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]

Human history is too short. So you are admitting a large degree of faith where the entire theory is concerned. Science is about observation. Without, it becomes faith.

You have a great deal of faith in this that its true without solid evidence.

And I will attempt to stay on topic better. Thanks

[Scotracer]

Right I can't believe this is being allowed to happen. Xcept is spouting loads of conjecture with regards to the evidence for evolution and supposed evidence that is against it and when he was challenged on these points he's simply ignored them.

Put up or shut up.

You might try looking here for a few transitional fossils.

[JoshC]

Science is about observation.

I hope you're not confusing observation with "seeing it" because it sounds like you are...

[xcept]

Human history is too short. So you are admitting a large degree of faith where the entire theory is concerned. Science is about observation. Without, it becomes faith.

You have a great deal of faith in this that its true without solid evidence.

And I will attempt to stay on topic better. Thanks

the bones in Tiktaaliks fins have no axial skeleton connections. This is significant because without this direct connection, no true walking could be done by Tiktaalik. Furthermore, the fins of this creature enclose rays, not digits such as toes or fingers

[micatala]

statements of leading evolutionary scientists that no true vertical evolution from one kind o organism to a more complex kind has ever been observed in all human history.

As predicted by evolution. Human history is too short to have observed this kind of change.

Similar admissions from evolutionists have acknowledged that no examples of such evolutionary transitions have yet been documented in any of the billions of fossilized remains from the supposed geological ages of the past Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time strong positive evidences for special creation.

Do try to stay on topic. We are discussing the biodiversity aspects of the flood model, specifically in how it applies to the marsupial and monotreme population of Australia. The flood model requires an improbable and impossible migration, super-acceleration of evolution and the closure of a land bridge with perfect timing to trap the migrated species without stragglers.

Human history is too short. So you are admitting a large degree of faith where the entire theory is concerned.

Not so. You are mischaracterizing what McCulloch has stated as well as the theory of evolution. McCulloch has not made any such admission. He is merely pointing out that the amount of evolution required by the flood model could not have taken place in the short amount of time encompassing human history.

Science is about observation. Without, it becomes faith.

True. However, evolution is not lacking in observations. We have literally hundreds of millions of fossil observations.

We have observations of small scale evolution occuring within recent recorded history.

You have a great deal of faith in this that its true without solid evidence.

Fossils are, literally, solid evidence.

And I will attempt to stay on topic better. Thanks

I realize this is a long thread, but I might suggest you go back and read through it so you know what has been covered so far and the huge amounts of evidence presented against the flood

[Goat]

Human history is too short. So you are admitting a large degree of faith where the entire theory is concerned. Science is about observation. Without, it becomes faith.

You have a great deal of faith in this that its true without solid evidence.

And I will attempt to stay on topic better. Thanks

the bones in Tiktaaliks fins have no axial skeleton connections. This is significant because without this direct connection, no true walking could be done by Tiktaalik. Furthermore, the fins of this creature enclose rays, not digits such as toes or fingers

And your point? Do you know what a 'transitional form is? Of course 'no true walking' could be done by it. However, a crude rudimentary walking could. It has features of both land animals, and of water dwelling, and it was found in the
rocks of the age where it would have was predicted that a creature like it would be found.

[Scotracer]

Human history is too short. So you are admitting a large degree of faith where the entire theory is concerned. Science is about observation. Without, it becomes faith.

You have a great deal of faith in this that its true without solid evidence.

And I will attempt to stay on topic better. Thanks

the bones in Tiktaaliks fins have no axial skeleton connections. This is significant because without this direct connection, no true walking could be done by Tiktaalik. Furthermore, the fins of this creature enclose rays, not digits such as toes or fingers

Since you gave no reference to your points, I googled your statement verbatim and got this:

http://www.icr.org/article/2962/

For crying out loud you just copy-pasted from Institute of Creation Research!

One should note that the bones in Tiktaaliks fins have no axial skeleton connections. This is significant because without this direct connection, no true walking could be done by Tiktaalik. Furthermore, the fins of this creature enclose rays, not digits such as toes or fingers.

Verbatim!

Here is what the (referenced) Wikipedia page says about Tiktaalik's morphology:

Tiktaalik represents an intermediate form between fish and amphibians. Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, Tiktaalik's "fins" have basic wrist bones and simple fingers, showing that they were weight bearing. Close examination of the joints show that although they probably were not used to walk, they were more than likely used to prop up the creatures body, push up fashion.[4] The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets, suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex like a wrist joint. These wrist-like features would have helped anchor the creature to the bottom in fast moving current.[4][5]

And here's a rather nifty site about Tiktaalik, which states:

It has the same basic pattern of bones that all limbed animals share. Although Tiktaalik couldn't yet walk, its front fin skeleton suggests it was capable of supporting much of its weight on these fins

Next time you try and refute something, don't use a Creationist website - they are known liars.

[otseng]

Well, at least the class is still lively while I step out of the room for a little bit...

Since we are concentrating on fossils, could you explain how a desert environment,
with lizard tracks in it can be between two marine environments, both with worm burrows in them?

How can the Kaibab Limestone, a 300 foot thick layer formed in a marine environment with molluscs, crinoids, and brachiopods be above the Coconino Sandstone, which was formed from sand dunes with many lizard tracks in it
which is above the Hermit Shale, which is formed in swamps and lagoons, which is
above the Redwall Limestone, which is 400 feet thick of other marine fossils?

Please answer that question.

You have not explained that.

I gave my rebuttal here.

Since we have no skeletal fossils, it cannot be conclusively shown that they are from reptiles. The footprints could also have originated from amphibians.

Also, tracks begin and end abruptly which is better explained by being formed underwater.

Numerous fossil vertebrate trackways in the Coconino Sandstone of northern Arizona exhibit several features that imply that these trackways were not made in subaerial conditions. Some trackways begin or end abruptly on undisturbed bedding planes, and in other trackways the individual prints are oriented in a different direction from that of the trackway. These features indicate buoyancy of the animals in water. The animals were swimming in the water part of the time and at other times walking on the substrate, and they were sometimes orienting upslope on the surface of the underwater dunes, while being drifted sideways by lateral currents. Observations on salamander locomotion in a sedimentation tank with flowing water support this model.

Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: Evidence for underwater origin

How can lizards make tracks that start/end abruptly?

[otseng]

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.

The point is addressing your statement: "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."

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

And your statement: "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."

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.

There are some explanations for this. One is that if a dinosaur fossil is found, it is assumed to be old. Suppose a dinosaur fossil was found near the surface. How would they date it? Would they assume it was formed recently? Highly doubtful. It would rather be attributed to be over 65 million years old simply because it is a dinosaur fossil.

[otseng]

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.

Let's hold off on this until after we finish fossils. Just discussing fossils alone is a huge topic.