Summations Only

But your whole notion of "older rocks" is just the OE theory. If the rocks aren't older then which lifeforms are found in them has nothing to do with the age of the rocks.And this notion that the fossils would all be jumbled up is again just interpretation for which you have no specific evidence, it's just your own head trip. Since Walther's Law sorts sediments it apparently also sorted the dead creatures that were deposited with them. According to what principle I have no idea but obviously sorting occurred.This entire discussion is of course always just one interpretation against another and yours are usually no better than the Flood interpretations. I think I've given killer evidence for the Flood many times but you'll never see it because of your OE tinted glasses.One sediment per millions of years is ridiculous on the face of it. A slab of rock of one kind of sediment that spans a whole continent and even the entire world was simply not built up over millions of years, as if the surface of the earth were EVER composed of one sediment. Golly gee just look at the surface of the earth NOW and realize that those strata simply do NOT represent the surface of this planet in any time period whatever let alone for millions of years. You do not "see" this at all, you interpret this into the facts that are subject to other more reasonable interpretations.The evidence I've given is sufficient.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But the rocks are older Faith despite your denial of reality.But that is also irrelevant to this topic and you have already posted in this very thread that you cannot provide a satisfactory model, method, process, procedure or mechanism.You have already fallen back on magic.In Message 10 you posted, and I quote:

OF course I don't know how the fossils were sorted and it's ridiciulous to expect that of a Floodist. The model doesn't have to account for how the creatures were sorted since one wouldn't expect a Flood to have a sorting method.Percy agrees I've provided a model, and in fact I've provided a model many many times in the past.

Percy agreed that you may have provided models but they have all be soundly refuted and nonsense.BUT Faith, this topic is about flood a model, method, process, procedure or mechanism that can explain what is seen. Of course it is unreasonable to expect a floodist to ever support anything but that is what this thread is about.And yes, the model, method, process, procedure or mechanism MUST, I repeat MUST account for all of the evidence seen.That is why the concept of a Biblical flood was tossed away hundreds of years ago by all but the Christian Cult of Ignorance.

A model is a simplification of reality, designed to test assumptions and hypotheses against evidence (reality).It is possible, and actually very common, to have models that disagree with one another completely. Just because you have crafted a model does not mean it reflects reality. Creating a model is just an early step in the process.Next you have to evaluate the predictions and necessary conclusions of the model against the real world. To the extent that those match the evidence from the real world the model, and its assumptions, are supported (not proved!). To the extent that the predictions and necessary conclusions of the model do not match the real world the model and its assumptions are disproved. Some models can be adjusted to better fit the evidence, while others may be hopelessly wrong and need to be scrapped.So, it is good that you have formulated a model! That's a very good first step. But one can't just assume that a model is 100% accurate. It needs to be evaluated against reality.

As pointed out above, world-wide events will leave world-wide evidence and must explain all of the things seen that were supposedly the result of that event.Local events on the other hand need only explain local conditions.The fact that the things that MUST be seen if there had been a world-wide flood during the existence of humans are not found, have never been found, does not mean that there could not have been local events.There are many, many sites where there is evidence of local flooding, often repeated flooding.As pointed out back in Message 92:

quote:

---

What do we know about the Biblical Flood myths.

​

Both claim a short duration. Both claim lots of life was wiped out with only very small samples (but here the two stories are mutually exclusive, if one is right the other much be wrong) of certain types of critters saved.

​

If either of those were true, what MUST we see in the evidence?

​

First, since the event was so short lived the evidence layer should be clear and unique. Almost all life on the earth must have died out with only very small populations left and in only one location in the world. There must be the genetic equivalent of the impact site. Modern Genetics and Morphology must all point to one single location.

​

What we must see is an environment pretty much as it is today but then an abrupt, sudden and total depopulation world-wide of all living critters. Above the event line we should see a gradual but slow return of life; there needs to be a wedge of no-life that is widest 180 degrees away from the grounding site of the ark and gradually narrowing as it gets closer to that site.

​

We know what the remains and aftermath of floods look like and no one has ever been able to provide a satisfactory flood model, method, process, procedure or mechanism to explain what is seen in reality, and nowhere has the event horizon described in the paragraph above been seen.

---

Pointing to examples where there was evidence of a flood simply does not provide evidence that there was a world-wide flood.Even thousands of examples of floods does not provide evidence there was a world-wide flood.Even thousands of examples of floods found all over the world does not provide evidence there was a world-wide flood.I repeat for emphasis: What we must see is an environment pretty much as it is today but then an abrupt, sudden and total depopulation world-wide of all living critters. Above the event line we should see a gradual but slow return of life; there needs to be a wedge of no-life that is widest 180 degrees away from the grounding site of the ark and gradually narrowing as it gets closer to that site.

