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]

Why not? Can you please provide the mechanism where such a chaotic event would order the fossils so completely? Please support your claim.

If I can produce a modern animal that is found in the Cambrian, how would it change things?

It means that the model that the strata in the Cambrian was formed later, and it would falsify the current model of the TOE.

What I have found is Horseshoe crabs that are at least 445 Million years old and go possibly back to the Cambrian.

Xiphosura (horseshoe crabs) are related to the extinct Eurypterids, and more distantly to spiders and scorpions. They trace their ancestry back to the Cambrian, and proceed into the modern day as the genus Limulus.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossils/Che ... proops.htm

Few modern animals are as deserving of the title living fossil as the lowly horseshoe crab. Seemingly unchanged since before the Age of Dinosaurs, these venerable sea creatures can now claim a history that reaches back almost half-a billion years.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 135801.htm

Nearly a half a billion years ago, tiny horseshoe crabs crept along the shorelines much like today's larger versions do, new fossil evidence suggests.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22883541/

If a strata contains Trilobites, it will only contain Cambrian lifeforms to the exclusion of all other lifeforms that have ever lived on land or sea.

For sure, these horseshoe crabs would've been contemporary with trilobites.

The TOE states there is change over time, and that primitive life forms were replaced by more modern equivilents over time. If you have a modern life form in the layer that has the ancient life forms, that shows that that model is incorrect.

Well, we have Cyanobacteria that exists now and at the time of the Pre-Cambrian also.

so something that hasn't evolved a bit in 400 mya really isn't proof for evo, but a major problem for the theory. Its actually a serious blow to the theory and many scientists cannot overcome this problem. Cockroaches, coelcanth, ants, dragonflies, horseshoe crabs all haven't evolved, ever. Things didnjt fall in some perfect order in the geologic column. Evolution ordered things in this way for the theories. Bottom floor dwelling creatures got covered over first, then deep sea then surface dwelling the shore dwelling then leading up to various swimmers or floaters such as men. Either way the theory has many serious flaws and doesn't stand to scrutiny. A flood makes more sense for the reasoning people. The truth just rings more true

Why has something that has not changed form much be a problem for evolution?

The one problem you have is that although horse shoe crabs are similar. there are differences. The species that are alive today are different (slightly) that the ones that lived millions of years ago.

As for the coecelcanths., you do realize that is an entire family, and the ones we know that are living today are much different than the fossils we have. The fossils
that are millions of years old are shallow water dwellers, and much much smaller than the modern specimens we have discovered. The family is the same, the species are vastly different.

[nygreenguy]

Evolution ordered things in this way for the theories. Bottom floor dwelling creatures got covered over first, then deep sea then surface dwelling the shore dwelling then leading up to various swimmers or floaters such as men. Either way the theory has many serious flaws and doesn't stand to scrutiny. A flood makes more sense for the reasoning people. The truth just rings more true

This is a statistical impossibility. If the "best swimmer" hypothesis were true, we would expect to see bell curves of species distributions. We should see overlays, not distinct boundaries. We ONLY find dinosaurs in certain layers, there should be SOME outside those layers. Some dinosaurs SHOULD die sooner, and some should have made it longer. This is not the case.

This hypothesis is not only statistically impossible, its based upon flawed reasoning and a blatant disregard for the facts.

[Grumpy]

otseng

If a strata contains Trilobites, it will only contain Cambrian lifeforms to the exclusion of all other lifeforms that have ever lived on land or sea.

For sure, these horseshoe crabs would've been contemporary with trilobites.

Horseshoe crabs are roughly contemperanious with trilobites, so are blue-green algae. Sharks and rays are hundreds of millions of years old as well. What's the point? Nothing in evolutionary theory says they must change over time. In fact, if they fit well into their niche they will resist change that gives no evolutionary benefit.

But you have just sidestepped the question again. If we find horseshoe crabs throughout the fossil record for 400+ million years, why don't we find a single large mammal(not even whales which live with those crabs) anywhere except after 65 million? Why are there no dinosaurs after 65 million years.

And why, if all mountains are the same age, is there so much erosion in the Smokies and almost none in the Rockies and Alps.

How does the FM explain the KT boundary again, I don't think you adequitely explained that. Other iridium spikes are easily explained by other impact events, the Earth has been hit, on average, every 64 million years or so, but the KT was the big daddy of them all. That impact made it possible for us to come into existence, it gave our ancestors free reign to fill the Earth.

Grumpy

[xcept]

See you throw around all these assumptions as if they are proved factual. No one can prove anything which happened beyond human history, regardless of what data is said to exist. There are complications in dating and it isn't even close to an exact science.

Carbon dating is skewed by water. If water covered all then that would render carbon dating useless.

How are rocks dated? By index fossils.
How are fossils dated? By the rocks they are found in.

You can't take things that are assumptions and use them as a base for your worldview. Its much like building a house upon sand instead of stone.

So we evolved from one celled organisms in a few short millions of years, but a shark hasn't changed in 100 mya? Its an obvious contradiction.

[Goat]

See you throw around all these assumptions as if they are proved factual. No one can prove anything which happened beyond human history, regardless of what data is said to exist. There are complications in dating and it isn't even close to an exact science.

