Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

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.

Faith,A casual Google search by this quite uneducated layman produced numerous refutations of your statement.For example, my first hit discusses marine sedimentation, igneous intrusions, and a few other phenomena that stand in striking contrast to the generalization you are attempting to make. Strange that you can so flippantly dismiss the lifelong work of professionals when a casual observer with no formal training can easily summon hard facts that contradict your assertions.Incidentally, the site to which I referred you is maintained by a Christian. Not central to my point, but still noteworthy.

Hardly uncalled for.If you have previously dealt with the data, then it should not be a problem to tell us what mechanism allows a global flood to deposit the following sedimentary rock types:limestone
oolitic limestone
dolomite
sandstone
siltstone
gypsum/halite/evaporite
banded iron formations
mudstone
marl
shale
claystone
ash
lahar
mudflow
lava flow
conglomerate
agglomerate
fanglomerate
chert
diatomite
arkose
greywackeAnd let's not forget that marine rocks (e.g., sandstone, siltstone, etc.) can be calcareous or non-calcareous, dolomitic, and they can be in contact with each other or within inches of each other. The rocks interfinger and grade into other rocks over large and small horizontal distances. Limestones and shales can also be sandy or silty, displaying wispy discontinuous seams of reworked bentonite, or silt, or glauconite, or fossil hash, or have 3 foot thick beds of sand or calcarenite.They can show bedding, either laminar or wavy or cross-bedded or scoured, or be massive showing no bedding at all - at least until you look at it with a handlens. Fossils may or may not be partially or fully replaced by sulfide, burrows as well, only the sulfide is much finer grained. Oh, lets also not forget there are minute fossils too small to see, forams, and fecal pellets present in the rocks. Some are in perfect shape, others crushed or flattened due to compaction.Concretions can also be present and these occur in the SAME horizon for hundreds of square miles.Mapping the lithologies and fossils across the surface and subsurface shows stream/river systems, valleys, beaches, shallow seas, volcanic terrains.The fossil ammonites and inoceramids located at the bottom of a strat column are one type and do not appear again anywhwere else. Three hundred feet up from the bottom are different ammonites and inoceramids, at the top are still other fossil types, the only differences are morphological. Babies, juveniles, and adults all occurring together - and dying together. Somewhat difficult for hydraulic sorting, I would think. How does water sort upon the morphology of small or large ridges?And how would a flood keep the EXACT same order of fossil occurrence in an swath from Central Canada to Texas and Utah to Nebrask, but not in Nevada or Missouri?I'm particularly interested in how water deposited the various volcanic rocks, too, especially the continental flood basalts such as the Deccan Traps.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-05-2006 01:28 AM

LOL Are you serious?No one is going to acknowledge such a stupidly ridiculous thing.

Maybe we can talk about layers, if you go read about how floods work, and no it is not incompatible with the geological time frame. we wouldn't use it if it waswhat it is is imcompatible with how floods work, please show any evidence that floods lay down rock and sediment in the same fashion that geologist have found, floods do not work that waythis isn't even getting into the impossibility of how that much water would effect the world heat wise, energy wise and other factors involved with such a world changeThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-05-2006 02:56 AM

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,
Please explain to me the Flood explanantion for the white cliffs of Dover. This is a 100 meter thick layer of chalk (am not going into the stratigraphy, in reality the deposit represents over 250 m total). Chalk is made up of microscopic calcareous skeletons of a single celled algae called coccolithophores. These still exist today, still bloom and make depositions in the world's oceans. Because they are photosynthetic and their skeletons are opaque to light a massive bloom can only sustain itself for a short time before they all die off (coccolith blooms can be devastating to 'normal' plankton production). Here is a photo: The blooms make the water too turbid for photosynthesis. Anyway, these massive blooms are sporadic. Deposition (sedimentation) of coccoliths is less than 1 mm per year, simply cannot be any more. So the 100 meter Dover cliffs represent AT LEAST 100,000 years of deposition by any scenario you can imagine.The only YEC argument I can see is that all of the world's coccoliths during the flood died in one place (ignoring other chalk formations worldwide). Does anyone have a ballpark figure for the volume of chalk in Dover? My calculation for a world-wide maximum (if the entire ocean surface, here the Earth with 22 km diamter added for the water, were to suffer a coccolith bloom) is 510 km^3 per year if coccoliths could deposit at 1 mm/yr (this is twice the deposition rate that has ever been recorded). That is alot, but I suspect far less than needed IF all of the coccoliths were somehow compelled to die in one spot.This is only one type of sedimentary rock, Faith. YEC's 200 years ago couldn't explain it and became OEC's. Your take?This message has been edited by Admin, 03-05-2006 08:05 AM

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't think it is. I don't even need to read any further than this one thread to know where you stand. I may be new, but your arguments are old.
But if my judgment is uncalled for, then tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that you do not put theology before science. You've already said above that "the Bible is right whenever there is a conflict." So again, what's the point in even subscribing to 'scientific creationism' when you ultimately don't care what the science part has to say? Science is a double-edged sword, but you wield it like it only cuts one way. For this reason, there is no debating with you. Now tell me I'm wrong.
Or better yet, prove to me I'm wrong. Tell me what 'scientific creationism' has to say about the multi-layered, rooted lycopod forests in Joggins, Nova Scotia. Or tell me what it has to say about angular unconformities in the rock record. Or tell me about your perspective concerning the distribution of trace fossils as they occur throughout the geologic column. If you've answered these concerns elsewhere, please tell me where; if not, please address them here. And if you have nothing to say to these issues, then please do not shrug them off as I have seen you do in other threads by pretending that the details don't matter. Instead, do yourself a favour and research them so that you can come back here and shut me up.

