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?

[otseng]

How does a single picture from a small location falsify a world wide phenomena?
In this place, you see it being flat, but one point on a chart does not mean that all the points are the same. We have several hundred billion points to examine.

I'm just presenting my evidence. And I'm simply asking you to present your evidence.

[otseng]

Larger Plants and animals=have always been the exception, not the rule. Even when apatosauruses and triceritopsians roamed, there were many more smaller creatures for every one that grew large.

Sure, there existed small animals as well as very large ones. But, we don't see very large land animals now as we do in the fossil record. I don't think this is disputable.

Such as:
42 ft snake
one ton rat
10 pound frog
5 ft penguin
8 ft sea scorpion
50 ft shark
1000 pound sloth
http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blo ... -time.html

2.5 ft wingspan dragonfly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura

the Blue Whale is, likewise, the largest animal known to have existed.

Interestingly, I have not found any reference to large fossilized marine animals. Why should land animals have grown so large in the past, but marine animals did not?

[otseng]

If I am recalling correctly, we now have the crust being held up by water as water from the vents pushes continents apart (as in the Atlantic Ridge) and does so with enough force to create the mountains we have today in a timeframe on the order of a year or so. This has to occur without side effects which would make survival of the ark and on the ark impossible.

Is this a correct characterization of the FM?

The force of the water did not directly create the mountains. But it is the momentum of the crust moving and then abruptly stopping when it hit the basalt layer underneath. The momentum caused the crust and all the deposited layers to buckle and form the mountains.

what does the FM assume about the average thickness of the crust that lies on top of the water chambers pre-flood?

Around 8 km.

[otseng]

According to this site it is growing vertically:

*Mt. Everest rises a few millimeters each year due to geological forces

http://www.everestpeaceproject.org/facts.php

Here is a more authoritative source:

"It is 8,850 meters (29,035 feet). This altitude shows no measurable change during the last four years, but Everest’s horizontal position seems to be moving steadily and slightly northeastward."
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/featu ... start.html

You have stated a new model but you haven't found any holes in the reasoning for the current one...so why would one switch over?

Oh, there are plenty of holes. We had an entire debate on plate tectonics before. Let me ask you one question. Is the North American plate being subducted?

So if the poles were warmer it is perfectly reasonable to say that the equator was warmer too...i.e. no more "uniform" than today.

I don't discount that it could have been warmer at the equator, but it would all still be considered tropical.

But, what I was countering was your statement in which you were talking about it being cooler - "And what if the current tropical climate is actually cooler than it used to be - particularly during the time when the poles are as described in your links?"

Also more on lack of rings and uniform climate:

The morphology of the Carboniferous plants resembles the plants that live in tropical and mildly temperate areas today. Many of them lack growth rings, suggesting a uniform climate.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/carbonifer ... blife.html

Here is a more detailed for one within the time frame you proposed the flood happened

These charts only apply to the SG model. They are interpretations of the data, not raw data themselves.

-This dive site that found trees without rings;

And this is my only point. That they found trees without rings.

-Since they said it typified this dive, it is an anomaly - not something they expected to find (as would be the case if no trees had rings before a certain age)

Here is the original source again:
http://sajg.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/con ... /106/4/315

My reading of it is that what is unique is finding in-situ fossil tree trunks, not that the trees lacked rings.

I also have to ask, how could the climate really get much more uniform than the equatorial regions already are?

The uniform climate would apply to the entire globe, not just the equator.

[Grumpy]

otseng

Sure, there existed small animals as well as very large ones. But, we don't see very large land animals now as we do in the fossil record. I don't think this is disputable.

Such as:
42 ft snake
one ton rat
10 pound frog
5 ft penguin
8 ft sea scorpion
50 ft shark
1000 pound sloth

I dispute it.

42 foot snake-I think the biggest current snakes only stretch about 35 feet, but there is no reason that bigger ones could not exist.

One ton rat-How much does a hippopotimus weight?

10 pound frog-You mean like this one?



5 ft penguin-9 foot Ostrich...



8 ft sea scorpion-Now there you have to take into account the competition. When the 8 foot scorpion existed it was the top of the food chain. But when fish and other competitors came along it quickly became extinct. Lobsters still reach 41 inches and 44 pounds.

50 ft shark-The winner of the title of the Largest Ocean Carnivore goes to the Sperm whale. The largest of the toothed whale species in the world. Adult males can grow up to 60 feet long and weigh 40 tons (read - 80,000 pounds!).

http://www.extremescience.com/sperm-whale.htm

1000 pound sloth-The polar bear has an average weight of 900 to 1,500 pounds and is considered the world's largest bear with the brown bear, averaging 500 to 900 pounds a close second.
The largest polar bear ever recorded was shot in Kotzebue Sound, Alaska in 1960 weighing a grizzly 1002 kilograms or 2,210 pounds and stood 11 feet 11 inches in height.

The largest brown bear, a Kodiak bear, which is a subspecies of the brown bear, weighed in at over 2,500 pounds and was almost 14 feet tall.

http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffa ... est12.html

Just because there were large animals in the past(some larger than any seen since)does not mean that the average size of fauna has increased or decreased. Just a few thousand years ago there were flat faced bears(the cave bears), saber toothed tigers, mammoths, sloths and vast herds of bison roaming North America, then along came man who hunted them into extinction. In South America 10 foot flightless birds of prey ruled.

There are times when some large animals gained a reproductive advantage by growing to great size, but some of the biggest animals EVER exist today. There was nothing magical or different in past ages, the world has been hotter and it has been colder many times over the history of life on Earth. There has been times of higher oxygen content and times of lower. What we do not see is any kind of "uniform" climate over the whole planet.

