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?

[Scotracer]

A gentleman on youtube made a couple of videos showing how the flood was impossible and even shows us an experiment to prove it. I found these long ago and figure id share. It focuses exclusively on the sedimentary evidence.

Noahs Flood Debunked pt. 1

Noahs flood debunked pt. 2

I think I actually presented these videos on Page 2 or something

Potholer54 was created from the very best win.

[micatala]

However, how you are suggesting the standard model 'should behave and predict' is something other than what we see. In other words, you are priming the thought experiment to favor the FM, rather than look at the real world evidence.

Yes, I'm suggesting how standard geology "should behave and predict". As well as for the FM. If one disagrees with my predictions, then please provide another version.

We have not got to the real world evidence yet. And that is the nature of predictions. The predictions should come from the models. And then they can be compared to the empirical data. If they match, then it shows the validity of the model. If they do not match, then the model is not correct.

But, let's not jump ahead yet to the real world data and first come to a consensus on the predictions.

The claim I believe is that all the strata is caused by the flood.

That is correct.

I was just browsing back and thought I would bring this up to clarify previous claims. otseng has now hedged a bit on this, but did at one point allow all the strata were caused by the flood.

[Goat]

However, how you are suggesting the standard model 'should behave and predict' is something other than what we see. In other words, you are priming the thought experiment to favor the FM, rather than look at the real world evidence.

Yes, I'm suggesting how standard geology "should behave and predict". As well as for the FM. If one disagrees with my predictions, then please provide another version.

We have not got to the real world evidence yet. And that is the nature of predictions. The predictions should come from the models. And then they can be compared to the empirical data. If they match, then it shows the validity of the model. If they do not match, then the model is not correct.

But, let's not jump ahead yet to the real world data and first come to a consensus on the predictions.

The claim I believe is that all the strata is caused by the flood.

That is correct.

I was just browsing back and through I would bring this up to clarify previous claims. otseng has now hedged a bit on this, but did at one point allow all the strata were caused by the flood.

I have to wonder if all strata is created by the flood, how you can have strata of desert being sandwhiched between strata of shallow sea, such as you find in the grand canyon area.

I also have to wonder how you can carve out a huge gash in the earth via the flood, and lay down the very strata that it is cutting through at the same time.

[micatala]

However, how you are suggesting the standard model 'should behave and predict' is something other than what we see. In other words, you are priming the thought experiment to favor the FM, rather than look at the real world evidence.

Yes, I'm suggesting how standard geology "should behave and predict". As well as for the FM. If one disagrees with my predictions, then please provide another version.

We have not got to the real world evidence yet. And that is the nature of predictions. The predictions should come from the models. And then they can be compared to the empirical data. If they match, then it shows the validity of the model. If they do not match, then the model is not correct.

But, let's not jump ahead yet to the real world data and first come to a consensus on the predictions.

The claim I believe is that all the strata is caused by the flood.

That is correct.

I was just browsing back and through I would bring this up to clarify previous claims. otseng has now hedged a bit on this, but did at one point allow all the strata were caused by the flood.

I have to wonder if all strata is created by the flood, how you can have strata of desert being sandwhiched between strata of shallow sea, such as you find in the grand canyon area.

I also have to wonder how you can carve out a huge gash in the earth via the flood, and lay down the very strata that it is cutting through at the same time.

Yes, I outlined the first of these in my longer post above. We have alternating marine and non-marine environments represented in the layers. In some of the marine environments in the upper layers we find ancient life that would have lived on the oottom of the sea. Even with a lot of turbulence, it is not reasonable to think these would have ended up in higher layers than more mobile marine creatures and land creatures.

In addition, if there was a lot of turbulence, you would not have been able to form shale. Shale forms from very small particles which take a long time to settle out. The sand, as in for example the Coconino sandstone, would settle much more quickly. If this was all one flood, the sand in general should be below the shales, but again, this is not what we see.

[micatala]

For future reference, here is a site on limestone. It discusses how limestone forms and the various kinds of limestone.

http://geology.com/rocks/limestone.shtml

Note that limestone is over 50% calcium carbonate.

