Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

Since Faith complains about the points not being addressed I'll take this on.

quote:

---

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.

---

So fat this is just an opinion. And one that is completely at odds with informed expert opinion. Abd see the point raised about the White CLiffs of Dover earlier in the thread.

quote:

---

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.

---

Well it's not true that all strata are laid down underwater. There are subaerial formations known to exist.But so far all we have is an opinion. WHY is it absurd ? It makes sense to me. The Flood idea doesn't - geologists know the sorts of rock that form quickly - and there's plenty that don't, that are found in supposed "Flood" strata.The real damning fact is that "Flood" geologists can't even identify which rocks were supposed to be produced by the Flood just on their geological properties. Isn't it odd that the Flood would fail to produce distinctive rock types that can be identified as such ? It's just like the creationist idea of "kinds". A creationist invention without any real scientific basis.

So your essential claims are that there are

quote:

---

sharp demarcations between different homogeneous sedimentswhich are supposed to have been gradually laid down over millions of years

---

and

quote:

---

fossils have so neatly arranged themselves in groups over what are supposed to be those millions of years of time from the bottom to the top of the layer.

---

But how true are they, how could the Flood explain then, and to the extent that it is true why are they a problem for conventional geology ?Instead of complaining about the fact that people don't accept your arguments, perhaps you should try MAKING some good arguments instead of unsupported and undeveloped assertions like the above..

Faith compalisn that this "logical" point has gone unanswered.

quote:

---

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 fact is that we have terrestrial deposits - and preserved flora - from earlier strata (e.g. from Carboniferous coal measures), which do not include any flowering plants (a group which includes grasses). Therefore the answer is incorrect.o

quote:

---

As long as what I'm trying to say is ignored I just have to keep repeating it.

---

Well I've been trying to address your points. And as yet both Message 49 and Message 51 have gne unanswered. Your points there are not being ignored - they are simply not being accepted because in the first case you haven't supplied the evidence or the argumentation needed and in the second because your argument was erroneous.On the specific issue of the Flood, you are claiming that the Flood is a better explanation That means that you have to provide that explanatin. If the Flood is even worse at explaining geology than more conventinal theories you can hardly see that your complaints are evidence for the Flood. And that is the topic of the thread.t

quote:

---

The problem most creationists, like myself have with carbon dating and such is that many believe there was a far different kind of pre=flood atmosphere as well as other factors that make it so nobody knows the chemistry of the elements in the atmosphere et al.

---

That is not really true. That belief came about because creationists already had a problem with the dates produced by carbon dating, as well as other radiometric techniques. It's really just an ad hoc excuse with no scientific plausibility (I've never even seen an explanation of how the supposed differences COULD affect even carbon dating - let any evidence that the conditions required - whatever they are - actually existed on Earth a mere 4000-5000 years years ago).

It is indeed truly remarkable that you can try to pretend that my posts do not exist when I provided links to them. Anyone cna follow the back links and see that what I said was trueBut for the convenience of those who prefer not to do so I point out again that Message 49 and Message 51 do exist, do addresss significant points you have raised and have yet to be adequately answered.

They address points that you raised. And you specifically complained that your argument about the grass had yet to be addressed. So I did it. Now apparently that counts for nothing.If there is some other point that you want addressed then I suggest that you say WHICH of your points it is and I can do that one as well,

So you're only dealing with one post and won't even say what point I'm supposedly ignoring. And I remind you that in Message 50 you specifically stated:

quote:

---

...I answered her quite logically from a floodist perspective as far as that particular question goes, which nobody acknowledged and I don't give a damn what other question you want to raise as long as all you care about is needling me with some new thing and refusing to acknowledge points I've already made

---

So I pointed out just what was wrong with your "logical" answer. You certainly cared enough to complain, but apparently now your answer is refuted it doesn't count.

I'll point out that we have something of a contradiction here.If

quote:

---

The existence of marine fossils in mountains

---

is to be taken as evidence of the Flood then presumably we are supposed to believe that the Flood covered existing mountains and laid the fossils down.However Faith also claims

quote:

---

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.

---

Now mountains are very prone to erosion so how could significant quantities of loose sediment stay up there after the Flood ?
(Of course this point is not true of everywhere on Earth - there are areas of net deposition - that is why we need dredgers to keep harbours clear).Conventional geology does not face this problem because it is agreed that the mountains were only pushed up after the rock and fossils had formed. It appears therefore that the Flood explanation is worse on this point.

Then the Flood scenario is worse than conventional geology in epxlaining the presence of fossils on mountians, and as such these fossils are not evidence for the Flood.

So basically you're ignoring my post (Message 51) because you don't care about the fact that your answer was incorrect.

No, there's a bigger difference. Faith's ideas allow far less time for mountains to be built or to erode. Both represent signficant issues which weigh against Faith's views.

The volume of sediment is a bigger problem for the Flood (see Message 38 for a specific example).The idea that all fossils were formed at the same time is another one that requires evidence. Geologists realised long ago that the fossil record was best explained by different species beng present in the region at different times.And as has already been pointed out the timescales for mountain raising are another problem for the Flood idea.So on every point you mention, the Flood is a worse explanation, not a better one as you claim.

As I have already pointed the presence of marine fossils in mountains is better explained by conventional geology - because your explanation is essentially the same except that it greatly compresses the timescale (thus your version has significant addiitonal problems over the conventional view). And you have not shown that deserts are any different.And you have yet to substantiate your other claims as I pointed out in Message 49. So far your only response has been to dismiss that message as dealing with points you weren't interested in. Yet you keep bringing them up again and again.

quote:

---

Just acknowledge that the existence of the enormous abundance of fossils found worldwide IS good evidence for a worldwide Flood, just on the face of it.

---

Even considering just the superficial issue of the number of fossils in my estimation an old Earth is a better explanation (and one which does still better when further evidence is taken into account). Why then should I acknowledge your assertion as true ?

quote:

---

Also please acknowledge that slow deposition is an absurd explanation for what is actually observed in the strata of the geo column, the discrete layers of particular sediments, just the one kind and no other for millions of years, and then another completely different kind for millions of years,

---

As I pointed out back in Message 49 this assertion is badly in need of support. There is no reason why I should acknowledge it as true until you rectify that situation.

quote:

---

...the apparent random distribution of the fossils within the layers, with no sign of evolution of one type to another over the millions of years supposedly represented from the bottom to the top of the layer

---

The claim of "random" distribution is one that needs to be supported. On the face of it the usefulness of index fossils alone falsifies it. The claim that evolution is not seen within strata is one that also needs support - and to the best of my knowledge it is false.