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?

[Grumpy]

otseng

Also, if it is a strawman, feel free to give logical arguments as to why you think it is so.

What else have I been doing for the last 50 odd pages??? Have you simply not been paying attention??? Your predictions have been so vague and general as to be useless(heard that before?), to understand an area well enough to make any useful predictions you must first understand it's history and the forces applied to that area(surely you remember that one), many areas have never experienced faulting at all(the Grand Canyon, for instance), others are a jumble of folding, faulting, breaking, erosion and deposition(the Appalachian Mountains where I live)(are you starting to remember now?).

Are you just deliberately being obtuse? You've been stuck trying to get us to accept your invalid predictions for page after page. Is it your intent to just wear everyone's patience out until you can set up your strawman of what you say the SG says??? What is it that makes your invalid prediction so valuable to you?

Personally, I think it's time you dropped this line of reasoning, it just isn't getting you anywhere. I've shown you what a valid prediction of what will be found underground anywhere on Earth can reasonably tell us. The ages of the earth will match certain sets of flora and fauna. Certain fossils WILL ALWAYS be found in strata of certain ages, the strata of certain ages WILL ALWAYS contain fossils of certain types(if it contains any fossils at all). There's nothing random about it.

There is also no random distribution of faults, erosion or depositions(as in your prediction).

Now move on.

Grumpy

[Goat]

I will add or reiterate the following.

We have yet to establish that flooding can cause ANY folding or faulting. I guess I would agree that if all of what we see above the base layers is due to a flood, then it could affect all layers. However, this assumes that a flood as described can actually produce a fault.

Secondly, while I would agree the SG along WITH the other data we have about the age and history of the earth would imply that some faulting etc. would not affect all layers, I would not say this means it should appear uniformly distributed in the strata.

FInally, I would say another prediction we might make based on SG is the folding and faulting is more likely to occur at the boundaries of techtonic plates.

I would like to see , in principle, how the FM could cause folding or faulting. How much energy woudl it take to cause a fold? Wouldn't water cause an equal amount of pressure along the entire length, and therefore not cause folding at all? We see the process of folding and faulting happening today in earthquake zones.. yet we don't see similar processes happening during floods.

[micatala]

I will add or reiterate the following.

We have yet to establish that flooding can cause ANY folding or faulting. I guess I would agree that if all of what we see above the base layers is due to a flood, then it could affect all layers. However, this assumes that a flood as described can actually produce a fault.

Secondly, while I would agree the SG along WITH the other data we have about the age and history of the earth would imply that some faulting etc. would not affect all layers, I would not say this means it should appear uniformly distributed in the strata.

FInally, I would say another prediction we might make based on SG is the folding and faulting is more likely to occur at the boundaries of techtonic plates.

I would like to see , in principle, how the FM could cause folding or faulting. How much energy woudl it take to cause a fold? Wouldn't water cause an equal amount of pressure along the entire length, and therefore not cause folding at all? We see the process of folding and faulting happening today in earthquake zones.. yet we don't see similar processes happening during floods.

Yes, I have expressed my skepticism on this point previously as well. I don't know enough physics to calculate the forces required and whether water could create this. I have also expressed doubt that the water hypothesized to be in the subterranean chambers could support the 5 to 8 miles of crust. I have also expressed doubt that they could serve to reduce the friction and allow the crust to slide apart, as described by otseng, to create features like the mid-Atlantic ridge.

I guess we should go back to the post from page 18 that otseng has linked to above. It may take some patience, but I think we should look at what empirical evidence there is for or against the hypotheses and speculations found there regarding the FM.

[micatala]

Let's look at otseng's post from page 18. I will attempt to steer my comments towards what kinds of predictions the global flood model makes, what real science is behind the FM, and whether it provides the best explanation for the fossil record, etc.

Perhaps if you explain the mechanics behind each and every prediction more, because the way they are presented, I do not see the connections between a massive great flood and your predictions.

Could you break down the 'prediction' into smaller steps, and explain point a to point b to point c to point d for me?? Can you connect the dots?? It's very important to connect the dots in science.

There are a lot of dots to connect. And I really do not want to rehash the Global Flood thread and start with dot a again. But, I'll give some highlights from the Global Flood thread.

Let me start by describing the Earth before the Flood. The earth's atmosphere was very different than it is now. The temperature was more uniform throughout the earth and was mostly tropical. The entire world was covered by some sort of water canopy which allowed for a global tropical climate. It also did not rain. The earth had an abundance of large animals (dinosaurs) and large plants. The oceans did not exist as we know them now. However, there were seas that existed. The major mountain ranges did not exist and the mountains were smaller than what we have today. About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the earth's surface. Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas were a connected land mass.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =3114#3114

I know we have discussed whether there is any evidence for the many assumptions made above. otseng has noted concerning the water canopy that most of the water for the flood was not in the canopy, but in the subterranean chambers. I don't know that we had explicit agreement, but it was shown to my satisfaction that having a large proportion of the water required for the flood in the canopy was simply untenable.

We have really not established that the subterranean chambers are tenable either. As I recall, the basic claim is that the water we have on earth at presence was largely in the subterranean chambers, and that the crust (5 miles of it as I recall) was basically totally supported by the water. I would suggest we try to settle the possibility of this first.

[otseng]

Your predictions have been so vague and general as to be useless(heard that before?), to understand an area well enough to make any useful predictions you must first understand it's history and the forces applied to that area(surely you remember that one), many areas have never experienced faulting at all(the Grand Canyon, for instance), others are a jumble of folding, faulting, breaking, erosion and deposition(the Appalachian Mountains where I live)(are you starting to remember now?).

Then let's clarify this now. Do you maintain that SG cannot make a prediction based on the model (and not looking at particular locations) to make any general statement of what stratas should look like? If you accept this, then I'm willing to move on.

