Did the Flood really happen?

Yet only in rare places (tar pits for example) do we see jumbled piles of fossils. Most are very much alone and random. Rarely is cause of death drowning. Paleontologists dig for days searching for fossils. That, imho, is not an "enormous abundance of fossils" but rather a small representation of the life that used to exist. What ever is "intuitively obvious" to one person is not necessarily so to another -- it depends on their level of understanding.For instance it is intuitively obvious to me that the earth is very very old, much older than all the YEC models combined, because of the evidence of tree rings, varves, ice layers, etc. and the radiometric evidence showing an age over 4.5 billion years. Obvious because there is no other possible explanation except that everything is all illusion. As you do for the tree rings. When you keep putting the evidence of age in the "column for the ToE" you should at some point consider that it is "intuitively obvious" that the evidence points to old age. What Walther's Law shows is long periods of time for the different sediments to accumulate, as each of the sedimentation regimes need to develop, including the layers with evidence of marine life in mature developments, generation upon generation. It also shows a period of dry land in the middle of the canyon layers, which is also evidenced by unconformities in the layer surfaces (where erosion removed material)Here it is again:

quote:

---

Message 69: Sorted into different layers of sediment according to Walther's Law, with different coarseness of the sediments and with different fossils in the layers.

​

​

Sorted in a way that flood waters do not sort. We've been through this before Faith. Again and again you cherry pick what you think is evidence of a flood and ignore the evidence that contradicts it.

​

​

When you have fine grain sediment covered by coarse grain sediments you have an example of long time deposition with a regression (sea level drop), and a pattern that does not happen from sediment falling out of suspension in a mud laden flood. In such cases the larger, heavier grains settle first and the finest grains (silts and clays) settle last, because the rate of settling is related to the size of the particles.

---

and Message 40 on the Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law thread

quote:

---

This is what I get (using your list) as a simple\simplistic application of the model to the Grand Canyon rocks:

​

[color=tan]
[bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=orange].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=brown].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=cyan]......[color=black] Kaibab/limestone [/color]......[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor]
[bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=orange].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=brown]...[color=white] Toroweap/gypsum/shale [/color]....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=cyan].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor]
[bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[color=black] Coconino/sandstone [/color].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=orange].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=brown].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=cyan].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor]
[bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].......[color=black] Hermit/shale [/color].........[/bgcolor][bgcolor=orange].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=brown].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=cyan].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor]
[bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=orange]....[color=black] Esplanade/sandstone [/color].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=brown].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=cyan].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor]
[bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=orange]....[color=black] Wescogame/sandstone [/color].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=brown].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=cyan].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor]
[bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=orange].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=brown].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=cyan].....[color=black] Mankacha/limestone [/color].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor]
[bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=orange].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=brown].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=cyan]....[color=black] Watahomigi/limestone [/color]....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor]
[bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=orange].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=brown].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=cyan].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[color=black] Redwall/limestone [/color]......[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor]
[bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=orange].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=brown].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=cyan].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink]...[color=black] Temple Butte/limestone [/color]...[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor]
[bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=orange].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=brown].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=cyan].......[color=black] Muav/limestone [/color].......[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor]
[bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=orange].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=brown].....[color=white] Bright Angel/Shale [/color].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=cyan].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor]
[bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=orange].....[color=black] Tapeats/Sandstone [/color]......[/bgcolor][bgcolor=brown].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=cyan].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor]
[bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=gray][color=black]Vishnu/Zoroaster/Unconformity [/color][/bgcolor][bgcolor=orange].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=brown].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=cyan].....[/bgcolor][bgcolor=pink].....[/bgcolor]
[/color]

​

Now you might get a slightly different arrangement depending on how you classify some of the layer rocks (sandy limestone for instance), but you should get the general idea: when the sand is being deposited for the sandstone layers there is also mud, carbonate and ooze being deposited somewhere else at the same time.

​

This can, of course be tested.

