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?

[LittlePig]

I'll start out by asking this. Would it be more palatable if I said instead that the entire Earth was covered by ice/snow in the past instead of water?

Palatability is not the issue. Evidence is. The snowball earth idea, while it seems to have more scientific support than a global flood, is still quite controversial.

You beat me to the punch. Yes, Snowball Earth theory is in an immature state, but it is not dismissed out of hand by scientists. I do not think that proposing the entire Earth was covered with liquid water is much different than covered with ice.

But, I agree with you. What it should boil down to is evidence.

Actually there are very big differences. Water volume would be one. And the dynamics of slow moving glaciers are very different than a rapid deluge of water that busts open the Earth's crust, moves the continents, builds mountains, cuts the Grand Canyon, and swishes everything around that it can (not sure what couldn't be with that description).

[Goat]

I'll start out by asking this. Would it be more palatable if I said instead that the entire Earth was covered by ice/snow in the past instead of water?

Palatability is not the issue. Evidence is. The snowball earth idea, while it seems to have more scientific support than a global flood, is still quite controversial.

You beat me to the punch. Yes, Snowball Earth theory is in an immature state, but it is not dismissed out of hand by scientists. I do not think that proposing the entire Earth was covered with liquid water is much different than covered with ice.

But, I agree with you. What it should boil down to is evidence.

Yet, there is one big difference between ice and water.

Ice does not flow to the lowest point, and a thin coating can cover a mountain. We see that every winter. That one point makes a 'snowball earth' more credible than a 'world wide flood'. The volume of water needed in ice form is not nearly as great as if it was in liquid form. .. and you can possibly have a world where the water is entirely trapped in ice, and not 'totally covering' the world. I would consider that a 'snowball' world.

[Scotracer]

Also remember the specific volume of ice is higher than liquid water.

[otseng]

Let me clarify that I'm not presenting Snowball Earth as evidence for the FM. I'm simply raising it as a stretching exercise. If one can accept the Earth was once covered with frozen water, then it's a little bit easier to move towards liquid water.

Also, I'm not going to rehash the details of the Flood Model. If you are unfamiliar with it, I've explained it in the Global Flood thread.

[otseng]

In standard geology, stratas are formed over long time periods (thousand, millions of years). Each successive strata are formed on top of older stratas. So, the entire strata sequence at any point in the world could span on the order of millions/billions of years.

In the Flood Model, practically all the stratas were formed within a short period (on the order of months). For almost all cases, only after all the stratas were formed, did things occur to the entire sequence like folding, faulting, erosion, etc. (More details on this in the link I provided above)

In standard geology, geological events should've occured throughout Earth's history, so these events should be evident in the stratas.

So, a prediction by the FM is that for the vast majority of cases, we should see folding/faulting/erosion that affects the entire rock stratas. In SG, we should see roughly a uniform distribution of folding/faulting/erosion in the stratas.

Would everyone agree with these predictions? If not, why not?

[Goat]

In standard geology, stratas are formed over long time periods (thousand, millions of years). Each successive strata are formed on top of older stratas. So, the entire strata sequence at any point in the world could span on the order of millions/billions of years.

In the Flood Model, practically all the stratas were formed within a short period (on the order of months). For almost all cases, only after all the stratas were formed, did things occur to the entire sequence like folding, faulting, erosion, etc. (More details on this in the link I provided above)

In standard geology, geological events should've occured throughout Earth's history, so these events should be evident in the stratas.

So, a prediction by the FM is that for the vast majority of cases, we should see folding/faulting/erosion that affects the entire rock stratas. In SG, we should see roughly a uniform distribution of folding/faulting/erosion in the stratas.

Would everyone agree with these predictions? If not, why not?

No... I do not.. because we already know that folding/faulting and erosion will effect an entire strata, since the rock is a lot older than just a few million years.

I would say that with the "FM", since all the 'folding/erosion/faulting' happened within 6000 years, then there would be evidence of the forces of energy that it would to distort that amount of rock. We would see signs of the earthquakes to in far excess of what we do see.

How does the FM explain canyons , in specifically the grand canyon?

[otseng]

No... I do not.. because we already know that folding/faulting and erosion will effect an entire strata, since the rock is a lot older than just a few million years.

Let's do a thought experiment.

Suppose 200 Mya strata A formed. 150 Mya strata B was deposited on strata A. 100 Mya stratas A and B were folded. 50 Mya strata C was deposited on A and B. Stratas A and B would be curved, but C would be straight.

So, when we look at the ABC sequence now, we know that folding occured sometime between when B and C were formed.

The same would be for faults and erosions.

How does the FM explain canyons , in specifically the grand canyon?

Let's hold off on this until we can come to a consensus on the predictions.

[otseng]

I would say that with the "FM", since all the 'folding/erosion/faulting' happened within 6000 years, then there would be evidence of the forces of energy that it would to distort that amount of rock.

A significant portion of it occured shortly after all the stratas were formed (on the order of days, weeks). Of course we see such activity today, and it has occured between now and the flood event, but the vast majority of it occured during the flood event. As for the forces required to distort the rocks, it is explained in my link I provided earlier.

[Goat]

No... I do not.. because we already know that folding/faulting and erosion will effect an entire strata, since the rock is a lot older than just a few million years.

Let's do a thought experiment.

Suppose 200 Mya strata A formed. 150 Mya strata B was deposited on strata A. 100 Mya stratas A and B were folded. 50 Mya strata C was deposited on A and B. Stratas A and B would be curved, but C would be straight.

So, when we look at the ABC sequence now, we know that folding occured sometime between when B and C were formed.

The same would be for faults and erosions.

How does the FM explain canyons , in specifically the grand canyon?

Let's hold off on this until we can come to a consensus on the predictions.

Is that 'thought experiment' valid? How can you verify that with real world examples.

It's one thing to have 'thought experiments'. Let's see you back up things with real world examples.

One thing I would think a 'flood model' would predict is that all the strata shows signs of intense hydro interaction. This often is not the case too.

Do you think that the FM explains the Grand Canyon?

[otseng]

Is that 'thought experiment' valid?

I'm not proposing anything that is out of the ordinary. Unless one believes that folds/faults/erosion did not occur in the past.

It's one thing to have 'thought experiments'. Let's see you back up things with real world examples.

Since Scotracer asked for predictions, I came up with one. If we agree to these predictions, then we can start looking at real world data.

One thing I would think a 'flood model' would predict is that all the strata shows signs of intense hydro interaction.

Could you elaborate?

Do you think that the FM explains the Grand Canyon?

Yes. But, let's take one thing at a time.