​

We know what the remains and aftermath of floods look like and no one has ever been able to provide a satisfactory world-wide flood model, method, process, procedure or mechanism to explain what is seen in reality, and nowhere has the event horizon described in the paragraph above been seen..Edited by jar, : fix link to prior post

Theory backed up by numerous lines of evidence including relative dating techniques and known geological processes, further backed up by various dating methods. But dating shows this not to be the case. Not necessarily 'jumbled up', but in the same age rocks. We should find large mammals with large dinosaur fossils but we do not. Then we are correct in saying that you do not understand Walther's Law.It explains why strata are time-transgressive but still have lateral continuity. So then, you reject Walther's Law.You should have said so in the first place. Only if you neglect surrounding data, such as relative dating methods and known geological processes. I'm sure you have studied these things as much as I have. You have given evidence for marine deposition, but not for a global flood.Think about what a 'global flood' means. No land, no beaches, no swamps, no erosion; and yet there they all are in the geological record. It is also a straw-man argument. No one says this but YECs. Why not? And please provide and example of a formation that is global. True, and one of the reasons is that there was always an emergent land mass to provide sediments of various nature. Why not?Because it makes you uncomfortable?

Well, some of us do know and time is the most explanatory suspect.For you to reject it based on your admitted ignorance is a bit arrogant. But that arrangement of fossils is data.Your model needs to explain it.We can't just ignore data because it doesn't fit a cherished model. He also says that your model failed its tests.It should be rejected.

Of course it would. Are you nuts? An organism can die of non-magic-flood causes at any age. It's clear that most fossils are not of suddenly buried organisms because if they were they would be intact.Re transgressions and regressions, start here. Tides don't rise and fall that high.You should guess less often.

Jar keeps saying I don't have a model. The fact is I do, and that's all I'm required to answer at this point.But when you say it has to be tested against reality, I will for the umpteen jillionth time say that what you regard as reality is really just OE/evolutionist interpretation of reality, not reality itself. I say the strata and their fossil contents are excellent evidence for a worldwide Flood and they are, just on the face of it they are, and the idea that a miles-deep stack of straight flat slabs of rock of different kinds of sediments could possibly represent the surface of this earth at different time periods is nutty, Coyote, just nutty. The only way anyone could hold onto that idea is by just not thinking about it, keeping their focus on the details and missing the big picture.Why should there be time periods at all, let alone time periods marked by a particular kind of sediment with a particular kind of fossil contents? That alone makes no sense. You are NOT going to get anything like that out of the era WE live in. Look at the current surface of the earth. It is NOT going to flatten down to a slab of some particular kind of sediment that spans the world EVER. And no other "time period" ever did so either. The idea is nutty nutty nutty.Just because years of piling on assumption after assumption after interpretation after interpretation seems to "prove" YOUR model by sheer accumulation of same doesn't make it so.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Gpsh it's amazing how many billions of creatures of all ages did so all at once and got themselves buried in a particular kind of sediment. An epidemic among the nautiloids perhaps that offed a few billion of them all at one time? And just happened to bury them in a wet sediment that covered thousands of square miles of land and offered the perfect conditions for fossilizing all billions of them? Which scenario was of course repeated for all kinds of creatures found in the geologic record. Interesting collection of merely accidental normal causes of the deaths of billions of creatures in the same layer of sediment. Seems to me you need to rethink which model is the magic one,Suddenly buried organisms would be intact you say? What an odd idea. These were apparently carried along in the rising ocean water before being deposited. Some tossing about going on there no doubt, as well as probably getting munched on by various sea creatures that continued to be alive at the moment.No ready linky. Give the explanation in your own words please.Abe: Tides NORMALLY don't rise that high, but we're talking about a one-time worldwide catastrophic rising of all the water in the oceans.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

OF course I don't know how the fossils were sorted and it's ridiciulous to expect that of a Floodist. The model doesn't have to account for how the creatures were sorted since one wouldn't expect a Flood to have a sorting method.

---

On the contrary, it is your objection that is ridiculous. The purpose of the model is to account for the evidence. If it cannot account for such a major piece of evidence then the model is hopelessly deficient and should be rejected.from a rational standpoint you are admitting that the order of the fossil record disproves the Flood. Which is the position you are meant to be arguing against.

quote:

---

Gpsh it's amazing how many billions of creatures of all ages did so all at once and got themselves buried in a particular kind of sediment.

---

It probably sounds amazing because it isn't true.

quote:

---

Which scenario was of course repeated for all kinds of creatures found in the geologic record.

---

And we know that's not true. The nautilus were singled out because there was evidence suggesting a mass kill - and that is NOT the case for the majority of fossils. So, no. Most fossils were not the product of mass kills, let alone a single mass kill.Making up "evidence" will not convince us that your position is true. It may well convince us that your position is a lie.

What isn't true? The billions or what? THIS SITE Says "millions in the canyon alone," but the bed extends well beyond the canyon, into all the surrounding states as I recall, and I remember billions being Austin's estimate. As usual I'll have to go find the book.No, its being obviously a mass kill event was not likely the reason for his choosing the nautiloids to study, but the fact that they are found in the walls of the canyon where they are visible to the naked eye and countable from simple observation, not all being buried out of sight."Most fossils" are found buried willy-nilly in their sedimentary beds, as they would have been by the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Which is a ridiculously draconian requirement of an amateur creationist in a message board discussion, or any creationist at all for that matter, considering that the model hasn't yet been fully developed. The only point of such a requirement is to shut up the creationists.There are as many different versions of how the Flood occurred, mostly on small or secondary points of course, as there are creationists. All I can do is present my own version, and I don't expect to do more than muster the best evidence that a Flood explains the facts better than the OE explanation, which I believe is not at all hard to do. I believe I've done it many times over at EvC and that other creationists with different views have done it as well. You don't have to account for ALL the facts to do that much. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.