---

The gray layers are dry air deposits (sand dunes etc). The Carbonate and the Coccolith/Foram Ooze layers are deposits from generations of tiny marine organisms living and reproducing and dying.What this shows is a long period of transgression from the Vishnu/Zoroaster/Unconformity to the redwall/limestone and Temple Butte/limestone layers and then a long period of regression to the Coconino/sandstone dry air layer, followed by another period of transgression to the Kaibab/limestone layer, which is topped by an erosional unconformity. (Note - The Hermit/shale layer could be dry air or brown like the other shale layers, as this was a "quick and dirty" analysis). Only when you ignore the time-scale that is involved for each of these depositional regimes to mature and deposit the amounts of sediments in the layers, and the evidence of dry air depositions and erosion unconformities.Remember that the radiometric evidence from the Grand Canyon shows it developed from west to east by erosion over several million years (see Age of Grand Canyon and Cave Speleothems ) Of course, because that is the proper application of Walther's Law. Those examples have developed over many years and multi-generations of marine life developments, not from a single year long event.You can't use evidence of long term depositions to represent short term events.Enjoy

Which of course intuitively would also include the obvious physical reality that the bible does not give an actual calendar time frame, and that the YEC age of the earth is a human invention/interpretation/construction made long after the bible was assembled from scattered documents.Enjoy

The Bible gives a very reliable time frame.

Brief comment: Google search says there are 250,000 fossilized SPECIES, which has to mean a lot more individual fossils. And some fossils are found more packed together than others. IN ANY CASE the fact that fossilization is rare under normal circumstances is far from accounting for what is actually there.

As you said, your "explanations" are the result of pondering. The fact that you've made less than an infinitesimal number of observations and the fact that so many of them are physically impossible (e.g. picking up ent formations and gently depositing them elsewhere) confirm that your only sources are the Bible and your ignorant fantasies.Not the real world.

quote:

---

I'm saying that the enormous abundance of fossils that we find in the geological column, even in any particular stratum, far exceeds what we should expect, and although it's acknowledge that fossilization is rare it is NOT acknowledged that it is way too rare to explain the abundance that actually exists. No I can't give statistics but as usual I would thlnk it intuitively obvious, and if statistics are necessary it will have to wait.

---

It’s not at all obvious. That’s just your bias speaking. Yes, actual statistics would be needed. That should be obvious if you were actually interested in honestly examining the evidence.Indeed, I would say that you fail to appreciate the magnitude of the time available and the population numbers involved.Just as an illustration, 1 in a billion is rare, but if 1 in a billion people ended up as fossils 7 or more people alive today would end up as fossils. Imagine that over a timescale of millions of years.

quote:

---

But see, now, to my mind this is just a distraction from my very simple point, that if you **** about the simple facts of the geological column as I've described them, the separate sediments so neatly and straightly and flatly stacked miles deep, you should have to admit that the standard interpretation is ********, which means scientifically impossible.

---

Aside from the fact that they aren’t as neat as you assume, don’t the sequences produced by transgression and regression provide a neat refutation? Aren’t they clearly possible and actually found ?

quote:

---

Throwing a whole bunch of OTHER stuff at me and demanding that I explain it all before you'll even consider this simple fact is only a distraction.

---

I.e. you don’t want us to look at other highly relevant evidence until we agree with your opinion.What is more you actually asked Percy to give examples of facts you were ignoring.

quote:

---

They are ALL different from modern forms, and what can I do but guess and you ***** my guesses, but that's really all the whole fossil record interpretation is, a guess because it can't be proved, it's just human beings thlnking how much it sure enough looks *******1 they go from simple to complex and golly gosh doesn't that suggest evolving from one time period to another?

---

Trying to attack an opposing view with falsehood and misrepresentation is hardly dealing honestly with the evidence.

quote:

---

The whole "fossil record" is a record of the more ancient forms of llfe that llved before the Flood, even the more modern ones in the upper strata. My guess would be that the deeper you go the more we see forms that are now extinct, totally annihilated in the Flood, while the "modern" forms are more **********2 those that got saved on the ark and spread out on the Earth afterward. Yes this needs more **** through but I **** it's a good start.

---

That makes no sense. If the Flood created the fossil record then every fossil must be a pre-Flood life form. But, if you are arguing that a substantial part of the fossil record is post-Flood - and created in only a few thousand years at most (more likely a few hundred) then you would contradict your whole argument against the mainstream view.Another case where you make up excuses without thinking it through.

quote:

---

Wasn't RAZD's ananlysis of the Grand Canyon through Walther's Law good enough?

