Potential Evidence for a Global Flood

I think he means at the top and the bottom of the tree. Which is in fact not usually true --- the roots are well-preserved and the leaves are not.

Geologists invoke the processes of sedimentation which we can observe today. These are not "unlikely", because they happen.Creationist invoke a process that no-one has ever seen, which is known not to have happened, and which is, moreover, impossible. That is unlikely.

You claimed that the processes invoked by geologists are "unlikely". Am I to understand that you now admit that they are the "present processes" that actually occur?If so, I shall carry on and analyze the new errors that you have introduced in this post.

No they are not. They were partially covered by unlithified sediment. The sediment lithified after partially covering the tree. Not before.What an effort it must take you guys to avoid grasping the bleedin' obvious. That's because trees don't grow through coal. However, it is easy for a tree to have its base buried by a layer of peat, which is unlithified. No they aren't. This is why no-one ever ever ever said they were. The fact that the scenario which you have made up in your head seems implausible even to you might serve as a hint that it is not the scenario asserted by geologists.

No. What you want to find is data showing that 100% of the land was once simultaneously covered by water. The data showing that this is not the case is not what you want to find, 'cos of it falsifying your hypothesis. Volcanos don't do this. Like water, they are not a sort of magic bulldozer operating for the convenience of creationist apologists. Well that leaves you with one very difficult question to answer. If the sediments below the KT line were deposited by the magic flood, and the sediments above were deposited by non-magical geological processes --- why do they look the same? The fossils are different, but the sediment types, the sedimentary structures, the relationships of the sediments ... are just exacly the same. Why is it that the results of a magical cataclysm look absolutely identical to the results of normal processes?

But according to your own hypothesis, the great accumulations of sediment after the KT boundary were not laid down by the flood. And if such accumulations can be produced by normal processes, then they are not particularly evidence for a magic flood. "Unnatural" accumulations of dirt which look exactly like natural accumulations of dirt --- again, according to your hypothesis, which says that the "dirt" after the KT boundary is natural.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Uh ... only if you believe that these geologists were right in assigning turbidites to turbidity currents rather than to a magic flood.Why are you citing these geologists when your own point of view is that they're completely wrong about everything? Whereas by your own hypothesis non-"special events" caused the geologically identical strata above the KT line.When will you get round to answering this?According to you, a magical process is responsible for sedimentation below the KT line, whereas normal processes are responsible for sedimentation above the KT line --- and they look identical. Why should we ascribe what is below the KT line to impossible magical processes when you yourself admit that the same results (above the KT line) were produced by real non-magical processes? What else? Well, you could ask for something that looks like it was produced by a global flood, rather than something which by your own admission looks exactly like it was produced by non-magical processes. Except that you yourself believe that they were not produced by the same event. According to you these "layered rock strata" were produced by the magic flood if they're below the KT line and by normal processes if they're above it.Could I please get an answer to this?Do you really not see the problem?It's as though you were to say to me: "I concede that after 1972, everyone who died of botulism was infected by botulistic bacteria. But before 1972, everyone who died exhibiting the exact same symptoms was struck down by a miracle from God, so you should accept all deaths from botulism before 1972 as evidence for a miracle".Well, why shouldn't I regard them as normal cases of botulism? When you admit the existence of botulistic bacteria, and when you admit that they produce the symptoms of botulism, why should I regard the existence of such symptoms before 1972 as evidence of God doing magic?

The things that creationists claim as evidence for a global flood are things that we can see today being produced not by a global flood, and indeed almost invariably not a by a local flood either.As such they are simply not evidence for a global flood any more than something that looks exactly like the hoof-print of a horse is evidence for a magic rainbow-colored unicorn.One reason that creationists make this mistake is that (as illustrated by JBR) they are blissfully ignorant of what geologists actually claim. To continue the analogy, someone who thought that orthodox zoologists claimed that horses have six legs terminating in claws and talons and weigh two hundred tons would not recognize the hoofprint of a horse as being, in fact, the hoofprint of a horse.But they are also ignorant of what a flood would actually produce. The game (which we see in other areas of creationism) seems to be to find something which would confute strawman geologists, and then ascribe it to a global flood by default. Now even if varves (for example) required a magical explanation (which they don't) then it would be more plausible on the face of it to ascribe them to Magic Varve Pixies than to the cataclysmic events described in the book of Genesis; and if creationists have ever so much as attempted to supply a diluvian mechanism for such sedimentary forms, they have not done so on this thread.A further peculiarity is evident in the assertions of Robert Byers, who is prepared to assign rocks above the KT boundary to normal processes and yet to claim that rocks below the KT boundary are evidence of a global flood. Which is as though having actually admitted that some footprints are made by horses, he then went on to assert that identical footprints are evidence of unicorns. It has so far proved impossible to find out exactly what mistake he's making here: whether he believes that rocks above the KT boundary are different in some way, or whether he is simply a very poor reasoner, or both; and as this thread is about to close we may never know.