You misunderstand the difference between an assumption and a conclusion based on evidence. The key here is 'evidence'.

Carbon dating is skewed by water. If water covered all then that would render carbon dating useless.

And here we have a statement that is highly ignorant. Carbon dating only works for organic material that is less that 40,000 years old. The vast majority of the dating of materials is far older, so other dating methods had to be used. For someone to say that shows a profound ignorance of dating methods, but someone who has been accepting creationist straw men too long.

How are rocks dated? By index fossils.
How are fossils dated? By the rocks they are found in.

No. the rocks are not dated by index fossils. That is a lie. While index fossils can be used to approximate dates.. the original work was done by other means. What was
done was date the volcantic rocks above and below the sedimentary rocks using potassium/argon radiometric dating. Index fossils are called that because they have been found to be unique within a certain age range. The radiometric dating came first though.

You can't take things that are assumptions and use them as a base for your worldview. Its much like building a house upon sand instead of stone.

Again, there is a vast difference between assumptions and conclusions based on evidence. Just because you do not know what the evidence is, nor how the conclusion was drawn doesn't mean it is an assumption. The fact you gave such bad information about how dating works shows that your education in that specific field is lagging. That is a conclusion based on evidence, because you gave straw man examples that were very wrong in the details and gave invalid criticism.

So we evolved from one celled organisms in a few short millions of years, but a shark hasn't changed in 100 mya? Its an obvious contradiction.

I would love to see where anyone said that we evolved from 'one celled organisms in a few short millions of years'. This is yet another straw man, and not a claim that anyone has made. Nor are you reactiing to Grumpy's information about how evolution does not say that the form a creature must change if it is suited to it's environment.

[nygreenguy]

See you throw around all these assumptions as if they are proved factual. No one can prove anything which happened beyond human history, regardless of what data is said to exist. There are complications in dating and it isn't even close to an exact science.

Ignoring the fact that you admitted all evidence is irrelevant, Id like to ask you what makes human existence so special when it comes to evaluating thing that have happened in the past. Are you presuming we need eyewitnesses in order to know what happens?

Carbon dating is skewed by water. If water covered all then that would render carbon dating useless.

Really? Says who?

How are rocks dated? By index fossils.
How are fossils dated? By the rocks they are found in.

Once again, are you so sure? Is this what is says in the literature what happens, or is this what AIG says happens?

You can't take things that are assumptions and use them as a base for your worldview. Its much like building a house upon sand instead of stone.

like the assumption "god exists"?

So we evolved from one celled organisms in a few short millions of years, but a shark hasn't changed in 100 mya? Its an obvious contradiction.

Only if your education on the issue is limited to creationist websites.

[Pastor4Jesus]

Are you presuming we need eyewitnesses in order to know what happens?

Ha Ha. That is what you or at least most atheists require for evidence of biblical events isn't it? Nice double standard there!

like the assumption "god exists"?

Evidence exists for the existence of God so its no assumption. AIG has PhD'ed scientists on the panel, what are your credentials to allow insulting remarks and blanket statements about the information contained therein? Are atheist apologist sites any better? (No, most of them are far worse in my experience).

P4JC

[nygreenguy]

Ha Ha. That is what you or at least most atheists require for evidence of biblical events isn't it? Nice double standard there!

This is a bit of a red herring here isnt it.

Evidence exists for the existence of God so its no assumption.

No there isnt. There is not one single iota of credible evidence.

AIG has PhD'ed scientists on the panel, what are your credentials to allow insulting remarks and blanket statements about the information contained therein? Are atheist apologist sites any better? (No, most of them are far worse in my experience).

AIG has "scientists" who cant even get their crackpot ideas published. Every claim that they make is consistently and thoroughly refuted. The views of those at AIG are in the vast, vast minority. Its simply not science.

As for "atheist" apologist sites, Im not sure what you are referring to. There are some pre-science site like TO and such, and yes it is much, much better. This is because it uses real science, and not ignorance. AIG is simply a laughing stock of a source of information, and anyone who has an iota of proper science education can see what hacks they are.

[Goat]

Are you presuming we need eyewitnesses in order to know what happens?

Ha Ha. That is what you or at least most atheists require for evidence of biblical events isn't it? Nice double standard there!

like the assumption "god exists"?

Evidence exists for the existence of God so its no assumption. AIG has PhD'ed scientists on the panel, what are your credentials to allow insulting remarks and blanket statements about the information contained therein? Are atheist apologist sites any better? (No, most of them are far worse in my experience).

P4JC

This is the science forum, and as such, I challenge you to support the statement
'Evidence exists for the existence of God'. Please provide this evidence.

[Grumpy]

Pastor4Jesus

Evidence exists for the existence of God so its no assumption.

No, it does not.

AIG has PhD'ed scientists on the panel, what are your credentials to allow insulting remarks and blanket statements about the information contained therein?

AIG is a cancer on Christianity, Lying for Jesus loses many more converts than it gains. Were I actively against Christians I should send them lots of money, they would be much more effective than I could be. They drive off anyone with any intelligence or reason, what's left?

Grumpy