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?

[micatala]

First off, thanks for the first thoughtful response to my prediction.

I would think, however, that at a given location, sedimentary strata could be either very thick or somewhat thin, and could represent varying periods of time.

Yes. And even in some places, there are no sedimentary strata.

I agree this could happen and is consistent with the SG model. It would seem to me to be inconsistent with the flood model.

Does anyone know of a location where there are no sedimentary strata?

I could see that at a given location, sedimentary strata could be formed during era A, then no strata are formed for a time (perhaps a long time), then either more strata are formed on top of these or uplifting occurs at this location for a period, then erosion might occur, etc.

During the long period after A was deposited, couldn't something have happened to it? Like folding, erosion, faults, etc?

Sure. I don't see how we can rule out a number of sedimentary layers forming and then later undergoing faulting, folding or erosion. My understanding would be that erosion is not likely to occur unless the strata are at or close to the surface. Faults could happen to surface or buried strata. Folding I think would have to happen when the strata are buried and under pressure or heating. Folding or faulting could cause strata that are buried to rise to the surface or closer to the surface.

Also, I would think that in some cases, a thick (or maybe even a thin) layer could be layed down quickly, although it might take some additional time to harden.

Which raises another question. It would be assumed that when any layer is formed, it would not be hardened immediately. So, water and wind should be able to erode it and be recorded in the geologic record.

This would seem to be a fair point.

So could an ordinary water flood.

Or even an extraordinary water flood.

Of course. To distinguish, we would have to investigate the extent of the effect. For a global flood, it seems to me we should be able to trace the "flood layer" all over the world.

Not to digress, but how thick would this hypothetical flood layer be?

Assuming there were no additional sedimentation (or other types of layers) layed down after a flood and subsquent deformation, it seems to me the flood model prediction is reasonable. I guess I need clarification on what this model assumes is below the strata layed down by the global flood, and whether this model includes subsequent layers being layed down years after the flood.

There would be no significant sedimentary layers deposited prior to the flood.

After the flood, there could be some additional layers deposited by volcanoes, local floods, or river sediments. But it would not be extensive.

OK. So if I am understanding your model correctly, we should have a world wide layer of igneous or metamorphic rock underlying everything, then a flood layer, then a small number of other layers might occur at locations around the world and these could be sedimentary or igneous.

Is it fair to say we should not see any igneous rocks within the flood layer.

I am not sure I would expect a "uniform" distribution in the stratas.

I wouldn't say uniform at any single location, but taking all locations around the world, I would expect if erosion, faults, folding occurred in the past, each location would be a snapshot of the history of that particular location, and they should all have past events evident in the stratas. There should be no reason that erosion, faults, folds should only be seen to affect all the layers at almost all places.

I am having some trouble parsing this, but if I am understanding correctly, you are essentially saying that, under the SG model, any given location can show a wide variation in its geologic history. We should NOT see instances of erosion, faults, and folds that affect the entire world at the same time. Do I have that right?

To the extent that strata tend to form in flat areas, and especially marine environments like continental shelves, I would expect that these areas tend to be very quiet, seismically speaking, during periods where strata are forming.

I would question that assumption. But even if it is quiet while a particular strata is forming, there is a large amount of time between when stratas form.

The assumption is only one of tendency. I would not claim that you could not have seismic activity at places where sedimentary strata are forming.


I am unsure how much time you need between layers. I think it would depend on the particular minerals involved, the amount of water (if water was involved) etc.

Conversely, I would expect that in most areas where folding/faulting/erosion are occurring, sedimentary strata are not being layed down at the same time.

In a concave (synform) fold, I would actually expect it catch more sediments than a flat surface.

Most mountains are the result of folding, but they also have a significant amount of deposits in them.

Fair enough.

Now, over the long history of the earth, while I wouldn't expect "uniformity", I would expect to see instances of sedimentary layers subsequently undergoing folding, and faulting and this, I would think, would effect all they layers existing at the time the folding or faulting process was occurring.

Yes. But would this mean that once a fault occurs that the location could not have more layers deposited on it?

I wouldn't say it is impossible. I would say that it seems less likely that a place that had significant faulting would then have layers forming over the whole area as, to the extent that layers form in flat areas, faulting might make the area no longer flat.

However, given your point above about sediments forming in mountain folds, I think what I was saying applies really only to areas where flat horizonatal layers are occurring.

Erosion, on the other hand, as it works from the top down, would not effect all the layers, at least not simultaneously.

It would only work from the existing top surface on down. Water erosion from rain, beach, rivers, etc do not typically produce flat surfaces. So, shouldn't these be evident in the sedimentary stratas?

I think they are. Witness the grand canyon. Witness the badlands of South Dakota. I even saw a picture of layers in New Orleans, exposed by Katrina flooding.

I believe some of the examples pointed to earlier in the thread do actually show this.

Just looking at the Siccar Point Unconformity, there are still many questions that SG does not answer.

Like what in particular?

One prediction you did not make which I think follow from a flood, especially a recent one, is that we should find fossils of the life that existed at the time of the flood all mixed together.

