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?

[Goat]

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?

When it comes to explaining the current fossil record, it has a fatal flaw. It does not explain how creatures of the same mass/density manage to get sorted in wildly different geological strata, and never ever ever overlap.

[Scotracer]

I'd like to see the "Flood Model" account for the fact that there has never been any (not even 1 single instance) of a fossil found out with the layer it is expected to be found, according to the Geological model and Evolutionary Theory.

Also I'd like to see what prediction it can make and any evidence that these has been fulfilled.

[otseng]

1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

Yes, I believe so.

2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?

Not sure what you mean by this.

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

I think the better question would be "does it provide rational explanatory power for current geological features?" And to that, I would say yes.

4) Have Global Flood Models ever been subjected to a formal peer review process?

Don't know about formal peer review process, but I know my version of the FM has been subject to peer debate here on this forum.

[otseng]

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?

[Scotracer]

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?

Without any evidence of it, not really. To show it's possible you would have to show that at some point (or the time you are insisting on) the earth had the correct surface temperature and water volume to create this and that the water ingress/regress could be accounted for (i.e. where did all the water come from and then go away to). The hydrological cycle on earth is pretty much a closed system.

There is no solid evidence that accounts for the Flood Model, either of a fluid or solid variety.

[McCulloch]

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.

[LittlePig]

1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

Yes, I believe so.

Why?

2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?

Not sure what you mean by this.

How is this flood modeled? Is fluid dynamics used? Do we have any estimates on water erosion and potential silt volumes? Etc. Is it a model or simply a hypothesis for fossilization and certain geologic features? Surely the physics of the Flood could be estimated and would be significant in interpreting its fingerprint.

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

I think the better question would be "does it provide rational explanatory power for current geological features?" And to that, I would say yes.

With a proper model one could make some basic predictions of geologic features and fossil deposition. Even without a model one could make some genetic predictions.

How does the Flood 'provide rational explanatory power for current geological features?'

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?

Without any evidence of it, not really. To show it's possible you would have to show that at some point (or the time you are insisting on) the earth had the correct surface temperature and water volume to create this and that the water ingress/regress could be accounted for (i.e. where did all the water come from and then go away to). The hydrological cycle on earth is pretty much a closed system.

There is no solid evidence that accounts for the Flood Model, either of a fluid or solid variety.

IMO the source of necessary water volume is irrelevant. If we are going to accept the miraculousness of the miracle, that would seem to come with it. God could create and then uncreate some rain.

However, the fingerprint of such an event does not seem to require miracles.

[otseng]

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.

[otseng]

If we are going to accept the miraculousness of the miracle, that would seem to come with it. God could create and then uncreate some rain.

It is not necessary for me to appeal to the miraculous. If I do, you can call me out on that.