My two cents worth: any amounts of evidence FOR something are not enough to claim any validity.There is lots of evidence available to your common senses for the earth to be flat and the center of the universe around which all else revolves.What it comes down to is what evidence you need to deny to maintain a {phylosophical\theoretical\belief} position -- and that the position that needs to deny the least amount of contra-indicating evidence is the most likely solution. This is the essence of unbiased scientific analysis.On the otherhand any position that preconcludes that a {phylosophical\theoretical\belief} position is correct before the evidence is even considered (as Faith does here in the opening line) is the essence of biased unscientific dogma.The denial of contra-indicating evidence is the better indicator of relative validity than any amount of positive evidence can ever overcome.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

These are the sorts of relationships I'm referring to: interfingering, gradations, and abrupt lithologic changes both vertically and horizontally.Although there is no scale, the entire basin (Araripe Basin) is ~200 km wide and located in eastern Brazil. 1. Coarse sands and grits of the Exu Formation.2. Laminated silty mudstones of the Simoes Member.3. Santana Formation. Mainly mudstones with thin limestones and bands of concretions with fish.4. Fine sands, silts and silty mudstones attributable to the Batateiras Formation, and tongues within the Crato, Ipubi and Santana Formations.5. Evaporites of the Ipubi Formation.6. Organic-rich mudstones and laminated carbonates of the Crato Formation.7. Red and green mudstones of the Missao Velha Formation.8. Medium to coarse sandstone bodies of fluvial units within the Missao Velha Formation.9. Conglomerates, grits and coarse sandstones of the Cariri Formation.10.Igneous basement. In places this may be overlain unconformably by the Exu Formation, but there may be some intrusive contacts.11.Metamorphic basement. Usually high grade Proterozoic gneisses. Some pelitic rocks in south of basin..
.
.
.
And so we have an idea of just how small this basin is compared to the planet, see image below. How does a global flood of catastrophic proportions leave such relatively minute depositional features? SOURCE of images.

Faith How fast it occurs is not a function of what science allows but of what nature allows. Tectonic forces are not capable of moving a continent the size of Antarctica to its present position in the short period necessary to support your time frame.You must also recall that plate tectonics move all nations and this movement {at the rate you are implying} would be observable by anyone. The problem is that the antartic is a desert and recieves little in the way of precipitation.From wikipedia 1.8 centimeters per year{3/4 of an inch} on a continent that is 2700 meters thick equates to a minimum of 150000 years if the ice stays put. However,the ice in the antarctic flows to the sea in ice streams so this process has obviously been going on for longer than that. Reference
Page not found | University Corporation for Atmospheric ResearchThe "canopy" as you call it poses severe problems, The column of air between you and the edge of space provides the air pressure that we maesure at sea level to be 16 pounds per square inch,or for a person with a head covering 80 square inches {8 x 10} there is a pressure on the persons head of 1280 pounds.
Now we place into the atmosphere a mass of water sufficient to produce the flood and we now have a huge increase in the pressure upon the creatures on the surface. There would need have been no flood since life on the surface for the most part would not exist.
This does not take into consideration the enormaous heat necessaryy to produce thermal updrafts sufficient to bouy this volume of water aloft.And this is only a small fraction of the difficulties this line of thinking incurs.Pleaase do not try to bring in the tilting of earths axis since this would give the grim reaper more pleasure than he could handle.

Whatever you all say.

such a very elegant debate technique.you are demonstrating very clearly that your only purpose here is one (at best) of hopeful conversion and (at worst) of some twisted prideful showing-off of however superior you find yourself to be. you have no interest in debate. you have no interest in knowledge or understanding. you only have an interest in telling us how smart you are and how much you know and how amazingly foolish all of us wh understand that 33 feet of water doubles the pressure of the ENTIRE atmosphere or that "recently" uplifted mountains hold fossils, particularly of marine life, but that volcanic ones do not thus demonstrating that it's a function of being uplifted and not of a global flood.you have a petty and disruptive way of discussing information and whenever you don't like something someone else says, you simply call them deceived or liars or idiots. i'm calling you on this in hopes that you will amend your ways. i don't care if you change your mind, but your method of participation is completely detrimental.

Since Faith complains about the points not being addressed I'll take this on.

quote:

---

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.

---

So fat this is just an opinion. And one that is completely at odds with informed expert opinion. Abd see the point raised about the White CLiffs of Dover earlier in the thread.

quote:

---

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.

---

Well it's not true that all strata are laid down underwater. There are subaerial formations known to exist.But so far all we have is an opinion. WHY is it absurd ? It makes sense to me. The Flood idea doesn't - geologists know the sorts of rock that form quickly - and there's plenty that don't, that are found in supposed "Flood" strata.The real damning fact is that "Flood" geologists can't even identify which rocks were supposed to be produced by the Flood just on their geological properties. Isn't it odd that the Flood would fail to produce distinctive rock types that can be identified as such ? It's just like the creationist idea of "kinds". A creationist invention without any real scientific basis.