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]

Well, you might not buy it. But you'll need to present counterevidence if you want to refute it.

As I stated, they make no hard claims. They are very vague. I also question the credibility of the sources.

I would agree that it is very animalcentric. So, the claim that the number of phyla has decreased would just apply only to animals.

Then throw the towel in now because this is a discussion about the diversity of life. you cant simply restrict it to what you think fits your worldview.

Yes, evolution works at the species level, not the phylum level. But in terms of diversity, organisms are more diverse as one goes up the biological classification. To account for different phylum, there would have been quite a number of evolutionary steps at the species level to form different major morphological features.

This isnt the right way to look at there. There isnt more diversity at the phylum level. There's only a handful of phyla, there are millions of species. The differences between organisms in different phyla are greater than those of the same phylum. That's a much more accurate statement.

Here is the problem. At the Cambrian we see (practically) all the phyla that currently exist. And we also see phyla that do not currently exist. After the Cambrian, what we see is a decrease in phyla. How can this be accounted for?

Incorrect. There are many phyla unaccounted for.

Now, these types of event are relatively common. We get a new, novel morphological development (eyes) or a change in the environment (more oxygen) and what we see is an opening up of ecological niches. Anytime we see this, we see sudden explosions of biodiversity followed off by a dying off as the niches narrow and close off.

I'd be interested in seeing a chart with the distribution of animals in the fossil record. Then we can analyze if it is bell curved or random.

I can absolutely guarantee a bell curved type of distribution. Anything other than this would discredit evolution. A random would mean rabbits in the Cambrian and the Holocene or flowering plants in the carboniferous AND the cretaceous.

Instead we find ALL fossils occupying specific geological strata. Throughout the thousands (perhaps millions) of samples and observations taken, this has always been the case.

[micatala]

Also, what makes you think we have decreased in phyla?

I covered that here.

Ok, I still dont buy it. Those claims are awfully vague (and some of those sources are quite questionable). It is STILL very animalcentric. It doesn't even mention fungi, plants or how many individuals may have been represented.

Well, you might not buy it. But you'll need to present counterevidence if you want to refute it.

I would agree that it is very animalcentric. So, the claim that the number of phyla has decreased would just apply only to animals.

Similar species are awfully similar. Similar genera are somewhat less similar, etc. Diversity works on the species level, not the phylum.

Yes, evolution works at the species level, not the phylum level. But in terms of diversity, organisms are more diverse as one goes up the biological classification. To account for different phylum, there would have been quite a number of evolutionary steps at the species level to form different major morphological features.

Now, Im not saying the cambrian wasn't diverse, it was. The biota was changing a great deal and we saw rapid diversification, but we also saw mass extinctions of these. The fact that there were entire new phyla as opposed to say genra or species is irrelevant to the claim " life starts simple at the bottom and gradually increases in complexity". This has nothing to do with complexity, rather diversity.

Here is the problem. At the Cambrian we see (practically) all the phyla that currently exist. And we also see phyla that do not currently exist. After the Cambrian, what we see is a decrease in phyla. How can this be accounted for?

I addressed this earlier. Species go extinct. It is certainly possible all the species in a particular phylum go extinct. Why are you asking this question again when it has already been addressed?

See Post #973.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=970

There is nothing about a decrease in phyla that is inconsistent with the SG.

[micatala]

Closing arguments regarding ice cores

My position is that the ice caps (Greenland, Antarctica) formed after the flood. So, at issue is the dating of the ice caps. Ice core analysis is the main method to date ice caps. And so that has been brought up as evidence that the flood cannot have occurred tens of thousands of years ago since it is claimed that over 500,000 year old ice has been extracted.

Let me also get a couple of things out of the way before I dive into my closing arguments.

There has been suggestions that I consider certain scientists as "dim-witted". I have certainly not said this or even implied this.

I disagree. By asserting that scientists have been providing dates without having taken into consideration the possibility that there is a difference between layers formed by individual snowfall events and annual layers you are, even if you do not use the word "dim-witted," asserting that they are pretty much that. I don't see any other conclusion to come to.

You have asserted this despite evidence presented, even though none should really be needed, that they have checked current observations with their methods. You can pick a different word if you wish, but the point stands. Any rational person who would engage in dating as part of their life's work would surely consider the data carefully and use any means, ESPECIALLY MEANS SO EASILY IMPLEMENTED, to check their dating techniques.

I stand by the point. If you want provide a different word, that is fine. But yes, you are implying very strongly that the scientists who engage in dating are either not very smart, not very honest, or extremely incompetent.

