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?

[Alan Clarke]

Grumpy provided a list of places that supposedly contained all strata of the hypothetical geologic column. As one would suspect, many of the locations are contentious as evidenced by this link. Besides this failing, something caught my eye which I found quite amusing. Most of the locations are in territories that are very difficult to access because of political strife, non-temperate climates, or extreme poverty. These unfortunate circumstances must take a toll on the quality of scientific research. Trying to make a geologic borehole in a country that cant afford to drill for its own water might create bad relations. Why cant the geologic column exist somewhere that is easily studied like where I live in Southern Indiana? Oops! A lot of flooding seems to have washed most of the column away even at the highest elevations. Lets look at Grumpys list:

Afghanistan (2)
Alaska (Eskimo region)
Australia
Bulgaria
Canada (Eskimo region)
China (5)
Colombia
Egypt
Iran
Libya
Mexico (South America)
Morocco
North Dakota
Oman
Poland
Tunisia
Turkey (2)
USSR (2)

There is only one place that seems convenient and friendly, The Williston Basin in North Dakota, so lets check it out:

As stated earlier, the total theoretical column depth is 100 miles, but the depth of the Williston Basin is only 3.4 miles. This means that much of the column is missing.

Bah try again. Perhaps Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Omar Kadafi will allow those who doubt to come and see for themselves.

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

As stated earlier, the total theoretical column depth is 100 miles, but the depth of the Williston Basin is only 3.4 miles. This means that much of the column is missing.

Says who??? Certainly no scientist would say something that stupid. Cite your source for this falacy.

"Woodmorappe and other young-earth creationists are trying to say that if we add the thickest sediments in each period from anywhere in the world this defines the entire geologic column. This is a ridiculous and silly argument. This is like saying the following:

The Antarctic region receives less than 1/10 of an inch of snow per year. Places in Colorado Ski country recieve up to 5-10 feet of snow per year and Houghton, Michigan receives up to 20 feet per year. Let us add up the maximum snow fall anywhere in the world each day of the year. Most likely we would tally up something like 200 feet of snow as the total maximum daily snow fall. If we then conclude that this means that Antarctica only gets 1/2000 of the yearly snow fall and therefore Antarctica doesn't represent a full years snowfall, we would have done the same thing that Woodmorappe is doing with the geologic column. This is rather spurious to say the least. Antarctica received a full year's worth of snowfall--it is just a smaller amount than Vail, Colorado. Similarly to add up the maximum sedimentation in each geologic period and then expect that that represents the entire geologic column is perverse. Woodmorappe's argument doesn't stand up.
"

Your handwaving away of valid evidence just doesn't do anything but generate a slight breeze. ALL of the listed areas have been drilled in the search for oil and gas. The scientist looking for these deposits certainly will not give any credence to your views, not when there is real money involved. Oil companies give employment to the majority of geologists and their findings are a real source of income, young Earth creationists need not apply.

Bah try again.

Grumpy

[micatala]

We have covered a lot of ground in this thread and have several outstanding questions on both sides that might merit answers. We've brought up fossils, techtonics, changes in the magnetic field, the amount of water on the earth, deep bore holes, the K-T boundary and other specific geological features, mass extinctions, and more. Certainly no one can say this has been a light-weight thread.

However, I will suggest we proceed methodically and try to look at one piece or at least type of evidence at a time, instead of chasing multiple rabbits simultaneously.

I would move we consider grumpy's citation regarding the geological column, in particular the Williston Basin.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/


Now, even this one page is rather lengthy, so it would take some time to cover it comprehensively. However, the page does come with a conclusion, so one idea would be to look at the conclusion, and then work our way back for the details.


However, I will offer a passage from early in the page to start.

The Haymond beds consist of 15,000 alternating layers of sand and shale. The sands have several characteristic sedimentary features which are found on turbidite deposits. Turbidites are deep water deposits in which each sand layer is deposited in a brief period of time, by a submarine "landslide" (I am trying to avoid jargon here) and the shale covering it is deposited over a long period of time. I made the comment that one feature of this deposit made it an excellent argument for an old earth and local flood.