---

That isn’t really about Walther’s Law - and you obviously don’t accept it anyway.

quote:

---

To my mind it's evidence that rising sea water DOES sort the same sediments we find in the geological column. I can also point to river deltas where sediments are similarly sorted on a smaller scale. And along the edges of the continents too for that matter.

---

In other words you can see evidence refuting your claims that only the Flood could produce the strata as they are actually seen.

Based on what analysis?Show your logic and calculations.

That's weird.So, you 'think about things'. And that leads you to the truth.Most of the rest of us come to our conclusions by studying geology and reading the current literature.And come on, Faith ...There is no reason to come to the conclusions you do without a priori acceptance of the Bible story and your interpretation of it.No one believes you on this point. Probably not even yourself.

But that doesn't affect how you 'think about things', right?Stop digging, Faith...Edited by edge, : No reason given.

We seem to be spinning here on what 'rare' means.It is certainly true by most any definition, that large terrestrial fossils (the ones that were drowned in da fludde) are rare.At the same, time the marine fossils (the ones that also drowned in da fludde) that are much more abundant and seemingly less 'rare'.Now that makes sense ... (to a YEC)I think even YECs would agree that this is a matter that depends on sheer population numbers, widespread distribution and conditions of preservation. However, the conclusion I would draw is that, while fossilization is 'difficult', the numbers of known fossil species tells us nothing about how many species (or individuals or transitionals) should ever have existed or how they should have evolved. This argument is a YEC red herring that depends on ignorance rather than knowledge. It is a "should have" argument based on nothing.It is serendipitous that any particular individual or species should be preserved in the fossil record. For some, it is obviously more difficult and can be considered 'rare'. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Except that it relies on assumptions that have made it difficult to reproduce, several attempts ending up with a wide variety of ages.

quote:

---

HOW TO CALCULATE BIBLICAL TIME

​

One of the biggest problems facing any student of the bible, especially one who is interested in the chronology of it, that is, the way time is computed, and arranging historical events in order, is the problem of how to calculate biblical time. Biblical chronology has been investigated for centuries by many different people, and these so called experts do not agree with each other. Many have used historical data and added it to the biblical data, even in some cases giving the historical evidence precedence over what is written in scripture. Biblical chronology is a very complicated subject with very many problems to overcome, and this bible study is not attempting to establish a chronology of the bible. This is a bible study which explains how to calculate biblical time, and has been done only by looking only at biblical examples. It is important to understand because it affects how people understand the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For centuries scholars and others have recognised the bible uses what is called inclusive reckoning when calculating time. However, it was not always used, there are many places which use a method which we have called righteous reckoning, and understanding where and when and each of these methods was used is what this bible study investigates.

---

In other words, picking and choosing different methods to arrive at a date ... based on interpretations and opinions ...and

quote:

---

How Old is the Earth According to the Bible and Science?

​

The age of the earth has been a topic of debate among Christians over the last two centuries. Several Christian ministries promote the idea that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, which they say comes from the Bible. In reality, the Bible makes no claim as to the age of the earth, although it does establish a minimum age. This page examines some of the history of the controversy”what the Bible actually says and does not say”and the scientific evidence surrounding the age of the earth.

​

History of the age of the earth

​

As indicated earlier, the Bible does not fix the age of the earth, contrary to the claims of Answers in Genesis.1 Historically, their claim comes from the work of James Ussher, Bishop in the Church of Ireland, from 1625 to 1656. Archbishop Ussher took the genealogies of Genesis, assuming they were complete, and calculated all the years to arrive at a date for the creation of the earth on Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C.2 Of course, even assuming the method was valid, such an exact date is not possible from the genealogies of the Bible (Ussher assumed all the years the patriarchs lived were exactly 365.25 days long and that they all died the day before their next birthday). There are a number of other assumptions implicit in the calculation. The first, and foremost, assumption is that the genealogies of Genesis are complete, from father to son throughout the entire course of human existence. The second assumption is that the Genesis creation "days" were exactly 24-hours in length. It turns out that both assumptions are false.

