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]

It seems to me that you are going to a leap of logic between some pieces of mineral forming on eggs, and tissue being fossilized.

Tissue fossilization is even more problematic. Tissue decays much faster than bones. So, fossilization would have to occur even faster if fossilized tissue is present.

Not in a low oxygen environment. That has been shown again and again,that there are conditions where tissue does not decay. For example, the body found in a bog
where the tissue was perfectly preserved was a victim of druid sacrifice from around 200 c.e. No fossilization had occurred. and no decomposition of the body had occurred either. It's rare, but fossilization in general is rare too.

Again, although the rate of fossilization is an interesting and worthy topic, I'll suggest that we can avoid chasing too many rabbits by simply looking at what fossils exist and in what layers. I believe the pattern of fossils in the grand canyon pretty much falsifies the FM all by itself, regardless of how long these fossils took to form, or even for that matter when they formed.

The pattern of layers of varying types of rocks along with the fossils found there in simply cannot be explained by the FM model that has been put forth in this thread.

[Goat]

It seems to me that you are going to a leap of logic between some pieces of mineral forming on eggs, and tissue being fossilized.

Tissue fossilization is even more problematic. Tissue decays much faster than bones. So, fossilization would have to occur even faster if fossilized tissue is present.

Not in a low oxygen environment. That has been shown again and again,that there are conditions where tissue does not decay. For example, the body found in a bog
where the tissue was perfectly preserved was a victim of druid sacrifice from around 200 c.e. No fossilization had occurred. and no decomposition of the body had occurred either. It's rare, but fossilization in general is rare too.

Again, although the rate of fossilization is an interesting and worthy topic, I'll suggest that we can avoid chasing too many rabbits by simply looking at what fossils exist and in what layers. I believe the pattern of fossils in the grand canyon pretty much falsifies the FM all by itself, regardless of how long these fossils took to form, or even for that matter when they formed.

The pattern of layers of varying types of rocks along with the fossils found there in simply cannot be explained by the FM model that has been put forth in this thread.

I will agree. The FM can not explain how you can have a desert environment between two marine environments.. with fossils in all 3 layers that do not intermingle.

For that matter, it could not explain the layering even without the fossils.

Nor could it explain the laying down of those layers at the same time it is allegedly cutting through them.

[micatala]

I see the FM as a better explanation than the SG.

Ok, but with all due respect, your opinion on this, just like mine, is irrelevant.

I agree that simple assertions are irrelevant. And I hope others will be reminded of this when they as well simply give the assertion that SG is correct and the FM is false.

But, in my context, it's not simply an isolated assertion. I'm comparing SG and the FM in accounting for marine fossils on the top of the major mountains.

I will point out the SG can account for marine environments on top of mountains and marine layers on top of land layers. I'll point to the posts on the grand canyon on page 82 for example.

I don't see how the FM is better than the SG when simply asking which accounts for marine environments on top of mountains.

In addition, let's look at the details regarding exactly what is on top of a given mountain, like Mt. Everest, and see which model is really better.

Since marine fossils are found on all mountains, this fits with the FM. Why would it be that in SG, that all mountains were at one time underwater recently? The fossils are found at the top of the mountains. So, the most recently deposited layer was underwater. And then all the mountains rose since that time.

Underwater recently? Says who?

Well, let's take Mount Everest. On the top is marine limestone. Marine limestone indicates that it was once underwater.

For future reference, here is a site on limestone. It discusses how limestone forms and the various kinds of limestone.

http://geology.com/rocks/limestone.shtml

Note that limestone is over 50% calcium carbonate.

One passage:

Most limestones form in shallow, calm, warm marine waters. That type of environment is where organisms capable of forming calcium carbonate shells and skeletons can easily extract the needed ingredients from ocean water. When these animals die their shell and skeletal debris accumulate as a sediment that might be lithified into limestone. Their waste products can also contribute to the sediment mass. Limestones formed from this type of sediment are biological sedimentary rocks. Their biological origin is often revealed in the rock by the presence of fossils.

otseng had said later in the post I am quoting that:

Also, it is impossible for a flood and mountain uprising to happen in the time you have provided.

