Summations Only

Actually not, particularly since we don't see any evidence for more recent lifeforms in older rocks. If there were one huge flood, the fossils would be all mixed up, lions next to trilobites. We don't see that. But that's just one line of evidence. There are many more which you have shown a preference to deny. Problem is that we see it repeated over and over in the geological record, always recording a new set of fossil evidence. And we never see evidence that the entire planet was inundated. Why is that? So, if this happened all at once why do we not see mammals buried with trilobites? Except for the evidence that you choose to ignore... Yes, a model that has been shown to be fallacious. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix 1 quote box.

Theory backed up by numerous lines of evidence including relative dating techniques and known geological processes, further backed up by various dating methods. But dating shows this not to be the case. Not necessarily 'jumbled up', but in the same age rocks. We should find large mammals with large dinosaur fossils but we do not. Then we are correct in saying that you do not understand Walther's Law.It explains why strata are time-transgressive but still have lateral continuity. So then, you reject Walther's Law.You should have said so in the first place. Only if you neglect surrounding data, such as relative dating methods and known geological processes. I'm sure you have studied these things as much as I have. You have given evidence for marine deposition, but not for a global flood.Think about what a 'global flood' means. No land, no beaches, no swamps, no erosion; and yet there they all are in the geological record. It is also a straw-man argument. No one says this but YECs. Why not? And please provide and example of a formation that is global. True, and one of the reasons is that there was always an emergent land mass to provide sediments of various nature. Why not?Because it makes you uncomfortable?

Well, some of us do know and time is the most explanatory suspect.For you to reject it based on your admitted ignorance is a bit arrogant. But that arrangement of fossils is data.Your model needs to explain it.We can't just ignore data because it doesn't fit a cherished model. He also says that your model failed its tests.It should be rejected.

You want to do that yourself, eh? Well, a discussion implies that you would consider what your counterpart is saying. Flat rejection does kind of kill conversation. I believe what Jar is trying to say is that, not only is the YEC interpretation incorrect, but the Bible itself is contradictory. I don't believe that anyone intends do so so. Anyone with a modicum of geological experience knows that rock layers come in (recognizable) packages.The problem here is that there is no discernible package that looks like a rising and lowering global flood. On the other hand, we do see regional and even continental flooding occurring many times in the geological record.Compounding your error is the fact that at virtually no point in the geological record can we ascertain a period when there was no land mass that was being eroded. Evidence to that effect is the presence of beach sands, swamps, lakes and a host of other land-type deposits. After all if there is no beach, how do you get beach sands?Now, if we can see numerous large marine encroachments (look up 'cyclothems') on land during say the Devonian of Pennsylvania, why can we not see something that is as major as the Biblical flood?

Please give us some evidence that is diagnostic of a biblical flood and not a regional or local flood. In other words, how do you know that a flood is global? Have you traced the strata around the world? First of all Walther's Law applies to all rising and lower of sea level.Secondly, what do you mean by 'death by water'? Most of the fossils in the fossil record are marine. Actually, the hostility is directed a the militant YECs rather than their flood per se. Rejection does not mean hostility. As I've said many times the evidence you present is also evidence for mainstream geology. What you need is a way to tell them apart. We have given you some ideas here, but you seem to ignore those possibilities.

Well then it's kind of weird that the deposits we see forming in the present look exactly like those of the geological record.I will admit that the continental crust of the Archean exposed in shield areas looks very different from what we see elsewhere, but that really was a looooong time ago. In fact, that's another thing the YEC simply cannot explain.

It is also evidence for the modern understanding of geology. It is also evidence for old ages.Please give us something that is diagnostic of young ages and a global flood and nothing else.Making assertions is not evidence.

If we focused on the data, things might go a little bit better. Right now, I see that problem is that the data is ignored while toxic accusations such as 'brainwashing' overwhelm and destroy the conversation.JMHO...Edited by edge, : No reason given.