Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

Precipitated along with the clay sediment out of the currents in the flood waters possibly. The land was tectonically affected after the flood too, areas raised and lowered by the pressure.But again I'm not interested in these questions. Just acknowledge that the existence of the enormous abundance of fossils found worldwide IS good evidence for a worldwide Flood, just on the face of it. The mechanics of the thing are secondary. Also please acknowledge that slow deposition is an absurd explanation for what is actually observed in the strata of the geo column, the discrete layers of particular sediments, just the one kind and no other for millions of years, and then another completely different kind for millions of years, and the apparent random distribution of the fossils within the layers, with no sign of evolution of one type to another over the millions of years supposedly represented from the bottom to the top of the layer.I understand this is not supposed to be the topic of this thread, but it WAS part of my post that Mark24 supposedly started this thread to answer. The appearance of the layering suggests water deposition over a relatively short period of time, whether we can specific all the mechanics involved or not, and suggests this far more reasonably than the idea of the laying down of teeny increments of this one and one only sediment for millions of years, with fossils just coming along and dying at their level of the sediment with large gaps of time in between.

You didn't "torpedo" anything. You didn't even connect with what I said, you ignored it. All you did was go right ahead and do exactly what I said people do -- just spell out your own vision of things. Sorry, the evidence for the Flood is ENORMOUS, no matter what objections you can dream up against it. It's all speculative, all conjectural anyway and it remains true that the enormous quantity of fossils all over the earth IS terrific evidence for a global flood no matter HOW many ways you can dream up about how it might have happened otherwise. Such alternative scenarios are no more than that, just alternative scenarios. What I said is evidence remains evidence and very good evidence and all you did was engage in denial and spin out the usual alternative view as I said always happens. And nobody has yet dealt with the objection I made to the slow buildup of sediments. Either don't get it or won't think about it, I don't know.I have to be away rrom EvC for a day or so.

Well she sure SOUNDED saner (more reasonable) than anybody else here, but it's possible I'm wrong about that. Yes, we'll see.But I'm going to be gone for a day or two anyway so I won't know until I get back.

I'm not interested in defending the flood. I made a mistake coming to this thread. I said my piece on the other thread, that's all I wanted to say, I've reiterated it here and that's that.It included the statement that the slow accumulation interpretation of the strata is ridiculous, however, so I don't see why that is off topic here.As soon as somebody gets what I'm saying about that I may be more motivated to continue the discussion. But I won't hold my breath

Because the currents in the flood carried different cargo.
Because the lower strata are mostly marine.
Otherwise I don't know and it's not of concern to me on this thread. I don't have to explain all the details.My point is only that on the face of it the huge worldwide abundance of fossils is GREAT evidence for a worldwide flood.Concede this obvious point. End of discussion as far as I am concerned.

This is a misuse of the concept of testing. REAL science does REAL testing. This is not testing. This is simply more of the kind of fantasizing guesswork that is done in the service of the geo timetable and the ToE. You come up with a plausible thought to combat someone else's plausible thought and that's the entire extent of the "testing." None of this stuff is testable, provable, falsifiable, etc. There is no way to replicate any of it, there is no empirical test possible. It is all only a matter of who comes up with the most persuasive imaginative construction. That's all it is, it is NOT testing. Thus do the evos forever entertain the Emperor's New Clothes.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-06-2006 11:01 PM

Some time you guys are going to HAVE to recognize that when it comes to this whole scenario, this millions of years fantasy, that there is no such thing as "experimental evidence." See my previous answer to jar.On the face of it the humungous abundance of fossils all over this planet is FANTASTIC evidence in favor of a worldwide Flood.Period.

I explained it in Message 83. Anybody who can clearly think, visualize, what I'm talking about, ought to be able to understand what I'm saying. But everybody expects geology to be right and the ToE to be right and creationism to be wrong and Faith to be an idiot so they don't bother.