According to SG, yes, it would not be plausible because it states plate tectonic movement is slow. In the FM, plate movement is fast.

Questions for otseng.

Does the FM posit calm or turbulent waters? Some of each?


In particular, although it has not been shown that the flood waters escaping from the hypothetical chambers can even produce techtonic movement, let alone rapid movement, leaving aside this huge problem it seems to me if Everest was formed quickly through the flood, the waters over and around it would have been extremely turbulent.

How can limestone, which forms in calm waters, have formed in the midst of the hypothesized uplifting and resulting turbulence that produced Everest under the FM?

Note that this is not a problem for SG, since the SG explanation is that the limestone formed at the bottom of the sea millions of years before the uplifting that produced Everest.


Note that wikipedia points out that the fossils found on Everest often show evidence of extreme conditions.

Geologists have subdivided the rocks comprising Mount Everest into three units called "formations".[67][68] Each of these formations are separated from each other by low-angle faults, called detachments, along which they have been thrust over each other. From the summit of Mount Everest to its base these rock units are the Qomolangma Formation, the North Col Formation, and the Rongbuk Formation.

From its summit to the top of the Yellow Band, about 8,600 m (28,000 ft) above sea level, the top of Mount Everest consists of the Qomolangma Formation, which has also been designated as either the Everest Formation or Jolmo Lungama Formation. It consists of grayish to dark gray or white, parallel laminated and bedded limestone interlayered with subordinate beds of recrystallized dolomite with argillaceous laminae and siltstone. Gansser first reported finding microscopic fragments of crinoids in these limestones.[69] Later petrographic analysis of samples of this Ordovician limestone from near the summit revealed them to be composed of carbonate pellets and finely fragmented remains of trilobites, crinoids, and ostracods. Other samples were so badly sheared and recrystallized that their original constituents could not be determined. The Qomolangma Formation is broken up by several high-angle faults that terminate at the low angle thrust fault, the Qomolangma Detachment. This detachment separates it from the underlying Yellow Band. The lower five metres of the Qomolangma Formation overlying this detachment are very highly deformed.[67][68]

There is a lot going on in this area. There are layers of siltstone, limestone, gneiss, marble, metamorphic rocks of various kinds, etc.

Note that the marble, which is a metamorphic rock, shows evidence of crinoid fossils in it. In fact, marble is metamorphised limestone.

Thus, the marble layers represent hard (ha ha!) evidence of having been formed as limestone (in calm water), at a time when crinoid life existed (marine organisms that are often bottom dwellers with arms), then having solidified and then becoming metamorphised.

Note that below the 8300 meter section of marble, we have

interlayered and deformed schist, phyllite, and minor marble. Between 7,600 and 8,200 m (24,900 and 26,900 ft), the North Col Formation consists chiefly of biotite-quartz phyllite and chlorite-biotite phyllite intercalated with minor amounts of biotite-sericite-quartz schist. Between 7,000 and 7,600 m (23,000 and 24,900 ft), the lower part of the North Col Formation consists of biotite-quartz schist intercalated with epidote-quartz schist, biotite-calcite-quartz schist, and thin layers of quartzose marble.

So, we get other layers of different kinds of rocks, and then even more marble.



How does the FM explain marble, and especially layers of marble with other intervening rock layers between them?

[Grumpy]

micatala

How does the FM explain marble, and especially layers of marble with other intervening rock layers between them?

It doesn't, nor does it explain the perfect segregation of fossil types within those layers. In fact the FM is so busted it is perverse to continue this charade. Unless someone finds a Rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian this debate is over.

Grumpy

[otseng]

Been a pretty busy past few days. I was preaching at a church this morning so I had to spend some time getting prepared for that. Hopefully I'll have some more free time to get back to this thread now.

