Re: Thinking the Flood really happened is just stupid!
Would you say that the flood stories were parables and teachable moments? What was the motive of the stories being recorded?
Are you talking about the flood story of the Bible or all of the many flood stories told throughout history? There are probably many reasons for the stories and some are simply historical recollections such as the annual floods of the Nile River.
Re: Siberian Traps volcanics at the Paleozoic/Mesozoic boundary
To have all LIPs produced in the last 6000 years would make the Earth uninhabitable, so what would it be like during the Flood year? Noah would not need an Ark, he would need a sealed self-contained survival capsule! And this is without considering all the other volcanoes on Earth.
Neither does it account for the fact that all oceanic crust is volcanic in origin.
â€œIt was a really incredibly humongous Flood, therefore it could do literally anythingâ€ is not even a remotely sensible position. Itâ€™s just another daft excuse you made up."
Apparently, the less we know about something, the easier it is believe that it happened. This is partly because one may make up whatever one wants.
Nothing Faith has presented as evidence (and that is a vanishingly small amount) is diagnostic of a biblical flood. Without the Bible myth as a guide, there would be absolutely no reason to even imagine a global flood only a couple of thousand years ago.
You are amazingly blind to the shakiness of your own "evidence" for the standard interpretation of the geologic column, ...
Actually, I know the geological column pretty well.
... and to your own denial of the absolute absrdity of it, the tying of time periods of millions of years to a peculiarly discreet collection of dead things buried in a peculiarly straight and flat and often homogeneous sedimentary slab of rock.
Uh huh. OK. If you say so. but I've seen floods too, and I posted a few of them that caused mudslides that buried cars and houses in only one place, and if the same thing is happening next to it on both sides and next to those on both sides and millions of them around the world all at the same time and the rain just keeps coming down and doesn't stop for weeks, bringing down the mud and the rocks and the dead things, and the sea is rising to meet it all and keeps on rising until there's no land visible, that's not just a widdle flood magnified.
And how does this create laterally continuous, 'straight and flat' deposits at a continental scale?
And imagining the Flood is not something anybody does well, even scientists.
Yes, we have a hard time imagining things that did not and cannot happen. On the other hand, it allows you to make up whatever you want.
They do weird things like impute it to a single layer of the geologic column, ...
What do you mean, and why is it weird?
... they don't seem to have a feeling for the reality of what forty days and nights of steady rain on every square inch of the planet would do, ...
What would it do?
... and they had some pretty weird ideas about fossils too.
... Leonardo did get that much right, but it didn't occur to him that the mountains had to rise with their cargo of shells to make sense out of the facts. And when they rose perhaps the ocean floors sank to receive the draining water which he couldn't envision.
There is. The B.E.D.S model, inselburgs, (erosional remnants), experiments for progradation showing facies can be laid down both laterally and superposed in hydraulic conditions with flume experiments proving it. Water gaps, polystrate fossils, standing arches, paraconformities (flat gaps), and some methods of dating. (Geochronomoters). Trackways in straight lines indicating fleeing organisms. New experiments have also now shown bouyancy counters any sedimentation meaning you need a LOT of sediment to counter the gases in the carcasses of animals, which leads to bloat-and-float disarticulation of fossils. A flood is the perfect mechanism for fossilisation because of the large sediment hauls conducive to quick burial and preservation. There is also C14 in diamonds and soft tissue in various dino bones more favourable to youth, despite the desperate explanations put forward for why they could last millions of years.
There is also the correctly qualified evidence we would expect from a flood. Obviously because of what the bible says about the flood, a flood would have been easy to falsify, all you would have had to say before finding the rock record is this;"well if the flood killed everything while it was living, all we need to do is show we won't find every phyla or type of animal preserved dead killed by a flood."
That would have been easy, because obviously the bible says all life perished. But the fact we find fossils fighting, in the suffocation position, tracks of them scurrying, digesting meals, giving birth, and the fact we find all types of life, is the exact type of evidence to expect from a flood.
There is simply PLENTY of evidence better answered by a flood.
In the rocks we would also expect to NOT find any intermediates for bats, pterosaurs, ichthyosaurs, snails, trees. Obviously if it is a history of created kinds, no matter how far back we went in the rock record we would expect to find things that pretty much look the same as they do today.
I am curious. Do you really think that mainstream science has no explanation for all of these complaints?
Is it possible that your professional creationist leaders are not giving you all of the facts?
Re: What if all the physical evidence was destroyed?
Have I missed it or has anyone addressed the simple problem of how there can be evidence of anything that existed before the Flood simply because all the evidence has been destroyed?
How convenient for you!
Think about this for just a moment, Faith. How could anything possibly go wrong with this argument?
This flood is so devastating that not a even a pottery shard exists at the base of the flood deposits. Not a footprint or a single tool, nor a foundation. Entire Phyla of creatures disappeared to leave no trace in the pre-flood world. And there is not a shred of evidence for 'fountains of the deep' or galloping continents.
And yet flood sediments can preserve raindrop impressions, coprolites, animal nests and (supposedly) upright trees. Several civilizations even fail to note the passing of the greatest calamity to have ever struck the planet.
Well, this way, you can make up whatever you want and cram it into a Bible story. And some have tried that. Some even say that God just cleaned up the mess.
(God made a mess?????)
And now you tell us that such a maelstrom of flood waters is the only way to lay down regionally extensive 'straight and flat' strata? Miles thick?
Sorry, Faith, but this doesn't even reach the level of snake oil. I truly fret that people can prostitute their religion to this extent.
What evidence do you have that all strata are straight and uniform,
How about Steno's law about original horizontality or however he said that?
and once you've found some, how do you square it with all the evidence people have provided over the years that that's not true of all strata. Again, original horizontality. Most strata are found in a damaged, distorted, twisted, broken condition. That doesn't change their original horizontality.
There's great variety, from straight to crooked, from uniform to highly nonuniform.
Yes I guess I have to mention that I know the strata are not PERFECTLY straight and uniform, that they taper out to nothing in many cases if you follow them to their end. But that doesn't change the basic principle and really says nothing of importance about this subject.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you talking about a large slab of granite, a fantasy7 in the geo column, or something else? Of course it's mottled ***** that, granite always is, but as it is laid down in the geological column it is laid down ******0 all the other ******1, flat and straight.
Well, obviously not all strata are straight and uniform, although I'm pretty sure you have said so at various times in the past. The real question is 'how does the biblical flood lay down sediments in such 'straight and flat' layers' that are 'pure' and have regional extent.
You have never explained this, nor has anyone else even though one after another professional YEC has told you that it MUST be so. Citing Steno is irrelevant since he simply made an observation of the geometry of rock layers without making any reference to a mechanism. That would be up to you since you hold fast to this argument.