Earle F. McBride (1969, p. 87-88) writes:

Two thirds of the Haymond is composed of a repetitious alternation of fine- and very fine-grained olive brown sandstone and black shale in beds from a millimeter to 5 cm thick. The formation is estimated to have more than 15,000 sandstone beds greater than 5 mm thick." p. 87. "Tool-mark casts (chiefly groove casts), flute casts and flute-lineation casts are common current-formed sole marks. Trace fossils in the form of sand-filled burrows are present on every sandstone sole, but nearly absent within sandstone beds.

For the non-geologist who is reading this this means that the burrows are in the shales (which take a long time to be deposited) so the animals would have lots of time to dig their burrows. The sandstones are the catastrophic deposit which covers and fills in the burrows with sand. The fact that there are no burrows in the sand proves that the sand was deposited rapidly.

I pointed out that if the all the sedimentary record had to be deposited in a year long flood of Noah, then given that the entire geologic column in this area is 5000 meters thick, and that the Haymond beds are 1300 m thick, 1300/5000*365 days = 95 days for the Haymond beds to be deposited. Since there are 15,000 of these layers, then 15,000/95 days = 157 layers per day need to be deposited. The problem is that the animals which made the burrows mentioned above, need some time to re-colonize and re-burrow the shale. Is it really reasonable to believe that 157 times per day or 6.5 times per hour, for all the burrowers to be buried, killed, and a new group colonize above them for the process to be repeated? Even allowing for a daily cycle, would require 41 years for this deposit to be laid down.

How would a flood of short duration create alternating sandstone and shale layers, and allow time for animals or some other mechanism (scolithus refers to tubular burrows found in sandstone thought to be created by worms) to create burrows in many of the shale layers?

In addition, later the article notes the following:

Shale, due to the very small particle size requires quiet, tranquil waters for deposition to take place. This is one of the unrecognized difficulties of flood geology. Every shale, which is approximately 46% of the geologic column, is by its existence, evidence for tranquil waters.

Thus, each shale layer requires quiet waters in order to form. Whatever currents or turbulence occurred during the flood, during the places and times that the shales were occurring, the motion of the waters had to cease.


How could one flood have created some 1500 alternating shale and sandstone layers, especially when the shale requires tranquil water and the deposit of the sandstones appear to be less "tranquil" events?



There is certainly more in the page, but I'll suggest we tackle this item first.

[Alan Clarke]

Anti-Logic " 1% is More Significant Than 99%

To rescue the situation, anti-creationists have argued that the 1% of the earths surface where the lithologies of all ten geologic periods can be found simultaneously is somehow more significant than the remaining 99% where they are not superposed. (source)

In trying to support the theory of a "geologic column", why would one give precedence to 1% of the data over the remaining 99% ? To understand such a seemingly non-rational approach, one must understand the philosophical underpinnings that drive biological/cosmological evolution. Please dont take what Im about to say as an ad hominem attack because in actuality I see a ray of redeeming hope in Grumpys choice of ACLU lawyer, Clarence Darrow, as his philosophical mentor. First of all, Darrow (1857"1938) wanted $2.5M for his services (adjusted for inflation) in defending teenage thrill killers Leopold and Loeb for murdering 14-year-old Bobby Franks. He argued that his defendants were not responsible for their actions since both were taught Nietzschean philosophy while at university. The convicted homosexual lovers considered themselves "Nietzschean supermen".

Here is the quote of Darrows that Grumpy proudly affixes to his posts:

"Fear of God is not the beginning of wisdom, but its end."

Here is the original:

Psalm 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.

At first I was angered to see someone blatantly distort those precious words because they define how I was saved from destruction. I once had no fear of God or regard for governmental laws as evidenced by my smoking marijuana for 3 years prior to becoming a Christian. After I came to the conclusion that the Bible was true and I was wrong, I still struggled in kicking my addiction. I was miserable every time I lit up a joint because I now had a fear of God whereas before, I didnt even think he existed. I wanted to quit many times even before becoming a Christian because I was sick and tired of having diminished wind-power when running long distances. But all of my wishing to quit never materialized because I was addicted which brought me to the realization that I wasnt in control of my own life. Later, a desire to do his commandments is what delivered me completely.

