Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

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

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.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

So your essential claims are that there are

quote:

---

sharp demarcations between different homogeneous sedimentswhich are supposed to have been gradually laid down over millions of years

---

and

quote:

---

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.

---

But how true are they, how could the Flood explain then, and to the extent that it is true why are they a problem for conventional geology ?Instead of complaining about the fact that people don't accept your arguments, perhaps you should try MAKING some good arguments instead of unsupported and undeveloped assertions like the above..

This is the final straw.Faith you have no plans on ever actually debating. Everyone who disagrees with you or asks a question will always seem to be needling you.You are suspended. To be reinstated you will have to ask.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Faith compalisn that this "logical" point has gone unanswered.

quote:

---

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 fact is that we have terrestrial deposits - and preserved flora - from earlier strata (e.g. from Carboniferous coal measures), which do not include any flowering plants (a group which includes grasses). Therefore the answer is incorrect.o

Ignoring the off topic parts of your post, did you say If so, would that mean that grasses were doing fine before the flood?If grasses were doing fine before the flood, there should be indications in the layer from the beginning of time until the flood of grasses, pollen, their seeds, maybe even fossil impressions?Then the land got flooded. That should leave a layer that contains other things, maybe marine fossils, but not fossils of growing plants other than seaweed or algae, maybe something like kelp.What would that layer look like? Since it is laid down in less than a year, should it be thinner than the layers from before the flood, and after the flood?Would we then see another layer on top of the flood layer that is post flood?If that is your scenario, should we be able to find this flood layer all over the world, just like the K-T boundary, with the same charateristics, a lower level with evidence of grass, then a narrow flood level with no evidence of grass, then a thicker level with grass and modern critters?.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

this just seems like so much word salad. But nether of your points are a problem for geology, but they are a problem if you know anything about how floods work. Tell me faith how would a flood -world wide or otherwise filter things from complex to simple into layers without puting the heavier lifeforms on the bottom?
why do we not see any dinosaurs in with the single-celled life-forms, but we see them later and not the same singled-cell lifeforms?
i think your accusation should be turned inword somewhat faith, because you are refusing to consider outside your boxThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-05-2006 03:44 PM

I thought I would add that Faith is suggesting that ALL the continents moved in her short period of time.

You have YET to address how the flood could deposit those sediments, Faith. We have explanations for the deposition whether you agree with them or not. Now it's your turn to do so. I gave you a list of what sorts of rocks require a depositional model.You have not looked at the rocks with your own eyes so your ramblings about 'sharp demarcations' or 'homogeneous sediments' are ignorant nonsense drawn from assumptions you've made by looking at geologic pictures and drawings on the computer. Those figures are SIMPLIFIED and GENERALIZED for ease of understanding and publication. Lithologic contacts are both sharp and gradational, and the sediments are rarely completely homogeneous, but contain abundant horizons or lenses of other material.As for the neat fossil arrangements, that is more likely in gradual marine sedimentation than a catastrophic flood.

I am not trying to explain them by the flood. My point has only been that they are not compatible with the idea of millions of years of incremental deposition. How many other kinds of formations there are is irrelevant. There is no way that ANY such formations could be reasonably explained in such terms.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-05-2006 09:34 PM

People are saying that they believe there are many types of layers that by their very nature can only be deposited slowly over millions of years, and I think they'd like to do two things in discussion with you:

1. See if their evidence for slow deposition stands up to intense scrutiny.
   ​
2. See if you can offer an explanation supported by evidence for rapid deposition during a global flood.

--Percy

why are they not compatible? Geologists have found that it fits nicely in to the frames of time. Do you have any evidence other than your own claims?

If you don't think the sediments accumulated over millions of years and you're not trying to explain them via the flood, then how were they deposited? Do you have an alternate explanation for sediment deposition?There is a difference between terrestrial and marine sediment accumulation. Marine deposition is slow and gradual, and controlled by various factors, including water temperature and chemistry. Terrestrial sedimentation is at the mercy of erosion. There are few places (e.g., basins) where terrestrial sediments can accumulate over time, but for the most part, the surface is constantly being attacked and worn down over time by weathering and erosion.However, the problem, Faith, is that geologists can measure sedimentation rates of limestone (etc.) using Carbon-14 (for recent seds) and age-dating bentonite (altered volcanic ash) layers found interlayered with the marine rocks for much older seds, but dating is not something you agree with either.I'm not sure anyone could post anything you'd agree with.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-05-2006 11:08 PM

The problem most creationists, like myself have with carbon dating and such is that many believe there was a far different kind of pre=flood atmosphere as well as other factors that make it so nobody knows the chemistry of the elements in the atmosphere et al. This could effect older readings, for example in carbon dating with far less carbon in the atmosphere and in the soil than there is now.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW