Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

As long as what I'm trying to say is ignored I just have to keep repeating it. I'm not trying to explain HOW they were deposited right now. I'm simply trying to get somebody to notice how crazy the idea is that layers of different homogenous sediments with very particular fossil contents scattered throughout, could have been accumulated in slow increments over the millions of years claimed.As yet I don't recall one single person who has been able even to say back to me exactly what I've been describing over and over and over. But it's not that complicated.You for one are probably too used to working with specific geological concerns to step back and notice this obvious absurdity.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-05-2006 11:51 PM

There are problems with everything, Buz, but scientists are fully aware that c-14 levels have changed somewhat over time due to various things. However, the fact remains that there is a mountain of consistent evidence that tells us C-14 is a useful tool in geology. C-14 is calibrated with tree rings, varves, coral growth, and against other dates.

The problem with your objection to carbon dating is the complete lack of evidence for any sort of "pre-flood atmosphere" that would fudge the c-14 levels such that the estimated dates would be so far off. Not to mention the vast ocean of global flood falsifications...

Oh, right. Of course, you're the only one with sufficient intellect to see what's so obvious. Hey, that's totally reasonable, right? You're just smarter than anybody who's ever recieved a geology degree?I mean, that's really common in science, right? That it takes someone not only completely ignorant in a field, but laboring under several demonstratable misapprehensions, to see what has evaded every other person who's even remotely studied the issue?Why, perfectly reasonable.

I thought this pre-flood atmosphere was supposed to be a verdant jungle paradise, but atmospheric and soil carbon is the limiting factor in plant growth. (They need carbon to form sugars such as cellulose and glucose that function as energy storage and physical structure.) If you're proposing an atmosphere with so much less carbon, how can that be consistent with the long ages and greenhouse-like living that you've previously proposed as the pre-flood environment?

Faith,Have you ever considered the fact that what you are proposing has been suggested before? That this search for the 'truth' of the Noadic floods was searched for but ultimately found wanting? Those early pioneers of the field didn't have an evolutionary paradigm to "cloud" their thinking or bias their conclusions. It just didn't hold any water! (pardon the pun)What you are asking is for science to forget everything we have learned since then and do a "do over!" Many of those same scientists who searched for the evidence for the flood and other biblical evidence found none. It wasn't being hidden. There was no evilutionist conspiracy. It just was not there. Some could reconcile their faith with the evidence, some could not. Those that could were able to make startling predictions or present evidence that radically altered our view of the world. Science progressed regardless of and despite those unable to reconcile their faith.Nobody is ignoring what you are saying. We have been trying to tell you or get you to understand what it is you are looking at. We have tried to steer you to gaining more knowledge about what you are talking about. What you are saying is not complicated, you're right. But the fact that it completely ignores all evidence contrary to your conclusion, makes it simply and unequivocably, wrong.This message has been edited by DBlevins, 03-06-2006 12:28 AM

Perhaps you are not being ignored. Maybe people just don't understand your point. If people continually misunderstand you, then you likely have a problem articulating your points. Well then if this discussion hinges on you getting people to recognize this "crazy" notion, then we're not going to get very far. It's not crazy to the people who understand geology.That's why I posted the images that I did. To me and to every other geologist on the planet, the idea of a catastrophic flood forming those deposits is crazy talk. The deposits are in no way chaotic, inhomogeneous (which is what you would expect from a flood), or graded from the bottom of the geologic column to the top. But, they are well explained using the idea of paleolandscapes.Limestone requires not only a specific temperature, but the clastic input has to be near non-existent. In other words, the water must be clear of mud or grit, or limestone will not result. How is that possible during a flood event?As for the fossils, i don't see what the problem is. Terrestrial fossils are found in rocks that appear to have been formed on the surface or near-surface (lithified sand dunes, beach sands, lake beds, swamps, stream/river systems, etc.) and marine fossils are found in marine rocks. Depending on the depth of the water or the depositional environment (beach, near-shore, deep water), the fossils are consistent from one location to another - so consistency of fossil occurrences is expected in mainstream geology.Maybe you should explain why you don't think fossils should be consistent in the absence of a flood or why sediments should not be laid down slowly - as they are today. Again, perhaps you are not articulating yourself well enough. Faith, for once, how about you stop insulting everyone who ever has a discussion with you. I think we both know neither one of us deals well with this sort of behavior.Obviously it is NOT an "obvious absurdity" otherwise people other than you would recognize whatever problem you seem to have with sedimentation rates.You need to be more specific in what these issues are.Why is it so hard to believe that sedimentation rates were slow in the past, as they are today?Why shouldn't fossils be consistent in the old earth model?This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-06-2006 12:46 AM

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).