But my anger at Darrows quote subsided when my original thought was overridden by a small, still, inner voice.[1] My original stance was that I disliked Darrow because he defended likely-guilty criminals. But the small, still, inner-voice within me retorted, Yes, but Jesus Christ himself defended known repeat-offenders. I couldnt deny this because I too was a habitual offender. So perhaps Grumpy sees Clarence Darrow as a type of Christ who defends the guilty. But Darrow couldnt complete his defense without appealing to a judge. The analogy of Darrow is not complete without recognizing that the justice system to which he was subject put him at the feet of a higher judge. Without some kind of a relationship or favor with this higher power, the efforts of Darrow would fail. Whats more, if a judge is just, he cannot bend law according to his whims or show partiality. For this reason, if Darrow had no fear or respect for judges, his persona would be sensed negatively among judges and his effectiveness diminished. Thus, Darrows philosophy of not fearing a supreme judge would in a sense become his own undoing. Darrows undoing became evident when he agreed to cease practicing law in California after being charged with two counts of attempting to bribe jurors.

Perhaps this ill-fated choice of a mentor might explain how one could adopt a losing strategy for interpreting strata. Ones interpretation of nature may not be constrained by lack of imagination but by a failed basis of morality. Once sin has conceived, truth is no longer distinguishable from what one would like to be true. Why would one reject the idea of a global flood? The idea is rejected more on a philosophical basis than on a scientific. Those who are guilty are not appeased by the idea of a "just" judge. They will heap innumerable philosophical amendments, both moral and scientific, to assuage the painful thoughts of a fast-approaching court date.

Micatala suggested that the debate be moved to the Williston Basin formation. What percent of 1% would that comprise? Perhaps trying to explain the mechanism(s) that ruined the integrity of the other 99% might be in order. When doing so, keep in mind the rule of parsimony.

[1] "God cannot be a figment of my imagination because He is not at all what I imagined Him to be." -C.S. Lewis

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 41 Post 410

>quote mining for brevity<

Anti-Logic " 1% is More Significant Than 99%

To rescue the situation, anti-creationists have argued that the 1% of the earths surface where the lithologies of all ten geologic periods can be found simultaneously is somehow more significant than the remaining 99% where they are not superposed.

It is what it is. Just because we've not tested the entire surface of the Earth is no reason to abandon rational thought for "just so" tales. To think erosion and redeposition have not occurred is folly.

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

LOL This is evidence of a worldwide flood, how?

I once had no fear of God or regard for governmental laws as evidenced by my smoking marijuana for 3 years prior to becoming a Christian. After I came to the conclusion that the Bible was true and I was wrong, I still struggled in kicking my addiction.

Many don't think there's anything wrong with a joint now and then. Many don't think marijuana has anything at all to do with the worldwide flood.

But my anger at Darrows quote subsided when my original thought was overridden by a small, still, inner voice.[1] My original stance was that I disliked Darrow because he defended likely-guilty criminals.

You seem to still be basing your position on someone you merely disapprove of, in this and the following phrases.

Thus, Darrows philosophy of not fearing a supreme judge would in a sense become his own undoing. Darrows undoing became evident when he agreed to cease practicing law in California after being charged with two counts of attempting to bribe jurors.

What evidence has been presented here under Darrow's name?

Why attack someone who has nothing to do with this thread?

Perhaps this ill-fated choice of a mentor might explain how one could adopt a losing strategy for interpreting strata. Ones interpretation of nature may not be constrained by lack of imagination but by a failed basis of morality. Once sin has conceived, truth is no longer distinguishable from what one would like to be true.

I OBJECT TO BE CALLED A "SINNER" OR "IMMORAL" BECAUSE I DON'T ACCEPT FLOOD THEORIES.

Why do some folks think insulting others is some kind of proof for something?

Those who are guilty are not appeased by the idea of a "just" judge. They will heap innumerable philosophical amendments, both moral and scientific, to assuage the painful thoughts of a fast-approaching court date.

I suppose you are appealing to a "judgement" once folks are dead.

If this is the case, I hope the harshest judgement is for those who accuse and insult others simply because they disagree.

Micatala suggested that the debate be moved to the Williston Basin formation. What percent of 1% would that comprise? Perhaps trying to explain the mechanism(s) that ruined the integrity of the other 99% might be in order. When doing so, keep in mind the rule of parsimony.

