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?

[Goat]

How is that different that how the Standard Model predicts It?

Has anyone offered what SG predicts what it should look like? No. And I've been asking this since the very beginning of this thread. Since no prediction has been given, the FM differs in that it is the only model that predicts it.

Show the work, and show the article that explains how that structure is 'predicted' by the FM.

The images confirm my prediction that I offered since the very beginning. What article are you asking for me to produce?

Well, let's see.

When you said that 'This is evidence of the FM', you didn't explain how it is evidence of a flood model.

I explain to you what we see in our current day observations, and that is one of the pieces of evidence that lead to the theory of plate teutonics.

Tell me.. what is the mechianism of the FM that would produce that, and what kind of modern day observations can you show these forces at work?

Can you show me evidence of the billion cubic miles of water needed to come up from the depths of the earth for the FM to be true?

[otseng]

"Standard Geology" is the accepted science and as such, it doesn't have to make the predictions.

It doesn't need to make predictions? Are you saying it has no predictive power?

It can quite easily explain all of the pictures you have shown.

By all means then present the argument of why practically all normal faults extend to the top.

If standard geology was wrong, we'd throw it out.

It's not quite that simple.

But I guess you are amongst other creationists who claim it's one big conspiracy?

I'm not arguing if it's a conspiracy. I'm simply arguing that the data fits the FM better than SG.

The strata issue was brought up weeks if not months ago.

A lot of issues have been brought up weeks/months ago. And I've addressed several of them in depth. I grant that there are several that have not been fully addressed yet. But, I'm only one guy and with an extremely limited amount of free time. So humor me a bit as we try to tackle this issue of the strata prediction.

[otseng]

Can we not expect a little honesty from you?

Ad hominem.

As we've covered already, SG offers no prediction. You cannot say that it is consistent with any prediction when no prediction for SG has been offered.

This statement just is not true and you know it(or at least you should). I have offered to make predictions about any specific set of forces and their history at any specific site of your choice. These are the ONLY valid predictions that can be made(as I have pointed out many times in this thread).

We've covered this already. We view what is a prediction differently. For me, a prediction is based on the model, not on explaining observed data. I believe that this is also the standard view of what is a scientific prediction. So, if you look at the data at a particular point, and then offer an explanation, it's not a prediction.

But, you can explain these then. Why do practically all normal faults that we see extend to the top-most strata? Why do folds affect all stratas and not just lower layers? Why do we see little erosion between stratas but see a lot of erosion only after all the layers are formed?

[otseng]

When you said that 'This is evidence of the FM', you didn't explain how it is evidence of a flood model.

The general patten that we see in the sedimentary stratas is a particular sequence of events. We see layers deposited first. Between the layers there is little to no evidence of erosion. For places with folding, the bending affects all the layers. Then we see erosion that affects all the layers. And if we see normal faults, they also cut through all the layers.

The argument that I'm making is that the FM predicts this from the model. Whereas SG does not offer a prediction. Since the data confirms the FM prediction, the FM is a better explanation than SG.

[Scotracer]

"Standard Geology" is the accepted science and as such, it doesn't have to make the predictions.

It doesn't need to make predictions? Are you saying it has no predictive power?

Of course not. What I'm saying is that it is new models that make predictions en route to them being accepted as the accurate model of reality. "SG" has already done this and evolved a lot since then.

It can quite easily explain all of the pictures you have shown.

By all means then present the argument of why practically all normal faults extend to the top.

I shall do so.

If standard geology was wrong, we'd throw it out.

It's not quite that simple.

Well generally, if the model partly works we wont throw it out until we have one that better suits the data...but unfortunately the flood model has these glaring errors that have not (and perhaps cannot) been accounted for. If you want to know which I'm talking about, they include (but not limited to):

-Strata/fossil uniform ordering
-Closed hydrological cycle
-Lack of confirming geological features

And many others...

But I guess you are amongst other creationists who claim it's one big conspiracy?

