Summations Only

It is NOW, but you insisted that it was land when the nautiloids were deposited - and in an area that has undergone considerable uplift that's not exactly a certainty.

Yes it is land NOW but it's ALWAYS been land fer cryin out loud, it's just that it was covered with water during the Flood.

And that is just an assumption - and certainly contradicts the idea that it is ocean floor, which is what Austin appears to believe.

Basalts ARE igneous rocks, nobody disputes that, it's fact, not theory. I'm talking about the OE theory that geologists carry around with them everywhere. It colors everything they study, which is only to be expected.

Actually, no, the origin of old basalts is a theory. Today, basalts are formed by volcanic processes. In geology, specialists use the basic principle that the present is the key to the past. Basalts today are formed by volcanic processes; thus geologists deduce that the basalts formed in the past were also formed by volcanic processes. In short; the present is the key to the past.

That principle works very well in economic geology; every single exploration and mining company uses that principle because it works.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Faith writes: jar writes: And yes, the model, method, process, procedure or mechanism MUST, I repeat MUST account for all of the evidence seen. 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.

Nonsense Faith, stop making false assertions. It is the very same requirement made of everyone.

And to claim the object is to shut up creationists may well be the stupidest argument you have made yet. How can asking someone to speak be considered trying to shut them up?

You have never explained how any model, method, process, procedure or mechanism can account for what MUST be seen.

As I pointed out to you back in Message 111 there are local and world-wide events. What Steve Austin describes is a local event.

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..

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..

You have a false idea of the Flood. It's no wonder if there is no evidence for YOUR idea of the Flood since it couldn't have happened. Your expectations of what would constitute evidence are ridiculous. In the first place your thinking it could be compared to local floods puts your whole thinking process out of scale. There couldn't possibly be any comparison with a worldwide Flood.

The actual evidence has been given. Worldwide strata indicating worldwide water deposition according to Walther's Law, worldwide fossils indicating worldwide death by water. If it's not good enough for you that's not surprising since you have unreasonable expectations and the usual assumptions of those hostile to the idea of the ONE Biblical Flood..

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This one is really, really funny.

Faith writes: Worldwide strata indicating worldwide water deposition according to Walther's Law

Those 'worldwide strata' missed my country altogether.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I looked up all the continents to see if they have strata before making my statement and South Africa is shown to have strata:

Google Image South Africa

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Jar's opening post implies that there will be a series of questions. This is the first question from Message 1:

Jar in Message 1 writes: The first question is "How did the flood sort things so that there is a layer where there are no chordates while layers above do have chordates?"

I think Faith has already provided an answer to this question in her Message 127:

Faith in Message 127 writes: If it weren't for Walther's Law there wouldn't be any way to explain the fact that the sediments got sorted as they did, but the fact that they did suggests that the fossils did also. by what principle isn't known. Perhaps it could be known. Just as it is understood why the sediments sort out as they do when the sea rises, perhaps it could be known why the fossils got sorted as they did too. The usual temtative explanations have to do with size and weight and original location (land or sea for starters). Perhaps someone could do an experiment to discover the principle. But at the moment it isn't known.

Faith is saying that her model doesn't explain the ordering of fossils in the geologic record. The question has been answered, continuing to press Faith for answers she doesn't have is unproductive, so Jar should present the next question.

Also, someone should help Faith understand Walther's Law. She thinks of it as explaining what a flood does as it advances and retreats across a landscape. She doesn't understand that it's actually about depositional environments moving laterally with marine transgressions and regressions, with whatever is in the water becoming gradually deposited on the bottom according to size, density and water energy. For Faith Walther's Law has become a name of convenience explaining whatever needs to be explained, and so it should be discussed until an understanding emerges.

Please, no replies to this message.

Faith writes: You have a false idea of the Flood.

Nonsense, I can read exactly what the two flood stories tell us it was like.

And Steve Austin's nautilus bed is a great piece of evidence that it could NOT have been produced by some World-Wide flood.

Here is exactly what the two floods described in the Bible were like and what we MUST see.

quote:

---

In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 God instructs Noah to:

quote:

---

19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

---

In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7 we see similar (close but not the same) instructions:

quote:

---

2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

---

We also find similar explanations of what will be destroyed in Genesis 6 it says:

quote:

---

7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

---

and in Genesis 7:

quote:

---

4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

---

---

So both tales talk about killing off a bunch of critters, in the Genesis 6 story it appeared fish and swimming things get spared but the Genesis 7 story is clear that all living things get killed.

If either of those stories were true and one of the Biblical floods actually caused Stevie's die off, then what he MUST find is not a bed of nautili but rather a bed of tree trunks and deer and short nose bears and humans and coyotes and wolves and armadillos and modern snails and clams and pottery and tent poles and dogs and camels and horses and mammoths and mastodons and grass pollen and saber tooth tigers and all the other things that lived on land at least.

Lots of local events do not add evidence of a world-wide event.

But wait, there's more.

We would also need to see geological evidence that the material above that layer was completely devoid of any signs of living critters and that sterile layer continue right around the world, everywhere we look, getting slimmer as it gets closer to the Biblical impact site which would be where the ark landed.

But that is simply not seen.

You can claim you shot an arrow and hit the target Faith, but there is still no hole.

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.

My evidence is for the one Biblical Flood. I do not recognize two, nor indeed just about anything you have to say about floods. That makes discussion with you about my model impossible.

RAZD showed how Walther's Law applies to the Grand Canyon sequence HERE, beginning his discussion in the previous message (39).

Faith writes: My evidence is for the one Biblical Flood. I do not recognize two, nor indeed just about anything you have to say about floods. That makes discussion with you about my model impossible.

What you recognize has nothing to do with what the Bible story actually says.

What I presented in Message 145 is what the Bible actually says and why the Bible shows that what Austin described was a local event and not related in anyway to either of the Biblical flood stories.

You have already said your flood model cannot explain either the question asked the the OP or what Austin described and so far have not offered any model, method, process, procedure or mechanism to explain why what MUST be seen is not seen.

I suspect you are a club of one in your belief about two floods in the Bible. You've never mentioned anyone else who shares that understanding.

In any case, if you are going to impose on me your own interpretation of the Bible which I absolutely reject, perhaps discussion is simply impossible and I should opt out of this thread. Knowing how bizarre and singular your view of the Bible is, is the reason I didn't join this thread when it was originally posted, and hesitated this time too. What's the point? You have an invented Bible and and invented Christianity and I adhere to the real one.

Also, reducing the Flood to ONE LAYER of the strata is beyond absurd.

All that appears to make it impossible to discuss the Flood.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

jar writes: You have already said your flood model cannot explain either the question asked the the OP...

It's probably time to move on to the "next question," if you have one in mind.