Evidence for and against Flood theories

Jazzns,Well, what I have learned so far is that I know zilch about geology. I knew that already, but it has been made painfully clear to me now, and, since actual geologists and people (like you), who have had some college courses in geology, post on threads like these, it seemed rather ridiculous for me to try to defend or even state my position when I have not even fundamental knowledge.However, I can ask a few questions perhaps or offer some musings. The geologists (like Edge, for instance) have been fairly nice to me. So, I'll throw a post or two more into this, and see what happens.

Hi edge,Thanks for answering my question: Your answer was: I see what you are saying--i.e., that the process of evolution means living organisms have been living and dying for billions of years; therefore, evolution accounts for the order of the fossils.However, I was wanting to know the proposed mechanisms of actual fossilization, as far as conventional geology is concerned. I can see how my question could have been interpreted the way you did; so let me re-ask it: Thanks.{edited to change Subtitle}This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 01-04-2005 18:58 AM

Coragyps,This is an interesting topic. I have only the most rudimentary knowledge of Chemistry, unfortunately.It would be interesting to me to see chemists/geologists from the creationists' side attempt to propose not only sources of the massive amounts of limestone (Walt Brown proposes that it was under the original surface of the earth before the Flood--I am unfamiliar with other opinions) but also how the CO₂ might have been dealt with.However, one must remember, that from a Christian's point of view, the Flood is a supernatural event. Actually, personally, I see even everyday laws (like gravity) to be the result of God in action. But in the case of the Flood, He was doing something unusual.Would the CO₂ make the atmosphere permanently unbreatheable? If not, then, keep in mind God's stated purpose was to destroy the earth. In this case, He would need only to protect those on the Ark. If the CO₂ would make the atmosphere unbreatheable permanently then it would seem reasonable that God simply "took care of it" (even if eventually it turns out there is a perfectly logical explanation for where all the CO₂ went.) {Oops. Left the last parenthesis off. Fixed by edit.}I would never think of overlooking the supernatural aspect of the Flood (or any other part of life). I am contending only that the Flood left geological evidence of its occurence--i.e., that the majority of the fossils/sedimentary layers are due to the event. I am not contending that the event was purely natural from start to finish. {Well, since I'm editing, I reworded this last paragraph a bit to make it sound a little better.}This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 01-04-2005 19:33 AM

Who wrote the last post? It has Lam's pic, but it is also addressed to Lam and is contradictory to most of Lam's views?Just curious.I probably agree with the writer, to some degree, whoever it is, but this seems strange.--TheLiteralistThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 01-11-2005 21:16 AM

Ned (and TrueCreation),Why are the seashells on mountain tops (the ones that we actually see) not evidence of a global flood?--TheLiteralist

Hi Lam,Well, it looks like you've answered your own question. Apparently you have been really affected by my great posts on these subjects.See Message 71Good point about the tsunami, Lam, and the general feeling is that the Flood would have been similar but many times worse than any of the catastrophes we see happening today.Another thing to consider is that the water is said to have covered everything...also, it is thought that the mountains were formed during the final stages of the Flood. In other words, the waters were never as high as Mt Everest, but Mt Everest didn't exist until sometime after the Flood started receding. {added by edit: but whether Mt Everest forms as a result of the Flood or the Flood simply covered Mt. Everest--either way, water once covered Mt. Everest.--I never really got your point in Message 10--Creationists do not propose that water stays hilly like that, so far as I know.}But as has been demonstrated in other threads, I don't know enough about geology (okay, I know almost nothing about geology) to back up such claims to even a small degree.But since you seem to have this new view...I thought you'd be interested in these thoughts.--TheLiteralist
PS...my links aren't working correctly now...that's supposed to be Message 71 and Message 10 in THIS thread.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 01-11-2005 21:22 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 01-11-2005 21:37 AM

Loudmouth,Yes, but the Flood model proposes that pretty much ALL the layers comprising Mt Everest were deposited during the Flood and then the mountain was uplifted during the receding stages. The fact that there are marine fossils IN the mountain is taken only as stronger evidence for such a scenario.I don't know a thing about geology, but I just trying to clarify what I understand the Creationists' Flood models to hypothesize.--TL

Loudmouth,Well, I can't hope to explain the consequences of CPT (Catastrophic Plate Techtonics) or propose some other theory for the uplift of Mt. Everest. However, this is different than saying that the fossils in the mountains are not evidence of the Flood. Rather, you are saying that IF the fossils are a result of the Flood, then the required and fairly sudden formation of the mountain presents an unsolved problem.--TheLiteralist

Hi edge,The fossils are in life position? What do you mean by that?Just curious.--TheLiteralist

Do you mean mid-action fossils? Some giving birth, some fighting, some eating?Do you mean GIANT oysters?

