What Strata does the Biblical Flood Begin & End?

For example, some creationists believe the flood started at the onset of the Cambrian, & ends with the Cretaceous. What's the consencus, & why?I also want to tie fossil gaps into this argument when we have some responses.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

You don't really expect an answer to this question, do you?Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randy:
You don't really expect an answer to this question, do you?

​

Randy

---

It was written during one of my more optimistic episodes. Won't happen again Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Let it happen, there was a paper in CRS or maybe ICR, I would have to go digging; that displayed the different creatons positions that I have since thought made the scholarship of sequence stratigraphy viable but I am no geological scholar. There wasnt' "consensus" if I recall correctly but this may on the other edge really be something to talk about as computers become able to handle more data.

--A somewhat coherent McFall Post, astounding!
--The TrueOrigin article, 'Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy', looks over this question quite well. I would disagree with the way Minnemooseus & Joe Meert (And others?) have deduced from the article. It rather discusses why there is a lack in consensus among creationists in stratigraphic depositions in regards to timing and periods thereof.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--A somewhat coherent McFall Post, astounding!
--The TrueOrigin article, 'Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy', looks over this question quite well. I would disagree with the way Minnemooseus & Joe Meert (And others?) have deduced from the article. It rather discusses why there is a lack in consensus among creationists in stratigraphic depositions in regards to timing and periods thereof.

​

---

'Lack of consensus' is one way of putting it. 'Monumental uninformed confusion' would be probably be more accurate. It seems that since the author cannot find any relationship between any YEC theory and the geological column, he would just as soon ignore the latter. Very convenient!

"'Lack of consensus' is one way of putting it. 'Monumental uninformed confusion' would be probably be more accurate. It seems that since the author cannot find any relationship between any YEC theory and the geological column, he would just as soon ignore the latter. Very convenient!"
--Mainstream science does have quite a bit more headway than that of YECists research initiatives, so I see no reason to say that looking toward the future isn't scientifically coherent. It did take Mainstream science quite a while to get its feet & we also have very little researchers in comparison. I personally, attempt to maintain a productive cerebral attitude in working in the midst of this 'hope' when finding answers.-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-30-2002]

TC says "Mainstream science does have quite a bit more headway than that of YECists research initiatives, so I see no reason to say that looking toward the future isn't scientifically coherent."What utter rubbish. YEC has the advantage of piggybacking on the research that has been done over the last 200 years by real scientists, it is not starting from scratch. Yet using all of the modern tools and techniques available to them YECs have no idea which strata in the geological column area result a a biblical flood. I think TC's "productive cerebral attitude" is actually self-delusion. Surely his efforts with Joe Meert might have made him aware of the huge deficiencies in the YEC scenario compared with the detailed, consistent model provided by conventional science.

TC, you remembered that wonderful article!!!For those who havn't seen it yet, it's at:
"Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico"
http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.aspMooseAdded by edit: I brought the above cited in the "Back to the Fundimentals" topic. It can there be found at http://EvC Forum: Back to the fundamentals -->EvC Forum: Back to the fundamentals .
Amongst other things, my and Joe Meert's comments can be found there.------------------
BS degree, geology, '83; Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U; Old Earth evolution - Yes; Godly creation - Maybe
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-30-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Mainstream science does have quite a bit more headway than that of YECists research initiatives, so I see no reason to say that looking toward the future isn't scientifically coherent. It did take Mainstream science quite a while to get its feet & we also have very little researchers in comparison. I personally, attempt to maintain a productive cerebral attitude in working in the midst of this 'hope' when finding answers.