Yeah, parsimony can be reduced to the one claim - "Godidit".

Unfortunately science must contend with the evidence as it is, not what theists wish it to be.

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

WHEW!!! Did I press the wrong button?

Claarence Darrow, like all human beings, had his good points as well as his not so good points. He reach the pinacle of his career when he faced William Jennings Bryan in the Scope's Trial. "Inherit The Wind" by Jerome Lawrence is a great play/movie about this story. Creationists don't come off looking so good. It was illustriative of the fear that they have of facts and how they must protect their beliefs from them.

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

Had to get a dig in about homosexuals, I see. And even the worst of criminals are entitled to a defense attorney who will do his best for his clients, and Darrow was the best available.

Ones interpretation of nature may not be constrained by lack of imagination but by a failed basis of morality.

Science has nothing to say about morality, and being a scientist is not a moral failing. "Seek and ye shall find" applies equally about exploring the nature you believe god made. And, unless your god is a liar and deciever making the Universe appear old when it is not, the Universe is as we see it to be. That includes a 13.7 billion year old Universe, a 4.5 billion year old Earth, life beginning ~3.5 billion years ago, and the evolution of that life that led to us. These things are facts, not opinions based on rejecting your religious views. FACTS.

Once sin has conceived, truth is no longer distinguishable from what one would like to be true. Why would one reject the idea of a global flood? The idea is rejected more on a philosophical basis than on a scientific.

Having a logical mind, good reasoning ability and accepting the Universe as it appears to be IS NOT A SIN. I reject the global flood because there is no valid scientific evidence that it ever occurred. Instead we found(when we sought) that the history of life on Earth is an incredibly long and complicated journey from the simplest self replicating molecule some 3.5 billion years ago to man and his evolving intellectual progress.

To make it even more complicated, the very caarbon, oxygen and other chemicals were cooked up in the hearts of stars that, when they died in massive explosions, seeded the gas and dust that eventually coalesed into our sun and our planet. We are made from star stuff. We are the Universe evolving a way for it to contemplate itself and everything from the Big Bang until now has been involved in that process. If you wish to say(and believe) that a god said "Let there be light." and the Big Bang happened, I have no way of proving you wrong, nor any desire to do so.

But, again, unless you are telling me that your god is lying to us and decieving us into seeing the Universe as old when it is not, that life on Earth is old when it is not and evolution as fact when it is not, then I am at a loss to understand why you refuse to see reality for what it is. I will not claim you have nefarious motives(as you have wrongly claimed about me), nor will I say you are doomed to everlasting damnation(as you have also claimed, if not in so many words), but I will say that it is a total waste of your(god given, you would say) intellect.

Grumpy

[micatala]

Anti-Logic " 1% is More Significant Than 99%

Micatala suggested that the debate be moved to the Williston Basin formation. What percent of 1% would that comprise? Perhaps trying to explain the mechanism(s) that ruined the integrity of the other 99% might be in order. When doing so, keep in mind the rule of parsimony.

[1] "God cannot be a figment of my imagination because He is not at all what I imagined Him to be." -C.S. Lewis

I thank Alan Clarke for providing still MORE evidence that a global flood did not occur.

The multiple layering, absence of layers in many places, different geological histories at different geographical locations are all explained by Standard Geology.

Accoring to the FM as presented by otseng, all or most sedimentary layers are layed down by a single flood.

Clearly, if this were the case, we absolutely SHOULD see the entire geological column, at least the sedimenatary layers, everywhere across the whole earth.

While I grant this column would not necessarily be identical from place to place, the flood would clearly tend to mix things up and so it should be more uniform from one geographical location to another.

The geological layers should also be more equal in thicknesses from place to place. If the water covered the whole world, places that were at similar depths and similar terrain should have similar depths of sedimentary layers.


So, if Alan Clarke is correct in that 99% of the earths area does NOT have the entire geological column, he has a lot of explaining to do with regards to how this situation came about as the result of a single flood.