​

Incomplete genealogies

​

Although Archbishop Ussher assumed the Genesis genealogies were complete, it is clear from the rest of the Bible that those genealogies were telescoped (some names were left out for the sake of brevity), which is common in biblical genealogies but rare in modern genealogies. Similarly, the key genealogical terms (such as "son" and "father") have much broader meanings in Hebrew than their corresponding English words. The Hebrew word translated "son" can also have the meaning of "grandson," "great grandson," "descendant," etc.3 Likewise, the Hebrew word translated "father" can mean "grandfather," "great grandfather," "ancestor," etc.4 An accurate understanding of biblical genealogies is difficult, yet it is important for the understanding of Scripture. Having a proper understanding of biblical genealogies is a prerequisite to attempting to address the Genesis genealogies. By cross referencing the biblical genealogies with other events dated in the Bible, one can find instances where numerous genealogies were telescoped, resulting in the exclusion of numerous generations of individuals. When examining individual genealogies, one can find examples where individuals are excluded or added to the lists found in Genesis. The fact that the genealogies of the Bible are given symmetrically (where the numbers of generations in each group are identical) lends credence to the argument that they are representative of generations found throughout human history. More information about the biblical genealogies can be found in our article, The Genesis Genealogies: Are They Complete?

​

Age of humanity

​

From a scientific standpoint, I would place the creation of Adam as the first modern human (Homo sapiens sapiens), corresponding with the explosion of sophisticated tool making, art, and religious worship in Europe, about 50,000 years ago.15 I do not believe that Adam was a Neanderthal, Homo erectus, or other hominid species found in the fossil record, but a fully modern, spiritual human being.

​

Summary of biblical evidence

​

Contrary to the calculation of Archbishop Ussher, it seems that the biblical genealogies are telescoped, representing only a small percentage of the actual human generations. Therefore, the time that humanity has existed on earth is in the tens of thousands of years rather than thousands of years. However, humanity was the very last of God's creations, on the sixth days. The days of creation can be shown to be longer than ordinary calendar days, with at least two of the days being years long or longer (in addition to the seventh day, which is a minimum of thousands of years long). So, although the Bible may give us an approximate date for the creation of human beings, we can only guess at how long the other creation "days" are. However, God has given us another "book" that testifies to His power and creative ability”none other than the creation itself. The Bible explicitly tells us that God's creation is a reliable witness for the truth about God's power and righteousness. The Bible also says that one can see the truth about God from His creation, so that unbelievers are "without excuse" in denying God's "eternal power and divine nature."16 So, the Bible says that we can learn about God from His creation. Let's do that!

---

So it seems to me like both articles have equally valid reasoning resulting in "very reliable" time frames that are very different from each other, but using the same "evidence" ...Enjoy

Spread out over 3.5 billion years of life on earth, is one fossil species every 14,000 years. On average. That is rare to me. If there were 100 fossils of each species that would still be one every 140 years. Rare.+ Marine fossils are a different matter with populations in the thousands for mature marine ecologies buried gradually by sediments and the continued growth of marine organisms on the ocean floors, generations covering generations, as seen in the fossils on - and in - mountain tops. As I said, tar pits for example, but most are not. And that makes individual +land based organism/+ fossils even rarer. Which is a record in time and space of the evolution of life, the temporal-spacial matrix, showing parent/daughter populations nearby in time and location, and not spread out all over the face of the earth.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : +

Brief response: The pre-Flood patriarchs are described as living so and so many years, then having a specifically named child, then living so and so many years after that and then dying. The next patriarch is described in the same way, and he is always the named child of the former patriarch so we are not leaving out any patriarchs. You go from patriarch to patriarch up to the Flood. Also, most discussions of dating take into account that their year was 360 days long, they added in "leap" time now and then just as we do, and they had a lunar calendar etc etc. I don't know of any system that can legitimately get anywhere near millions of years.

I submit that it is more likely the the years are lunar revolutions. Why would anyone want to trace human ancestry back millions of years?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Gibberish. You are confusing what is measured with the arbitrary units we use to quantify the measurements. We describe the age in units of today's years. It doesn't matter what units they used; maybe they used the time between cricket chirps as their base, or the time it took to walk from Jerusalem to Australia. No matter what units you use the Earth is 75,000 times older than you think it is. That's because you know nothing of the systems we use.