There is no geological evidence of a single world wide flood occurring around the world at any one specific time
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.
Here's a little list I prepared earlier of some that appear with no evolutionary history and can be found today and even compared to their living counterparts and they look IDENTICAL. To say this is not the evidence expected from a flood/creation scenario is to LIE, and LIARS will have to answer to God when they stand before Him.
The Coelacanth Fish (340 million years old) Gingko Trees (125 million years), Crocodiles (140 million years), Horseshoe Crabs (200 million years), The Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), Neopilina Molluscs (500 million years), The Tuatara Lizard (200 million years). Avocets (65 million years) Wollemi Pine (150 million years) Ferns (180 million years) Nightcap Oak (20 million years, based on fossilized nut) Maple Tree (30-50 million years/ Eocene) jellyfish (500 million years) Alligators (75 million years) Gracilidris Ant (15-20 million years preserved in amber) Turtles (110 million years) Gladiator Insect (45 million years) Lace Bugs (15 -200 million years, amber) Starfish (500 million years) Bats (48-54 million years) Golden Orb-Weaver Spider (165 million years) Pelican Spider (44 million years) Shrimp - (100-300 million years) Rabbitfish - (150 million years) Gall Mites - (amber - 230 million years) Sponge, Nucha naucum - (220 million years) Octopus - (90 million years)http://creation.com/...octopus-fossils Dragonflies. (can't find a date, but they were a lot bigger but that's all, I guess the Carboniferous) Laonastes Rodent (10 million years up, can't find exact date) Millipedes. (3-400 million years, aprox) Sharks: (450 million years) Vascular plants, land plants. (400 million) Proxylastodoris kuscheli Beetle. (40-50 million) --was believed extinct until recently--? non-marine ostracod. Eocene --was believed extinct until recently-- Sabalites Palm tree - Eocene (30-50 million years)http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html Hydrangea? (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html Alnus flower (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html Swartzia is a tropical tree with some 200 species today (30-50 million years/ Eocene)) Sycamore. "The leaf is not too different from those on the living tree" (30-50 million years/ Eocene) Crinoid Anthedon (150 million years) Eophis underwoodi (snakes) - (167 million years) Tardigrada (micro-bears) - 520 million years. (they have many things that large animals have including a gut, eyes, osphagus, brain and mouth) Sulfur bacteria - 1.8 billion years. Pollen - (Roraima) an indisputable case of pre-Cambrian 550 million years or so. Shovelnose Ray (Belemnobatis sismondae) 150 million years Mayfly - 97-110 million years.? Moss - 330 million years,. (Apparently no evolution of this moss has occurred for 330 Ma. The fossil record of Sphagnum moss itself occurs in the Cenozoic, which means that the record of this type of common moss appears to be pushed back at least 265 Ma.)
(nitpicking one or two examples then complaining, won't change the overall theme here which is that evolution is fiction.)
Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
Paul K writes:
Since the mainstream view accounts for the evidence very well, while you discount large amounts of evidence (because the Flood can’t explain it!) and don’t even have a good explanation for the remainder.
In the face of those facts any honest person would have to admit that the mainstream stream view was by far the better explanation.
But it's only devoted evolutionists that think this. You only study one side of the coin. With historical cases you have an induction of evidence that, "fits", you build it up, sort of like in a court case. There is however an induction of evidence that, "fits" with the flood and creation very well, it's just that it would seem probable you either aren't aware of it or through denial, will simply never accept the evidence fits well. Most evolutionists online are very dogmatic and will make statements such as, "ALL the evidence favours mainstream and NONE creation".
That's part of the problem, laypeople like you are making claims about honest people like you just did here, that basically the mainstream scientists wouldn't make. A lot of you are die-hard atheists, and that is your real motive, so there is usually a disparity between what scientists say we must accept and what atheists INSIST we must accept.
The, "any honest person" would agree with your side, as the mainstream view being the best explanation, is basically a clumsy non-sequitur. I am an honest person, but this honest person does not believe you have ever studied the arguments of GAPS, paraconformities, inselburgs, flume experiments PROVING you can get laminated strata by progradation, very quickly, both laterally and superposed, standing arches, water gaps, planation, polystrate fossils, the best ways to bury large loads and save them from rotting, (bloat and float disarticulation experiments), intertonguing rock, fossils breaking many varves, and the problems with the phylogenetic tree which are a mismatch of the record, meaning the tree would predict diversity then disparity, but what we see is the opposite.
The, "any honest" person is just a way of creating a false dichotomy where all the righteous, honest people are evolutionists and all the evil, dishonest mikes are basically liars.
Not in real life PK, but certainly between your ears. When you get beyond that small space perhaps then you might break out of eternal stubbornness.
Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
Paul K writes:
Really? You think that someone who claims to be able to explain the evidence but ignores most of it and doesn’t have a good explanation for the rest should be believed?
