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?

[Alan Clarke]

EVIDENCES THAT SUPPORT AN OLD EARTH

People often think, “How can my theory be false if so many evidences support it?� It may or may not be, but remember, a multitude of supporting evidences can lead one astray if one’s interpretation for each and every evidence is wrong. How could so many interpretations be wrong? If a theory’s entire underlying framework is supported by one false assumption, then all of the subsequent interpretations can be wrong. All of the evidences will have the appearance of “unity�. Each piece will support the other:

Wind is caused by the flapping of tree leaves. We know this to be true because every time we feel the wind, we see leaves flapping somewhere. During the winter when there are no leaves, winds are generated by trees at the Earth’s southern hemisphere during the summer where trees retain their foliage. The Apollo 11 space flight to the Moon validated the theory when crew members noticed there was no wind as evidenced by the absence of trees. The fact that Mars has no trees but high winds is not fully understood but some have theorized that the atmospheric turbulence is a relic from ancient forests that once existed. The trees were thought to have been far greater in number and size than the Earth’s. The theory was put to another critical test by growing an indoor orchard to remove all external variables. During a 20-year study, the orchard failed to produce wind. But a discovery was made later that by removing the trees from their natural environment, the leaves stopped flapping since the indoor orchard couldn’t duplicate the innumerable number of variables of the Earth’s ecosystem.

Q: Since the theories of evolution and SG have so many supporting evidences, how could either be false?
A: The first supposition was false.
Q: What was the first supposition?
A: "There is no God." or "God used evolution to create Adam."

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

A confident theorist wrote:
Wind is caused by the flapping of tree leaves. We know this to be true because every time we feel the wind, we see leaves flapping somewhere. During the winter when there are no leaves, winds are generated by trees at the Earth’s southern hemisphere during the summer where trees retain their foliage. The Apollo 11 space flight to the Moon validated the theory when crew members noticed there was no wind as evidenced by the absence of trees. The fact that Mars has no trees but high winds is not fully understood but some have theorized that the atmospheric turbulence is a relic from ancient forests that once existed. The trees were thought to have been far greater in number and size than the Earth’s. The theory was put to another critical test by growing an indoor orchard to remove all external variables. During a 20-year study, the orchard failed to produce wind. But a discovery was made later that by removing the trees from their natural environment, the leaves stopped flapping since the indoor orchard couldn’t duplicate the innumerable number of variables of the Earth’s ecosystem.

What blooming idiot wrote this??? You failed to give a citation. Probably the same idiot that told us that rain came from angels opening windows to let the waters above out or that T rex was a vegetarian before Eve ate an apple(at the behest of a talking snake, no less).

Grumpy

[JoeyKnothead]

Alan Clarke

A confident theorist wrote:
Wind is caused by the flapping of tree leaves. We know this to be true because every time we feel the wind, we see leaves flapping somewhere. During the winter when there are no leaves, winds are generated by trees at the Earth’s southern hemisphere during the summer where trees retain their foliage. The Apollo 11 space flight to the Moon validated the theory when crew members noticed there was no wind as evidenced by the absence of trees. The fact that Mars has no trees but high winds is not fully understood but some have theorized that the atmospheric turbulence is a relic from ancient forests that once existed. The trees were thought to have been far greater in number and size than the Earth’s. The theory was put to another critical test by growing an indoor orchard to remove all external variables. During a 20-year study, the orchard failed to produce wind. But a discovery was made later that by removing the trees from their natural environment, the leaves stopped flapping since the indoor orchard couldn’t duplicate the innumerable number of variables of the Earth’s ecosystem.

What blooming idiot wrote this??? You failed to give a citation. Probably the same idiot that told us that rain came from angels opening windows to let the waters above out or that T rex was a vegetarian before Eve ate an apple(at the behest of a talking snake, no less).