​

---

TC,I fail to see the difficulty. I cannot understand why creationists are unable to predict & test where the flood deposits are. Shouldn't it be glaringly obvious? A global catastrophic flood followed by mainstream deposition/rock formation. Why isn't the line obvious?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

"What utter rubbish. YEC has the advantage of piggybacking on the research that has been done over the last 200 years by real scientists, it is not starting from scratch."
--And how many are piggy backing on how much material? Maybe you are not aware of how few YECists researchers we have? The number also drastically lowers when considering those who actually hold the qualifications to carry out in-depth research queries and promote their deductions in attempts to tense the string around an overall consensus. Now I am quite young and a highly vernal scientist, but I would sustain that my intellectual evolution is developing quite nicely."Yet using all of the modern tools and techniques available to them YECs have no idea which strata in the geological column area result a a biblical flood."
--No, We have a very good idea, you should read the article. For me it is a deduction from two possibilities. We just require an extremely wide analysis of the characteristics & time to form hypotheses."I think TC's "productive cerebral attitude" is actually self-delusion."
--I really don't have much interest when you spout prejudicial drivel about me lacking a cerebral mindset. The assertion at this point would go no further than sophistry. Of course the resolution to this would not be to continue from this corner, but to come back to it at a latter time following multiple sessions of discussion."Surely his efforts with Joe Meert might have made him aware of the huge deficiencies in the YEC scenario compared with the detailed, consistent model provided by conventional science."
--You should go back to that thread and read our last statements, I did not dismiss the fact that it is a great problem indeed for the model which I spend my time researching. The discrepancy Meert illustrated regarding sea-floor bathymetry and its mathematical correlation is indeed a desideratum requiring attention for flood geomechanics.------------------

"I fail to see the difficulty. I cannot understand why creationists are unable to predict & test where the flood deposits are. Shouldn't it be glaringly obvious? A global catastrophic flood followed by mainstream deposition/rock formation. Why isn't the line obvious?"
--I don't think the representation should be obvious at all, it doesn't carry the same mechanical operations of deposition as mainstream explanation does. Uniformitarian depositional scales allot for this type of simplicity. As for the catastrophist, more than one or two specific areas of inquiry regarding the geologic characteristics may be required in this determination. Our explanation also requires for theories to be compiled from the data rather than simply observing the processes of its current mechanisms of deposition. We must much more fully reach into the past vestige & remnant geo characteristics we find in the earth today. My last post may also explain some.-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-31-2002]

--Yes that was the article I was referring to, thanks for posting it. --BTW, Happy Halloween to the Board ------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-31-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--I don't think the representation should be obvious at all, it doesn't carry the same mechanical operations of deposition as mainstream explanation does. Uniformitarian depositional scales allot for this type of simplicity. As for the catastrophist, more than one or two specific areas of inquiry regarding the geologic characteristics may be required in this determination. Our explanation also requires for theories to be compiled from the data rather than simply observing the processes of its current mechanisms of deposition. We must much more fully reach into the past vestige & remnant geo characteristics we find in the earth today.

---

Sounds like mental gymnastics to me T.C."Uniformitarian" geology is complex in that it sees many floods layered one upon another. Flood geology should be very simple by comparison. One flood / One body of evidence / and World-wide distribution of same.Consider the facts:- Genesis defines Earth as - dry land, and contrasts it with "Seas" which are "the waters under the heaven [firmament]". The two are mutually exclusive.
- The Bible never describes Earth as if it were a planet.
- The Hebrew word HAR is translated - hill, hills, mountain and mountains. Cities, forts, regions and people are also referred to as "mountains" (HAR). So the bit about water covering the highest HAR is not really very definitive.Regrettably, understanding the true nature of the Genesis narrative could convert this debate to one of theology instead of science. But then that's how many creationist feel about already, right?db

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I fail to see the difficulty. I cannot understand why creationists are unable to predict & test where the flood deposits are. Shouldn't it be glaringly obvious? A global catastrophic flood followed by mainstream deposition/rock formation. Why isn't the line obvious?"

​

--I don't think the representation should be obvious at all, it doesn't carry the same mechanical operations of deposition as mainstream explanation does.

---

And that is exactly why the flood should be glaringly obvious in the geological record. It was an event that has no precedent or any modern analog. It was completely different and outside the uniformitarianist philosophy.... Well, at least that is what creationists tell me. So, why does it not leap out of the geological record?