Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Hey Mark, I thought that it would be interesting to pick a topic for this forum now that its back, instead of replying to your massive post and keeping the questions in such a large spectrum. I found that there has been relevence to lithification, mabye you could reitterate in this prospect.

---

JM: TC, your posts would make a little more sense if you stopped trying to use 'big' words. For example, your last sentence would make more sense if you wrote:The process of lithification is interesting, shall we discuss it?At least I think this is what you are trying to say. I understand that you want to 'sound older', but trust me simplicity has its value!CheersJoe Meert

I know I know, syntax is something that I am a bit confused on at times.. I sometimes use words in an incorrect context as I did in post #256, most I should hope would agree that I have improved over time slightly. Some of the time I am in-fact attempting to make my post sound more sophisticated, most of the time however, I am simply trying to put into words what I am thinking. I am in the dictionary and thesaurus often trying to find new words for something I might try to express and put into a somewhat coherent sentence, though I still have my frequent inconsistencies. Well I hope this post was understandable.--Another way I could have made my sentence more understandable could have gone more like this: "I recall that people have commented on the process of lithification, would you state again what the argument is?", or something along the lines of your sentence, your right on simplicity having its merit at times. I once heard that genius is the ability to reduce the complex to the simple.--So how's about lithification, Mark?------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Post your questions on why you think the Flood could not have happend or could have happend and give reasons why.

---

You often mention you're survivability idea with relation to
fossils in the geolgic record.I have tried on several occasions, and will again, to point out
that individual survivability factors (not species-wide ones)
would tend to randomise the fossil record, not sort it.Some elephants would die before others, and at the same time
as allosaurs.Most (if not all) infants would die before adults, and so the
lower levels of the fossil record should be filled with the
weaker, younger, less-able-to swim creatures, rather than
single celled critters that would float, or marine critters
that would be largely unphased by the flood.Plant life comes up time and time again ... flowering plants are
often killed by waterlogging (ask a gardener) ... and yet they
survived a global flood.You have also suggested elsewhere that there were 'proto' forms
of animals on the ark, and that speciation ocuured in the next
1000 years or so (lions are mentioned in the bible, and so
must have existed by the time of its writing which is somewhere
in the 3000 year ago range I think).If there were a global flood wouldn't there be sedimentary
deposits everywhere ? ... maybe there are, just asking really.

"--So how's about lithification, Mark?"
--Bump for mark, I hope we can discuss lithification it was interesting and is relevant enough for us to discuss it's merits.--Peter, your next.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-06-2002]

"You often mention you're survivability idea with relation to
fossils in the geolgic record.I have tried on several occasions, and will again, to point out
that individual survivability factors (not species-wide ones)
would tend to randomise the fossil record, not sort it."
--I would tend to agree of course."Some elephants would die before others, and at the same time
as allosaurs."
--Why would they die?"Most (if not all) infants would die before adults, and so the
lower levels of the fossil record should be filled with the
weaker, younger, less-able-to swim creatures, rather than
single celled critters that would float, or marine critters
that would be largely unphased by the flood."
--Why would young die if they have the same environmental adaptions as their parents."Plant life comes up time and time again ... flowering plants are
often killed by waterlogging (ask a gardener) ... and yet they
survived a global flood."
--I have no doubt that they would survive in the global flood (though some may have become extinct) though most would tend to argue against angiosperm deposition in the fossil record. There is another topic on the geology forum."You have also suggested elsewhere that there were 'proto' forms
of animals on the ark, and that speciation ocuured in the next
1000 years or so (lions are mentioned in the bible, and so
must have existed by the time of its writing which is somewhere
in the 3000 year ago range I think)."
--Right, so lions obtained atleast rudimentarilly distinguishable characeristics to differ form other cat species (a lion today may not have looked exactly the same as 3000 years ago)."If there were a global flood wouldn't there be sedimentary
deposits everywhere ? ... maybe there are, just asking really."
--Yes there is sedimentary deposition on every continental land mass, though what sedimentary layers surfaced may vary from area to area on the earth. Oceanic sedimentation is more concentrated toward the continents because of sea-floor spreading, however.------------------

quote:

---

Oceanic sedimentation is more concentrated toward the continents because of sea-floor spreading, however.