Grumpy

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

That actually sounds like something Ray Comfort would say. He's fond of twisting others' words (and quote mining them) in order to "spread the gospel".
Here's his Atheist's Nightmare - The Banana on youtube:

Possibly not safe for work language in comments

Ray Comfort - Banana as Proof for Design

[RogerS]

I'm sorry, but this is garbage. Coal is nearly pure Carbon, it is plant material that has been covered and heated hot enough to drive off the hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and other chemicals that plants contain. This makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the compaction ratio to be "...much less than 2:1 and more likely very close to 1:1." The compaction ratio is calculated by comparing the weight of the carbon in the coal to the weight of the carbon in plant material of equal volume. 12:1 is close enough to reality, and that is enough to falsify that whole garbage article from AIG.

-Thanks for your rebuttal Grumpy, it keeps me on my feet.
If you want to refute the Genesis flood account, using a evolutionary concept for the source of coal, namely peat, does not apply to the nature of the event. I agree that peat is highly compressible and could achieve your coal compaction ratio of 12:1 but I disagree that the pre-diluvian world biosystem was one big peat bog. What was the purpose of sauropod neck lengths of 46 ft? To graze vast fields of peat? The following research article examines coal vegetation:

CATASTROPHICALLY BURIED MIDDLE PENNSYLVANIAN SIGILLARIA AND CALAMITEAN SPHENOPSIDS FROM INDIANA, USA: WHAT KIND OF VEGETATION WAS THIS? (link)
“A catastrophically buried stand of calamitean sphenopsids and sigillarian Lycopsids…Sigillaria trees grew, possibly reaching heights of 10-15 m. No ground cover was observed, nor were foliage or reproductive organs attributable to the dominant plants found.�

The compression of these plants would be quite different from peat. Note that floods act to denude foliage on tree trunks.

“This small patch of forest preserved in the Jenlin pit was buried rapidly by waterborne sediment, accounting for the upright posture and excellent preservation of the plants.�

Rapid burial by waterborne sediment and excellent preservation is not a surprise to a Creationist.

“Thus, it is not likely that compaction of the peat bed on which the forest was growing alone could have accounted for the necessary space; peat compaction ratios are subject to some debate, and estimates vary from as low as 2:1 (Nadon, 1998) to more than 20:1 (Winston, 1986).�

The compaction ratios are all over the place, nobody appears to have a handle on it.

“ A considerable difference in water table and sedimentary conditions is indicated by a peat bed—which can be flooded, but not more deeply or for a longer period than vegetation can tolerate—versus coarse clastic material, which will accumulate in moving water at least as deep as the deposit itself Consequently, we suggest that rapid change in base level took place, accompanying climate changes from nearly year-round wetness to wet-dry seasonality. This was expressed locally by transgression of shallow seas into this coastal habitat through local drainages, resulted in drowning of the forest accompanied by building of sediment into the drowned area.�

Moving water, rapid change, sea transgression, drowning of the forest, etc., reads similar to a passage in Genesis.

Concerning coal age and a "single" event:

Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification
“Two halo radiocenters were found that exhibited 238U+ signals of 4 x l04 and 6.4 X 104 cps, respectively while the 206Pb+ signals were indistinguishable from background ( cps) in both cases (207Pb also absent). Such extraordinary values admit the possibility that both the initial U infiltration and coalification could possibly have occurred within the past several thousand years. …
The widespread occurrence of these dual halos in both Triassic and Jurassic specimens can actually be considered corroborative evidence for a one-time introduction of U into these formations, because it is then possible to account for their structure on the basis of a single specifically timed tectonic event.� (link)

Corroborating evidence for "young" coal:

