Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

Faith, That I torpedoed in the OP of this thread. You haven't responded to that post in its entirety.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-06-2006 01:47 PM

---

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

I see no hint that PD saw any such thing. But I think we have to wait for her to answer.

You didn't "torpedo" anything. You didn't even connect with what I said, you ignored it. All you did was go right ahead and do exactly what I said people do -- just spell out your own vision of things. Sorry, the evidence for the Flood is ENORMOUS, no matter what objections you can dream up against it. It's all speculative, all conjectural anyway and it remains true that the enormous quantity of fossils all over the earth IS terrific evidence for a global flood no matter HOW many ways you can dream up about how it might have happened otherwise. Such alternative scenarios are no more than that, just alternative scenarios. What I said is evidence remains evidence and very good evidence and all you did was engage in denial and spin out the usual alternative view as I said always happens. And nobody has yet dealt with the objection I made to the slow buildup of sediments. Either don't get it or won't think about it, I don't know.I have to be away rrom EvC for a day or so.

Well she sure SOUNDED saner (more reasonable) than anybody else here, but it's possible I'm wrong about that. Yes, we'll see.But I'm going to be gone for a day or two anyway so I won't know until I get back.

Hi PaulK,If someone opens a thread to examine how poorly modern geology explains the evidence then I'll approve it as soon as I can, but this thread should focus on YEC evidence and interpretations.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Faith, IIRC, you said yourself in a debate with Moose that the geologic column is highly subject to fallible human interpretation and therefore should serve little use in arguing for or against the Flood.(You say it several times here: http://EvC Forum: Two Different Stories About the Creation - Faith and Moose only -->EvC Forum: Two Different Stories About the Creation - Faith and Moose only)Would you admit, then, that perhaps your interpretation that the fossil record was "clearly" deposited over a period of months is also fallible?

Keeping in mind that you've already conceded that fossil distributions are a problem for the flood scenario, that isn't the only fossil-related evidence that flood theory should explain. While many fossils all around the globe *could* be evidence of a global flood, none of the specifics are consistent with this scenario. A couple simple questions to start with are:

1. What is it about fossils and the layers in which they're found that leads you to believe they met their end in a flood?
   ​
2. Isn't there a problem of *too many* fossils for a flood scenario? In other words, aren't there far more creatures represented in the fossil record than could have ever been alive at one time? The limestone layers (which are the fossils of billions of microscopic creatures that live in the top ten or so meters of shallow seas) are a particular example.

Perhaps you've noticed my encouragements in my posts as Admin to take that topic to another thread.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 03-06-2006 02:10 PM

Enormous? LOLWhere?I haven't seen you provide any amount of evidence that would even qualify as a gnat's handful. All you've shown here is an utter ignorance for what qualifies as evidence and for what completely falsifies your vacuous assertions.You ignored the fact that carbonate requires calm and clear and shallow water, none of which would ever be used to describe a global flood scenario. Whine, whine, whine. That's all you ever do in these science threads. You have already been shown more than once how fossils are better explained via the old earth, non-flood model. You simply choose to ignore the evidence - as usual. Yes, they are alternative scenarios because they adequately explain the observations. You have repeatedly claimed the flood model explains all the observations "better" but have so far done a piss poor job of supporting your position. Hey Faith, wrap your brain around the fact that you are the one in denial. You have not supplied an answer on how flood deposits can precipitate carbonate.This one little insignificant detail falsifies and completely destroys your position. That's because IT DOESN'T MATTER. If your global flood cannot precipitate the minerals that account for a very large portion of the geologic record, then the flood theory is falsified.Got it? You are dead in the water. LOL Oh you know, alright. Please don't forget about this thread. I look forward to hearing what else you have to say on carbonate deposition. ed. to remove overuse of caps. sorry.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-06-2006 02:20 PM

