The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence

Wouldn't there be scientific evidence if the entire Earth were covered by water just 4,500 years ago? I would think that such evidence would be obvious and abundant. Don't you? I would like to approach these questions from a different angle than the posters above. What type of geologic formation would demonstrate that this didn't happen? IOW, how does one falsify the idea of a recent worldwide flood (in your eyes)?

A lack of magentic striping in the seafloor.A break in the Antarctic and Greenland ice cores.A break in the Lake Suigetsu varve record.A break in the German Oak record.Tons of geologic and biological records should show a disruption during this period, but none do. At a bare minimum, we should find a worldwide flood layer containing organic matter from terrestrial organisms with the same carbon isotope ratios, but we don't. Then how were you able to conclude that there was a recent global flood? The problem is that the models are unfalsifiable. There is no potential observation that would falsify them in the eyes of creationists. That is why I keep asking you for observations that, if made, would falsify a recent global flood. Your hesitancy is making my point for me. I can understand your position. I only hope that our discussions prompt some healthy skepticism when reading creationist websites.

Adam Sedgwick said it best. This is part of the speech he gave as he vacated his chairmanship of the Geologic Society of London (the most prestigious society of its kind at the time):

quote:

---

Bearing upon this difficult question, there is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion, when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth. We saw the clearest traces of diluvial action, and we had, in our sacred histories, the record of a general deluge. On this double testimony it was, that we gave a unity to a vast succession of phenomena, not one of which we perfectly comprehended, and under the name diluvium, classed them all together.

​

To seek the light of physical truth by reasoning of this kind, is, in the language of Bacon, to seek the living among the dead, and will ever end in erroneous induction. Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.

​

We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood....
(Sedgwick, 1831)

---

Actually, this is the least foolish thing you have posted on these forums. Discovering ignorance is a good thing. Wallowing in ignorance is a bad thing. Sadly, many creationists prefer the latter. I have high hopes that you will opt for the former.

I would strongly suggest that you read this essay written by Glenn Morton. He went from being a young earth creationist to an old earth creationist due to his work in the field of geology.There is one aspect that may conflict with your "two camp" idea. There is a real world out there, and we have to use some type of theory to make sense of it. As Glenn Morton put it in the essay above:

quote:

---

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

​

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

​

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

---

Quotes from a couple of your messages: I could right a book about that, but since we would bore everyone here is the short version. The bureaucratic overhead and oversight of research is too much. I am all for accountability for spending, human subject protections, and animal protections. Don't get me wrong. However, when your administrative paperwork is 10 times the size of your grant something is wrong. So much of a PI's time is taken up dealing with administrative BS that it is a wonder that any science gets done at all. Anyway, on to the science. This sums up the entire folly of creation "science". They work so hard to give creationism a sciency veneer, but when pressed they still have to evoke magical mechanisms to explain away the data. They work so hard to use science, but as soon as the data points away from their hypothesis they invoke the supernatural to put it back on course. The RATE experiments involving helium in zircons is also a great example of this mentatility. Increased rates of radioactive decay necessarily involve an increase in heat production. So how does the RATE team explain away this problem? Well, God is magical, doncha know.

To clarify Admin's point, what we are looking for in this thread is evidence that would lead to the conclusion that there was a recent global flood. IOW, if the flood did happen then someone should be able to follow the evidence to this conclusion without needing to read one word of the Bible.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.