Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

purpledawn,Firstly, I think my last post came across as being rude. It wasn't intentional, so please accept my apologies. "Prove" your evidence? My standard of evidence is as loose as it can be, it has to be consistent with a hypothesis, & be able to inform us that that hypothesis is a better explanation than any other. It should be obvious.For example, I have a stone in my garden & that is evidence of martians because that is how martians might place a stone in my garden. This is true, & should martians exist, then there's the facts are consistent with the hypothesis.This is what Faith is doing, & it's meaningless. This is what Faith means by making a "terrific" point.Nore are her arguments from incredulity evidence, nor are her ad hoc explanations.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Faith, Because it's ad hoc. You have to show it.Mark

redseal,Was the water kept turbulent enough for the gases to escape all the organisms, then turned off?What were the masses of the organisms?It is a hydrodynamic fact that the largest will hit the bottom first as the water motion slows.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-07-2006 04:37 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

quote:

---

Because the currents in the flood carried different cargo.

---

Yes, but eventually the currents stopped and the waters calmed and then everything would be sorted by density, right?So why do we not find the entire fossil record sorted by density?

quote:

---

Because the lower strata are mostly marine.

---

But if everything was churned up in the flood, everything completely mixed by the incredible violence of it (so violent that the continents were racing around the globe), there is no reason that the lower strata should be mostly marine.Of course, you could explain it to me, but I'll bet you won't.

quote:

---

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.

---

If you're not willing to explain all the details, then I hope you will understand if I tend to go with the explanation that does explain all the details.

Faith, do you reject all forensic and historical science, then?In addition, do you reject all inference-based science (which would be pretty much all of it)?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-07-2006 06:27 AM

quote:

---

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.

---

Of course it's a test, Faith.It's called a falsifiable prediction, and is the basis of all science."If X happened during an event, we should expect to find A, B, and C if we look at the evidence left behind by that event."It's just what criminal forensics investigators do at a crime scene.No, we cannot go back and replicate the actual event, but we can gather physical evidence at the scene, and this evidence can tell us a story about what happened and what didn't happen.Many a person has been convicted and also exonerated using the exact same methods YOU claim are "all subjective guesswork:, and an "exercize in imagination."Are you going to throw out all the convictions of the people shown to be guilty by the forensic evidence now?

Okay, that's fine. So far we have a flood scenario with no explanation for fossil distribution, no explanation for radiometric dating results, and no explanation for limestone deposits.So let's move on to the next question:What evidence convinces you that the fossils found around the world met their end in a flood?--Percy

Hi Mark24,While it might seem strange to disagree with the thread originator as to what and what isn't on-topic, in this case I'm going to stay with my original impression when I first read the thread proposal. The title of this thread is: And the OP concludes: So I'm declaring this thread a place where Faith can present her evidence for a global thread, and not a place to compare flood scenario interpretations with modern geology.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Can't find a sister thread proposal. Please point me at it.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

heh, I see the source of confusion. What I (technically) meant was that I proposed that a thread get proposed. I am sorely tempted to do it now, but there are much better geologists who would write a better OP.Whilst we are discussing proposals, and proposing them, might I propose a modified Message 190 as a good opening post in Proposed New Topic?

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.

Percy,As you wish.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

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 believe it was mentioned earlier in the thread that one of the dividing lines in this discussion is what constitutes 'good evidence'. I suppose that since you have presented your evidence, the remainder of this thread is left to discuss whether it is indeed 'good evidence'. There is of course, no obligation to participate this 'post mortem', but it would be nice if someone out there wanted to speak up for the Flood Theory's side.

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.