[otseng]

"However, it should be noted that the North American Plate, for instance, is nowhere being subducted, yet it is in motion. Likewise the African, Eurasian and Antarctic Plates."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

"A remarkable feature of the North American Plate is that it is nowhere being subducted, yet it is measureably in motion, thus posing a problem for those who argue that subduction is the primary driving force for plate motion in plate tectonics."
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia ... ican-Plate

Not 100% true

What is driving plate tectonics is another issue. My point is to simply show that the North American plate is not subducting anywhere. This is a major problem for plate tectonic theory. How can the North American plate have moved if subduction does not occur?

I fail to see how this is a major problem. I can think of several plausible reasons for no subduction taking place.

The first is that the plate the NA plate is moving into is moving away from it at roughly the same speed.

Do you have evidence that it is moving away at the same speed? How can that plate be moving west? What would determine the interaction between two plates if it'll subduct, spread, or move together?

The second is that the plate is not completely rigid and so might be undergoing some slight bending. If the eastern boundary of the plate is moving, say, 2 cm per year to the west.

Would you agree that the North American plate has travelled the distance from the mid-Atlantic ridge to where it is now? This distance is roughly 3000 km. This amount would have to be accouted for in folds if the western boundary has not moved.

We know that there is uplifting going on within the NA plate, for example at Yellowstone National Park.

I do not dispute this. But is there data that we can look at for this?

[otseng]

We have covered a lot of ground in this thread and have several outstanding questions on both sides that might merit answers. We've brought up fossils, techtonics, changes in the magnetic field, the amount of water on the earth, deep bore holes, the K-T boundary and other specific geological features, mass extinctions, and more. Certainly no one can say this has been a light-weight thread.

We certainly have. And there is much more that we can cover.

However, I will suggest we proceed methodically and try to look at one piece or at least type of evidence at a time, instead of chasing multiple rabbits simultaneously.

That would be good. However, since the burden of proof is on the flood proponents, shouldn't we pick what should be discussed? During most of this time, I've been answering questions posed by the opposition. Further, there seems to be the expectation that the FM needs to explain every single feature. Yet, if I raise questions against SG, there is little persuasive support of SG.

SG is by far the dominant theory, with an overwhelming number of proponents in educational, commercial, governmental, and research institutions. It dominates textbooks, popular books, journals, magazines, etc. It is taught everywhere in schools around the world. SG supporting material should be widely available and abundant.

Just by these facts alone, this debate should easily be won by SG proponents. Yet, this has not been the case.

But, if we're going to concentrate on one thing, I'd like to go back to the original prediction that I made at the beginning. Was there a consensus on this prediction? If so, then we can start looking at the evidence and see how the data and the predictions match up.

[Alan Clarke]

Science has nothing to say about morality, and being a scientist is not a moral failing.

True, but the majority of today's science has nothing to do with the narrower esoteric sect of biological/cosmological evolution. We shouldn't group macro-evolution, Oort clouds, dark matter/energy and other such imagined phenomena into observable science. Accepting these ideas, sight-unseen, requires faith. Accepting Darwinian macro-evolution on good faith comes with a hidden caveat emptor that affects one's moral foundation:

"But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, [if developed by evolution], are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin (Letter to W. Graham, July 3rd, 1881)

Do NOT click here or here unless you can embrace a society based on monkey morals.

unless your god is a liar and deciever making the Universe appear old when it is not, the Universe is as we see it to be.

The Universe as we see it has complex galaxies at the farthest edges which alludes to a young Universe since there isnt enough time for current physical laws to form these even in 13.7B years. Of course you can imagine this happening using unseen dark matter or dark energy but should God be faulted for your vain imaginations? Did God practice deception by creating Adam with an appearance of age? Adam didnt have any problems with his aged state, nor did his near descendents. It wasnt until mans unbelief crept in that an otherwise non-sinful act became sinful. Whats more, there are more scientific evidences that allude to a young Earth than that of an old. If radioisotopes are your bag, then consider measurable amounts of 5730-year half-life C14 in diamonds and coal. The idea of distant starlight being proof of old age is completely fallacious since we know from Einsteins equations that time is only relative. Even your own big bang theory entertains the idea of current laws not going into effect until after T=0. YOU have parsed through the evidences and selected what you WANT to believe. Even common logic tells us that contradictions dont prove falsity any more than the lack of them proves truth.

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.