Do you refer to Faith? If you note I only quoted the parts that it seemed to me were generally aimed at creationists. I would not put forward Faith as the best arguer of creation science, no offence to her of course but if she is the dominant member here rather than the chess master Jonathan Sarfati, a creationist PHD chemist, then obviously your views of creationists are going to be rather limited.
I am not supporting all of her claims, nor was I referring to anything to do with her.
Paul K writes:
And how would you know that?
"You're not stupid" Paul. You have knowledge, so don't think I am picking on you. But there are SIGNS when a person is being dogmatic about things or saying certain things, that they are portraying a matter more simplistically than it really exists as. You aren't as objective as you think. Again I am not attacking you personally and I am not saying I am perfect either, but with the issue of historical case, let's face it our own dependence on data focuses very much on what we do know rather than what we don't know.
With historical cases, I myself would never say, "creation wins, there is nothing for eons". That would be biased HORSE*HIT. I would only be saying that because I am creationist. My own studies have shown me there is no silver bullet when it comes to historical cases, either way, it's simply a situation where we rely on an inductive tally of consistent evidence and we have to either explain away the conflicting evidence or ignore it. That happens on both sides. It is a complex issue, I just don't think it's as simply as, "any honest person". I am honestly evaluating the facts using critical thinking, again the point of my boast is only to confirm I am able to do that evaluation, and if it is just down to data, and argumentation, it isn't a case of a clear win for either side because it is a very, very complex area the dating thing.
For example as an objective statement I MUST to remain, "honest", admit that light speed leads to a best explanation the universe is very old. Now I am not an old earther but what I am saying is YES, I can admit when an argument is strong for the evolutionist side. But that intellectual honesty isn't easy to achieve, you have to know a LOT about the rules of logic and critical evaluation.
Paul K writes:
Faith hasn’t been able to find any. And do remember that we are talking about Faith’s views not creationism in general (which is bad but not as bad as Faith’s nonsense).
"Bad" is just an epithet, of course you will say that, you're biased. In my book I tried to be more objective, for example I think Darwin's idea of evolution AS AN IDEA, is very clever, and in terms of explanative power, a common ancestor answering for say, a homological feature in say a horse's bats and humans limb, would be a very elegant way and has explanative power. I could just say, "it's bad", but the truth is, it isn't bad, it was a very clever offering. Do I think it ultimately wrong? Yes, but as an attempt it had intellectual merit.
Paul K writes:
Let us also note that you have a habit of making fallacious and misleading arguments,
No Paul I don't because when it comes to logical reasoning and critical thinking, as you can see I am still the top scorer, so if you have superior abilities please show them by beating that score. I also have a LOT of tests of say 90% average. Generally speaking I do not commit fallacies because clever people largely can avoid them. I don't claim perfection but generally there is certainly no use for the question begging term, "habit" you have barely asserted here, which is ironically, a bare assertion fallacy you seem to be unaware you have committed by expecting the readers to simply accept what you say about me.
Zoobiedoku (as you can see the game has been played 56 thousand times, if 35 thousand evolutionists played, I beat them all) Ho, ho!
Paul K writes:
That deposition can happen rapidly in some cases is not in dispute. That all of it happened rapidly is very much lacking in evidence. Also, flumes are not a natural condition.
The rest is a collection of assertions. Some of them extremely dubious. But the evidence still stands - you don’t for instance have any answer to the order of the fossil record.
I have an answer for the order of the fossil record. There was always going to be one. Darwin invented his tree predicated on the order that exists but the order existed to begin with meaning to say, "break evolution by breaking the order" would be to make a logical error, because the order was always factual, meaning if the order is nothing to do with evolution then the order will still exist.
I wonder if you can see the problem I shall try and explain it, AGAIN, since you don't remember my argument.
Let us pretend Darwin found not the Cambrian common marine critters but rather mammals in the bottom most layers. Do you seriously believe he would then still have argued that mammals evolved from reptiles? So then inherently when you match a process like evolution, over time, to a record, then describe that record as what evolution occurred, the matter becomes something called, "tautologous", which means it will always be true that evolution will match the record because Darwin was always going to say it happened in whatever pattern he found.
So unless there is some science which can disprove the notion that there could be some other cause of the sorting, why must I dismiss the flood based on what biased laypeople evolutionists say?
As for "flumes are not a natural condition", neither is an experiment that replicates the water cycle, with it's beaker and bunsen burner, and other instruments. Come on Paul, we both know that if you caused abiogenesis in the lab I could not respond thus; "but that wasn't a natural condition".
As for Faith, I can only give my opinion but don't want to disparage her as a poster. I would say 60% of what she says I disagree with as being the best argument for creation. That has no baring on her personally because that would likely be the same for any lay person creationist, so I wasn't trying to get into defending Faith, I was mostly concerned with the, "any honest person" claim, and the claim everything on creationist side is, "bad".
This just isn't so. Those are just WORDS, Paul.
I wrote this explanation in 2014 as you can see the date there, so I am not just trying to wriggle out of it. I also shown you this link a while after and know you read it. Understandably, process of time has made you forget in all likelihood;