Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

I'd like to ask Faith if she thinks that grasses ran for higher ground in the Flood?

or maybe they flew?

quote:

---

So grass pollen and grass seeds should be found on the lowest level. they are already there and growing before the flood and have been doing so for some time. The land then gets flooded. Then a layer of marine fossils and no more than a few thousand years of other material above the marine level cover the original layer that had the grasses.

​

Your scenario is now something that can be tested. Do we find grass seeds and pollen at the lowest level with nothing but marine fossils and a very small post flood level above.

​

If your scenario is falsified are you willing to agree that the evidence from grass points to there not being a world-wide flood?

​

If this is not an accurate description of your grass scenario, then please expand or correct it and we can look at the next version.

---

Jar, this was an excellent post.It is a dispassionate restructuring into experiment form the claims that Faith made.You even gave her an "out" at the end to let her take it all back if she wanted to rethink.Very impressive.

OK well, if there was a worldwide flood, why do we never find fossils and evidence of grasses below a certain layer?For example, we never find grasses (nor flowering plants) in the same layers where dinosaurs are found, only in higher (more recent) layers.If grass has always existed for the last several thousand years since Creation, then why do we not find it in the lower layers, middle layers, and upper layers?Or, if you believe that the Earth was scoured down to, er, something really low (magma?) during the Flood and then everything settled out according to denity to form the geologic layers, why do we find organisms of greater density far higher in the column than those of very low density?In fact, why do we not find fossils of, say elephants and Triceratops in the same layer, and why do we not find fossils of turkeys and velociraptors in the same layers, for example?

quote:

---

I don't care about the grass.

---

The Devil is in the details, Faith.You should care about where grasses are found in the geologic column because they are a problem for the Flood.Where we find grasses and other flowering plants in the geologic column makes no sense in your scenario. On several levels.

quote:

---

Because the currents in the flood carried different cargo.

---

Yes, but eventually the currents stopped and the waters calmed and then everything would be sorted by density, right?So why do we not find the entire fossil record sorted by density?

quote:

---

Because the lower strata are mostly marine.

---

But if everything was churned up in the flood, everything completely mixed by the incredible violence of it (so violent that the continents were racing around the globe), there is no reason that the lower strata should be mostly marine.Of course, you could explain it to me, but I'll bet you won't.

quote:

---

Otherwise I don't know and it's not of concern to me on this thread. I don't have to explain all the details.

---

If you're not willing to explain all the details, then I hope you will understand if I tend to go with the explanation that does explain all the details.

Faith, do you reject all forensic and historical science, then?In addition, do you reject all inference-based science (which would be pretty much all of it)?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-07-2006 06:27 AM

quote:

---

NOT IT IS NOT TESTABLE. THAT IS NOT A TEST. That is all subjective guesswork, all subject to interpretation, all limited by your imagination. There is nothing replicable, nothing testable at all. It's just an exercise in imagination.

---

Of course it's a test, Faith.It's called a falsifiable prediction, and is the basis of all science."If X happened during an event, we should expect to find A, B, and C if we look at the evidence left behind by that event."It's just what criminal forensics investigators do at a crime scene.No, we cannot go back and replicate the actual event, but we can gather physical evidence at the scene, and this evidence can tell us a story about what happened and what didn't happen.Many a person has been convicted and also exonerated using the exact same methods YOU claim are "all subjective guesswork:, and an "exercize in imagination."Are you going to throw out all the convictions of the people shown to be guilty by the forensic evidence now?

quote:

---

Any chance we can have Faith banned from these science forums again? If not for the reason that she is obviously uninterested in science, then because as a Christian, I find her ad hoc attacks on just about everyone highly insulting and disrespective of the faith. I don't want hers being the single loudest 'Christian' voice in these threads.
Or we can just keep things going the way they are...

---

I'm with jar.If you are a Chraitian and you object to the way Faith acts in the science fora, then speak up in the science fora and oppose her, as a Christian!

Your assesment of rox:

quote:

---

You are a rude ignorant lout of a woman.

---

...which is, in and of itself, rude.

quote:

---

Go play with your rocks.

---

...also a rude attempt to belittle rox, and...

quote:

---

Picking on the word "apparent." What an idiot you are.

---

An out and out insult.Yet another lovely example of Christian charity and love as demonstrated by Faith.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 03-07-2006 03:33 PM