The flood was not simply water that covered the earth, but a mixture of water and earth. It would be more akin to a mud slide than a flash flood. So, I think what would be more expected is quick and mass burials of plants and animals.

Well, I am not sure this helps the flood model. If we did have a "mud slide" type of event (I assume this is caused by water rushing away from the subterranean vents), this should still mix up all the life that existed at one time, in some places probably more than the "slow sinking" of dead bodies through many feet of water. Trilobites should be mixed up with any other life that existed in their approximate habitat. It seems to me quite inconceivable that we would have layers and layers of trilobite like life with no starfish or lobsters or crabs or sea anemones or fish or even turtles, etc. If we find dinosaurs at a particular location, we should find everything else that lived in that area as well mixed up together. If we find all kinds of dinosaurs in the lower layers and then in higher layers find humans and other modern mammals, but they are never mixed even though they are found at the same location, this to me is very very compelling evidence against the flood.

The fact that this is exactly what does happen, all over the world wherever we look, pretty much falsifies the flood all by itself.

THus, we should find heavier life forms in the lowest layers and the lightest life forms at the top, or at least a significant trend in this direction.

There would not be a significant time for heavier things to sink and lighter things to float. Rather, they would've instantly been swept away and/or buried.

Again, I don't see how this type of phenomenon as part of the FM could have occurred all over the world given the vertical location of the fossils we find.

As I recall, we DO find this in isolated locations, like the Karoo formation in Africa.


Unless a very compelling explanation can be found for this, to me this indicates that looking at evidence for a global flood is pretty pointless. To be a legitimate scientific model, the FM has to take into account all the evidence that we have. If even a high percentage of the evidence (say 80% however you measure that) is consistent with the FM but say 5% falsifies the FM, the 5% wins.

[otseng]

And after millions of years of erosion, even if it was an ice sheet, the end result is a flat surface? Where do we see such things occuring?

Worldwide, it is a common phenominon.

Evidence please.

As for floating continents, plate tectonics even posit that plates "float" on rocks.

A distortion of what the theory(and copious evidence)indicates. The "rock" is in a very hot form, either plastic or molten(again, depending on the specific location).

What am I distorting? I'm simply reiterating what plate tectonics states. Are you saying the plates do not float on rocks?

Were that true(and it is not), the scientists of the world would be using the FM INSTEAD of the Plate Tectonics model.

Who are how many believe something has no bearing if something is true or not.

Plate tectonics says that lava is pushing the plates apart and created the oceanic ridge. But, when lava comes out of the ground, is comes out radially, not forming straight lines.

Again with the distortion and oversimplification. The Mid Atlantic ridge can in no way be classified as a straight line, it actually mimics the outline of the rift between the Euopean Continent and the North American one.

It is you distorting what I'm saying. Where did I say the entire ridge is a straight line?


The straight line is a result of tensional forces, not magma eruption.

"Regional fracture systems can appear where the Earth's crust is broken and pulled apart by tensional forces."

Further, the direction of force is perpendicular to the fracture. But, we see lines both parallel and perpendicular to the ridges.


http://geology.uprm.edu/Morelock/plate.htm

Also, in this diagram, we see mountains in the oceans between the continental shelves and the mid-oceanic ridge. How did they get there?

So, yes Virginia, they do erupt in straight lines.

No, fissures were created first, then magma came out at the fissures. The did not erupt and cause a straight line.

You are using his argument about the cause for the extinction to try to handwave away the real point I was making about there being worldwide evidence of the meteor/comet impact itself. And the susequent question of why no worldwide evidence of any flood events. And, no Keller's hypothesis HAS NOT shown that the impact was not the cause. Again, too much evidence indicates it was, Keller is a long way from showing otherwise.

I'm not quoting Keller as evidence for the FM. I'm simply stating that the Chicxulub impact claim for the extinction of dinosaurs is under contention.

[Grumpy]

otseng

I'm not quoting Keller as evidence for the FM. I'm simply stating that the Chicxulub impact claim for the extinction of dinosaurs is under contention.

By very few. But my point was not whether the impact was the cause of the extinction(most scientists think it is), but that the evidence of the impact itself is found worldwide(and is NOT under contention) and the question was why is evidence of a worldwide flood NOT found.

Also, in this diagram, we see mountains in the oceans between the continental shelves and the mid-oceanic ridge. How did they get there?

The same way mountains are formed elsewhere on Earth. Each has it's own story, you'll have to be more specific about which one you want to know about.

Further, the direction of force is perpendicular to the fracture. But, we see lines both parallel and perpendicular to the ridges.

Look up strike/slip fractures.

Plate tectonics says that lava is pushing the plates apart and created the oceanic ridge. But, when lava comes out of the ground, is comes out radially, not forming straight lines.

Again with the distortion and oversimplification. The Mid Atlantic ridge can in no way be classified as a straight line, it actually mimics the outline of the rift between the Euopean Continent and the North American one.

It is you distorting what I'm saying. Where did I say the entire ridge is a straight line?

First, plate tectonics does not say that lava is pushing the plates apart, the Mid Atlantic ridge is formed by lava flowing up to form new ground as the plates seperate due to the currents of magma(not rocks) they are floating on.