One comment first before addressing the issues.

The flood dynamics would've been quite complicated with all sorts of factors involved - plate movement, crustal erosion, climate change, tidal forces, wind, rain, etc. Since we were not there and that there's been little research into this area, it would be hard to give any specifics of exactly what happened during the flood.

Hakatai Shale: Precambrian. Stromatolite fossils which are formed from mats of bacteria in a marine environment.

Just to add that Stromatolite fossils are not limited to the Precambrian.

"Most often, stromatolites appear as variously-sized arches, spheres, or domes. Learn to recognize the characteristic, alternating layers and you'll begin to see stromatolites everywhere in marine sedimentary rocks. (note here that stromatolites can be found in other, much more recent rocks, like the Cretaceous rocks that surround Vesey Elementary school on Tucson's west side.)"

Stromatolites even exist today. So, the existence of stromatolites by themselves do not indicate age.

The Tonto Group of the Cambrian, including three sublayers referred to as the Tapeats Sandstone, Bright Angel Shale and Muave limestone. Note that sandstone, shale, and limestone all form in different ways. HOw the FM can explain this layering I am not sure.

I touched on layering here.

Layers would be accounted for by different sediments being deposited at different times and from different locations and also by tidal forces.

Sorting and layering was significantly affected by lunar tidal forces. Roughly twice a day, it would experience two cycles of tidal forces. The sediments under water were cycled with high pressure and low pressure during high and low tides. Also, the energy of tidal waves are now dissipated by the coast lines, but when the water covered the entire Earth, there were no coast lines to absorb the waves. These forces would account for similar sediments to be sorted together and account for rythmic layering.

Shale forms only in water that is tranquil for long periods of time.

The process in the rock cycle which forms shale is compaction. The fine particles that compose shale can remain suspended in water long after the larger and denser particles of sand have deposited. Shales are typically deposited in very slow moving water and are often found in lakes and lagoonal deposits, in river deltas, on floodplains and offshore from beach sands. They can also be deposited on the continental shelf, in relatively deep, quiet water.

Though it says that shale can form in tranquil waters, it doesn't state that it can only form in tranquil waters.

Above this in the Temple Butte Formation we are in the Devonian period.
Fossils include placoderms, stromatoporoids, and rugose corals. How did the corals get above the more mobile trilobites?

This is assuming that corals and trilobites live in the same place. If they did not live in the same place, then the corals could have been transported and buried above the trilobites.

Brachiopods, like corals, are immobile. How did these get above the trilobites if these layers were laid down in a flood?

Same thing. If they were from a different location, they would not be buried together.

There are plant fossils as well as some amphibians and reptiles.

A clarification. No skeletal remains of amphibians or reptiles are found. The only fossils are footprints, which could be either from reptiles or amphibians.

IN addition, there are raindrop prints and mudcracks which indicate that these layers were at least at times exposed to the air!

Yes, it would have been exposted to air if they are indeed raindrop prints. And same goes for footprints.

The global flood would not have been one event where a bunch of dirt was dumped on the Earth simultaneously. But, it would've been a complex event where there were possibly waves of deposits placed at different points in time.

Certainly animals cannot "run" when they are buried in dirt. And raindrops cannot form fossil imprints if they are not exposed to the air. So, when we see layers of footprints, it would mean that the flood had a brief point where sediments were not being deposited and the layer was exposed to air. In either the SG or FM, the sediments must've been wet to be able to form footprints. And for raindrop imprints, this is even more the case. And then these prints must've been quickly buried before they eroded away.

How did this non-marine environment get laid down on top of the marine environments with the trilobites, corals, brachiopods, etc if all these layers are due to a single flood?

They were from a different location.

This can be seen in the Supai Formation:
"Numerous fossils of amphibians, reptiles and terrestial plants exist in the eastern portion which are replaced by marine fossils as you move westward."

