A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?

[LittlePig]

And I can't think of any reason you would make the comment you made if you weren't suggesting that the find favored your view of a worldwide flood.

Umm, because simply it's a better explanation? And the fact that it's more consistent with the Flood Model doesn't hurt either.

Except, of course, it isn't consistent with a 'Flood Model', since it isn't mixed in with any animals that we know are modern.

Before the rabbits multiply beyond control, I'll just leave my proposal as a rapid burial. Nothing more than that. For this thread, it can just be a giant mud slide.

Since it's still spring time, let's let the rabbits multiply.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

4) Have Global Flood Models ever been subjected to a formal peer review process?

[micatala]

If the stratas were formed over a period of millions of years, where's the evidence in the stratas that erosion, folds, faults, etc have occurred during that time?

Here's one:


From Wiki on Geologic Disconformities

On the bottom, the layers were laid horizontally (of course); Eventually, through faulting and folding, ended up vertical. Then they were overlaid by more layers of different rock.

OK, let's look at this and see if we can come up with the sequence of events.

I see two major strata sequences. In the bottom right running from 5 to 11 o' clock (section A). And the middle left running from 8 to 2 o' clock (section B).

In the FM, all parallel layers were created first. Then the layers were displaced. So, the FM can account for this.

What you propose is that section A was created horizontally. Then some forces caused it to be displaced and end up sideways. Then section B slowly formed by successive stratas deposited on section A. Yet, we see parallel layers at an angle on top of A. How could parallel stratas at an angle be formed?

Uhhh. I think the B layers were also formed horizontally, and then a second uplifting but these layers at an angle (and of course, changed the pre-existing angle of the A layers).

[perfessor]

Also not accounted for in the FM is the amount of time required for layers of mud and silt to harden into rock. Evidently quite some time passed between the two layering processes, since the vertical layers were rock before the second set of layers went down. How much time, Otseng? SG says millions of years.

[Scotracer]

Also not accounted for in the FM is the amount of time required for layers of mud and silt to harden into rock. Evidently quite some time passed between the two layering processes, since the vertical layers were rock before the second set of layers went down. How much time, Otseng? SG says millions of years.

I mentioned this a while back, as if it was all laid down in a single event we'd see a phenomenon called "Graded Bedding". Otseng hasn't accounted for this yet.

[Grumpy]

otseng

But why did all the layers get formed underwater first, and then the entire sequence got uplifted after all the layers formed? What would cause such an uplift? Why is there no bending or folding evident? How could the entire area have gotten uplifted without bending?

Actually, in this case, it was the sea levels that dropped when the Atlantic ocean started seperating Euope and the North American continent along the Mid-Atlantic ridge(a process that continues to this day)...

"The Chalk of NW Europe was deposited on the continental shelf during the earliest stages of the opening of the Atlantic Ocean (Biscay to Labradore opening at the beginning of Chalk deposition) . The sea level was much higher than the present day with the Chalk of Kent typically being deposited in a depth range of 100-300m. The sea levels varied through its deposition. However, not all Chalk was deposited at this depth with some marginal (shallow) marine deposits being recorded both in Devon and NW France.

The Chalk often shows a distinctive cyclicity (on a 1m or so scale) which has been linked to variation in the climate at the time of deposition (Milankovitch cycles).

The lack of coarser clastic material in the majority of the Chalk, with quartz being most common in the clay size grade, indicates clear seas with minimal eroded products being transported from the landmasses at the time. Indeed, much of the clay sized quartz and clay may be airborn and of volcanic origin."

http://www.geologyshop.co.uk/chalk.htm

Scotracer wrote:
You said virtually all strata were formed in one instant. Chalk takes millions of years to form (and that's a fact) so how is this at all possible?.

It's not a fact. It's a theory.

No, it is a fact, the amount of material indicates hundreds of millions of years, so does the chemical changes that have occurred as well as the radioactive dating. The fossils in the lowest levels are very different from those in upper layers, in fact upper layers contain sharks teeth and crustacean fossil while the lowest layers do not. This indicates the time of formation spanned a time of AT LEAST 200 million years.