But, when lava comes out of the ground, is comes out radially, not forming straight lines.

Where did I say the entire ridge is a straight line?

I didn't say you said it all was, but you did generalize that lava "comes out radially, not forming straight lines." Which is patently false, as it, IN SOME INSTANCES, does come out in straight lines, and you did tie it into the mid ocean ridge...

Plate tectonics says that lava is pushing the plates apart and created the oceanic ridge. But, when lava comes out of the ground, is comes out radially, not forming straight lines.

Are you saying the plates do not float on rocks?

They float as a thin skin on the surface of the molten mantle. Currents of internal heat rising from the core cause these plates of the crust to move.

Grumpy

[Carico]

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?

Absolutely a global flood provides the best explanation for our fossil record. But because the goal of secular scientists is to deny the bible, they'll look at the evidence and make up stories that no one in history has passed along.

That's called a fairy tale.

[Celestial Dragon]

Absolutely a global flood provides the best explanation for our fossil record.

It doesn't.

But because the goal of secular scientists is to deny the bible,

It isn't. Where did you get such an idea? Are you familiar with the Scientific Method? Have you heard of peer-review journals? Everybody has the opportunity to contribute to the scientific community. The reason the flood is not accepted is because it is simply wrong; it isn't science at all.

In fact, evidence against the great deluge (like this and again, this) is so massive and overwhelming that it would be pure insanity to attempt to interpret it as anything more than a metaphorical story.

they'll look at the evidence and make up stories that no one in history has passed along.

That's called a fairy tale.

So you're saying that because nobody in history has had an oral tradition of evolution and common descent, it's false? Now does that really make sense?

[TXatheist]

But because the goal of secular scientists is to deny the bible, they'll look at the evidence and make up stories that no one in history has passed along.

It is irresponsible of you to put this statement out there without any evidence whatsoever. I ask that you prove that it is indeed secular scientists' goal to deny the bible, or retract this statement.

[Carico]

But because the goal of secular scientists is to deny the bible, they'll look at the evidence and make up stories that no one in history has passed along.

It is irresponsible of you to put this statement out there without any evidence whatsoever. I ask that you prove that it is indeed secular scientists' goal to deny the bible, or retract this statement.

Wrong. If scientists believed the flood accounts in the bible, they would never have even looked for an alternative explanations for the flood. Particularly explanations that no one in history can verify and keep changing...let's see, how many ices ages were there? It's anyone's guess since the number will keep changing in the future as well. So since today's scientists will be archaic to tomorrow's science, then there's no reason to trust anything scientists says. But the truth never changes.

[Celestial Dragon]

Wrong. If scientists believed the flood accounts in the bible, they would never have even looked for an alternative explanations for the flood.

But we don't believe the flood story, because the scientific evidence is vastly opposed to it. I'll once more refer you to the TalkOrgins Archives.

an alternative explanations

Looks like you've got a article/object disagreement.

So since today's scientists will be archaic to tomorrow's science, then there's no reason to trust anything scientists says. But the truth never changes.

If we had this attitude, then science would never progress.

to trust anything scientists says

Subject/verb disagreement.

[Carico]

Wrong. All of the evidence points to a flood..all of it. The sedimentary rock layers all over the word, rocks & animal bones found in areas not indigenous to those areas, the accounts of over 200 anciet peoples of a global flood where one family survied and now, they have found evidence of sea animals on mountain tops.

So scientists know that the earth had one time had to have been covered in water...even to melt the so-called glaciers. So why make up other stories that no one in history can verify? What's the point? To deny God.

But it will be fascinating what kind of stories that scientists will have to make up to explain the bones of ancient sea animals on mountain tops. But I'm sure it will be very entertaining...perhaps the fish jumped that high.

We don't need scientists to make up stories about the past because God already told us how the world was created and what happened in the past. But scientists just love to think they know more than God does, so they keep indulging in their imaginations and making up their own history. But they always look foolish because they change their stories every decade.

[micatala]

But because the goal of secular scientists is to deny the bible, they'll look at the evidence and make up stories that no one in history has passed along.

It is irresponsible of you to put this statement out there without any evidence whatsoever. I ask that you prove that it is indeed secular scientists' goal to deny the bible, or retract this statement.

Wrong. If scientists believed the flood accounts in the bible, they would never have even looked for an alternative explanations for the flood. Particularly explanations that no one in history can verify and keep changing...let's see, how many ices ages were there? It's anyone's guess since the number will keep changing in the future as well. So since today's scientists will be archaic to tomorrow's science, then there's no reason to trust anything scientists says. But the truth never changes.

I'm sorry Carico. Your statement is simply blatantly false.

If you study the history of science, you will find that several 18th and 19th century scientists moved from believing in a global flood and a young earth not because they were trying to disprove the bible but in spite of that. They were committed Christians what at first accepted the common biblical interpretations of the day, and initially framed their science in those terms. They only moved away from those views because the evidence was clearly inconsistent with it.

I also call for you to find evidence that Darwin, Lyell, Lamarck, Wallace, and others were specifically trying to deny the Bible through their scientific work.

Please remember this is a debate cite and you are obliged to provide evidence for your statements or else retract them.