How would a flood chemically separate out this compound into horizontal layers and avoid having it mixed with the sand and other detritus of a flood?

[otseng]

It seems to me that you are going to a leap of logic between some pieces of mineral forming on eggs, and tissue being fossilized.

Tissue fossilization is even more problematic. Tissue decays much faster than bones. So, fossilization would have to occur even faster if fossilized tissue is present.

That is not the
concensus of the scientists. What it means is that there was a low oxygen environment and decay did not happen due to the environmental conditions.

Now your turn. Please support this claim. Where do we see low oxygen environments and that decay do not occur? What evidence shows that fossils formed in these environments?

Well... lets look at that very article you quoted.


Bacteria naturally present in all the samples fed on available nutrients, including the eggs. In less than a day, that activity robbed the water of its oxygen and the bacteria died, so no further decomposition occurred.

As you've noted, this is in a laboratory environment. This is not an example of where we see natural environments where decay does not occur. Also, again, what evidence shows that fossils formed in environments where decay could not occur?

You basically are showing this one guy made a claim.. but making a claim is different that backing up a claim.

Another evidence for rapid fossilization.

A hot spring water lake in Tateyama Hot Spring has a high content of silica and readily precipitates silica spheres and deposits of opal. Abundant fragments of naturally fallen wood impregnated with silica were found in the overflow stream of the lake. These silicifications resulted from the precipitation of silica spheres onto split surfaces or cell walls of the fallen wood. The textures of wood tissues are the same as those found on naturally silicified wood formed in the vicinity of volcanic regions in the geological record. These results explain the formation mechanism of certain naturally silicified wood fragments that seem to be formed under the same conditions as those found in the hot spring water.

To confirm the silicification process, fresh wood pieces of alder wood (Alnus pendula Matsumura) were placed in the hot spring water stream. Experimental wood fragments were silicified to nearly 40% by weight over a period of 7 years by the deposition of amorphous silica spheres in cell lumina of wood tissue.

This study reveals that silicified wood can form under suitable conditions in time periods as short as tens to hundreds of years, and contributes to the understanding of the mechanisms forming silicified wood.

Rapid wood silicification in hot spring water: an explanation of silicification of wood during the Earth's history

[otseng]

I see the FM as a better explanation than the SG.

Ok, but with all due respect, your opinion on this, just like mine, is irrelevant.

I agree that simple assertions are irrelevant. And I hope others will be reminded of this when they as well simply give the assertion that SG is correct and the FM is false.

But, in my context, it's not simply an isolated assertion. I'm comparing SG and the FM in accounting for marine fossils on the top of the major mountains.

Since marine fossils are found on all mountains, this fits with the FM. Why would it be that in SG, that all mountains were at one time underwater recently? The fossils are found at the top of the mountains. So, the most recently deposited layer was underwater. And then all the mountains rose since that time.

Underwater recently? Says who?

Well, let's take Mount Everest. On the top is marine limestone. Marine limestone indicates that it was once underwater.

In his wonderful book "Basin and Range," John McPhee wrote, "When the climbers in 1953 planted their flags on the highest mountain, they set them in snow over the skeletons of creatures that had lived in the warm clear ocean that India, moving north, blanked out. Possibly as much as twenty thousand feet below the seafloor, the skeletal remains had turned into rock. This one fact is a treatise in itself on the movements of the surface of the earth. If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone."

http://geology.about.com/library/bl/peaks/bleverest.htm

Also, it is impossible for a flood and mountain uprising to happen in the time you have provided.

According to SG, yes, it would not be plausible because it states plate tectonic movement is slow. In the FM, plate movement is fast.

Or it might not be "reworked", but that the dating of the fossils are incorrect.

Thats awfully brazen of you to say especially since you are not a geologist or a biologist or a physicist. You are also saying that the laws of physics are incorrect as well. You must be one smart cookie!

Thank you, I'll take that as a compliment.

In terms of "reworked" fossils, until evidence can be provided that they were indeed reworked, it sounds awfully ad-hocish to me.

