminary attempt at an explanation, but where is the supporting geologic evidence?"
--The geologic evidence for the source of the water? I guess if that is the question, im not exactly sure what your looking for in my answer, its simply put there really isn't any more water needed."We were discussing the Grand Canyon a while back, and there were several messages you didn't have the opportunity to reply to. I think if you examine the responses from me, Mark and Moose in messages 78, 80, 87 and 88 you'll understand why it is widely believed the Grand Canyon is a relatively ancient formation on the order of millions of years old."
--I am aware of this problem, and I think that most peopole would think thats because I can't explain it, well I would be thinking the same, when I first attempted a reply, i only got half way through mark24's response and was unable to get enough time to add much more so i continued answering the responses that were much easier. I would be thankful If i could get a good time to respond. thanx for the thread numbers, It would have taken me a bit to go threw a good portion of this forum to find the ones i didn't respond to. I would like to continue the discussion of the Grand canyon being reletively young or an ancient formation, It is a bit exhasperating to attempt the research I must be aware of to answer some questions being there different aspects of science in the responses.------------------

TC, I applaud your brave attempts to rationalize your mythology with the geologic record. Heve you ever seen the Monty Python skit with the knight who gets his limbs hacked off, yet still taunts his opponent?At every point, you are so woefully underequipped in the knowledge department, you don't have any idea how badly you have missed the mark. Sometimes you seem to realize this..

quote:

---

--I think I'd like to ask a relevant question, what exactly is it that the scientists are looking at to determin when angiosperms entered the fossil record? I'd like to start here, where I should have started earlier.

---

There are many questions you should have asked before going off half-cocked with the standard Creationist "model". But take heart, it is still possible to learn... just keep asking those questions. Ignorance is easily corrected.If I may, I would like to help you out. You and your friends here have been roaming all over the landscape with ideas from every part of the evo/creto debate. It might help to step back and think about things a little more systematically. It's a bit daunting at first... to really get a handle on this discussion, you really need to know a fair amount from several fields of science - geology, biology, physics, chemistry, etc.To help you get started on a sound footing, maybe you should start learning about geology. This field includes most of the evidence we refer to, and understanding the principles involved will keep your head above water in most discussions of the Flood. There are many points in this discussion where your lack of knowledge has made your argument ridiculous, or left you incapable of even understanding that you had a problem.The Green River evaporites is a good example. Someone pointed out how these evaporites couldn't have formed in a flood, yet your response indicated you didn't even know the rocks are named for the Green River which flows nearby... and that the river had absolutely nothing to do with the formation of the evaporites.Your latest comments about trilobites being far slower than lobsters and horseshoe crabs is another good example. Did you know that trilobites are always found lower than corals, barnacles, and clams? These are completely immobile. They cannot move.Think about wood. It floats - sometimes for years. Yet massive beds of coal are found halfway down the geologic column... formed mostly out of wood, leaves, bark, etc. These are overlain by sandstones, gravels, clay, silt, etc. How do heavy stones and rocks and sand float longer in the Flood than all that wood?In a way, its not fair. The other posters in this discussion have geology degrees. That doesn't make them automatically right and you wrong, but they are asking you to explain a theory that you don't understand, and for which you do not have evidence to support it. You are not even aware of the existance of much of what is being discussed here. Only a large dose of education will correct your deficiencies. Unfortunately, most Creationist sources are intentionally vague in the details and specifics, so you won't (and haven't) learn much there. I'm afraid you will just have to hold your nose and wade into the regular geology literature. If I could make you read and understand one resource on the web, it would be this one: Creation Science and Earth HistoryIf you really want to learn a major part of what geology has to say about the Creation "models", this site will show you much of what you have been missing at the Creationists sites. Please read through each of the articles. Use the recommended reading list to check out a few books at the library, and use them to help you understand the terminology and processes involved.Good luck,and be happy...