Coconino Sandstone: 300 feet thick from the Permian period (290 to 248 MYA). This formation is composed of nearly pure quarz sand, well-rounded and formed into cross-bedded layers characteristic of sand dunes.

Or possibly underwater sand. If it was a desert condition, how can footprints become fossilized? First, how can sand capture and retain animal footprints? And even if it somehow can, why do we see a small number of footprints? Also, the footprints are easily recognizable. How can such footprints become fossilized in dry sand?

In the FM, it would've been a quick sequence of layer(s) deposited, an animal ran across the wet sand, then it was quickly buried by more sediment.

Some questions from me:

The Earth was formed approximately 5 billion years ago.

The roots of the ancient mountain range that now lies at the bottom of the Grand Canyon were formed about 1.7 billion years ago.

What happened to that mountain range? If it got eroded, where did the sediments from the mountain range go?

There is then an unconformity of about 450 million year in which the rocks are missing.

What happened during the 450 million year period? How could nothing have happened during this time?

At 1.25 billion years ago the first sedimentary layer, the Bass Formation, was laid down.

Why are there not sedimentary layers older than 1.25 billion years old? If the Earth formed 5 billion years ago, didn't it rain since that time? If there was a mountain range 1.7 billion years ago that got eroded, shouldn't the sediments from that massive erosion have formed sedimentary layers?

At 1.2 billion years ago the sea retreated leaving mud flats behind which eventually became the Hakatai Shale.

Where did all these sediments come from to form this layer? Why was it completely flat? Where are all subsequent layers also flat? And where did those sediments come from?

There is then another unconformity of about 250 million years in which new rock layers were probably laid down but were completely eroded away.

Where did it get eroded to? If it got eroded, how did it get eroded to become completely flat? If we see erosion in the area now (or practically anywhere else in the world), areas do not get eroded flat for hundreds of square miles in area.

The thick layer of Redwall Limestone which began to deposited around 330 million years ago indicates that the land was submerged for a great deal of time.

How did the land get submerged? Did the ocean rise or did the land fall? What caused this?

The Supai Group which rests atop the Redwall is dated at 300 million years ago and indicates that it was formed in an above water and coastal environment.

How did the land rise above sea level? What caused this?

The Coconino Sandstone represents the remains of a vast sea of sand dunes which was blown down from the north around 270 million years ago.

Again, if it was sand on dry land, how could footprints have been captured? And why only a few set of footprints?

The top layer of the Grand Canyon, the Kaibab Limestone, contains many marine fossils which indicate that it originated at the bottom of the sea. This layer is around 250 million years old.

How did the land submerge again? Why would the top most layer be 250 million years old? Why are there not more recent layers on top of this?

As a final comment, the thread is partly about which model explains the data better. The SG is certainly quite consistent with all we find in the grand canyon. The FM simply is not.

I will say this. I do not think either the SG or the FM can fully account for everything. As for which one explains more, I have a different opinion.

[otseng]

As a follow up to the previous post, and in particular focusing on the third question for debate.

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

Now, otseng holds most of the sedimentary layers were laid down by a flood.

Yes, this is what I claim.

However, how you are suggesting the standard model 'should behave and predict' is something other than what we see. In other words, you are priming the thought experiment to favor the FM, rather than look at the real world evidence.

Yes, I'm suggesting how standard geology "should behave and predict". As well as for the FM. If one disagrees with my predictions, then please provide another version.

We have not got to the real world evidence yet. And that is the nature of predictions. The predictions should come from the models. And then they can be compared to the empirical data. If they match, then it shows the validity of the model. If they do not match, then the model is not correct.

But, let's not jump ahead yet to the real world data and first come to a consensus on the predictions.

The claim I believe is that all the strata is caused by the flood.

That is correct.

I was just browsing back and thought I would bring this up to clarify previous claims. otseng has now hedged a bit on this, but did at one point allow all the strata were caused by the flood.

