The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence

quote:

---

My next question is to the creationists who believe in the flood. Why is it when a line of evidence exists that destroys the flood hypothesis, that the creationist diverts and points to something as only possible due to the flood? I admit at one point in my life I could only believe that a flood was the only answer. Yet after so much evidence builds up against it I just had to let it go. At what point do you say "These guys are right, it doesn't add up"?

---

Before I start. I take most creationists sites (Answers in Genesis) having few good articles but mainly as much science as Alice in Wonderland has.
The problem is when one says the Bible is over science they limit their thinking.The flood is a compliacted issue. It involves many factors and variables. I havent seen much evidence against the flood. Its a catastrophe which happened several thousand years ago (notice I didnt say it happened 4,000 yrs ago?). Which caused the world to change greatly.I find it amusing creationists will say; 'If the age of the Earth was 4.5 billion years old, the continents eroded away numerous amounts of times.'yet we believe in a frickin global flood that somehow caused things like the grand canyon, and there was little erosion?I dont personally believe that Mt Everest was a high as it is today. Why would it be? Anything can happen. I believe it more logical to believe catastophes change things very very quickly. A severe storm can change the morphology of a beach in hours. So to see that sand dunes increases 5 cm a year (just example) is rather limiting. Mt Everst may of had some intense volcanic activity, or tectonic activity, creating really tall moutains in the Himalayas.Anyways. I dont see much evidence against a flood. Its really how you look at it...

quote:

---

My next question is to the creationists who believe in the flood. Why is it when a line of evidence exists that destroys the flood hypothesis, that the creationist diverts and points to something as only possible due to the flood? I admit at one point in my life I could only believe that a flood was the only answer. Yet after so much evidence builds up against it I just had to let it go. At what point do you say "These guys are right, it doesn't add up"?

---

Before I start. I take most creationists sites (Answers in Genesis) having few good articles but mainly as much science as Alice in Wonderland has.
The problem is when one says the Bible is over science they limit their thinking.The flood is a compliacted issue. It involves many factors and variables. I havent seen much evidence against the flood. Its a catastrophe which happened several thousand years ago (notice I didnt say it happened 4,000 yrs ago?). Which caused the world to change greatly.I find it amusing creationists will say; 'If the age of the Earth was 4.5 billion years old, the continents eroded away numerous amounts of times.'yet we believe in a frickin global flood that somehow caused things like the grand canyon, and there was little erosion?I dont personally believe that Mt Everest was a high as it is today. Why would it be? Anything can happen. I believe it more logical to believe catastophes change things very very quickly. A severe storm can change the morphology of a beach in hours. So to see that sand dunes increases 5 cm a year (just example) is rather limiting. Mt Everst may of had some intense volcanic activity, or tectonic activity, creating really tall moutains in the Himalayas.Anyways. I dont see much evidence against a flood. Its really how you look at it...

quote:

---

Can you deal with that evidence? Or will you just try to "hand wave" it away somehow?

---

This doesnt disprove the flood. Infact it probabally makes the global flood older than what YEC think. In my understanding, carbon dating is rather inaccurate. Creationists and evolutionists use it, but it appears to be very limiting and inaccurate. Eg. Most fossils millions of years old are found with carbon - 14. This makes no sense as the furthest we can date back to is 50,000 years. So from an evolutionist perspective somehow this carbon - 14, is being replinshed. Other than that with carbon - 14 dating, dinosaurs died several thousand years ago.I Dont believe it to disprove the flood. It either disproves there was a massive flood 4,000 years ago or that the people who were dated 10,000 years was rather inaccurate.

quote:

---

Hi solja247, and welcome to the fray,

---

Thanks. I was reading some of your posts (Uranium halos) and you know a lot more science than I do.

quote:

---

Open minded skepticism is the best way to treat any new information, especially when it may seem to contradict current beliefs.

---

Yes very true. But these creationists cant be open minded, if they have already closed their mind.

quote:

---

When it comes to evidence of a flood, we have to ask what kind of evidence is there?

---

We have to ask another question what sought of geological and hydrological events were happening?Was there any massive underwater currents?Was there a lot of erosion?Was not much happening, just a large amount of rain?Was there Earthquakes, tusanamis, hurricanes or relatively quiet?You see, untill we know the exact conditions of the flood we really cant say what the evidence looks like or is.

quote:

---

And the Grand Canyon is the wrong kind of erosion for some flood outlet flow. Some of the channels flow in the opposite direction of the main channel, for one. The evidence shows that the Grand Canyon was formed by slow erosion as the rock in the area rose, and the erosion pattern is consistent with this.

