Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

Then the Flood scenario is worse than conventional geology in epxlaining the presence of fossils on mountians, and as such these fossils are not evidence for the Flood.

So basically you're ignoring my post (Message 51) because you don't care about the fact that your answer was incorrect.

It seems your explanation for the existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is the same as geologists. In the case of mountains both parties state that the areas were once coverered by water before the mountains rose, taking the fossils with them.The only difference is source of the water. In the geologists scenario, the water came from the natural supply of water that exists on earth. In the Global Flood scenario, God covered the entire earth with water in a short space of time.I think the one that doesn't propose an unobserved entity performing miracles is more parsimoneous, don't you?

While that would be off-topic for this thread, if you propose a new thread then I will approve it as quickly as I am able. I suggest using your Message 83 from this thread as the opening post.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I'm not sure if Faith is interested in continuing in this thread, but in case she is I'd like to pose a specific question:How does flood theory explain fossil ordering?--Percy

Nope, Mod, it is not the only difference. The problem for the flood model is that they are the wrong type of fossils and distributed in the wrong way. You have to exam the details.Because of these differences the fossils are evidence against the global, recent flood.

No, there's a bigger difference. Faith's ideas allow far less time for mountains to be built or to erode. Both represent signficant issues which weigh against Faith's views.

I already did, in the post you linked:http://EvC Forum: Define "Kind" -->EvC Forum: Define "Kind"That's the staggering evidence. There was no need to open another thread.All you are doing is giving the usual "alternative explanations" which I considered in that post already.To answer my post you needed to acknoweldge that indeed a worldwide flood IS a reasonable explanation for the phenomena I listed.As purpledawn also saw.YOu have your usual other explanations, which is all anybody is rehearsing on this thread, as usual, which in relation to my post is nothing but the usual denial, as I mentioned in that post, the usual ignoring of the abundant, yes, staggering, evidence for a worldwide flood.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-06-2006 10:35 AM

The flood does not clearly explain fossil ordering. That's a problem with the flood idea. But the fossil ordering also does not prove descent, and what I am emphasizing here is that the way the fossils appear in the sediments is ALSO not reasonably explained by the slow deposition idea.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-06-2006 10:39 AM

Okay, that's fine, we're done on this issue then. It would be off-topic to address anything else from your post concerning the explanations of modern geology.Next question:How does the flood scenario explain that all radiometric dating techniques consistently show that lower layers are older layers?--Percy

If you are refering to Message 74 that is NOT what purpledawn saw at ALL!What PD saw was that mark had only made assertions without supplying the logic behind them. That is NOT the same as agreeing with an alternate eplanation. PD didn't come down on either side of the question yet. PD is waiting for the two side to explain the reasoning behind their assertions. For the most part, neither side has done that yet.

True, she didn't come down on either side of the question, but just recognizing that there ARE two sides to the question is an enormous concession the way this discussion usually goes. I'm happy that she at least saw that the flood does appear to be a reasonable explanation for the phenomena I listed.

They ARE older, just not as old as evo theory claims. I always opt out of radiometric dating discussions as I don't understand it well enough.

Did you say: then that is a claim. And a claim can be tested.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

There was no miracle involved with the Flood. It was a completely natural event.A reason the Flood is a better explanation for the fossil record is that huge quantities of wet sediments were involved, staggering quantities, that captured these dead things pretty obviously at one time and not piece by piece over millions of years, and then were subjected to tectonic forces that compressed them and reared the mountains.