Any scientist are free to pursue any work even if I do not believe in their conclusions. But, I also believe that science should be open to cross-examination and challenge. And there has been repeated statements that this should not be allowed. I'm not going to argue my case about that now, but for the casual readers, I've presented my case in When to disagree with the experts.

You side step the issue. I am not saying anything about expertise here. I am talking about simple logic, logic that anyone on the forum could employ. Your position amounts not only to denying the expertise of the scientists, but even denying they are as conscientious or smart as an intelligent lay person.

Annual layer counting

The first method to date ice cores is the counting of annual layers. We do see many layes in ice cores and I would grant that if each layer (one single dark/light band pair) is annual, then the ice core layers would represent on the order of hundreds of thousands of years. This would not be in the timeline of the flood that I propose.

However, if a single layer is subannual, then it would represent a much younger timeframe.

So, the question to be resolved is if a single layer is annual or subannual.

Multiple sources suggest that a single layer is annual.

On the wikipedia ice core page, there is an image with the caption
"GISP2 ice core at 1837 meters depth with clearly visible annual layers."



This alludes that an annual layer is one dark/light band pair.

Several other sites are more explicit:

So, now we have a way to answer the basic question: how many layers per year? And the answer turns out to be: one.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/crea ... nnual.html

Counting the annual layers based on visual appearance (summer layers are often darker due to more dust content or ice that has melted and then refrozen)

http://www.gns.cri.nz/iceandsnow/about_icecores.html

One year of snow accumulation can be seen in the core as a couplet of a light-colored ice layer and a thinner, darker colored layer.

http://www2.umaine.edu/USITASE/teachers/icecores.html

A slightly darker layer that contains dust blown onto the ice sheet during summer, when not much new snow falls, marks each year's new ice. The winter layer consists of cleaner and lighter-colored ice.

http://www.k5geosource.org/content/dd/climate/pg6.html

But the evidence shows that a dark/light band is not a result of annual climate differences, but from individual snowfall events that I posted here.


Figure 1.

The caption reads:
"Snow pits dug into the surface snow (and back lit with a second pit to illuminate a thin wall of snow) show layers caused by individual snowfall events."

So, there is a discrepancy between the evidence showing that a dark/light band is from an individual snowfall event and the claim that a dark/light band is from a yearly climate change. And it is not from my non-expertise that I judge that it is from individual snowfall events, but I'm simply reiterating what the site says. But, even in my layman judgement, this makes sense. If one goes straight down at two different points, you would get different layer counts. And if each layer was a year, those two counts would then indicate two different ages. Which would be highly unlikely since they would only be less than several meters separated from each other.

In post 663, micatala concedes that "I agree with otseng that one might see layers formed by individual snowfall events."

The fact that scientists or laymen can sometimes discern individual snow fall events does not mean they cannot also, especially using non-visual means to substitute for or cross-check visual means, determine annual layers.

Your evidence does not show that all of the other discussions involving annual layers are mistaken, it simply shows that in this case, they seem to be discussing individual snowfall events.

Essentially you are assuming that what is written about this picture also applies to all the other pictures, including those from thousands of meters below the surface as in the NorthGrip images that have been cited. Sorry, you don't get to trump all the rest of the evidence by misapplying this example to all the other data.

It has also been brought up by micatala that scientists have been studying ice for at least 50 years. Yes, I would not deny that. But the links provided does not discuss about the accumulation of annual ice layers in the areas we are discussing. Rather they discuss about melting glaciers in China, sea ice on shelves, and melting ice on the Ross ice shelf.

You are selectively reading the links. First off, in the China article they did keep track of annual layers and in fact marked them with sawdust. The fact that melting was present does not mean they weren't making observations of layers as well.

You also ignored two other links which were even more relevant to showing that scientists do keep track of annual ice layer formation. Again, you are selectively reading the evidence.

Unfortunately I cannot seem to get the full text access to these links that was available earlier. I will see if I can rectify this.

Now, even if these observations are not in exactly the same location as WAIS and Northgrip, they do show scientists doing exactly the same kind of common sense checking in real time that any intelligent person would do if they had the means. By asserting scientists have checked in these situations, and yet blithely assumed they were counting annual layers when they might have checked between annual and subannual layers in the most important locations is, I repeat, to assert that scientists are incompetent or dishonest.