---

JM: YEs, according to your model, the sediments would be nearly 15 meters thick! Now, get back to your calculus.CheersJoe Meert

"JM: YEs, according to your model, the sediments would be nearly 15 meters thick! Now, get back to your calculus."
--With today's sedimentary flux rates, sure (though actually with the uniformitarian assumption, it would only be about 10-100 cm. in various ocean areas)------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-08-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"JM: YEs, according to your model, the sediments would be nearly 15 meters thick! Now, get back to your calculus."
--With today's sedimentary flux rates, sure (though actually with the uniformitarian assumption, it would only be about 10-100 cm. in various ocean areas)

---

JM: No, it has nothing to do with uniformitarian rates! It's based on the space available in Baumgardner's flood model. The 15 meters is based on creationist physics!CheersJoe Meert

"JM: No, it has nothing to do with uniformitarian rates! It's based on the space available in Baumgardner's flood model. The 15 meters is based on creationist physics!"
--Can you clarify what you mean by 'space available'? And is this sediment oceanic sediments, continental or total? thanx.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"JM: No, it has nothing to do with uniformitarian rates! It's based on the space available in Baumgardner's flood model. The 15 meters is based on creationist physics!"
--Can you clarify what you mean by 'space available'? And is this sediment oceanic sediments, continental or total? thanx.

---

Well, the ocean basins are good repositories for sediments. Since there is only space for 15 meters of sediment in the ocean, you've little space left to put much more. You can argue a bit for additional subsidence caused by loading, but there isn't enough space to significantly load the crust. You are getting flighty TC. Why not stick to one argument and develop it thoroughly. You're avoiding the details of your model by posting willy-nilly all over this site. How's about we stick to a discussion of your model and the consequences. Focus is important!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
... You are getting flighty TC. Why not stick to one argument and develop it thoroughly. You're avoiding the details of your model by posting willy-nilly all over this site. How's about we stick to a discussion of your model and the consequences. Focus is important!

---

Must be from all that dancing!

quote:

---

"Some elephants would die before others, and at the same time
as allosaurs."

​

--Why would they die?

---

Right! In fact, why do any elephants die? We all KNOW that elephants never die unless it's a major extinction!You're losing it TC.

quote:

---

"Most (if not all) infants would die before adults, and so the
lower levels of the fossil record should be filled with the
weaker, younger, less-able-to swim creatures, rather than
single celled critters that would float, or marine critters
that would be largely unphased by the flood."

​

--Why would young die if they have the same environmental adaptions as their parents.

---

TC, often, it taks time for infants to develop the ability to outrun predators. They are smaller and weaker. How do you expect them to outrun the flood waters? And the flood should drown them before the adults, because they are smaller. Think, TC, think about the implications of your model.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 05-09-2002]

"Well, the ocean basins are good repositories for sediments. Since there is only space for 15 meters of sediment in the ocean, you've little space left to put much more. You can argue a bit for additional subsidence caused by loading, but there isn't enough space to significantly load the crust. You are getting flighty TC. Why not stick to one argument and develop it thoroughly. You're avoiding the details of your model by posting willy-nilly all over this site. How's about we stick to a discussion of your model and the consequences. Focus is important!"
--Yes focus is inportant. As for your 15 meters of sediment space available. Are you applying your value for ocean depth from the other thread? If so, I think I know what your addressing.------------------

I am under the impression that TC's efforts, to support his flood model, have overflowed the banks of it's happy home stream of thought at "Some help for the TC model", and has thus deposited a horizon of verbal debris in this topic (soon to be buried, fossilized, and preserved for all who care to look, until the end of binary time as we know it).I suggest TC's modeling efforts be confined to that other topic.I may be wrong. Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Post your questions on why you think the Flood could not have happend or could have happend and give reasons why.