I've been trying to make this off-topic for this thread, but I'll approve a thread proposal for critiquing modern geological views as quickly as I can. Also, please don't allow yourself to be drawn into violations of other guidelines.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Faith, I didn't ignore what you said, I directly addressed it as anyone who looks can see.How does a flood explain the global distribution of fossils better? This isn't evidence, Faith, is prosetylisation. You have to show why it's a better explanation. I don't care what you say, you have to show it. Why is the flood explanation better in this regard?You haven't shown what it explains that mainstream geology doesn't. Correct. This is for evidence, not arguments from incredulity. This is as ad hoc as the evidence, I suppose. but why wouldn't a stratigraphic range that had been protected for the most part not experience sustained erosion when hoiked into a sustained erosional environment? And you have failed to show why the flood explains extinction better, you have just asserted it. Evidence please. If the data, per se, can't tell between two scenarios, then it isn't evidence for one of those scenarios over another. You do this a lot. A depositional area that became fossiliferous for whatever reason, preserves xxx fossils & above that either is eroded or ceased to be depositional, conducive to fossilisation or both will show the same thing. So why is the flood scenario better? What does it explain that conventional geology fails to? Don't be a prat, Faith. This thread IS about evidence of the global flood, it's in the title, for christ's sake. Secondly, the "evidence" you provided in the last thread was critiqued in the OP of this one, at worst your lying, at best you just can't be arsed to read what is presented to you.And we come to the crux of the issue. Which scenario is the most parsimonious? The flood, or conventional geology?Creationists like to pluck facts out & ignore contradictory ones. So, to use your own example, the existence of fossils globally. If there were a flood, yes, fossils would be distributed globally. It is a fact & consistent with a flood. But the same is true if life existed globally & there were no flood. So is it evidence of a flood? No, as a fact it can't inform us either way.But what other facts are missing that might inform us either way?Hydrodynamic sorting, for one. In any moving body of water particles exist in suspension, as the water slows, the largest sink first. So, a prediction, if evolution & classic geology were true, we would see the smallest first & an increase in complexity & size over time, also a correlation between evolutionary trees & the order of appearance. If the flood were responsible for the fossil record, we should see the largest fossils at the bottom, the smallest at the top.In fact, that is also true for sediment size, so a combined schematic might look something like this:Turbidites, contourites------Largely unfossiliferousFlocculated clays, cherts, limestones..Tree trunks & stumps, planktonic unicellular monista,protista, graptolites.Noncolloidal clays ----------Plant seeds & sporesSilts -----------------------Larger insectsFine sandstone --------------Small marine invertebratesMedium/coarse sandstone------Large birdsConglomerates ---------------Small vertebratesBasal breccia ---------------Medium/large vertebratesBasal chaos -----------------Reef & stromatolites fragments(Science & Earth History 1999, Arthur N Strahler, p373)Do we see this kind of hydrodynamic sorting in the geologic column? No, not at all. Do we see organisms found in the geologic column like this? No.Do we see fossils appear in the fossil record as their independently derived evolutionary trees (overall) expects? Yes. Do we see strata laid down independently of particle size? Yes.Conclusion, the flood is false, & evolution & classic geology is indicative of reality.Mark

---

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

Faith, What did I ignore?Mark

---

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

Faith, Provide evidence it's a problem rather than your incredulity & you have an argument.Mark

I'm going to continue trying to keep this thread on-topic. That means this is on-topic: And this is not on-topic: Just as it's possible to present modern geology's interpretation of the evidence without reference to the Genesis flood, it should be just as possible to present the YEC interpretation without reference to modern geological views. In other words, this thread is not for comparing and contrasting the two views, but for getting a clear statement of the YEC view.It would represent enormous progress were we to achieve this. In all the time I've participated in creation/evolution discussions, I've never seen the evidence interpreted in a YEC flood-scenario context.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This thread is NOT about the modern geological interpretation or how crazy it does or does not sound. This is about how a recent, global flood can explain what we see.Sounds crazy to me, Faith, I'll agree with you.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 03-06-2006 06:11 PM

The topic is evidence for the Noahdic flood. It is not about the history of geology. All that we need here is this evidence and the logic that shows how it supports a recent, global flood. Could you please provide evidence to back up this claim?This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 03-06-2006 06:08 PM