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?

[nygreenguy]

No, it's a strawman argument. The global flood would not be this simplistic. There are many other factors that would also need to be considered.

Says who? You cant use the work of contemporary hydrologists because they all believe a flood was impossible. You are trying to make us rules and operations for something which you know nothing about.

Also, we can look at ANY flood and study how those operate. This is how science works, if we cant totally recreate the event, we look at similar events and how they operate. His example shows how most floods operate and instead of providing any evidence on how he is wrong (since his opinion is that also of the scientific community) the burden is on you to show HOW it is wrong.

Around 6:00, they do an additional experiment by adding different layers on top of each other. Yet, where did these sediments come from to form these new layers? Especially if it is of a different composition than the layer below it? For example, if an exposed layer is shale and sandstone is deposited above it, where did the sand come from? Also, even in this small example, layers are not parallel. Yet, when we see actual stratas, layers are parallel. To form parallel layers, the deposits must have been evenly spread out over large sections. How could this happen?

he explained it

How did he explain them?[/quote][/quote] By saying them outloud in the video.

[micatala]

Moderator Intervention

From post #835

we know BS when we smell it

Please avoid the personal remarks and incivility.

[micatala]

Around 4:00, they do one experiment by mixing all types of sediments together. This would not be the same situation as during the flood. It would not be just a one-time mixture of everything dumped at one time to settle in one day.

its an example of what happens when mixed sediment DOES settle, just like in a flood.

No, it's a strawman argument. The global flood would not be this simplistic. There are many other factors that would also need to be considered.

Throughout this thread, especially early on, you touted the ability of the FM to make global predictions and have criticized the SG for making predictions based on local conditions.

Now, when presented with a particular situation that is hugely inconsistent with the FM, you plead that there are complications and special situations that arise within the FM. You allude to "other factors" but provide zero evidence that these other factors could have and did occur.

It seems you are simply waving away the evidence with vague and unsubstantiated "other factors and forces."

If we are comparing which model better explains the evidence the FM is now lagging way way behind. We have:

1) No compelling evidence the chambers of the deep ever existed. Only one piece of evidence that is not really any more consistent with the FM than the SG.

2) No evidence that the FM techtonic movement mechanism based on water pushing continents or plates apart can work.

3) Unclear argument as to whether the water could even exist under the crust. Evidence has been provided that water under that much pressure would be superheated, even if it could hold up the crust, and would come and "poach" the entire world.

4) No evidence, only the assumption, that tall mountains did not exist prior to the hypothetical flood.

5) No evidence, only questions, that ice core dating is invalid. Ample evidence has been provided that ice core dating has been checked by multiple other dating methods. The criticism is that non-experts cannot properly interpret the evidence and so it is somehow suspect as a result.

6) The fossil evidence represented by the grand canyon is addressed by saying that the fossils found migrated to that area from elsewhere and that somehow, this explains why absolutely no organisms that the SG dates after 250 million years ago made it into the grand canyon.

I will point out that this argument would need to repeated all over the world. I have provided links showing trilobites exist all over the world, not just in the grand canyon, and they are never found with any life dating later than 250 million years. Even if we don't accept the dating, we still have no dinosaurs, no mammals, no modern fish, no modern marine life, no birds, no humans, no flowering plants with trilobites.

7) We are asked to believe that the global flood both covers all the land, but that there are also periods where at least some of the land is above water during the flood.

8) I don't recall that we had any coherent explanation for the iridium layer.

9) No coherent explanation has been given how a global flood could sort rocks into alternating layers of sandstone, shale, limestone, some from marine environements and some not. We are asked to believe that "tidal forces" and other localized phenomenon operated to produce these layers. This is, as yet, no explanation at all. How does moving water, no matter what the cause, sort different rocks and, as with the iridium layer, different chemical elements from one another?????




For either model we could ask:

1) Is there data inconsistent with the model. I can't see how we can give any other answer than yes for the FM. SG no.

2) Are there questions that have not been answered by either model. FM yes. SG yes. Not answering every question, however, is not proof the model is in error. For nearly any model, there will be questions not currently answered by the model. These questions, while interesting, are not as relevant as data which presents a direct challenge to a model.

3) Does the model depend on forces and phenomenon that we can observe today? SG yes. FM no. WE cannot observe chambers of the deep today. We have not had a global flood in modern times. We have not had a water canopy. We have never observed water causing techtonic movement or mountain building. We have never observed floods producing the kinds of geological layers we see.