The evidence is not as simple as you seem to think, the facts do not support your contentions. Each situation requires it's own evaluation, taking into account the geolocical history of the site. Your simplistic predictions have no basis in reality.

Grumpy

[otseng]

Uhhh. I think the B layers were also formed horizontally, and then a second uplifting but these layers at an angle (and of course, changed the pre-existing angle of the A layers).

That would make more sense.

I haven't really studied Siccar Point, but I'd like to continue discussions on it.

Here are some wider angle views of the unconformity.


http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/undergraduate/ ... pview.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sicca ... _slope.jpg

From these pictures, the section A layers comprise the vast majority of the rocks in the area. And section B is only a small part.

Section A appears to be quite large. The stratas in section A seems that it would be the same sequence to the left of section B and the outcrop to the right of section B.

Also, if you extend section B to the right, it would appear that it would intersect the outcrop to the right of it.

[Grumpy]

otseng

From these pictures, the section A layers comprise the vast majority of the rocks in the area. And section B is only a small part.

Section A appears to be quite large. The stratas in section A seems that it would be the same sequence to the left of section B and the outcrop to the right of section B.

Also, if you extend section B to the right, it would appear that it would intersect the outcrop to the right of it.

But you will also note another section of vertical strata to the left of the horizontal strata on the right. It would seem that the vertical strata were laid down before being tilted, then the horizontal strata were laid down on top after that. A perfect example of the point I made about it being impossible that all strata were laid down at one time(not to mention radioactive dating, fossil grouping and chemical and physical differences between layers that CANNOT be explained by flood).

Geological formations cannot be simply explained by a mythical worldwide flood. Geological evidence cannot be twisted to fit religious beliefs, it must be accepted as we find it. And ignoring my posts will not cause me to stop pointing out the falacies of your statements.

Grumpy

[Scotracer]

otseng, how do you account for the Northern British landscape where it is universally accepted by geologists to have been formed into it's current state in the last ice age? The features that exist are not possible via a flood:

U-shaped valleys



Corries



Aretes



Pyramidal Peak



Erratics



Moraine



These are all perfectly accounted for by Glacial Geology and evident through out northern Britain (particularly the Scottish Highlands). A flood could never produce these. And it is known that the last Ice Age covered all of Northern Britain. So...where does your flood come into this?

[otseng]

And ignoring my posts will not cause me to stop pointing out the falacies of your statements.

Wait, so it's OK to ignore and avoid my only single prediction, and I have to answer all the questions on geological formations thrown by everyone?

[Grumpy]

otseng

Wait, so it's OK to ignore and avoid my only single prediction, and I have to answer all the questions on geological formations thrown by everyone?

I have not ignored your predictions, I have falsified them as being entirely too simplistic and in no way universal or specific to every situation(which you proceeded to ignore). The geological history of Earth is much too varied and dependent on local conditions for any such prediction to be true worldwide. Each case requires careful study. I pointed out that the strata seen in the Grand Canyon consist of soils eroded from the Appalachian Mountains and layed down on the sea bed over millenia, before sea levels dropped and the Colorado River carved the canyon into them.

It seems you are very careful not to address points that do not support your contentions, such points are greeted with silence.

Grumpy

[FinalEnigma]

otseng

Wait, so it's OK to ignore and avoid my only single prediction, and I have to answer all the questions on geological formations thrown by everyone?

I have not ignored your predictions, I have falsified them as being entirely too simplistic and in no way universal or specific to every situation(which you proceeded to ignore). The geological history of Earth is much too varied and dependent on local conditions for any such prediction to be true worldwide. Each case requires careful study. I pointed out that the strata seen in the Grand Canyon consist of soils eroded from the Appalachian Mountains and layed down on the sea bed over millenia, before sea levels dropped and the Colorado River carved the canyon into them.

It seems you are very careful not to address points that do not support your contentions, such points are greeted with silence.

Grumpy

Is that really fair, grumpy?

Hes debating one person versus about eight and doing a better job of responding to your points than you guys did his. it took almost 20 pages for his prediction to even be responded to, and it was on page two, and he patiently asked that it be addressed repeatedly.

Personally I don't know enough about geology to debate this, but I am interested and have been following. I provisionally disagree with Otseng, but I think you are being a little unfair.