CARBON-14 CONTENT OF FOSSIL CARBON
“Since it is believable that most fossil carbon has roughly the same 14C/C ratio, it is reasonable to conclude that all this carbon was in the biosphere at approximately the same time. In that case, since most, if not all, fossil carbon was deposited by water, the data suggest a flood of massive proportions, and that the biblical account has to be taken seriously. If the difference between fossil carbon and Precambrian carbon is approximately 0.05 pmc, and we assume that 0.05 pmc is the true level of residual carbon-14 in pre-Flood fossil carbon, then the first simplistic approximation to the time of burial of fossil carbon is 19,000 years ago. A reasonable upper limit for the time of burial is 25,000 years ago, and with favorable assumptions regarding the pre-burial 14C/C ratio, a time of burial as recent as 4,300 years ago (the traditional Masoretic date for the Flood) is not unreasonable from these considerations alone.�(link)

[Alan Clarke]

Note the top two photos near Price, Utah. (original full-size links: 1, 2 ) From the SG model, it appears that peat beds grew on top of hard rock surfaces. The underlying layer had to be hard when the peat was growing to prevent mixing of the organic material with the floor as evidenced by the perfect horizontal, flat surfaces with no inclusions.

Secondly, after many years of peat growth, a second and identical cementing rock layer covered the peat, but the peat resumed growth on top of that layer, then got covered again by another cementing layer. Why does this cycle operate so efficiently, always leaving perfect horizontal layers with no inclusions or mixing? You don't have to be a geologist to see that something is woefully amiss with this highly unlikely scenario. See for yourself the SG model explanation:

Most of our coal was formed about 300 million years ago, when much of the earth was covered by steamy swamps. As plants and trees died, their remains sank to the bottom of the swampy areas, accumulating layer upon layer and eventually forming a soggy, dense material called peat.

Over long periods of time, the makeup of the earth's surface changed, and seas and great rivers caused deposits of sand, clay and other mineral matter to accumulate, burying the peat. Sandstone and other sedimentary rocks were formed, and the pressure caused by their weight squeezed water from the peat. Increasingly deeper burial and the heat associated with it gradually changed the material to coal. Scientists estimate that from 3 to 7 feet of compacted plant matter was required to form 1 foot of bituminous coal. (source)

Thirdly, note the volume of the Powder River Basin coal in Wyoming on the bottom right. This coal deposit is 200 miles long, 120 miles wide, and in some places more than 200 feet deep. Explaining this anomaly by gradual accumulation of peat is awkward since over 1200 feet of it would be required to achieve 200 feet of coal. Are there any 200 mi. X 120 mi. X 1200 ft. peat beds today? If there are, then are they soon to be covered over by the same area of rock? Without a world-wide flood, all of this seems to be improbable. According to Wikipedia, peat grows at about 1mm/year. Could an ecosystem remain constantly conducive for peat formation for 365,000 years? In the short period of recorded human history, we know that the ecosystem has changed before industrialization existed. The Sahara desert has increased. Why would the Egyptians build pyramids in a parched desert to honor their kings? Nothing is constant. A steady environment for this much peat accumulation belies reality.

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

From the SG model, it appears that peat beds grew on top of hard rock surfaces.

Which were not yet rock when the peat was forming. Peat is also formed in shallow swamps(like the Okefenokee in Florida). Seasonal or so called "100 year floods" wash large amounts of sand and silt into the swamp leading to bands of peat covered by bands of sediment. When the bands are buried under enough layers the peat slowly turns into coal, the sediment into sandstone. And yes, this process can continue for MILLIONS of years(not the puny 365,000 years you are so incredulous about). 300 or 400 million years is certainly time enough for the coal we know about to have formed.

The underlying layer had to be hard when the peat was growing to prevent mixing of the organic material with the floor as evidenced by the perfect horizontal, flat surfaces with no inclusions.

Says who??? Certainly no trained geologist would claim anything so foolish. Flood comes in, dumps a layer of sand, dissapates leaving tranquil swamp to build another layer of peat, flood comes in(maybe there was a hurricane), dumps another layer of silt and sand, dissapates leaving tranquil swamp to build another layer of peat.............

