Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

I'm moving this here as it was OT here.Faith, Stagger me, then. The existence of fossils worldwide is evidence that living things existed worldwide . In no way can the global existence of fossils be considered evidence of the flood. In fact the localisation of fossil species argues against the flood. I suppose the global existence of extant life today is because of the flood, too? The flood explanation is utterly inadequate. The pattern of fossil forms is contradicted by hydrodynamics. In any flood, the smallest particles separate out last, the largest, first. This means all the large organisms first. What do we find at the bottom of the fossil record, bacteria. Where do we find large organisms? At the top. Exactly the opposite of what you would expect from the flood model. I could go on. Mountains are observed to rise, so no great shakes there. Again, the flood is utterly inconsistent with the pattern of stratification. Why does the bottom of the geologic column not consist of breccia, followed by gravels, sands, muds & claystones, in order of particle size, as it should do if the flood occurred? Most of them don't exist on the surface. This also is irrelevant to flood evidence. Again, this is evidence of extinct forms, & in no way evidence of a global flood. As you have learned, the fossil record & stratigraphy is all utterly inconsistent with the fossil record.So where is this "staggering" evidence of a global flood?Mark

Schraf,Of course not, the "higher ground" was too busy having marine fossils deposited on it by a 6 mile deep flood!Mark

---

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

Faith only has herself to blame, with the constant rhetorical subtitute for evidence. It's ridiculous, nonsense, you'll wake up, fairy tale, etc. etc.

Faith,Please address the OP, it is, after all, a response to you.Mark

---

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

Faith, You have not made a single valid point, let alone a terrific one. All your points are ad hoc. You have previously claimed that the evidence is "staggeringly" in favour of the flood, yet presented nothing but unsubstantiated hand-waving. Hardly staggering.Now, please address the OP.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-05-2006 05:03 AM

---

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

Faith,In addition to rox's post 33, add rythmites.Mark

---

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

Faith, Since I asked first, please address the opening post, it is hypocritical of you to complain that you are being ignored in this thread when you have ignored the very first post addressed to you.Secondly, This thread is for you to provide evidence of the flood, not for other people to answer your questions.But for the record, rox has already pointed out that the features you describe are not universal anyway. Homogenous sediments get deposited in an environment which receives those particles. Nonhomogenous sediments get deposited where an environment is changing. And sharp demarcations occur where the environment changes from one regime to another, marine to terrestrial, for example. Or where erosion of one sediment is then subsequently deposited on by another.There, now please answer the OP. I can complain of being ignored with more legitimacy than you can.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-06-2006 04:26 AM

---

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

Purpledawn, Because organisms live all over the world, finding their fossils all over the world is an expected without a flood. Because a global flood would that is able to scour miles of bedrock globally would certainly be mixing the fauna & flora up over large distances. It was an aside. I never said it was, because land is observed to rise, then we expect to find marine fossils in highlands. Their existence there is not indicative of a flood. I never said it was. I said that given most strata exist subsurface, claiming surface disturbance should have destroyed it all is meaningless. Forms become extinct without floods. I did, read it again. See hydrodynamic sorting. This is a thread where evidence is supposed to be presented that supports a flood, so its no surprise I haven't convinced you of a non-flood. I'm not surprised you haven't been convinced of the flood myth, though. It's lurking about halfway down this post.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-06-2006 08:47 AM

---

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

Faith, I'll do it, right after you address the OP.Mark

---

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

Thanks Percy,If Faith was honestly providing evidence for the flood, I'd be happy for a general discussion. But she isn't, she's demanding her OT points get addressed rather than using the OP as a start point. It's page 7 now, without a response to the OP from Faith, so I'd like to go with option #1 if I may:"Discuss the thread's topic, which would mean Faith would present evidence *for* the flood and explain how it supports the flood scenario. A new thread could be opened to discuss the views of modern geology."Mark