Grumpy

[Alan Clarke]

Lizards (T. Rex??) were much larger. Sauropods exceeded the size of present-day land-dwelling animals by huge margins. Antarctica had forests. Dragonflies were much larger as evidenced by fossils with 18� wingspans. Giant fossilized graveyards such as the Morrison Formation illustrates that the scale of massive extinction was a one-time event. Your picture of a giant frog somehow fails to instill confidence that our present-day ecosystem is like that of the past.

-------------------
Clarence Darrow (1857 – 1938) American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, wanted $2.5M for his services (adjusted for inflation) in defending teenage thrill killers Leopold and Loeb for murdering 14-year-old Bobby Franks. Darrow argued that his defendants were not responsible for their actions since both were taught Nietzschean philosophy while at university. The convicted lovers considered themselves "Nietzschean supermen".

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

Lizards (T. Rex??) were much larger. Sauropods exceeded the height of present-day land-dwelling animals by huge margins.

TRex was not a lizard and sauropods were the exception, not the rule. There have been outliers in the past, but then the largest creatures ever to exist is alive today and is a mammal. The point is that even though there have been extremely large creatures, they are not representative of the average.

Antarctica had forests.

Yes, but then the whole Earth was much warmer then and the conditions were not uniform, as otseng has claimed.

Dragonflies were much larger as evidenced by fossils with 18� wingspans.

So??? Other creatures fill that niche today, creatures that have evolved to better compete for that particular food supply.

Giant fossilized graveyards such as the Morrison Formation illustrates that the scale of massive extinction was a one-time event.

There have been several mass extinction events and many lesser extinction events in the long history of life on Earth. Saying that there was only one is to admit your ignorance of the facts.

Your picture of a giant frog somehow fails to instill confidence that our present-day ecosystem is like that of the past.

Never said it was, but it is COMPARIBLE to the systems we have had in the past. And while there have been species that are larger than we have today, there is no reason that even larger creatures will not exist in the future(if we don't kill them all before then).

Grumpy

[Alan Clarke]

Grumpy wrote: “The point is that even though there have been extremely large creatures, they are not representative of the average.

I’ll keep your argument in mind when calculating the needed size for the ark.

-------------
With a little faith in Mother Nature, atheists can move mountains; they can form man from clay.

[Alan Clarke]

Grumpy wrote: “There have been several mass extinction events and many lesser extinction events in the long history of life on Earth. Saying that there was only one is to admit your ignorance of the facts.�

Yes. I agree, but many such events could be aftermath products that occurred in a 500-year post-period envelope as the waters of the Great Flood assuaged. Keep in mind that geologic “layering� can happen quickly:

Actually, “ignorance of the facts� is a rather brash and unwarranted statement since there are other similar physical evidences of massive post-Flood events such as the Missoula Flood which left its mark in a present-day dried-up waterfall that is twice the height and breadth of Niagara. The Great Flood spawned smaller floods as its waters assuaged over a rough 500-year period after its crest height. Another similar evidence is Monument Valley which is explained much better as a post-Flood lake basin that spilled over and cut its unusual features and Grand Canyon in a short period of time. From the link, you will notice a long cliff spanning the horizon which marks the edge of its containment basin. Evolutionists have always been plagued when trying to explain how the Colorado River defied gravity by traveling uphill over the East Kaibab Monocline. I should have stuck to my gut instinct rather than trust the words of a Grand Canyon park ranger 40 years ago. Everyone at that time GASSSSPPED when they were told that the little river carved the canyon over MILLLLIOOOOONS of years. Once the idea was planted into my naïve mind, I couldn’t dismiss it even when faced with contrary evidence. A similar "State-trained" park ranger at Wyandotte Cave in Indiana told me the stalactites took millions of years to form. Later, when I saw stalactites hanging from the ceiling in the George Rogers Clark Memorial, I was fighting mad.

[otseng]

One ton rat-How much does a hippopotimus weight?

What does a hippopotamus have to do with a rat?

The winner of the title of the Largest Ocean Carnivore goes to the Sperm whale. The largest of the toothed whale species in the world. Adult males can grow up to 60 feet long and weigh 40 tons (read - 80,000 pounds!).

Yes, whales now grow very large. Marine animals are generally larger now than in the past. And land animals were generally larger in the past. What can account for this?

Just because there were large animals in the past(some larger than any seen since)does not mean that the average size of fauna has increased or decreased.

To make a more accurate comparison, similar animals needs to compared. Rats do not generally weigh a ton now. Scorpions do not generally grow 8 ft long. Sloths do not weigh 1000 lbs.

Further, as the articles states:
"We have known for some time that the fossil record yields monster millipedes, supersized scorpions, colossal cockroaches, and jumbo dragonflies,"

Some more large animals from the past:

"Measuring 9 cm, the fossil cockroach dwarfs the modern American cockroach which averages 4.5 cm in length."

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s409585.htm

Scientists reckon they've found the biggest rodent ever, an animal like a guinea pig the size of a big cow.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/anima ... 121824.stm

The bones of the dromedary were unearthed by a Swiss-Syrian team of researchers near the village of El Kowm in the central part of the country.

The animal is thought to have been double the size of a modern-day camel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6035113.stm

From fossil evidence, we know that a great variety of truly large animals once existed, with no corner of the globe lacking in examples. In particular, many huge mammals existed during the last ice age, some of them 10 times the size of their surviving relatives that we are familiar with today. For example, the Pleistocene giant beaver is estimated to have weighed 700 pounds, while its modern cousin is not known to attain more than 70 pounds in weight.

http://www.newanimal.org/giant-animals.htm

There are times when some large animals gained a reproductive advantage by growing to great size, but some of the biggest animals EVER exist today.

Yes, the biggest animals exist now in the water, but not on land. And the FM provides an explanation for this.