I'm not arguing if it's a conspiracy. I'm simply arguing that the data fits the FM better than SG.

Well you're certainly the only one proposing such.

The strata issue was brought up weeks if not months ago.

A lot of issues have been brought up weeks/months ago. And I've addressed several of them in depth. I grant that there are several that have not been fully addressed yet. But, I'm only one guy and with an extremely limited amount of free time. So humor me a bit as we try to tackle this issue of the strata prediction.

I have been...but we've got to a point where you are presenting the same argument over and over again despite Grumpy's excellent rebuttals of it. For this reason I haven't posted much in this thread recently - it just hasn't moved on in weeks.

[Grumpy]

otseng

It can quite easily explain all of the pictures you have shown.

By all means then present the argument of why practically all normal faults extend to the top.

Because they are on a FAULT LINE!!! And faults are not one time things, they are long time (history) forces(forces), they rarely dissappear and they affect all the layers above them. The San Andreas fault in California is an example that is active today(no flood lately). The Madrid fault in the upper Mississippi is another example of a long term fault. These forces are seen every day, they are not the result of mythical, Biblical floods.

If standard geology was wrong, we'd throw it out.

It's not quite that simple.

Of course it is. Einstein came along and overturned the great Newton almost overnight. Einstein had the facts, FM does not. Standard Geology is the standard because it works very well indeed, just ask the oil companies.

I'm not arguing if it's a conspiracy. I'm simply arguing that the data fits the FM better than SG.

And you are simply wrong.

Grumpy

[micatala]

Can we not expect a little honesty from you?

Ad hominem.

I would agree speculating "dishonesty" is not appropriate.

On the other hand, I think it is fair to say that otseng is mistaken in saying no predictions based on the SG have been offered. As I recall, I have offered at least some cursory predictions. I also believe it is fair for grumpy to note that he has been willing to make predictions, just not fitting the parameters laid down by otseng for these predictions.

As we've covered already, SG offers no prediction. You cannot say that it is consistent with any prediction when no prediction for SG has been offered.

This statement just is not true and you know it(or at least you should). I have offered to make predictions about any specific set of forces and their history at any specific site of your choice. These are the ONLY valid predictions that can be made(as I have pointed out many times in this thread).

We've covered this already. We view what is a prediction differently. For me, a prediction is based on the model, not on explaining observed data. I believe that this is also the standard view of what is a scientific prediction. So, if you look at the data at a particular point, and then offer an explanation, it's not a prediction.

I think we can find examples of predictions that fit both descriptions.

However, when a model or its predictions, either one, run counter to observed data, then the model is discarded. This is the problem I have with the FM. The FM is inconsistent with the following (some of these depend on the hypothesized date of a global flood):

1) No salt on ice caps over Greenland and elsewhere. otseng has explained this by saying the ice caps formed after the flood. This does not work, since we can date, in a number of different ways, the layers in the ice caps. The data falsifies a flood within roughly the last 100,000 years.

2) THe fossil record. I brought up trilobites as well as other more immobile sea life. We never find trilobites past layers date, as I recall, about 265 million years ago. WE find trilobites all over the world in various kinds of ancient habitats. Above trilobites we find animals like sea urchins that live on sea floors. If all these fossils were buried by the flood, how did the trilobites get under the sea urchins, and often many hundred of feet under them? This makes absolutely no sense.

Now, the response has been, as I recall, that the habitats might have been different. Trilobites just didn't live where the sea urchins did. otseng asked for a 3-d map of the fossils of the world. I wish I had one. Still, I believe I did provide an example of fossils that can be found in the same vertical location including trilobites which provide a counter example. If you insist, I will try to relocate it.

3) The layers in the Williston Basin.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/


Just one example of many in this fairly long article is the salt layers found.

There are 11 separate salt beds scattered through four ages: 2 Jurassic Salt beds, 1 Permian salt bed, 7 Mississippian salt beds, and one thick devonian salt. Half of these salt beds are up to 200 feet thick. The top Mississippian salt is 96% pure sodium chloride! Since they are sandwiched between other sediments, to explain them on the basis of a global, one-year flood, requires a mechanism by which undersaturated sea water can dump its salt. If the sea were super-saturated during the flood, the no fish would have survived.