Ease of determination of annual layers

micatala stated: "It seems to me you are denying that one can tell the difference between the subannual layers and the annual layers. I believe scientists have no problem making this distinction"

According to the paper Visual stratigraphy of the North Greenland Ice Core Project (NorthGRIP) ice core during the last glacial period that was brought up here, it states:

because some years may experience more
depositional events than others, some annual layers will
appear as multiple visible layers in the VS profile, while
others may only be weakly represented in the stratigraphy.
Inspection of the VS profile, at depths where the annual
layers can be identified from the CFA profiles, shows that
multiple-layer years appear frequently. Another difficulty
is caused by the great variability in intensity of the visible
layers, which complicates the counting. Depending on the
contrast enhancement of the images and on the selection
criteria used for identifying the layers, one can end up
counting a wide range of layers within the same ice core
section, e.g., as the contrast of an image is increased, more
and more layers tend to appear. For those reasons, accurate
dating from direct counting of the VS profile alone generally
has proven difficult.

Here, it clearly states that it is difficult even for professionals to visually differentiate between an annual layer and subannual layers. And to "count" layers, it is not simply visually counting each layer, but involves relying on modeling to estimate the annual layer count. Even changing the contrast enhancement would result in a different layer count.

THis paragraph acknowledges the difficulties. It does not indicate that the dating is wrong. Rather, it is providing appropriate information concering the difficulties that had to be dealt with in providing the dates.

If you wish to refute this, you need to provide counter-evidence that the dating is wrong. You need to show that the dating is off by a factor of at least 7.

Predetermined Ages as Markers

Using a known event date that is captured in the ice core can provide a reasonable date for an ice layer.

Let's look at one such marker - the Vedde ash layer.


Figure 2
"The bright layer at 1.33 m relative depth is the volcanic "Vedde" ash layer (see also Figure 3b)."

This would be at the 1506.1 m depth. "Ice from the Younger Dryas, 1504.80"1506.45 m depth. The
bright layer at 1.33 m relative depth is the volcanic Vedde ash layer."

And the Vedde ash layer is dated at 10,600 years ago.

However, the bedrock is at 3085 m. And the lowest layer is purportedly to be 123,000 years old. "The NorthGRIP VS profile continuously covers the depth interval 1330"3085 m, which corresponds to the time interval 9"123 kyr BP."

So, if you go half-way down the ice, it would be 10,600 years old. And then you go the exact same distance down to the bottom, it would be spanning 112,400 years, roughly ten times the age of the top half. How can this be accounted for? One way this can be explained is that there was a drastic difference in precipitation. Or it could be that the bottom half is not as old as claimed. If precipation rate is constant, and the Vedde ash layer date is correct, then the entire ice cap would be around 21,200 years old.

Again, you are evading the issue by changing the discussion to another point. If you wish to deny that the Vedde layer is accurately dated, provide evidence for an alternate date. We can discuss the lower layers if you wish later. However, you have done nothing to refute the point that marker events, dated by independent means, coincide with the ice core dating. All you are doing is trying to change the subject.


I will address other points in this post at a later time. I realize these were closing arguments, and I will not belabor points by engaging in several more pages of debate. However, I feel it appropriate to rebut the closing arguments and will do so.

[nygreenguy]

I will address other points in this post at a later time. I realize these were closing arguments, and I will not belabor points by engaging in several more pages of debate. However, I feel it appropriate to rebut the closing arguments and will do so.

That defeats the purpose of closing arguments. When you agree to give them, you are also agreeing to drop it after they are given.

[micatala]

I will address other points in this post at a later time. I realize these were closing arguments, and I will not belabor points by engaging in several more pages of debate. However, I feel it appropriate to rebut the closing arguments and will do so.

That defeats the purpose of closing arguments. When you agree to give them, you are also agreeing to drop it after they are given.

Well, alright. I'll agree to no further postings on ice cores for the time being, and otseng can have a final shot at my previous post. My one caveat will be that if we ever get to the point of making final arguments on the whole thread, I reserve the right to revisit ice cores at that time.

[otseng]

Well, you might not buy it. But you'll need to present counterevidence if you want to refute it.

As I stated, they make no hard claims. They are very vague. I also question the credibility of the sources.

So, do you claim that the number of phyla has increased since the Cambrian?

I would agree that it is very animalcentric. So, the claim that the number of phyla has decreased would just apply only to animals.

Then throw the towel in now because this is a discussion about the diversity of life.

Unless plants can evolve into animals or vice-versa, there is no need to throw in the towel.

you cant simply restrict it to what you think fits your worldview.

No, I'm basing my arguments on evidence, not simply what I think. If you have evidence that the number of phyla has not decreased, then present it.

Here is the problem. At the Cambrian we see (practically) all the phyla that currently exist. And we also see phyla that do not currently exist. After the Cambrian, what we see is a decrease in phyla. How can this be accounted for?

Incorrect. There are many phyla unaccounted for.

OK, go on...

Now, these types of event are relatively common. We get a new, novel morphological development (eyes) or a change in the environment (more oxygen) and what we see is an opening up of ecological niches.

As for eyes, they arise in the Cambrian without any evidence of having evolved.