---

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

Faith, That I torpedoed in the OP of this thread. You haven't responded to that post in its entirety.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-06-2006 01:47 PM

---

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

Faith, I didn't ignore what you said, I directly addressed it as anyone who looks can see.How does a flood explain the global distribution of fossils better? This isn't evidence, Faith, is prosetylisation. You have to show why it's a better explanation. I don't care what you say, you have to show it. Why is the flood explanation better in this regard?You haven't shown what it explains that mainstream geology doesn't. Correct. This is for evidence, not arguments from incredulity. This is as ad hoc as the evidence, I suppose. but why wouldn't a stratigraphic range that had been protected for the most part not experience sustained erosion when hoiked into a sustained erosional environment? And you have failed to show why the flood explains extinction better, you have just asserted it. Evidence please. If the data, per se, can't tell between two scenarios, then it isn't evidence for one of those scenarios over another. You do this a lot. A depositional area that became fossiliferous for whatever reason, preserves xxx fossils & above that either is eroded or ceased to be depositional, conducive to fossilisation or both will show the same thing. So why is the flood scenario better? What does it explain that conventional geology fails to? Don't be a prat, Faith. This thread IS about evidence of the global flood, it's in the title, for christ's sake. Secondly, the "evidence" you provided in the last thread was critiqued in the OP of this one, at worst your lying, at best you just can't be arsed to read what is presented to you.And we come to the crux of the issue. Which scenario is the most parsimonious? The flood, or conventional geology?Creationists like to pluck facts out & ignore contradictory ones. So, to use your own example, the existence of fossils globally. If there were a flood, yes, fossils would be distributed globally. It is a fact & consistent with a flood. But the same is true if life existed globally & there were no flood. So is it evidence of a flood? No, as a fact it can't inform us either way.But what other facts are missing that might inform us either way?Hydrodynamic sorting, for one. In any moving body of water particles exist in suspension, as the water slows, the largest sink first. So, a prediction, if evolution & classic geology were true, we would see the smallest first & an increase in complexity & size over time, also a correlation between evolutionary trees & the order of appearance. If the flood were responsible for the fossil record, we should see the largest fossils at the bottom, the smallest at the top.In fact, that is also true for sediment size, so a combined schematic might look something like this:Turbidites, contourites------Largely unfossiliferousFlocculated clays, cherts, limestones..Tree trunks & stumps, planktonic unicellular monista,protista, graptolites.Noncolloidal clays ----------Plant seeds & sporesSilts -----------------------Larger insectsFine sandstone --------------Small marine invertebratesMedium/coarse sandstone------Large birdsConglomerates ---------------Small vertebratesBasal breccia ---------------Medium/large vertebratesBasal chaos -----------------Reef & stromatolites fragments(Science & Earth History 1999, Arthur N Strahler, p373)Do we see this kind of hydrodynamic sorting in the geologic column? No, not at all. Do we see organisms found in the geologic column like this? No.Do we see fossils appear in the fossil record as their independently derived evolutionary trees (overall) expects? Yes. Do we see strata laid down independently of particle size? Yes.Conclusion, the flood is false, & evolution & classic geology is indicative of reality.Mark

---

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

Faith, What did I ignore?Mark

---

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

Faith, Provide evidence it's a problem rather than your incredulity & you have an argument.Mark

Hi Percy, I disagree that this it off topic.We have two propositions (or more, I suppose), if the evidence in a given case can be interpreted to support either, then as far as the flood/mainsteam geology goes, it is meaningless. What we are looking for is evidence that the flood model explains, that the mainsream doesn't.If the interpretation of the facts can't tell between either ,then it's not evidence that one or the other is correct.And for the record, I am finding it both tedious & frustrating at the continued accusations that I have ignored Faith's alleged evidence "in another thread", which I demonstrably did address in the OP of this thread. It was the point of the OP, after all. Boring, boring, boring.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-06-2006 07:02 PM

---

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