Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

It seems that your position is that almost everything we know about geology is wrong.I'm happy to roll with that (in fact, it might be an interesting topic in and of itself, a title like "Deposition evidence: A place for geologists to present some" might work), for the sake of moving the debate forward. So, if this is true, what positive evidence do you have for a Global Flood.If we did have a sister thread, we could then compare the two ideas and see which one is most parsimonious and has the most experimentally verifiable evidence in favour of it. What do you think?

Then surely it's off topic? As I said, perhaps a sister thread is in order if you want to criticize current geological models. This is a thread for you to present evidence for the global flood. If you don't want to, then let the thread die.

It seems your explanation for the existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is the same as geologists. In the case of mountains both parties state that the areas were once coverered by water before the mountains rose, taking the fossils with them.The only difference is source of the water. In the geologists scenario, the water came from the natural supply of water that exists on earth. In the Global Flood scenario, God covered the entire earth with water in a short space of time.I think the one that doesn't propose an unobserved entity performing miracles is more parsimoneous, don't you?

So you believe that the water got here naturally, and left here naturally? OK, I think this would be the perfect time for the evidence. The reason why it isn't a better explanation is that it fails to explain all the things we see. The geology/evolution explanation does a great job of explaining it. The thing that explains the most in the most detail, with experimental evidence, is the better explanation.I still don't see the Flood hypothesis explaining the whole shebang nearly as well, and I see no experimental evidence that would confirm things. How would we be able to interpret this evidence even if we had it? Geology as we know it is probably wrong.

So how do slow sedimentation rates explain and how do fast sedimentation rates explain it?I'll judge for myself the one I feel is the better explanation.

I will recognize it, if you can rebut the "experimental evidence" in a thread where it is on topic. At this time, we have what I would call experimental evidence in favour of a long period of sedimentation versus no experimental evidence in favour of a Global Flood. The fact that the fossil are found all over the planet can mean that eithera) There was a Global Flood and the bodies were spread out around the world.b) Life was global and died locally.The latter idea seems to be the simplest option. Is there any evidence that it was a Global Flood that put them there? The distribution of fossils might offer some clues, but we run into two problems.1) The geographical distribution does not seem to be uniform. Consistent with organisms dying were they live rather than being carried around in flood waters.2) As you said "The flood does not clearly explain fossil ordering. That's a problem with the flood idea".It seems clear that the fossil distribution both geographically and the order in the column are poorly explained with the flood model. Because of this, I'd say it was rather weak evidence, not FANTASTIC evidence.The good example of problems that crop up when trying to explain what we see in terms of a Global Flood would seem to be the White Cliffs of Dover. There are some other examples that have been listed in this which cannot be easily (or at all) explained by a Global Flood scenario. In my book, if an explanation runs into difficulties of this magnitude it gets thrown out, at least provisionally.I am quite happy if you want to say that the fact that we find an abundance of fossils globally distributed is the one of the best evidences of a global flood. However, you'll have to excuse me if I don't find it particularly compelling evidence.None of the evidence uniquely identifies the source as a flood. It could have been a flood, but more and more sub explanations are needed to explain the evidence that looks contradictory to it. It begins to become the enemy of parsimony.I'm looking for evidence which says 'only a flood could have done this'. If you have presented what you would consider your evidence then I suggest we look into that sister thread I proposed (and Percy is happy with promoting), to see if geology can or cannot account for it better.

heh, I see the source of confusion. What I (technically) meant was that I proposed that a thread get proposed. I am sorely tempted to do it now, but there are much better geologists who would write a better OP.Whilst we are discussing proposals, and proposing them, might I propose a modified Message 190 as a good opening post in Proposed New Topic?

I believe it was mentioned earlier in the thread that one of the dividing lines in this discussion is what constitutes 'good evidence'. I suppose that since you have presented your evidence, the remainder of this thread is left to discuss whether it is indeed 'good evidence'. There is of course, no obligation to participate this 'post mortem', but it would be nice if someone out there wanted to speak up for the Flood Theory's side.