Anytime we see this, we see sudden explosions of biodiversity followed off by a dying off as the niches narrow and close off.

But yet, no new phylas arise because of the "diversity". Why would that be the case?

I can absolutely guarantee a bell curved type of distribution. Anything other than this would discredit evolution.

I ask for evidence, not what you can guarantee.

[otseng]

I will address other points in this post at a later time. I realize these were closing arguments, and I will not belabor points by engaging in several more pages of debate. However, I feel it appropriate to rebut the closing arguments and will do so.

That defeats the purpose of closing arguments. When you agree to give them, you are also agreeing to drop it after they are given.

Well, alright. I'll agree to no further postings on ice cores for the time being, and otseng can have a final shot at my previous post. My one caveat will be that if we ever get to the point of making final arguments on the whole thread, I reserve the right to revisit ice cores at that time.

Thanks nygreenguy, I was going to say the same thing. I'll stand by my closing argument on ice cores without adding anything more to it. Otherwise, I'm afraid the discussions on it will never end.

[otseng]

Here is the problem. At the Cambrian we see (practically) all the phyla that currently exist. And we also see phyla that do not currently exist. After the Cambrian, what we see is a decrease in phyla. How can this be accounted for?

I addressed this earlier. Species go extinct. It is certainly possible all the species in a particular phylum go extinct. Why are you asking this question again when it has already been addressed?

See Post #973.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=970

There is nothing about a decrease in phyla that is inconsistent with the SG.

Extinctions are in both the FM and SG, so extinctions is not the issue. The issue is that SG also posits that there is the introduction of novel morphological features through evolution. Evolution should provide an increase in diversity over time. And it would gradually result in different species, genus, family, etc. And one would expect that it would result in different phyla over time. Yet, practically all the phyla are represented in the Cambrian. And over time, there is a decrease in the number of phyla.

[Scotracer]

Here is the problem. At the Cambrian we see (practically) all the phyla that currently exist. And we also see phyla that do not currently exist. After the Cambrian, what we see is a decrease in phyla. How can this be accounted for?

I addressed this earlier. Species go extinct. It is certainly possible all the species in a particular phylum go extinct. Why are you asking this question again when it has already been addressed?

See Post #973.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=970

There is nothing about a decrease in phyla that is inconsistent with the SG.

Extinctions are in both the FM and SG, so extinctions is not the issue. The issue is that SG also posits that there is the introduction of novel morphological features through evolution. Evolution should provide an increase in diversity over time. And it would gradually result in different species, genus, family, etc. And one would expect that it would result in different phyla over time. Yet, practically all the phyla are represented in the Cambrian. And over time, there is a decrease in the number of phyla.

Because phyla are very general statements that link groups of animals. You aren't realising that you can have a loss of phyla yet an increase in diversity - nygreenguy has already demonstrated why you are wrong in your usage of the terms. Diversity is within a group. If you can find me a wing, lung, or fur in the Cambrian life I'd love to see it.

[micatala]

Here is the problem. At the Cambrian we see (practically) all the phyla that currently exist. And we also see phyla that do not currently exist. After the Cambrian, what we see is a decrease in phyla. How can this be accounted for?

I addressed this earlier. Species go extinct. It is certainly possible all the species in a particular phylum go extinct. Why are you asking this question again when it has already been addressed?

See Post #973.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=970

There is nothing about a decrease in phyla that is inconsistent with the SG.

Extinctions are in both the FM and SG, so extinctions is not the issue. The issue is that SG also posits that there is the introduction of novel morphological features through evolution. Evolution should provide an increase in diversity over time. And it would gradually result in different species, genus, family, etc. And one would expect that it would result in different phyla over time. Yet, practically all the phyla are represented in the Cambrian. And over time, there is a decrease in the number of phyla.

Because phyla are very general statements that link groups of animals. You aren't realising that you can have a loss of phyla yet an increase in diversity - nygreenguy has already demonstrated why you are wrong in your usage of the terms. Diversity is within a group. If you can find me a wing, lung, or fur in the Cambrian life I'd love to see it.

Just to add a bit to what Scotracer has said, yes I agree evolution includes the possiblity of the development of novel morphological features. This is substantiated by the fossil record. This does not necessitate an increase in the number of phyla as they are defined.

Yes, I agree extinctions are posited by both the FM and the SG. The FM posits, as I understand it, one mass extinction due to the alleged global flood. I asked previously how the FM explains which species survived the flood and how they did it and have gotten no response to that question. It seems to me the FM would imply all land animals, certainly all plants for sure, would go extinct. So would most if not all fresh water fish.

How does the FM explain which species survived the flood and why and how they did it?