You ARE ignoring what I'm saying, to wit, you are ignoring that I've over and over said I AM NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT FOR THE FLOOD AT THIS POINT. Good grief.Everybody just lectures and lectures me about THINGS I HAVE NOT SAID, and will NOT address what I HAVE said. Yes, all of you.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-06-2006 03:04 AM

So your objection has to do with how long you believe it would take to deposit what? I'm not clear if you are referring to a single layer or to a group of layers. It does seem that you want to make an argument that the layers would have been deposited in times scales of hundreds or thousands of years, maybe even of a year?Can you clarify your claim. I think then the discussing could proceed with everyone talking about, hopefully, the same thing.lfen

Faith, Since I asked first, please address the opening post, it is hypocritical of you to complain that you are being ignored in this thread when you have ignored the very first post addressed to you.Secondly, This thread is for you to provide evidence of the flood, not for other people to answer your questions.But for the record, rox has already pointed out that the features you describe are not universal anyway. Homogenous sediments get deposited in an environment which receives those particles. Nonhomogenous sediments get deposited where an environment is changing. And sharp demarcations occur where the environment changes from one regime to another, marine to terrestrial, for example. Or where erosion of one sediment is then subsequently deposited on by another.There, now please answer the OP. I can complain of being ignored with more legitimacy than you can.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-06-2006 04:26 AM

---

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

Faith,
No one is ignoring your point. We have all been addressing it. But your point is ridiculous. No flood scenarios can explain the white cliffs of Dover. No ~10,000 year old earth scenarios can explain it. Only slow accumulation over 100's of millenia can explain it, period.Your point of not having to demonstrate mechanism is just wrong. YOU made the claim that geology refutes uniformitism. It is in your court to show this is correct.

As a nonscientist, I have questions about your OP. So when and if you answer, please explain as you would to a new student.From what I have read of the original off topic post and the OP, Faith has already given you her evidence for a world wide flood. In your responses all you've essentially said is that you disagree with her.

quote:

---

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.

---

Why can't the global existence of fossils be considered evidence of a world wide flood?How does the localization of fossil species argue against a world wide flood?

quote:

---

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

---

Why is that evidence against the world wide flood.

quote:

---

Again, the flood is utterly inconsistent with the pattern of stratification.

---

What are the geological columns and how is the flood inconsistent with that stratification. Also could you explain stratification in simple terms?

quote:

---

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

---

Why is surface disturbance irrelevant to the flood?

quote:

---

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

---

Why is the presence of extinct forms not evidence of the global flood?

quote:

---

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

---

I assume you mean inconsistent with the flood story, but again you've said it is inconsistent, but you provided nothing I could use to explain why they are inconsistent.Ultimately a nonscientist like myself would have to digest information coming from someone like Faith and someone like yourself to decide whether I believe the flood to be world wide or not.So far in this discussion, from the information I think I understand, I haven't seen anything that obviously tilts the scales in either direction.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

So grass pollen and grass seeds should be found on the lowest level. they are already there and growing before the flood and have been doing so for some time. The land then gets flooded. Then a layer of marine fossils and no more than a few thousand years of other material above the marine level cover the original layer that had the grasses.

​

Your scenario is now something that can be tested. Do we find grass seeds and pollen at the lowest level with nothing but marine fossils and a very small post flood level above.

​

If your scenario is falsified are you willing to agree that the evidence from grass points to there not being a world-wide flood?

​

If this is not an accurate description of your grass scenario, then please expand or correct it and we can look at the next version.

---

Jar, this was an excellent post.It is a dispassionate restructuring into experiment form the claims that Faith made.You even gave her an "out" at the end to let her take it all back if she wanted to rethink.Very impressive.