​

---

The following are a cummulation of scientific reasons (not my own) supporting the 'biblical' hypothesis of the flood:Evidences for the Flood (See 'Continents in Collision’: Lindsay, Dennis Gordon):1) CULTURAL RECORDS: "Iraq, Sumerian, Aztecs of Central America, Hottentots of South Africa, Hawaiians, Chinese, 200 various flood accounts world-wide
agree on three things: (1) the existence of a vessel of safety; (2) destruction by water; and (3) the saving of human seed."2) POPULATION GROWTH STATISTICS: The observable growth rate of human population on Planet Earth fits much more naturally in a Creation/Global Flood framework than an evolutionary concept of human history.3) WORLDWIDE OCCURRENCE OF WATER-LAID SEDIMENTARY ROCK:
Approximately 75% of Earth’s crust is sedimentary rock, which is rock formed in and by water. The geological and fossil evidence reveals that the world was once inundated by physical forces with which modern man is not acquainted. A global Flood would have deposited huge amounts of sediment throughout the world.4) MARINE FOSSILS ON CRESTS OF MOUNTAINS.
The highest mountain on Earth, Mt. Everest, along with the tops of every other mountain, contains rocks and fossils that were once under water. Marine fossils and salt clusters formed by sea water have been found atop Mt. Ararat. Such evidence harmonizes perfectly with the biblical account: a worldwide Flood which covered every mountain on the face of the Earth.
Fossilized marine life can be found on every mountaintop in the world5) FORMATION OF FOSSILS.
Fossils are found all over the world; but by and large, these are not being formed today. Sudden death, sudden and instant burial and sudden pressureall at the same timeare required in order to form fossils. Otherwise, decay from oxygen and other elements block the process from occurring....A major flood would generally create a fossil order from the simple to the complex forms of life according to an animal’s habitat, mobility, and density. Hydrodynamic selectivity would then layer out the dense, less mobile marine beings (such as tiny creatures like the trilobites, crustaceans, mollusks, and echinoderms) in the cambrian rock (lowest layer of strata) more rapidly than less dense, more mobile ones.Many fossil graveyards were jammed with every type of creature
they could be buried in a roughly predictable order by rising floodwaters6) PILLOW LAVA
Pillow lava is molten rock which has been formed and cooled under water. It is marked by peculiar concentric circles. This type of lava is found on Mt. Ararat right up to the line of the ice-cap at 13,000 feet. Mt. Ararat, at one time, was under water.7) OCEAN SALT CONTENT.
Foraminifera are tiny one-celled creatures which have the ability to record the temperature and salinity of the water in which they live. When they die, their shells maintain the record. Today, modern technology can decipher this record and has discovered that a dramatic decrease in the salinity of the sea once occurred. Only a flood on the scale of Noah’s could have accounted for such a change.8) SUDDEN EXTINCTION OF DINOSAURS AND OTHER ANIMAL SPECIES
Many evolutionary scientists believe that a large cometary body, 7—15 miles in diameter, struck the Earth 65 million years ago. They believe this led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. This theory harmonizes well with some of the catastrophic circumstances associated with the Flood; however, evolutionists’ timing of the event is significantly astray.9) ABSENCE OF METEORITES IN THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN
Thousands of asteroids and chunks of meteoric matter circle the sun, and many have plunged to the surface of the moon and the Earth. If the Earth is billions of years old, as evolutionists claim, where are the thousands of impacts one would expect to find in the geological layers of the Earth?
--No meteorites have ever been found in the geologic column, except in the top layer of strata.10) COAL BEDS AND OIL DEPOSITS
the living things buried beneath the rapidly deposited sediments of the Flood some 4,500 years ago, and subjected to heat caused by the pressure and friction of the vast amount of sediment, could easily have produced today’s oil deposits around the world.11) REDWOODS
The giant redwoods of California are a testimony to the universal Flood. These trees never die of old age. Why, then, are the oldest living specimens only about 3,500 years old?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

​

9) ABSENCE OF METEORITES IN THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN
?Thousands of asteroids and chunks of meteoric matter circle the sun, and many have plunged to the surface of the moon and the Earth. If the Earth is billions of years old, as evolutionists claim, where are the thousands of impacts one would expect to find in the geological layers of the Earth??
?--No meteorites have ever been found in the geologic column, except in the top layer of strata.?

---

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/dailynews/meteorite981118.htmlThere are many other examples, do you wnat to hear about them?