Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

I'm moving this here as it was OT here.

Faith,

There is so much evidence for a global flood it's staggering. It has to be a very strange blindness that keeps people from acknowledging it. Not even agreeing with it, just acknowledging that the amount of evidence is enormous. Just another case of flat out denial.

Stagger me, then.

The existence of fossils all over the earth in the great abundance they are found, everywhere, is fantastic evidence for a worldwide flood.

The existence of fossils worldwide is evidence that living things existed worldwide :rolleyes: . In no way can the global existence of fossils be considered evidence of the flood. In fact the localisation of fossil species argues against the flood. I suppose the global existence of extant life today is because of the flood, too?

Sure you can figure out how to explain this some other way if you have a mind to. But so what? The flood explanation is obviously adequate.

The flood explanation is utterly inadequate. The pattern of fossil forms is contradicted by hydrodynamics. In any flood, the smallest particles separate out last, the largest, first. This means all the large organisms first. What do we find at the bottom of the fossil record, bacteria. Where do we find large organisms? At the top. Exactly the opposite of what you would expect from the flood model. I could go on.

The existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is also great evidence for a worldwide flood.

Mountains are observed to rise, so no great shakes there.

The existence of the stratifications called the geological column, also found all over the world, is terrific evidence for a worldwide flood.

Again, the flood is utterly inconsistent with the pattern of stratification. Why does the bottom of the geologic column not consist of breccia, followed by gravels, sands, muds & claystones, in order of particle size, as it should do if the flood occurred?

The amount of disturbance of the surface of the planet that occurs in a few years is a strong clue that given millions of years not one of those strata could have survived intact.

Most of them don't exist on the surface. This also is irrelevant to flood evidence.

The presence of extinct forms of life in the fossil record is a clue to the enormous variety of life that inhabited the pre-Flood world.

Again, this is evidence of extinct forms, & in no way evidence of a global flood.

It's all consistent with the Flood story.

As you have learned, the fossil record & stratigraphy is all utterly inconsistent with the fossil record.

So where is this "staggering" evidence of a global flood?

Mark

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I'd like to ask Faith if she thinks that grasses ran for higher ground in the Flood?

Schraf,

Of course not, the "higher ground" was too busy having marine fossils deposited on it by a 6 mile deep flood!

Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

or maybe they flew?

Let's try to stick to really discussing the issue of Evidence of the Great Flood.

In the OP some specific things were mentioned as supporting a Great World-Wide flood. If you believe you can suuport or refute any of those items, then please do so.

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to: General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out: "Post of the Month" Forum "Columnist's Corner" Forum See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Faith only has herself to blame, with the constant rhetorical subtitute for evidence. It's ridiculous, nonsense, you'll wake up, fairy tale, etc. etc.

Hi Mark,

I think Faith thinks the evidence just cries out "flood" because she believes that floods can produce layers just like the ones geologists find. There have been at least several threads where someone has worked through the details with Faith for a sedimentation or fossil example, and my own view is that this type of focused approach has a better chance of success than a broader approach.

--Percy

Faith made her position as clear as she possibly can to anyone who speaks english. If the bible says it happened, it happened. Faith's starting and ending point in any search for truth is the bible. All other things are interpreted in the light of what the bible says.

Facts readily observable to any other person are simply consistent with whatever is in the bible. If science says that sedimentation doesn't work that way, and the fossil record is inconsistent with a flood, then science is wrong, not the bible.

Real world evidence is irrelevant. If there is something that seems to be in conflict with what the bible says, the problem in with science, not the bible. Or, the problem is with our understanding of science and, eventually, it will become clear to all.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

quote:

---

Mountains are observed to rise, so no great shakes there.

---

Literally:

(Images from this website.)

Edited to cut down the number of superfluous images.

This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 04-Mar-2006 05:15 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Subbie, you have stated faith's position perfectly. She is immune to any evidence or logic which she suspects might be contrary to her interpretation of her bible. If, however, there is something so patently obvious that it was known by a bronze age goat herding culture and mentioned in their religious text then faith will claim that as evidence for the accuracy of her bible.

I think that grasses were already on the land and the land flora and fauna are what were preserved in the upper strata laid down by the Flood. The lower strata preserved the marine life.

Since it was all inundated, marine life also ended up in the higher strata.

This message has been edited by Faith, 03-04-2006 05:22 PM

I think Faith thinks the evidence just cries out "flood" because she believes that floods can produce layers just like the ones geologists find. There have been at least several threads where someone has worked through the details with Faith for a sedimentation or fossil example, and my own view is that this type of focused approach has a better chance of success than a broader approach.

I don't think the effects of a worldwide Flood can be fairly compared to a limited flood.

But my main concern about the layers is not so much that I understand how the Flood could have created them (although I've read the hydraulic theory and think it reasonable), but that they are NOT compatible with the idea of slow deposition over millennia. And I think OBVIOUSLY not, I think LAUGHABLY not. Particular sediments laid down in succession with particular fossil life entombed within them, supposely all laid down increment by increment over enormous swaths of time -- even underwater (at least they have the sense to realize that it WOULD take water to produce such a phenomenon) -- the thing is absurd.

I would simply point out that wj's post is nothing but an ad hominem. If you care. I don't really.

Mountains are indeed observed to rise. Laden with fossilized marine life. The Flood is the most elegant explanation for this -- absolutely universal -- phenomenon. The theories about local effects are klutzy by comparison.

Similarly you can give a local explanation for the abundance of marine fossils in the deserts - they are found in clumps, found everywhere. Yes, it was all once under water, of course. There are also seagulls that hang out in the Nevada desert. Sure, it was once under water. The Flood waters. Most parsimonious explanation. All the other explanations are inelegant.

This message has been edited by Faith, 03-04-2006 05:35 PM