The problem, Percy, is that I made some statements about what constitute great evidence for a worldwide Flood and they DO constitute great evidence for a worldwide Flood, but nobody will acknowledge this obvious obvious fact. This is the way all these discussions go until Faith is labeled an irritant and a distraction and discussed like an insect pinned to a specimen display for refusing to play by these rules. Nobody wiill acknowledge the PLAIN OBVIOUS SENSE of what I already said. All anyone does is make demands that I explain SOMETHING ELSE. Even Purpledawn who is normally no friend to my thinking understands that this is an abuse of debate. I do NOT need to know all the details to prove the Flood. My statement that Mark24 quoted in his OP {actually that PD quoted in her Message 74} is sufficient unto itself.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-06-2006 11:17 PM

NOT IT IS NOT TESTABLE. THAT IS NOT A TEST. That is all subjective guesswork, all subject to interpretation, all limited by your imagination. There is nothing replicable, nothing testable at all. It's just an exercise in imagination.

OK, it's good to have the purpose of the thread established, so it's clear I shouldn't have been posting here at all. I presented all the evidence I had in mind before the OP was written. PD summarized the evidence that I said was great evidence in her Message 74 and it remains great evidence. My original post was: #266, Define "Kind" threadI'm also not interested in debating the geo column part of my original statement. It too is good evidence for what it is evidence for. It appears people aren't content to acknowledge that good evidence is good evidence, they have to "prove" it's not good evidence.But it remains good evidence after all is said and done. As I proposed a long time ago, what is needed is a listing of the evidence on both sides. The creos do have good evidence.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-07-2006 09:41 AM

I don't know what the thread is for. I simply shouldn't have participated as I didn't have any intent to debate my original statement, or discuss it. I said in the original statement that I know there are always alternative explanations to my evidence, but that it remains good evidence. Seems obvious to me.

This is what is wrong with this whole argument. "What we expect" is pretty much meaningless (in relation either to a worldwide Flood or to evolution, since both are unobserved and unobservable and we have no way of knowing what conditions existed in the distant past}, but it's the level on which the whole argument is conducted. I have no idea how we get different layers with different types of sediments from the Flood, but there are creationist theories that try to explain it and they are intelligent theories.My only point is that the appearance of the strata in such neat sharply demarcated depositions of homogeneous sediments and just-so collections of fossils within their own peculiar layers suggests relatively rapid deposition of heavily sedimented water (mud basically), already full of whatever life forms will eventually be fossilized within it.The second part of my observation is that the slow-accumulation theory doesn't make sense IF YOU THINK IT THROUGH, which nobody so far has been willing to do. {abe: I mean, how NICE of Father Time to do such a neat job of dividing the eras and periods with such particular sedimentary deposits and such precise fossil contents that stay put in their designated deposit.}In contrast with all the speculative musings about how this or that might have formed, the abundance of fossils throughout the earth remains TERRIFIC evidence for a worldwide Flood.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-07-2006 01:07 PM

No, it isn't a prediction, it's what it looks like it might have done.

I didn't read your post 190 and I have no intention of doing so. Your attitude is not something I have any interest in dealing with. Go play with your rocks.However, I have a few thoughts about this post. Again, how nice of Father Time to arrange it so that nothing spills over from one side of these lines to the other, and for keeping it SO neat, those lines despite a humongous extinction event that surely must have disturbed the surface far beyond what is actually observed, or other "significant" changes that somehow weren't "significant" enough to affect its remarkably neat presentation. I have no idea what you mean by "changes in lithology" but the idea that there could have been such sudden total changes from one totally specific kind of sediment containing a specific fossil content to a totally different kind in teeny weeny increments over millions of years takes more imagination than I have. AND keep those neat demarcation lines too. It is YOU who are not thinking. No, they didn't, but they have been working under the handicap of the ASSUMPTIONS already laid down in the field and cannot think outside that box, which means that all their thinking has gone into finding an explanation that fits those preconceptions. And it seems to me that as a matter of sheer empirical fact the fit is just some kind of theoretical exercise that ignores the main problem I'm talking about.{abe: AND HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE given that these are smart people? BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TESTABLE ABOUT ANY OF THIS. IT IS NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, BUT AN EXERCISE IN IMAGINATION.} Pay attention. All I said was that the APPARENT ORDERING of the fossils is a problem, but the enormous abundance of fossils is great evidence for a worldwide flood.And I don't think there's any point in addressing any further posts to me.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-07-2006 01:29 PM