Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

Purpledawn, Because organisms live all over the world, finding their fossils all over the world is an expected without a flood. Because a global flood would that is able to scour miles of bedrock globally would certainly be mixing the fauna & flora up over large distances. It was an aside. I never said it was, because land is observed to rise, then we expect to find marine fossils in highlands. Their existence there is not indicative of a flood. I never said it was. I said that given most strata exist subsurface, claiming surface disturbance should have destroyed it all is meaningless. Forms become extinct without floods. I did, read it again. See hydrodynamic sorting. This is a thread where evidence is supposed to be presented that supports a flood, so its no surprise I haven't convinced you of a non-flood. I'm not surprised you haven't been convinced of the flood myth, though. It's lurking about halfway down this post.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-06-2006 08:47 AM

---

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

quote:

---

Why can't the global existence of fossils be considered evidence of a world wide flood?

---

In theory, it could be. A global flood most certainly would leave a global fossil record. The problem is, the sort of geologic scenario predicted within the framework of such a Flood is NOT observed in the fossil record. We don't get the kind of fossil sorting predicted by Henry Morris. Nor do we get the same grain sorting that we would expect (continuous fining upward). The problems with the Flood interpretation of the geologic column are in the details... which is more than likely why Faith keeps insisting that we stand back and look at the big picture. Question: if a global flood really did occur that covered the tops of the highest mountains, then why do we have fossilized footprints from terrestrial animals preserved throughout the rock record?

quote:

---

How does the localization of fossil species argue against a world wide flood?

---

For one thing, because dead bodies float. The waters of the Flood would have been teeming with the bloating, gassy carcasses of 99.999999% of all life on earth. These would have a tendency to float around and spread out; not stay put.

quote:

---

Why is that evidence against the world wide flood.

---

In itself, it is not evidence against a worldwide flood. It is simply another plausible explanation as to how the fossils got there. And it musn't be ignored.

quote:

---

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

---

Could write a book trying to answer this question. Simply put, stratification is simply the layering of sediments as they are deposited in either terrestrial or marine environments. Different environments deposit sediments in different ways (e.g. compare deltaic, fluvial, and aeolian deposits, etc.). We see these different deposits in the rock record, but the global Flood scenario cannot explain them. How do we get aeolian deposits (i.e. desert deposits) in the middle of a global flood?

quote:

---

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

---

It could be, if you were able to show that every animal in the fossil record died at the same time.

Typical, crash. You don't just ignore the issue you aggressively ignore it and ridicule me. Thanks.

Sure, could be a problem articulating my point, I guess. But so far I haven't even seen anybody take a stab at it. Certainly this post of yours ignores it again. Have a good day.

Truly remarkable how I suggest my point is being ignored, you say you've been trying to address it, and you ignore it again.

Faith, I'll do it, right after you address the OP.Mark

---

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

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?

At least you are asking a question about what I'm talking about. Thank you.I've explained it many times in the past. It has to do with the idea that one particular kind of sediment and only that kind of sediment could have been slowly deposited, small increment by small increment day by day month by month, year by year over millions of years, and remain only that one particular kind of sediment spread over some great horizontal area, say the entire Southwest US covering four or five states, where we see all the fantastic layered formations and know that those layers are continuous over all that area, each its own peculiar sediment. Just for instance. And each sediment, so clearly different from a sediment below and above for quite a huge stack of sediments, dozens, all different from each other, a limestone here, a different limestone there, a sandstone, a shale, and so on and so forth, all originally laid down as sediment, most of it underwater in that region I understand, though presumably this could also be an aerial process, so I've heard tell around these parts, just bit by bit over millions of years. I guess one could sort of accept that nothing but one kind of sediment could get deposited in that way over millions of years, sort of, but then you have to understand that apparently quite abruptly the whole scenario shifts and then not that sediment, not that same sediment at all, but an entirely new sediment starts being deposited, and is homogeneously deposited over another few million years, many millions according to some notions of what time period it supposedly represents, and everybody acts like this is perfectly normal, could have happened that way, does indeed reflect bazillions of years of deposition teeny bit by teeny bit --but it is not reasonable at all to think it could have happened that way.And that's just the sediments, all these DIFFERENT sediments, so dfiferent from each other. Different colors of limestone even. Each independently laid down in its own time period of millions of years. I find this absurd and I have not ever even seen anyone discuss it. It is merely taken for granted although it is absurd.Besides the sediments there are the different fossil contents, each layer apparently having its own pecular content (this is what defines an era or a time period after all), that and no other. Now, this is peculiar on any theory I would think, but the idea that these were laid down one by one over millions of years also seems absurd to me. And they don't even evolve from the bottom of a layer to the top of one, they are just scattered in these layers throughout, which sure suggests a one-time event to my mind, but people seem to uncritically accept that no, each one laid itself to rest on its own particular day in all those millions of years. 'So you have an inch of I don't know, shale, and then this small fossil thing, and another inch and three fossil things, and five inches and three of the same fossil and so on. Each inch supposedly must represent the deposition of oh hundreds or thousands of years, depending on how much time the whole layer is considered to represent, and how much erosion off the top of it (only the top too, which is weird if the whole thing was abuilding over aeons) is considered to have happened.I hope this begins to convey some of my puzzlement about these phenomena which are apparently taken for granted by geologists as having happened in the above fashion which seems impossible to my mind.I am not trying to defend the flood at this point but it certainly does seem that a one-time event of that magnitude would do a lot better job of accounting for the actual facts than the very very slow accumulation of very small increments of sediment with dead creature after dead creature laying itself in over thousands of years apart.

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.

I'm just trying to get somebody to comment on the idea of super slow accumulation of inch by inch of all the same kind of sediment in which only one kind -- or at least only a few kinds -- of fossil is found, supposedly having died independently of each other -- over millions of years.I really am not trying to account for it by the flood.yes I know there are geological answers, but none of them seems to face the patent absurdity of the idea of slow accumulation like this which just does not make sense on the face of it. It is merely taken for granted.

I DID read your links, Paul, and they ignore the point at issue too, as I said. Jsut want someone to demonstrate that they GET the point for starters.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-06-2006 09:13 AM

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.

Slow accumulation is absurd. And again, I am not defending the flood at this point, just trying to get someone to really THINK about how the slow accumulation of completely different kinds of sediments, each in its own millions of years, only that one kind for millions,then only another kind for another millions, implies.

Thank you, purpledawn, for focusing on the right issues in your Message 74 and raising the right questions and pointing out that Mark24 did not do anything but flatly disagree and did not address them.

I didn't make any "claims" Schraf, all I did was give an alternative explanation to your sarcastic rude challenge to me.