And all this is after we give the FM the benefit of the doubt by not simply trumping it with the completely overwhelming consensus of scientists from multiple fields of inquiry.

[T-mash]

This topic baffles me......
There are people who actually believe in the biblical flood and Noah's story?

[nygreenguy]

This topic baffles me......
There are people who actually believe in the biblical flood and Noah's story?

theres a whole post on it.

[Scotracer]

Around 4:00, they do one experiment by mixing all types of sediments together. This would not be the same situation as during the flood. It would not be just a one-time mixture of everything dumped at one time to settle in one day.

its an example of what happens when mixed sediment DOES settle, just like in a flood.

No, it's a strawman argument. The global flood would not be this simplistic. There are many other factors that would also need to be considered.

Throughout this thread, especially early on, you touted the ability of the FM to make global predictions and have criticized the SG for making predictions based on local conditions.

Now, when presented with a particular situation that is hugely inconsistent with the FM, you plead that there are complications and special situations that arise within the FM. You allude to "other factors" but provide zero evidence that these other factors could have and did occur.

It seems you are simply waving away the evidence with vague and unsubstantiated "other factors and forces."

If we are comparing which model better explains the evidence the FM is now lagging way way behind. We have:

1) No compelling evidence the chambers of the deep ever existed. Only one piece of evidence that is not really any more consistent with the FM than the SG.

2) No evidence that the FM techtonic movement mechanism based on water pushing continents or plates apart can work.

3) Unclear argument as to whether the water could even exist under the crust. Evidence has been provided that water under that much pressure would be superheated, even if it could hold up the crust, and would come and "poach" the entire world.

4) No evidence, only the assumption, that tall mountains did not exist prior to the hypothetical flood.

5) No evidence, only questions, that ice core dating is invalid. Ample evidence has been provided that ice core dating has been checked by multiple other dating methods. The criticism is that non-experts cannot properly interpret the evidence and so it is somehow suspect as a result.

6) The fossil evidence represented by the grand canyon is addressed by saying that the fossils found migrated to that area from elsewhere and that somehow, this explains why absolutely no organisms that the SG dates after 250 million years ago made it into the grand canyon.

I will point out that this argument would need to repeated all over the world. I have provided links showing trilobites exist all over the world, not just in the grand canyon, and they are never found with any life dating later than 250 million years. Even if we don't accept the dating, we still have no dinosaurs, no mammals, no modern fish, no modern marine life, no birds, no humans, no flowering plants with trilobites.

7) We are asked to believe that the global flood both covers all the land, but that there are also periods where at least some of the land is above water during the flood.

8) I don't recall that we had any coherent explanation for the iridium layer.

9) No coherent explanation has been given how a global flood could sort rocks into alternating layers of sandstone, shale, limestone, some from marine environements and some not. We are asked to believe that "tidal forces" and other localized phenomenon operated to produce these layers. This is, as yet, no explanation at all. How does moving water, no matter what the cause, sort different rocks and, as with the iridium layer, different chemical elements from one another?????




For either model we could ask:

1) Is there data inconsistent with the model. I can't see how we can give any other answer than yes for the FM. SG no.

2) Are there questions that have not been answered by either model. FM yes. SG yes. Not answering every question, however, is not proof the model is in error. For nearly any model, there will be questions not currently answered by the model. These questions, while interesting, are not as relevant as data which presents a direct challenge to a model.

3) Does the model depend on forces and phenomenon that we can observe today? SG yes. FM no. WE cannot observe chambers of the deep today. We have not had a global flood in modern times. We have not had a water canopy. We have never observed water causing techtonic movement or mountain building. We have never observed floods producing the kinds of geological layers we see.


And all this is after we give the FM the benefit of the doubt by not simply trumping it with the completely overwhelming consensus of scientists from multiple fields of inquiry.

I'd back the above up with otseng's own admission earlier in the thread.

The flood dynamics would've been quite complicated with all sorts of factors involved - plate movement, crustal erosion, climate change, tidal forces, wind, rain, etc. Since we were not there and that there's been little research into this area, it would be hard to give any specifics of exactly what happened during the flood.

Then you do not have even the beginnings of a valid FM. Glad we finally got that straight.

