Summations Only

I don't think this discussion line belongs in this topic, but I felt I needed to comment on the above. I'm not going to be citing evidence in this topic.The short version is, the mainstream old Earth geologic theory does a pretty fine job of explaining the geology we see. All kinds of processes (see Introduction to Geology topic) in all kinds of sequences happened.The young Earth creationist explanation for large (but vaguely defined) portions of the Earth's geology is "the flood did it". I have never seen any sort of coherent explanation for how "the flood did it", and I'm quite confident that I never will.The summary of Walt Brown's hydroplate theory is actually (perhaps) the best "flood geology" exposition that I've seen. And by that I mean "moderately good science fiction" as opposed to the more common "bad science fiction".Perhaps you would like to try a one-on-one "Great Debate" discussion with me, on this matter. I think such would largely be too far off-topic to properly happen in this topic.Moose

Everything was dead — even the fish:21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit[a] of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.Now you’ll argue definitions here about whether fish were included. But fish have nostrils and they have the breath of the spirit of life in them and they move on the earth. Finally we have this, so that we are sure:

The adhoc explanation is that it was a new grown shoot. Well the first newborn leaves from a seed are cotyledons — not true leaves and do not look like true leaves. So we have to suppose that we’d gone beyond the first sprouting stage.

Olive seeds take several weeks to sprout and need slightly damp but not wet material to do it in. We could then add a further 3-4 weeks to get to a true growing plant. I’d say at least a couple of months.

There are living cells in seeds — if there weren’t they would not grow. So what are we to make of this? That god excluded seeds from living things? It seems more likely to me that the story tellers didn’t know that seeds were living things so didn’t think to exclude them. Oops

So we have 98% of all plants being intolerant of salt — this doesn’t sound too hopeful does it?

I think there is still room to argue the point.Fish do have nostrils, but the nostrils don't have the breath of life in them. Fish breathe without using their noses. I suspect that the writer of Genesis did not intend to include fish in this paragraph. It might not even have been apparent to the author that a flood would kill fish.

1. God said "4 For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.Supposedly God's words, not man's, and I assume that Creationists do not exclude fish from their list of stuff God made.2. We know that very few fish can survive brackish water and those that can would in any case have been killed when their habitat and food source was destroyed.

In the fine tradition of Making Shit Up, he thinks that clean and unclean were different before the Fludde. I.e., clean and unclean is just at a whim and doesn't have any basis other than a trickster God.

We had one. You lost, publicly humiliating yourself rather badly as I recall. But by all means let's go again.

Thanks everyone, I really enjoyed the discussion. As Granny Magda pointed out so eloquently, my theory is adjusting as I go along. I believe its gaining in strength even if those participating in the thread feel the theory is weak because it is developing.
The truth is the PT boundary was a dramatic event with all the ingredients for a worldwide flood. There was the melting ice caps, melting glaciation, huge worldwide sediment movements, enlarging of Pangea (low-lying landmass peaked in area, oceans were compressed). There is a major proven transgression and regression then at the PT boundary. Some tried to brush off the evidence I presented of this major sediment movement across the world, but anyone researching this will see endless evidence of unprecedented sedimentation at the PT boundary, because this is proven fact, no matter the cause.I feel the only good points disputing the flood hypothesis presented, are that
1) the worldwide mass movements of sedimentation could have been a result of loss of vegetation and not flooding, erosion occurring after the worldwide loss of vegetation. This I believe is an alternative valid evidence based hypothesis worth considering
2) the Appalachians were apparently too high to be covered by excess melt waters. I asked for proof that they were that high, the alternative is that they were covered by eroding floodwaters during the flood, and only subsequently rose to current heights. I never saw the supporting geological evidence for high Appalachians in the pre-boundary era.Other discussions were more related to peripherary topics, there was no conclusive evidence presented that any large terrestrial animals have a lot more than 28 alelles in areas of the genome where mutation rates are normal. I feel generally the reduced number of alleles found in "ark animals" supports the ark theory. Neither was conclusive evidence presented of any sort of transitional fossils outside of evolutionary assumptions, although the thread ended too quickly to end that discussion.Neither did anyone challenge my premise that changing conditions regularly cause niche environments to dominate, and the alternative conclusion that the new dominant fauna/flora evolved; is based on as yet unproven processes (fairytale speculation regarding some aspects of novel genes), and on so-called "transitional fossils" that are really imaginative speculation concerning numerous fossils of extinct species.Dr A presented the usual "scientists say" comment regarding transitional fossils without presenting any evidence or links for his confident conclusion that whales have a history of developing transitional fossils accurately sequenced according to confirmed dates. Anything less evidence based is speculation, using evolution to prove evolution - ie circular reasoning.

Do the studies you refer to mention a worldwide flood? Yes or no mindspawn..

They are also irrelevant based on the links I provided you. In this thread alone read Message 96 and Message 108.

You are denying them. The events you cite were not worldwide. They may have been very major, but they were still not universal. That refutes your entire thesis.

The word "fish" is never mentioned. Fish therefore have not been specifically excluded from anything in exactly the same way that squid, crabs and dolphins haven't been.Equivocating over what earth means is pointless when we know God's actual words and intentions. This is made perfectly plain so that "a non-neutral reader of that text can see that"...."....I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.... means that he intends to kill every living creature that he made. Which includes fish.

This is garbage. Some fish, almost entirely a very small range of specialist estuary dwelling and swamp fish, can survive brackish water. These fish live in shallow waters and would die within days of having 30,000 feet of water above them. They are adapted to a specialised habitat which the benevolent lord has just totally obliterated along with their food source.

Notice how your statement above progresses from speculation ("Its [sic] possible" ) to assertion ("thus...") within the span of a single sentence. What should I or anyone else make of such an argument?

What criteria do you think determined clean/unclean prior to the flood, when no animals were being eaten? Were there more or fewer unclean animals pre-flood versus 100 years post flood?

I think you've finally invoked magic. Can you present any evidence of fish adapting to fresh water conditions in mere hundreds of years?

Surely the understanding of the author and the intended audience are relevant here.By all reckonings the story was written well after the Flood. Therefore, in the absence of anything to the contrary, surely the audience and the author would naturally take the term as referring to the same classification as we see in the Bible,

Magic was invoked when God said he was going to flood the world in a week's time then flooded it to a depth of 30,000 feet within a 40 days.I have no idea why the rest of the fantasy has to be considered as factual and not just as miraculous as the first event.