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]

PS Still haven't heard an explanation of the extreme erosion in the Smoky Mountains compared to other mountains if they all formed at the same time. Stop avoiding that one too.

However, I would suggest trying to explain the massive salt deposits and other features of the Williston Basin would be more relevant and the phyla issue could be left to the side for at least the time being.

I am arguing against many differing opponents at the same time that bring out different arguments. To have the expectation that I can quickly respond to everybody's questions is unreasonable. If you want me to adequately address any topic, we'll need to concentrate on one area at a time. Fossils was the area last area agreed upon that we focus on. And we have branched out to many areas since then. So I suggest we concentrate on fossils first before moving on to other areas.

Alright, I'll agree to hold off on non-fossil evidence from the Williston Basin.

However, I believe not only the presence but also the absence of fossils in the geological strata should be fair game.

Thus, if we have a 300 foot layer of salt that happens to have no fossils in it, this still seems to me to be relevant to the fossil issue.

I will see if I can find more information on fossils in particular in the Williston Basin.


Also, I note that otseng claims that corals could have been transported from one environement to another and that this accounts for corals appearing in the strata above more mobile marine animals in the grand canyon.

On the other hand, we are told that the reason that humans, dinosaurs, modern mammals, flowering plants, etc. are not found in the grand canyon layers is because they did not exist in this particular environment.


This begs for some discussion of how the FM explains transportation of dead organisms. What organisms did get transported? How far? By what exact mechanism? If coral get transported, why not other organisms from that same environment? How about transportation of mammals, dinosaurs, and other land animals?



Also, another question I brought up earlier.



Which life survived the flood and how did they do it?

This speaks to the fossil record in that some organisms alive at the time of the flood (e.g. dinosaurs, trilobites) are only found in the fossil record and thus did not seem to survive while many others (humans, flowering plants including orchids, dolphins, cockroaches, horseshoe crabs, etc. ) did.

[nygreenguy]

Which life survived the flood and how did they do it?

This speaks to the fossil record in that some organisms alive at the time of the flood (e.g. dinosaurs, trilobites) are only found in the fossil record and thus did not seem to survive while many others (humans, flowering plants including orchids, dolphins, cockroaches, horseshoe crabs, etc. ) did.

Not only that, but how did they then diversify? How did they overcome the fatal genetic bottle neck?

Ill say one thing. It is impossible for the majority of plants to have survived such an event, and its obvious that noah didnt have any sequoias on his boat.

[Scotracer]

Which life survived the flood and how did they do it?

This speaks to the fossil record in that some organisms alive at the time of the flood (e.g. dinosaurs, trilobites) are only found in the fossil record and thus did not seem to survive while many others (humans, flowering plants including orchids, dolphins, cockroaches, horseshoe crabs, etc. ) did.

Not only that, but how did they then diversify? How did they overcome the fatal genetic bottle neck?

Ill say one thing. It is impossible for the majority of plants to have survived such an event, and its obvious that noah didnt have any sequoias on his boat.

And wouldn't the bottle-necks be obvious from genetic research? For example we know Cheetahs had one...but nothing else?

[nygreenguy]

And wouldn't the bottle-necks be obvious from genetic research? For example we know Cheetahs had one...but nothing else?

Not quite sure what you are asking.

There has been many other genetic bottlenecks that we know of, and they almost ALWAYS end in extinction. It usually because bad genes tend to become fixed in the small populations and there isnt an inflow of new genes.

[Goat]

And wouldn't the bottle-necks be obvious from genetic research? For example we know Cheetahs had one...but nothing else?

Not quite sure what you are asking.

There has been many other genetic bottlenecks that we know of, and they almost ALWAYS end in extinction. It usually because bad genes tend to become fixed in the small populations and there isnt an inflow of new genes.

Not all the time. There was the bottle neck as evident in the human population some 70,000 years ago.

You will see a 'bottleneck' anytime you have a 'founder' effect. Of course, since the vast majority of species that have existed are now extinct, just existing 'almost' always ends in extinction.

[Scotracer]

And wouldn't the bottle-necks be obvious from genetic research? For example we know Cheetahs had one...but nothing else?

Not quite sure what you are asking.