I was replying primarily to the issue of predictions, so I was not careful enough in the latter part.

To go on on the record, I do not claim that 100% of the stratas were formed during the flood, but certainly a vast majority. There are certainly stratas that have been formed in recent catastrophic events. Also sediments have been deposited in recent times by water and wind erosion. But this would account for very little. Similarly, these events could've happened before the flood too. But, for the vast majority of stratas, it would've formed during the flood. If I were to put a guesstimate on it, it would be over 90% of sedimentary stratas were formed during the flood.

[otseng]

After that, hydrodynamic sorting would say the heavier and larger organisms would settle first.

I have not claimed nor do I currently subscribe to hydrodynamic sorting of fossils.

Rather than being at the bottom where the flood would predict, these organisms are just about at the top of the layers in this area.

If they are from different places, then they would not need to be found together.

Now, I might allow that geographical distribution of species could play a role. However, NOTHING of the land species of the modern era are found in any of these layers.

How is this possible under the FM?

I think the answer would be the same for both SG and FM. Those organisms weren't in the area to be buried.

[otseng]

A gentleman on youtube made a couple of videos showing how the flood was impossible and even shows us an experiment to prove it. I found these long ago and figure id share. It focuses exclusively on the sedimentary evidence.

Noahs Flood Debunked pt. 1

Around 4:00, they do one experiment by mixing all types of sediments together. This would not be the same situation as during the flood. It would not be just a one-time mixture of everything dumped at one time to settle in one day.

Around 6:00, they do an additional experiment by adding different layers on top of each other. Yet, where did these sediments come from to form these new layers? Especially if it is of a different composition than the layer below it? For example, if an exposed layer is shale and sandstone is deposited above it, where did the sand come from? Also, even in this small example, layers are not parallel. Yet, when we see actual stratas, layers are parallel. To form parallel layers, the deposits must have been evenly spread out over large sections. How could this happen?

At 7:50, it presents that creationists believe algae proliferated during the flood to form chalk deposits. I'm not sure who espouses this, but I would agree that this is not a good explanation.

At the end, I agree that the way to determine what would be correct would be by experiments.

Noahs flood debunked pt. 2

Both videos attack Don Patton. And actually, I've never heard of Don Patton before. I guess he was one of the easiest Creationists he could find to attack.

[otseng]

I have to wonder if all strata is created by the flood, how you can have strata of desert being sandwhiched between strata of shallow sea, such as you find in the grand canyon area.

If you can conclusively demonstrate that it was formed in a dry desert condition, that would be good evidence against the flood.

I also have to wonder how you can carve out a huge gash in the earth via the flood, and lay down the very strata that it is cutting through at the same time.

It was not at the same time. The stratas formed first, and then there was folding and erosion. And I stated this at the very beginning.

How can SG explain why the huge gash would only come about after all the sediments were deposited?

[Goat]

I have to wonder if all strata is created by the flood, how you can have strata of desert being sandwhiched between strata of shallow sea, such as you find in the grand canyon area.

If you can conclusively demonstrate that it was formed in a dry desert condition, that would be good evidence against the flood.

I also have to wonder how you can carve out a huge gash in the earth via the flood, and lay down the very strata that it is cutting through at the same time.

It was not at the same time. The stratas formed first, and then there was folding and erosion. And I stated this at the very beginning.

How can SG explain why the huge gash would only come about after all the sediments were deposited?

The gash happened because of the erosien that happened with the river as the bedrock was lifted due to geological forces. It explains why there is no mixing
between the different layers when it come.

The specific layer of sandstone that was formed in desert in the grand canyon region is the Coconino Sandstone. It is 50 to 300 feet deep, and is marked by numerous reptile foot prints. Above it it the Kaibab Limestone, which has mollusks
and other marine animals, and below it is hermit shale, which was formed in swamp lands, and the redwall limestone, which was formed in shallow seas.


You are not going to be able to preserve reptile tracks in a flood environment