I think it is fair to say it is pointless to consider predictions of a model, like the FM, when the model is so radically inconsistent with such a wealth of data.

Can otseng explain how the FM can account for not only the multiple salt layers cited here, but the characteristics of the many intervening layers, all of which can be found in one geographic location?

But, you can explain these then. Why do practically all normal faults that we see extend to the top-most strata? Why do folds affect all stratas and not just lower layers? Why do we see little erosion between stratas but see a lot of erosion only after all the layers are formed?

I would point out that all the examples cited are close to the surface. Based on the data provided, we in fact do not know that there are not folds and faults that only affect some of the strata. These would only be found, or at least could reasonably be assumed to mostly be found, in buried strata.

And besides, grumpy has claimed that the Appallachians do contain examples of the kind otseng claims are not found. If otseng wants to challenge this claim for evidence, that is fine.

In fact, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of ... anyon_area for a picture of the geological layers in the grand canyon. Is this not exactly the kind of example otseng has been asking for?


How could the FM explain these layers?



[/img]

[Grumpy]

otseng

We've covered this already. We view what is a prediction differently. For me, a prediction is based on the model, not on explaining observed data.

You are confusing a prophecy(prediction without foreknowledge) with scientific prediction(prediction based on the history and forces of a particular area).

I believe that this is also the standard view of what is a scientific prediction.

I KNOW that you are wrong.

So, if you look at the data at a particular point, and then offer an explanation, it's not a prediction.

Not the data, the history and forces acting on the area to create the data. The prediction is about the data that can be expected to be found. The prediction is based on the history and forces and cannot be made without knowing them.

But, you can explain these then. Why do practically all normal faults that we see extend to the top-most strata?

Because they are over a fault line and every time the fault moves it affects all the layers.

Why do folds affect all stratas and not just lower layers?

Who is claiming that they do? I see folding on top of unfolded layers every day from my car. I also see folded layers covered by smooth layering and combinations therof.

Why do we see little erosion between stratas but see a lot of erosion only after all the layers are formed?

Change of climate and forces over time(history). The plains the Grand Canyon was cut into formed under shallow seas over millions of years. Then forces forced the plain to start rising, at the same time the seas receeded to be replaced by the Colorado River which, in it's meandering, cut the plain into the form we see today.

History and forces. Never make predictions without them.

Grumpy

[Goat]

When you said that 'This is evidence of the FM', you didn't explain how it is evidence of a flood model.

The general patten that we see in the sedimentary stratas is a particular sequence of events. We see layers deposited first. Between the layers there is little to no evidence of erosion. For places with folding, the bending affects all the layers. Then we see erosion that affects all the layers. And if we see normal faults, they also cut through all the layers.

The argument that I'm making is that the FM predicts this from the model. Whereas SG does not offer a prediction. Since the data confirms the FM prediction, the FM is a better explanation than SG.

Except, of course, if you look at other samples, you see your 'prediction' is wrong in other places.

For example, we see sedimentary strata in a particular sequence in the Grand Canyon, but, it seems there is a contradiction there. The FM states says the strata was laid down by the flood, and the grand canyon was created by the flood.
Yet, it is impossile to lay down strata and erode them at the same time.

FM falsified

[otseng]

By all means then present the argument of why practically all normal faults extend to the top.

Because they are on a FAULT LINE!!! And faults are not one time things, they are long time (history) forces(forces), they rarely dissappear and they affect all the layers above them.

So, suppose a fault happened 50 mya. And it had stratas A,B,C at the time of the fault. There would be a fault extending through stratas A,B,C. 25 mil years elapses and strata D forms on top of ABC. Another 25 my elapses and strata E forms on top of ABCD. So when another fault occurs, it would occur exactly along the original fault line of ABC?