Ah...the OYSTERS are in life position! I was thinking of something else. Now I understand edge's question better.Giant Oyster Pics¹
Well as I look at the first one, I'm thinking it resembles a clam...the second picture? I can't tell. The captions say oysters, though; therefore, they must be oysters (just kidding). Giant Oysters in the AndesMore Giant Oysters in the Andes

---

¹Removed underlining because it looked like a link...now I know why there's no dBCode for underlining!This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 01-12-2005 05:23 AM

edge, Are you referring to the fact that the oysters and clams are usually articulated and closed? And that the fossilized oysters are sometimes found fossilized in thick layers? Are these thick layers actually colonies? Oysters were fossilized in thick layers?When oysters die, what usually happens to the shells? Don't they usually open and separate and get broken to bits? So a better question, is how, according to conventional geological concepts, did these numberous closed, articulated fossilized oysters form?For the oysters' shells to have remained shut, it seems obvious that they must have been buried alive; so some mechanism for rapid burial is required. Of course, we YECers point to the Flood, what do conventional geologists point to?

edge,Let's try out some of your questions, too. I won't get far probably. In my mind, I imagine the initial stages of the Flood (it took at least 40 days, perhaps 150 to completely cover the earth) having many events similar to the recent tsunami but perhaps more violent than the recent one. Did you notice how many of the animals vacated the areas? So only mostly sea life and curious humans would be found in the mud there (also the mud is probably not rich in carbonate--limestone in solution, right?--as the Flood waters are thought to have been--there being limestone everywhere today).Okay...so most animals and humans (assuming the humans could somehow know the danger) escaped the initial tsunamis. But they came again and further inland and again and further inland and again and further inland. At some point in time, the animals might well find themselves running across carbonate-rich mud left from a previous tsunami, which partially lithified, only to be covered up by more sediments from more tsunamis. I'm thinking mud-rich tsunamis again. Perhaps these eggs and nests were on the out skirts of the destruction by some of the initial tsunamis so as to get covered by mud but not crushed. Then after covered by that layer of mud another tsunami comes further inland covering that layer of mud, and so forth.Actually I am curious how conventional geology posits that dinosaur eggs fossilized, given that eggs are popular fare by most critters and they rot quickly if not hatched (and many are found in the process of hatching or with nearly fully formed baby dinos ready to hatch.) Fossilized dino eggs are not exactly rare, but shouldn't they be? A Dinosaur Egg Collection
Picture does not prove any point, it's just coolI wasn't able to adequately answer this question before...I still can't (not like my answers to the other questions will be adequate either, but at least I'll get to see how they are inadequate). Do creationists propose this? I'm not sure. Why do you think they must? I still haven't looked into evaporites yet. I'll give the unconformities a shot. Tsunamis, landslides, etc. occur during the initial 40 - 150 days. In some cases the, layers are layed down at one angle. The global stress causes plate movement of some sort (CPT or not), which changes the angles of the dryish land. The next tsunami, which due to increased water levels is higher might well remove some of the previous sediments (which are now at a different angle) and redeposit at the new angle.I don't know about the paleosols. I haven't studied eolian sand dunes, but it does intrigue me that there are lithified "sand dunes" in the layers. I should probably try to do a little research on this, too.Tear it up...
--TheLiteralist

Hi Gengar,Well, before I answer your questions, may I ask how you are proposing, generally, that most organisms have managed to become fossils?For instance, some people think that the fossil record is recording animals as they died in their natural environments. So, an animal dies, it's flesh rots...maybe it's bones get scattered about a bit, but slowly, over time the remains get covered with the sands of time and eventually fossilize. Is that kind of along the lines of what you're thinking?Maybe you've got some other model, which I've not been exposed to. I'd love to hear it.Thanks,
--TheLit

Hi Charles,Well, it's nice color under most circumstances...it doesn't go with everything, though. I think mint green is nice, too.{just kidding}Well, I don't know much about Coral. Do you have a particular thought about it that you'd like to see my take on? No guarantees that I COULD give a sufficient answer, but I might be able to give a good try.--TheLit