There has been many other genetic bottlenecks that we know of, and they almost ALWAYS end in extinction. It usually because bad genes tend to become fixed in the small populations and there isnt an inflow of new genes.

What I meant is if there was a global-flood there would be a bottleneck at a similar time for all species...which just isn't the case.

[nygreenguy]

Not all the time. There was the bottle neck as evident in the human population some 70,000 years ago.

You will see a 'bottleneck' anytime you have a 'founder' effect. Of course, since the vast majority of species that have existed are now extinct, just existing 'almost' always ends in extinction.

Which is why I said "almost" always. The founder effect is a different type of bottleneck. When you have mass extinctions, whats happening is you are loosing the ability to survive in your niche, and there isnt enough genetic diversity to allow you to adapt.

Now, with humans we have somewhat circumvented this process in that our minds make up for the shortfalls of our body. We dont require as much genetic change in order to adapt as something like a plant does.

Founders tend to have it different. Yes, they have become reproductively isolated from the main population, but they are also in a novel niche. In these novel niches we usually see one of 3 things.

1) Death. The population simply isnt able to cope with the new area.

2) Exploitation. This novel new areas have open niches which the population can fully exploit. There is where our invasive species fall. No natural predators or diseases mean they are able to outcompete almost everything else around.

3) Rapid evolution. This is often seen on islands, and this explains why island species are just so strange. In these novel new areas, traits which may have not been beneficial in the main population may be highly beneficial in the new area. Take for example the old birds of new zealand. 9 foot high flightless birds, and no mammalian predators. No need to fly.

Now, if there was a global flood, the post flood conditions would be devastating. The soil would be washed away, the vegetation would be dead. Where would there even BE freshwater? Even a little bit of salt would be toxic to almost anything which survived. So, we have ALL of this AND competition for space. How would animals such as deer not only be able to survive all this, but still somehow manage to migrate all the way to the americas? Do you know how much FOOD a deer would need to consume to make this journey?

The list goes on, and on, and on, and on to how the flood could have NEVER happened.

[xcept]

Yes a global flood would be devastating. Polar ice caps, volcanos, deserts, canyons, granite shelfs, trillions of fossils, etc. Oh wait! All that is present. So now what?

No one presently around has any visual account of the event, all we have are historical accounts and various fables. However, there are quite a few stories in almost all cultures across the globe.

This does make you wonder.

[Goat]

Yes a global flood would be devastating. Polar ice caps, volcanos, deserts, canyons, granite shelfs, trillions of fossils, etc. Oh wait! All that is present. So now what?

No one presently around has any visual account of the event, all we have are historical accounts and various fables. However, there are quite a few stories in almost all cultures across the globe.

This does make you wonder.

Do you have anything to actually contribute beside sarcastic comments?

How do "Polar ice caps" show evidence of a gloval flood? Please be specific. Show how the pattern of ice would be consistant with a global flood'.

How do deserts show there was a global flood? Be specific.

How to the trillions of fossils show there was a global flood. Why were there no intermingling of forms and they were sorted the way they were? Be prescise

Yes, there are quite a few stories all over the world. However, the stories differ quite substantially. ALl over the world, civilizations arise near rivers. Rivers are a good source of water, and make transportation of good easier. Funny thing on how all the civilizations near rivers have flood stories. You would think that rivers flood sometimes.

[Scotracer]

Yes a global flood would be devastating. Polar ice caps, volcanos, deserts, canyons, granite shelfs, trillions of fossils, etc. Oh wait! All that is present. So now what?

No one presently around has any visual account of the event, all we have are historical accounts and various fables. However, there are quite a few stories in almost all cultures across the globe.

This does make you wonder.

You're going to have to show your working here. How are volcanoes and ice caps evidence of a flood? Those really don't make any sense.

Trillions of fossils? How about the fact that over 99% of the life that ever existed on the planet has died over the course of its 4.5 billion year life? I'm sure that would number in the trillions. However, it is curious how the geography of these fossils are not conducive with a global flood - they are too well ordered chronologically and geographically to have been scattered and laid down by a flood.

Yes, it does make you wonder how people can still hold on to these ridiculous beliefs.