quote:
Now that I have looked for the evidence to support the biblical account, I have found enough that points towards a major flooding event, covering much of land at the end of the last ice age, I don't have enough evidence to support the case for higher elevation flooding at this time, but some of the evidence seems to imply it.
Is any of this evidence impossible to explain using conventional, old age earth mechanisms? It would seem that we have two competing theories, conventional/no global flood vs. non-conventional/global flood. To distinguish between the two you would need evidence that can only be explained by one theory, IMHO. From what I have seen, there are quite a few geologic formations that seem to fly in the face of a global flood. These include alternating layers of arid and aquatic sedimentation, including obvious signs of dessication (such as salt layers) between layers of aquatic sedimentation. This would seem to be evidence that could not be explained using a global flood theory, at least if the Noah account is to be taken literally (40 days rain, 1 year submerged). Is there anything similar within global flood geology, that is formations that can only be explained using the flood model?
My knowledge of the following scenario is sketchy, so feel free to correct me. It has been theorized that the Black Sea was created when the Mediterranean Sea broke through a natural earthen dam. This sudden flooding caused a thick layer of silt to be deposited on the floor of the Black Sea. I think this is a good example of sudden inundation by water, and a global flood should leave something similar as well. Instead, what is claimed by global flood geoligists is multiple layers and fossil sorting. Shouldn't global flood geology try and use present examples of sudden inundation to form their theories instead of convuluted, sometimes ad hoc, explanations that bear no resemblance to present day examples?
My third question (sorry if this is too getting long), what would falsify a global flood? Although I will admit I am not a geologist, I do, however, work in a scientific field. It is impossible for me to say anything about the models I construct without setting up experiments that allow for potential falsification. It seems that almost every potential falsification of a global flood (eg, alternating dessication layers) is thought to be refuted by more ad hoc explanations that can never be tested. I just have a difficult time dealing with a model that can never be tested, or even dared to be tested in the light of falsification by proponents of the theory.
I hope you do not take this skepticism personally, only as one scientist to another.
™ Version 4.2