[Alan Clarke]

Fossil Trilobite Triarthrus eatoni with SOFT TISSUE !!!

Don't take this as a diversion from the thread topic, but aren’t buried trilobites applicable if they were supposedly buried by the Flood? Can anyone confirm if this supposed 445 million year-old fossil sold on eBay is a hoax?

Clike here for eBay link with accompanying photos:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Fossil-Trilobite-Tr ... 0354918798

This rare fossil speciman comes from a quarry in New York where Triathrus trilobites are found with preserved appendages, antennae and other organs. The preservation of this speciman is astounding, and the skillful preperation that is required to reveal these features can take hours of slow, painstaking work. The state of preservation and the skill of the preparetor rival even the finest Budenbach trilobites that I have personelly have ever seen. The Budenbach specimans don't even come close in micro-preservation !! These spaecimans average in lenght at 1cm. This trilobite speciman is colorfully preserved in glittering gold pyrite. " Modern and extinct anthropods, including trilobites, have an outter carpace or shell, made from a complex form of calcite incorporating protiens and polysaccharides, often refferred to simply as chiton. For ease of understanding, a trilobites dorsal shell exoskeleton can be compared to the shell of a crab for some species, or a bit softer for others. The ventricle ( underside ) membrane of the trilobite, along with its legs and antennae, were not hardened at the dorsal surface. These soft parts had a similar consisitancy of the dangling legs of a shrimp and their rather soft antennae. When a trilobite is fossilized these soft tissues have very slim chance of being preserved, much less than that of the hard-calicified exoskeleton. To quantify the rarity of soft tissue preservation, I would say with coinfidence, that only there hard, calcified dorsal exoskeleton is seen in a percentage greater than 99.9% of the time. That means of all the trilobites ever fossilized over the course of several hundred million years, less than 0.01% of these animals show evidence of soft tissue preservation. The extreme rarity expressed in percentage value is outstanding. From an evolutionary standpoint the soft tissues of early animals such as trilobites is an opportunity to understand how organisms evolved to meet challenges in an ever changing enviroment, and ultimately avoid or succumb to extinction"....This speciman is not from the Bleecher Beds, but is from a new locality with a limited number of intial specimans avaliable for sale before it goes under the control of the academic community. Also come included with the riker moun as shown. Also have aditional paperwork that will be included along with the speciman. Triarthus eatoni...Ordovician (445 million years old )....Lorraine shale, Oneida Co, New York. 100% authentic..NO REPAIRS OR ANYTHING GLUED AT ALL.....ALL NATURAL...Please feel free to ask any questions. Thank you for your interest. FREE SHIPPING WITHIN THE USA. ALSO PLEASE NOTE THAT THE EXTRA LARGE PHOTOS ARE OF THIS SPECIMAN IN MUCH GREATER DETAIL WITH EXPLANTION OF THE ACTUAL SOFT TISSUE PRESERVATION.

"Soft tissue" seems to be popping up everwhere after Mary Schweitzer's T. Rex find. I'm wondering if the eBay seller is a YEC trying to market his theory. He has a 100% approval rating from his buyers. Even if there is no soft tissue, isn't the detail on the fossil a mark against the idea of it being 445 millions years old? The preservation looks like it's less than 5000 years when compared to those dead pill bugs that I find under my bed after I haven't dusted for 3 months. 3 months vs. 445 million years?? Is any body out there an expert on this?

Click here to compare detail on Pill Bug with that of trilobite.

[Grumpy]

Can anyone confirm if this supposed 445 million year-old fossil sold on eBay is a hoax?

Why would anyone think it is a hoax, other than ignorance?

aren’t buried trilobites applicable if they were supposedly buried by the Flood?

Oh, never mind.

Grumpy

[Grumpy]

otseng

Then let's clarify this now. Do you maintain that SG cannot make a prediction based on the model (and not looking at particular locations) to make any general statement of what stratas should look like? If you accept this, then I'm willing to move on.

Scientists know better than to START with predictions based on insufficient evidence. Given enough evidence one can THEN construct a model and make predictions. I am saying that your attempts to predict are too general to apply to any particular area, nor will they be useful in describing general features, and are thus useless.

I would suggest that you make your predictions about the FM and not about your limited or distorted understanding of Standard Geological models(yes, models, plural, one that takes the history and forces of any particular area into account) No one prediction can be made that will apply widely .

Grumpy

[Alan Clarke]

Fossil Trilobite Triarthrus eatoni with SOFT TISSUE !!!
Click eBay link here.
Can anyone confirm if this supposed 445 million year-old fossil sold on eBay is a hoax?

Why would anyone think it is a hoax, other than ignorance?

I'm rather surprised to see you concur with the authenticity since it supposedly has soft tissues but is more than six times as old as Mary Schweitzer's T. Rex bone with soft tissue:

These soft parts had a similar consisitancy of the dangling legs of a shrimp and their rather soft antennae. When a trilobite is fossilized these soft tissues have very slim chance of being preserved, much less than that of the hard-calicified exoskeleton. To quantify the rarity of soft tissue preservation, I would say...

[otseng]

I would like to see , in principle, how the FM could cause folding or faulting. How much energy woudl it take to cause a fold? Wouldn't water cause an equal amount of pressure along the entire length, and therefore not cause folding at all? We see the process of folding and faulting happening today in earthquake zones.. yet we don't see similar processes happening during floods.

The water pressure along the surface of a strata would not cause folding or faulting. Rather, it is the movement of the crust with all the layers deposited on it and then hitting the mantle would cause the layers to buckle. It is the momentum of the crust/stratas moving that is the source of the energy for the folding. Also, all the layers deposited have not lithified at this point. So, the energy required for folding would be much less than what is required for SG.