---

I said before, untill we know what kind stress the flood caused we dont know what it created. The Grand canyon could of been created by God and then after thousands of years change slightly to what we know of today as the Grand Canyon.

quote:

---

You are free to believe what you want to believe, however you must also realize that whatever you believe has no effect on reality. The evidence shows that Mt Everest is still rising due to plate tectonics, and that the current rate of rise is adequate to explain the current height in the time that this geological formation has been underway.

---

So you dont think things cahnge? Do you think the water level has been rising for millions of years, or due to global warming the water level is rising?Any variable could change how much Mt Everst grew a year. Perhaps even 1000 years ago the tectonics under Everst had much more stress and were thus causing, the mountain to grow much more taller.

quote:

---

You may also be interested to know that there are sea shells in the rocks at many elevations, including near the top. Sea shells that formed and grew to ages of 20 or 30 years in a placid environment similar to what we see on the sea floor today: some of the shells, such as for brachiopods, are attached by stalks to the bottom and the growth of plants and other animas around the shells are also preserved.

---

Is evidence for a global flood finding marine life in places like Mount Everest.really? do you have a link or something?Yet, it is more logical to believe that massive frozen moons came crashing into Earth, causing what we know of today, as the ocean?

quote:

---

If such activity were compressed into a few thousand years (and you would need to compress it into days) the friction would heat up the rock to the point where it would melt, and this changes the type of rock -- the sedimentary layers with the shells would no longer exist.

---

How tall would Everst have to be for that to happen?

quote:

---

Could you be more precise about what you mean by "caused the world to change greatly"? If you can say what effects you think the Flood had, one might begin to think whether or not a flood would in fact have done that.

---

Well pherhaps the seasons were caused by the great flood.

quote:

---

Myself, I don't see how a mere forty days and forty nights of rain would have done much to the geological record. That's 960 hours of rain, or, to put it into perspective, slightly more than falls in Sydney, Australia every year.

---

Me either. Why would heavy rain cause much change in the geological record? Its pretty much 100% theoritical.

quote:

---

However, if the flood story was true, then there would have been significant impact on biogeography and genetics. And we can easily rule it out on those grounds.

---

Why genetics?I believe all the fossil fuel is from the great flood, i dont see how it couldnt be.We see in the Permian—Triassic extinction event:

quote:

---

251 Ma at the Permian-Triassic transition, Earth's largest extinction killed 53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species (including plants, insects, and vertebrate animals). 57% of all families and 83% of all genera went extinct.[4] The "Great Dying" had enormous evolutionary significance: on land it ended the dominance of mammal-like reptiles.

---

quote:

---

Sorry, it does disprove the global flood at the time the biblical scholars place it, that is, about 4,350 years ago. If you want to try and move the date of the flood then you need to argue with those biblical scholars, not with scientists.

---

I dont have to argue with the Biblical scholars (I am one) I dont believe the flood was 4,000 years ago. (I dont know when it was).

quote:

---

It is easy to find carbon in things, such as diamonds and fossils, that are millions of years old--that is way past the limits of the technique! When dealing with such tiny amounts of C14 contamination and machine error become large factors. The diamond studies are a good example--one of those studies was done by the UC Riverside radiocarbon laboratory to test the limits of the equipment. The diamonds had no C14 in them--the C14 found was residual C14 within the equipment itself!

---

Although that is an amusing story I dont buy it. You cant say that every instance carbon -14 is found is due to the equipment itself. Many tests have been done on fossil fuels, dinosaur fossils etc finding caron - 14. So what do you think of that?

quote:

---

Fine. It should be easy to produce some bones then. We routinely find bones of mammoths and mastodons and other creatures that have been extinct for 10,000 or more years. So where are the dinosaur bones (note that I said "bones" not "fossils"). Hint: dinosaur bones have never been found because dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago, leaving only fossils.

---

You dont believe that catastrophic events can fossilise dinsoaurs much faster?

quote:

---

What you believe is not relevant. It is what the evidence shows that counts. And the evidence, including the evidence I posted in #6, above, shows that there was no global flood within the last 10,000 years--the precise time when biblical scholars place it.

---

So the biblical scholars are infallible?

I am not educated in science, yet. I start my Bachelor of Science next week. I need to do a lot more research before I get into debates with learned people. This is not me going, this is me saying, 'I'll be back'Have fun.Edited by solja247, : No reason given.