Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

They address points that you raised. And you specifically complained that your argument about the grass had yet to be addressed. So I did it. Now apparently that counts for nothing.If there is some other point that you want addressed then I suggest that you say WHICH of your points it is and I can do that one as well,

Modulous makes a good point when he notes that explaining modern geology is not the topic of this thread, but there seems to be a great deal of interest in it anyway. There are two possible courses of action:

1. 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.
   ​
2. Change the topic of the thread to discuss the views of modern geology.

It's Mark24's thread, so it's his call. Until he chimes in I will be disallowing discussion of modern geological views. Only flood evidence and flood interpretations of the evidence should be discussed in this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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

This is irrelevant. A flood explains it BETTER, that was my point. It's a more elegant explanation for how they are actually found. You ignored what I was saying. That's why I have ignored your OP. Here you are merely preferring your own wild guess. There is nothing at all about local fossil accumulations that argues against a worldwide flood. You do not know how it would behave, you just like your own hypotheses. But as I said, which you ignored, a flood accounts for it all at least as well, and I would say a lot better, more elegantly, than the theories of local phenomena. That's fine, but erosion between layers is usually asserted, which means that at some point they are considered to have been on the surface. And some entire formations are considered to have built up aerially, yet oh so neatly, and with only one kind of sediment for millions of years and then a completely different kind for millions of years and then yet a different kind and yet a different kind all having their own millions of years.And the only REAL erosion we see, which is patently obvious in teh Southwest US for instance, happened after all the strata were laid down, and made all those amazing formations that stretch across that huge swath of land. SO odd that they were all so neatly laid down without any real disturbance until now when the effects of erosion have wiped away huge sections, canyons, plateaus, of strata.Funny how people think time itself could have been separated out by kinds of sediments like that, only one kind to an era. Yes, but what I said was that a worldwide flood WOULD explain this and all the other phenomena, and MUCH BETTER. For one thing, the fossil record shows "beds" of fossils where a whole bunch of creatures died at one time, rather than one by one on the slow accumulation theory. A worldwide flood simply does a BETTER job of explaining ALL these phenomena. Thank you purpledawn. These are two different explanations for the same phenomena but all Mark24 does and the others here do, is completely ignore the very reasonable and in fact more elegant theory of the flood which accounts for it all MUCH better than his theory. Actually this thread is not about evidence for the flood. I GAVE the evidence for the flood in the previous thread, which is what prompted this thread, and you have basically just ignored it.

OK, whatever. I will not join the thread if it's about evidence for the flood because I already gave the evidence and he merely ignored it.

I didn't give an argument about the grass, it was an answer to Schraf's rude challenge and all I meant was I wanted it acknowleldged as that as it was NOT an argument to be answered. I don't care about the grass.

I don't have time to answer your post now, maybe later. All these ideas about how a flood couldn't have done it just ignore the main point I'm trying to make, that slow accumulation could CERTAINLY not have done it.

Here's another copy of Faith's evidence and arguments for the flood as summarized in PurpleDawn's Message 74: In your replies please focus on how this is or isn't evidence for a flood and not on how modern geology is or isn't a better explanation.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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.

So you're only dealing with one post and won't even say what point I'm supposedly ignoring. And I remind you that in Message 50 you specifically stated:

quote:

---

...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

---

So I pointed out just what was wrong with your "logical" answer. You certainly cared enough to complain, but apparently now your answer is refuted it doesn't count.

I'll point out that we have something of a contradiction here.If

quote:

---

The existence of marine fossils in mountains

---

is to be taken as evidence of the Flood then presumably we are supposed to believe that the Flood covered existing mountains and laid the fossils down.However Faith also claims

quote:

---

The amount of disturbance of the surface of the planet that occurs in a few years is a strong clue that given millions of years not one of those strata could have survived intact.

---

Now mountains are very prone to erosion so how could significant quantities of loose sediment stay up there after the Flood ?
(Of course this point is not true of everywhere on Earth - there are areas of net deposition - that is why we need dredgers to keep harbours clear).Conventional geology does not face this problem because it is agreed that the mountains were only pushed up after the rock and fossils had formed. It appears therefore that the Flood explanation is worse on this point.

I don't care about the grasses in THIS context Schraf, I merely wanted to answer your rude and silly parody.Although Mark24 wants me to defend the flood I already gave him my reasoning which he ignored, and on this thread all I care about is how the slow accumulation theory is untenable, not answering all the usual objections to the flood.

The mountains were raised after the flood, as I already said.

The idea that the grasses could have run to high ground, which implied that they are found in the higher strata, is logically answered with the supposition that they were on the land in the first place. I answered it and that's all taht was required. Of course if they aren't found in the upper strata, then complain to Schraf, not me, as I was merely giving a logical answer to her claim.