Source

This topic is done. We've had 85 pages with no piece of evidence being proposed that can't be accounted for by geology and we're expected to drop it? I think I'll call my participation in this thread to an end.

[McCulloch]

This topic baffles me......
There are people who actually believe in the biblical flood and Noah's story?

Yes, in America the interference of religious dogma into the state of education is such that there are many who actually believe in the Biblical flood, or some close variation on it.

Answers In Genesis.org
General Flood topics

• Was There Really a Noahs Ark & Flood? (from The New Answers Book)
• Creation, Flood and coming fire
• Folded ferns
• Genesis and catastrophe (technical)
• Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood
• GlobalFlood.org (Dr. John Baumgardners work)
• Noah revisited
• Noah"The Man Who Trusted God
• The (second) greatest catastrophe of all time
• Still searching for the truth (review of National Geographic Channel Search for Noahs Ark special)

Does the Bible really claim that Noahs Flood was global? How do creationists answer critics who claim that the biblical account of Noahs Flood was merely localized, not worldwide?

• The bathtub ark
• The battle for creation in our conservative seminaries
• Biblical evidence for the universality of the Genesis Flood (Technical, Origins 22(2):58"73, 1995)
• Can Flood Geology Explain Thick Chalk Layers? (Technical)
• Church leader aghast at belief in a worldwide Flood?
• Did Noahs Flood cover the whole earth?
• Does Scripture require a global Flood?
• Flood cuts off Europe
• Grand Canyon?"what is the message?
• Ice cores vs the Flood (Technical)
• Noahs Flood Covered the Whole Earth
• Problems with a Global Flood? (Semi-Technical, by AiG scientist, published on the True Origins site)
• Proof of Noahs Flood at the Black Sea? What has Robert Ballard really found? (critique of Ballard, Pitman and Ryans fallacious identification)
• Seven reasons why we should not accept millions of years
• Six days or billions of years . . . Does it make any difference?
• Startling evidence for Noah's Flood
• They cant allow it!
• Two Fighting Dinosaurs?
• Warped earth
• Was Noah a Martian?
• Get Answers: Geology
• Get Answers: Fossils

Were the flood waters solely caused by rain, or something more? How could there be enough water to cover all the mountains? Was there a vapour canopy? What about catastrophic plate tectonics?

• Noahs Flood"what about all that water?
• Noahs Flood"Where did the water come from?
• Hypercanes: rainfall generators during the flood?
• Get Answers: Plate Tectonics

What did Noahs Ark look like? How did Noah and his family care for all the animals?

• Get Answers: Noahs Ark

How could freshwater fish and land plants have survived a global flood?

• How could fish survive the Genesis Flood? (ICR Impact article)
• What happened to land plants during the Flood? (ICR Impact article)

Can an approximate date for Noahs Flood be determined using the Bible?

• Creation Education: The Date of Noahs Flood [Ed. note: Ussher calculated a slightly different date of 2348 BC]
• The World: Born in 4004 BC? (Usshers date)

Also True Origins

These people really do think that they are doing science!

[otseng]

Normally, I try to respond to posts in order, but I'm going to jump to this one.

Throughout this thread, especially early on, you touted the ability of the FM to make global predictions and have criticized the SG for making predictions based on local conditions.

Actually, I have yet to see a prediction for the Grand Canyon.

Now, when presented with a particular situation that is hugely inconsistent with the FM, you plead that there are complications and special situations that arise within the FM.

I assume you are referring to this comment:
"However, now you are throwing in all sorts of factors that are seemingly going to create different types of layers in different places, yet all during the same flood. you are doing this to explain the particular data we find in the grand canyon."

Those factors (plate movement, crustal erosion, climate change, tidal forces, wind, rain, etc) is not something that is just "thrown in". These factors would certainly have existed during the global flood.

You allude to "other factors" but provide zero evidence that these other factors could have and did occur.

The "etc" is simply a statement that other forces could be involved that I'm unaware of.

1) No compelling evidence the chambers of the deep ever existed. Only one piece of evidence that is not really any more consistent with the FM than the SG.

OK, I will get to this next after fossils.

2) No evidence that the FM techtonic movement mechanism based on water pushing continents or plates apart can work.

Again, I'll present this next.

3) Unclear argument as to whether the water could even exist under the crust. Evidence has been provided that water under that much pressure would be superheated, even if it could hold up the crust, and would come and "poach" the entire world.