How long it takes to form a fossil resin is disputable and not conclusive.

Actualy, its resin that forms amber, and its not disputeable.

For all practical purposes, the hardened resin, or amber, is a "plastic". Just when the resin becomes amber, or a fossil, is not defined, and is perhaps not definable. It is even contentious, since fossil resin is a commercial product in a competitive market. Younger amber is often called copal, though it is essentially as hard and its physical properties differ little from older resins.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Tree_of_Lif ... lAmber.htm

All this says its the transition points between resin-copal-amber is not exactly clear. It in no way says we cant tell the amber is really old, or that we cant tell its not resin.

If the "physical properties differ little", how can you tell if it's old?

[otseng]

Now your turn. Please support this claim. Where do we see low oxygen environments and that decay do not occur?

Wetlands. Anerobic zones are all over wetlands. Certain lakes, there are lakes right around me which are geologically unique in that they do not "over-turn" meaning they are anerobic on the bottom and things decompose REALLY slowly.

Several things:

- Even in anaerobic conditions, things still can decay.
- How do things get rapidly buried in a wetland?
- How do birds get rapidly buried? When they die, birds do not sink.
- How can dinosaurs get rapidly buried in a wetland?
- Is there geological evidence of it being a wetland in the rock record? A wetland would be lower than the dry land so shouldn't this be seen in rocks?

What evidence shows that fossils formed in these environments?

The types of rocks they are found in.

Yes, go on.

Anytime someone wants to move on to biology/ecology Im game, mostly since Im sort of close to being an "expert" in that area.

I believe your area of expertise is dendrochronology. And I also believe we still have some outstanding issues regarding that that need further clarification.

[nygreenguy]

- Even in anaerobic conditions, things still can decay.

Dude, you couldnt tell that was an artificial setting? Were talking about nature here. You cant argue this, its a simple ecological fact. Now, its not absolute, things do decay in anaerobic conditions but its very, very, very slow.

- How do things get rapidly buried in a wetland?

you said:

Please support this claim. Where do we see low oxygen environments and that decay do not occur?

Now you are shifting the goalposts to they have to be buried? You only said low o2 environments. Wetlands are know for having tens of thousand year old peat, some of which is still identifiable.

- How do birds get rapidly buried? When they die, birds do not sink.

Who said they have to be dead? That's quite an assumption. If you were to die, you would float as well. For a while. Even birds will sink. Especially the more primitive ones which had denser bones.

- How can dinosaurs get rapidly buried in a wetland?

Once again, switching the goalposts.

However, dinos could get buried just like I almost did which is by sinking right through the peat. This is far from uncommon. We have come across some pretty gross stuff coring peat.

There also those who fall into the mud and cant get out.

Also, who says we need anaerobic conditions for fossilization?

- Is there geological evidence of it being a wetland in the rock record? A wetland would be lower than the dry land so shouldn't this be seen in rocks?

Wetlands are not always lower than dry lands. Also, you do realize the "rock" record includes sedimentary rock which were, by definition, laid down in wet areas, right?

osteng, if you wanna debate science, you better get it straight!

Anytime someone wants to move on to biology/ecology Im game, mostly since Im sort of close to being an "expert" in that area.

I believe your area of expertise is dendrochronology. And I also believe we still have some outstanding issues regarding that that need further clarification.

My "area of expertise" is botany. I just happen to do dendrochronology for money. And no, there are no further dendro issues.

[Goat]

It seems to me that you are going to a leap of logic between some pieces of mineral forming on eggs, and tissue being fossilized.

Tissue fossilization is even more problematic. Tissue decays much faster than bones. So, fossilization would have to occur even faster if fossilized tissue is present.

Not in a low oxygen environment. That has been shown again and again,that there are conditions where tissue does not decay. For example, the body found in a bog
where the tissue was perfectly preserved was a victim of druid sacrifice from around 200 c.e. No fossilization had occurred. and no decomposition of the body had occurred either. It's rare, but fossilization in general is rare too.