Some Help from the Creationist

There is a better solution to this. Jesus said there was a flood, because Jesus has been taught by Rabbis that there was a flood.Jesus could have believed in a Flood even if a Flood never happened, it wouldn't necessarily mean that he wasn't the son of God. Jesus can still be Jesus even if everything in the Old Testament was complete bunk. Sounds familiar to who? What are you talking about?

Think about what you are saying.If it's an extremely rare mineral, lets say Uranium, it doesn't exist uniformly over the length of the river. It would exist in pockets. If it existed uniformly it wouldn't be "extremely rare".If the river water comes into contact with a pocket and causes erosion, we'd expect to find Uranium downstream. However, we need to know how big the pocket was, how long the river was in contact with it, how many pockets there were, how much water was going by at any given time, etc. etc.They most certainly did not take those factors into account, simply because they can't know the answer to those questions.You can not look the Mississippi today and tell me if, 500 years ago, there were 2 big pockets of Uranium upstream, or 5 small pockets, or 1 huge pocket, but it was only half exposed, etc etc.This whole methodology smacks of Creationist BS. Just like the "all dinosaurs drowned, we can tell from their skeletons" crap.It's religion. No one is saying they can't play make believe in their own buildings, but when they pretend to be scientists, they run into trouble

That was deep.

Finally a truth from you.

Huh? I'm not the one playing make believe.

Not necessarily. Remember that they almost always chose their audience to be church going aunts and uncles and 5 year olds. I have a 5 year old niece and, to tell you the truth, I have no doubt that she would believe me if I tell her the moon is made of cheese. How do you think Kansas is getting ready to teach religion in the science classroom?

I agree with that. Pastors and churchs should not be trying to teach science, and Scientists should not be trying to teach religion, or dis-prove it for that matter, since nothing is concrete.I get a little angry when my Pastor or anyone else speaking in church trys to say somthing regarding science and religion, and how scientists are now finding out, blah blah. Another one was digital pictures revealing orbs. This is not what Jesus was trying to teach us, and is not how you show people God. You do it with love.

If you can't provide evidence and the OP is asking for evidence the question of the flood is in no doubt....there was no flood. This appears not to in dispute. Can any creationist offer any evidence at all? That would make a nice change.

The blast that killed the dinosaurs.Also, I have a question for you, is this statement true?

quote:

---

Fossilization requires rapid burial. Yet such burial is exceedingly rare today, and fossilization is almost non-existent in modern times. The existence of massive numbers of fossils worldwide is clear evidence of quick, deep, mass burial. A global flood catastrophe would offer conditions most ideal to the location of great numbers of fossils. The fossils give evidence that the animals were killed suddenly.

---

I got it from this web page, and I suspect it is not entirely true, but check it out anyway.
http://www.layevangelism.com/...sections/sect-10/sec10-5.htm

Intute | JiscLook at that image. I see rivers cut by water, and huge deposits of sediment in the valleys. Looks like a flood could have caused it.I know what your response will be, but it is irrelevant.I believe a flood happened by faith, I don't need to go searching for evidence. Especially if it was a supernatural event, you won't find the evidence you seek.

Presumably your "layer of sediment" is the iridium attributed to the meteorite impact. So it's not a significant layer of sediment and its nature makes the meteorite a far more likely explanation that than a flood.This quote you provide: 1) Fossilisation does require that the processes that tend to lead to the destruction of remains are somehow inhibited. But rapid burial is not the only way. Anoxic conditions found at the bottom of certain lakes can also serve. Also relevant is the fact that rapid burial need not be by water - sandstorms account for some examples (e.g. dinosaur remains found in the Gobi desert).2) Although some fossils preserve soft parts the vast majority do not. Vertebrate remains are typically disarticulated (i.e. the bones are seperated and spread out - and often not all of them are found). Even feathers are rarely preserved - which is why we have only recently discovered that some (non-avian) dinosaurs had feathers. Thus there can be a period between death and burial where decay may occur - and no need to infer sudden death in many cases.3) Rare events spread over a long period of time would also account for the number of fossils. Thus there is no need to attribute all fossils to a single short period of time.

Then is it fair to say that you have in no way provided the evidence required by the OP?Sorry to badger you on this one.

Are you suggesting that the iridium layer is evidence of the flood?You realize that it's an uncommon element on Earth and that it is much thicker near the Yucatan than say in Siberia. Therefore uneven distribution (more layer closer to the impact site). Is that quote true? No. Here's why.1) Fossilization doesn't require rapid burial. A creature could die in the desert and sit on the surface for fifty years prior to burial and still become a fossil. Rapid burial helps but isn't a requirement.2) "Burial is exceedingly rare today" Not true at all. I'm sure the people of Pompeii would certainly disagree. Not to mention the victims of landslides. Then there is always the dead out in the open. If animals aren't getting buried, shouldn't the ground be completely covered with dead squirrels? Go to any field or forest and start digging a trench. I guarentee you, you will come across bones during the dig.3) "fossilization is almost non-existent in modern times." Meaning what? That something that died in the 50s hasn't become a fossil? This is like saying that Hailey's comet doesn't exist because we haven't seen it in twenty plus years. Things happen on a time scale.4) "The existence of massive numbers of fossils worldwide is clear evidence of quick, deep, mass burial." This might be true IF all fossils were found at the same layer. They are not. The converse argument here is interesting to me as well, if all the animals in the world died in a great flood at the same time, why don't we find dinosaurs and rhinos and people all in the same level of sediment?5) " A global flood catastrophe would offer conditions most ideal to the location of great numbers of fossils." Again false. The biggest fossil beds (largest numbers of creatures in close prox) are as a result of natural disasters other than flood. Volcanic erruptions are hands down the best. They kill EVERYTHING and bury it all under fine silt. Fantastic conditions for fossils. Fossil beds from the sea are also pretty good. Sediment tends to build up more slowly at the bottom of the ocean compaired to the bottom of a mountain range. As a result, more dead animals per foot. But no great flood is going to cause a huge bed of underwater fossils.6) "The fossils give evidence that the animals were killed suddenly." In volcanic beds, sure. But for most fossils, cause of death is unknown. You can't look at one leg bone and two vertabrae and tell me that that dinosaur must have drowned.So, six points made, five of them very false. The last one ambiguous (isn't the moment of death always sudden? You are alive, then you are dead). I'd say over all, a very bad quote.

If a supernatural event affects the real world then those effects can be determined and measured by wholly natural means.
In other words the actual flood would have been natural in nature, no matter what it's cause.
Unless all evidence of this natural flood were carefully wiped away by supernatural means (entirely possible I suppose), it would have left absolutely loads of very obvious evidence behind.Where is it?

I would call that rare. I am sure they didn't mean that. 50 years does not make a fossil. You mean when the dinosaurs died, they weren't in the same layer of sediment? And if they did die at the same relative time, and they are not found in the same layer, then all fossils do not have to be in the same layer to be from the same time. The earth is shifting all the time, messing with the layers. I know this is only to a point, and not a rule. What if every living thing was washed into the ocean, and buried there, and we just haven't found it yet? Hey a truth from you too. I hate it when they speculate on what caused the death of something millions of years old. But it is interesting to think about it.