Even if it was superheated, it would've been contained underground.

4) No evidence, only the assumption, that tall mountains did not exist prior to the hypothetical flood.

Actually, is there any evidence of old mountains in the rock stratas? If all the stratas are observed to have been flat, how could there have been mountains?

5) No evidence, only questions, that ice core dating is invalid. Ample evidence has been provided that ice core dating has been checked by multiple other dating methods.

Yes, and we've covered those dating techniques and they have not been conclusive. BTW, if people still want to give their closing arguments regarding ice cores, I can then give mine.

The criticism is that non-experts cannot properly interpret the evidence and so it is somehow suspect as a result.

We've had an entire thread on this.

6) The fossil evidence represented by the grand canyon is addressed by saying that the fossils found migrated to that area from elsewhere and that somehow, this explains why absolutely no organisms that the SG dates after 250 million years ago made it into the grand canyon.

And how did it avoid sedimentation? Was there not any erosion in the entire area during this time?

I will point out that this argument would need to repeated all over the world. I have provided links showing trilobites exist all over the world, not just in the grand canyon, and they are never found with any life dating later than 250 million years. Even if we don't accept the dating, we still have no dinosaurs, no mammals, no modern fish, no modern marine life, no birds, no humans, no flowering plants with trilobites.

If I find one modern animal that was contemporary with trilobites, would it falsify your statement?

7) We are asked to believe that the global flood both covers all the land, but that there are also periods where at least some of the land is above water during the flood.

I assume you are referring to the Coconino Sandstone. I would agree that if it was formed in an subaerial environment, then it would be evidence against the flood. But, if it was formed in a submarine environment, then it would fit in the FM.

8) I don't recall that we had any coherent explanation for the iridium layer.

It is true I have not proposed any definitive answer to the iridium layer. However, neither has SG. (For reference, we discussed it here)

9) No coherent explanation has been given how a global flood could sort rocks into alternating layers of sandstone, shale, limestone, some from marine environements and some not. We are asked to believe that "tidal forces" and other localized phenomenon operated to produce these layers. This is, as yet, no explanation at all. How does moving water, no matter what the cause, sort different rocks and, as with the iridium layer, different chemical elements from one another?????

True, I have not presented evidence yet that tidal forces are a component in strata formation. To avoid rabbit chasing, I will present that in the future.

1) Is there data inconsistent with the model. I can't see how we can give any other answer than yes for the FM. SG no.

Well, I would disagree. But, that's what this thread is all about.

2) Are there questions that have not been answered by either model. FM yes. SG yes. Not answering every question, however, is not proof the model is in error. For nearly any model, there will be questions not currently answered by the model. These questions, while interesting, are not as relevant as data which presents a direct challenge to a model.

I would agree that not answering every question is not proof that a model is in error. Yet, it would seem that is the standard that I'm being held to. If I haven't answered everyone's questions, then people claim the FM is falsified. Yet, if I ask questions and they cannot be answered, then it's simply brushed off.

3) Does the model depend on forces and phenomenon that we can observe today? SG yes. FM no. WE cannot observe chambers of the deep today.

Likewise, we cannot observe "flowing" mantle to move tectonic plates.

We have not had a global flood in modern times.

True.

We have not had a water canopy.

So, how can SG account for a different environment in the past?

We have never observed water causing techtonic movement or mountain building. We have never observed floods producing the kinds of geological layers we see.

I'll discuss plates next.

[otseng]

Note that the SG and the FM both say fossils can form after being rapidly buried. The difference is that the SG allows this could have occurred via many many floods instead of one, and that some fossils may have formed without flood conditions. Thus, I fail to see how this point is really going to have that much relevance to distinguishing between the models, even if we cannot answer all the questions about how fossils form under the SG.

If you all accept that fossils form rapidly by a flood (whether local or global), then there is no need to discuss the rate of fossilization. As for other conditions, what would they be? We've already discussed bogs, and I've presented evidence that it cannot preserve bones.

[otseng]

This topic baffles me......
There are people who actually believe in the biblical flood and Noah's story?

Yes, there are people who actually believe in it. But, it's not similar to the kid's story taught in Children's Sunday schools.

theres a whole post on it.

There's also an entire thread (this one) on it.

Yes, in America the interference of religious dogma into the state of education is such that there are many who actually believe in the Biblical flood, or some close variation on it.

They teach the flood in schools?