Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

I think that grasses were already on the land and the land flora and fauna are what were preserved in the upper strata laid down by the Flood. The lower strata preserved the marine life.Since it was all inundated, marine life also ended up in the higher strata.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-04-2006 05:22 PM

I don't think the effects of a worldwide Flood can be fairly compared to a limited flood.But my main concern about the layers is not so much that I understand how the Flood could have created them (although I've read the hydraulic theory and think it reasonable), but that they are NOT compatible with the idea of slow deposition over millennia. And I think OBVIOUSLY not, I think LAUGHABLY not. Particular sediments laid down in succession with particular fossil life entombed within them, supposely all laid down increment by increment over enormous swaths of time -- even underwater (at least they have the sense to realize that it WOULD take water to produce such a phenomenon) -- the thing is absurd.

I would simply point out that wj's post is nothing but an ad hominem. If you care. I don't really.

Mountains are indeed observed to rise. Laden with fossilized marine life. The Flood is the most elegant explanation for this -- absolutely universal -- phenomenon. The theories about local effects are klutzy by comparison.Similarly you can give a local explanation for the abundance of marine fossils in the deserts - they are found in clumps, found everywhere. Yes, it was all once under water, of course. There are also seagulls that hang out in the Nevada desert. Sure, it was once under water. The Flood waters. Most parsimonious explanation. All the other explanations are inelegant.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-04-2006 05:35 PM

You bet the Bible is right whenever there is a conflict. But that doesn't mean there aren't also scientific observations that accord with it. There are plenty. A lot more than I'm familiar with personally, but the few I am familiar with are in my opinion pretty damning of the OE and ToE claims.

The fossilized marine life found in the mountains is found IN the mountains, within the layers that are clearly visible in many mountain formations, showing that like all the other stratifications to be found on the earth laden with fossils, it was all once sediment, mud, laid down in water -- already full of the dead things within it.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-04-2006 05:43 PM

Two major answers occur:1) Antarctica was not always at the pole, but moved there when the continents split apart from the original "Pangaea," which Floodists believe occurred as a result of the tectonic forces released in the Flood, and occurred a lot more rapidly than science allows.2) I don't get why you ask "if there were no ice after the flood where did all the ice today come from?" All the ice on the planet started after the Flood, again a result of the great upheavals the planet went through at that time, including possibly the tilting of the axis of the planet, or simply the removal of what is often considered to have been a great "canopy" of moisture that surrounded the planet, keeping warmth in -- which canopy provided all the rain for the Flood.The pre-Flood world is understood to have been an extraordinarily lush place, and temperately warm all over. No deserts, no very high mountains, no snow or ice.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-04-2006 07:26 PM

Yeah I'm aware of all those calculations. They could be wrong you know. There is no way to test them as the whole thing is guessing, based on creationists' attempts to reconstruct the scene imaginatively from the Bible. Many other variables are no doubt involved. And certainly the mathematicians aren't interested in finding the most plausible scenario themselves, are they? No, they are quite content if their numbers prove us wrong.

God as defined in the Bible and taken straight is incompatible with evolution and an old earth, DB. Way it is.There are too many ways this scenario could have existed for there to be any value in doing any calculations whatever. Too many unknowns. It's all an exercise in futility.And that wasn't a conspiracy theory, it was simply a statement that if someone who is committed to evolution does the calculations and comes up with something that appears to discredit creationism or the Flood, he's not going to be very motivated to see if he can come up with a more plausible scenario that meets our requirements and the math as well. That's just human nature.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-04-2006 10:13 PM

I could certainly ask why *I* bother, since I've made a ton of terrific points about these things since I've been at EvC and get totally ignored.

I HAVE dealt with the evidence many many times on this forum, and for a person to come along who is brand new here and make judgments like yours is completely uncalled for.

Sure, we can talk about all that, AFTER somebody finally acknowledges that the way the layers are made is totally incompatible with the idea of millions of years of deposition.

Whatever you all say.

It only makes sense to you because you are not noticing, or perhaps refusing to notice, the implications of the sharp demarcations between different homogeneous sediments which are supposed to have been gradually laid down over millions of years (whether in or out of water is unimportant),and the way the fossils have so neatly arranged themselves in groups over what are supposed to be those millions of years of time from the bottom to the top of the layer. I'm waiting for somebody to grasp this very simple point and actually think about it instead of changing the subject.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-05-2006 02:46 PM

I don't give a damn about your test. Schraf started out with her ridiculing question whether I think grasses ran for higher ground, and I answered her quite logically from a floodist perspective as far as that particular question goes, which nobody acknowledged, and I don't give a damn what other question you want to raise as long as all you care about is needling me with some new thing and refusing to acknowledge points I've already made. Go take a flying leap.