Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

The problem is that you have not backed up your claim that any of the items you list is evidence - let alone "great evidence" of a global flood.Simply demanding that people unquestioningly believe what you say is not productive discussion.The more so since the few additional details you provided about your ideas on how fossils got into mountains shows that that point is better construed as evidence against your views.The fact is that you need to back up your claims with evidence and reasoning. And you refuse to do that.Until you do we can quite reasonably reject your claims.O

I have to disagree. While Faith's attempts to bash conventional geology without reference to the Flood are clearly off-topic comparisons with conventional geology are at the least useful for evaluating whether the supposed evidence is all that it is claimed to be.If something can be explained as well or better by conventional geology then it cannot be considered to be "staggering" or even good evidence for the Flood. Conversely if the Flood did explain a particular feature of the geological record better than the conventional view, that should be considered evidence for the Flood.

Faith is not interested in discussing the basis of her claims that her points represent good evidence for the Flood because she has none.This is illustrated by the issue of fossils on mountains. Somce creationists claim that fossils on mountains are evidence of the Flood - because they beleive that the mountains were already there, and that the fossils were deposited on them. This argument is wrong because the fossils were deposited before the mountains were formed, but if this were not the case then it would certainly be good evidence that the mountain had been submerged.However Faith rejects that and thus she rejects the very basis of her assertion that these particular fossils are evidence of the Flood. She has adopted the views of those creationists who insist that there were no mountains before the Flood to minimise the amount of water required - however they have no plausible explanations for mountain formation, thus the very existence of mountains is evidence against their views.Faith's attitude appears to be that her assertions should be unquestionaly accepted and that it is inherently wrong to question her - let alone show her claims to be false. If so then she should start her own forum where she can enforce such a rule - rather than attempt to participate here where such an attitude is against the rules.o

quote:

---

That's because there are not mainline jobs out there for professional Christian idist geologists. The Christian idist geologists are for the most part not funded or salaried for this reason. They are people like Wyatt, Moler, some ICR folks and others who are not recognized by the secularist geology establishment.

---

That's a complete fabrication. Wyatt and Moller have never even claimed to be geologists - they aren't qualified and thir writings relating to archaeology and history are incompetent at best. So why mention them ?THe ID movement takes no position on the age of the earth - there could well be IDist geologists out there who simply aren't prominent enough to be noticed.Both Andrew Snelling and Steve Austin were employed as geologists, and have published papersAnd of course geology started with a view of a young Earth and a literal Flood. Those ideas were refuted. A creatinist Christian - Aggassiz even played a significant role in it by identifying deposts previously thought to have been due to the flood as glacial in origin.So Buz, I really suggest that you take the time to learn the facts instead of inventing false claims.

quote:

---

I still think the abundance of fossils is terrific evidence for the worldwide flood. I don't see any sensible reason why so many should exist otherwise

---

OK, but that is just a subjective personal opinion. In my view "terrific" evidence should be a little more objective.In my view there is no obvious problem - fossils will naturally accumulate over time. In the case of the microfossils making up the White Cliffs of Dover this seems to be a mre reasonable explanation - as explained earlier in the thread.So can you offer any good, objective, reason why the observed abundance is better explained by a single global Flood ?

quote:

---

I also still think the layers can't be explained reasonably by buildup in tiny increments over millions of years, and that nobody has yet appreciated the implications of this though I've tried to explain it.

---

I have already asked for further explanation - neither the evidence nor the problem have been explained in sufficient detail for me. So far as I can tell the evidence itself is misunderstood - strata often intergrade into each other or are deposited on older, eroded strata.