Secondly, after many years of peat growth, a second and identical cementing rock layer covered the peat, but the peat resumed growth on top of that layer, then got covered again by another cementing layer. Why does this cycle operate so efficiently, always leaving perfect horizontal layers with no inclusions or mixing?

See above, repeat ad infinitum.

Most of our coal was formed about 300 million years ago, when much of the earth was covered by steamy swamps. As plants and trees died, their remains sank to the bottom of the swampy areas, accumulating layer upon layer and eventually forming a soggy, dense material called peat.

Over long periods of time, the makeup of the earth's surface changed, and seas and great rivers caused deposits of sand, clay and other mineral matter to accumulate, burying the peat. Sandstone and other sedimentary rocks were formed, and the pressure caused by their weight squeezed water from the peat. Increasingly deeper burial and the heat associated with it gradually changed the material to coal. Scientists estimate that from 3 to 7 feet of compacted plant matter was required to form 1 foot of bituminous coal. (source)

Sounds pretty reasonable to me, as well as to modern geological scientists.

Thirdly, note the volume of the Powder River Basin coal in Wyoming on the bottom right. This coal deposit is 200 miles long, 120 miles wide, and in some places more than 200 feet deep. Explaining this anomaly by gradual accumulation of peat is awkward since over 1200 feet of it would be required to achieve 200 feet of coal. Are there any 200 mi. X 120 mi. X 1200 ft. peat beds today? If there are, then are they soon to be covered over by the same area of rock? Without a world-wide flood, all of this seems to be improbable. According to Wikipedia, peat grows at about 1mm/year. Could an ecosystem remain constantly conducive for peat formation for 365,000 years?

This is an argument in support of long periods of time when dense forrests and swamps grew, creating peat that compacted to the 200 foot mark. And yes, you can find peat deposits under the worlds rain forrest that are LARGER than those dimensions today. Coal formation is a continuous process that has gone on since the first plants invaded the land some 800 million years ago. It still is ongoing today. Bury that plant material under the right conditions of heat and pressure and you will have crude oil, but that takes quite a bit longer than coal formation. But the Earth has had over 4.5 billion years for these processes to occur.

Why would the Egyptians build pyramids in a parched desert to honor their kings?

Actually they built along the Nile River whose annual flooding made a strip of land on either side very fertile indeed.

A steady environment for this much peat accumulation belies reality.

Only if you lack knowledge of the real history of life on Earth. Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination.

RogerS

Rapid burial by waterborne sediment and excellent preservation is not a surprise to a Creationist.

Neither is it to real geological scientists. But unless you are claiming that a world wide flood happened over and over over the course of millions of years the FM does not fit what is seen in the rocks.

Consequently, we suggest that rapid change in base level took place, accompanying climate changes from nearly year-round wetness to wet-dry seasonality. This was expressed locally by transgression of shallow seas into this coastal habitat through local drainages, resulted in drowning of the forest accompanied by building of sediment into the drowned area.�

Doesn't sound anything like a single world wide flood to me.

The widespread occurrence of these dual halos in both Triassic and Jurassic specimens can actually be considered corroborative evidence for a one-time introduction of U into these formations, because it is then possible to account for their structure on the basis of a single specifically timed tectonic event.�

So there were catastrophic events some 200 million years ago. Techtonic means valcanoes, not floods.

Paul Giem, M.A., M.D. Loma Linda, California: Geoscience Research Institute wrote:
CARBON-14 CONTENT OF FOSSIL CARBON
“Since it is believable that most fossil carbon has roughly the same 14C/C ratio, it is reasonable to conclude that all this carbon was in the biosphere at approximately the same time. In that case, since most, if not all, fossil carbon was deposited by water, the data suggest a flood of massive proportions, and that the biblical account has to be taken seriously. If the difference between fossil carbon and Precambrian carbon is approximately 0.05 pmc, and we assume that 0.05 pmc is the true level of residual carbon-14 in pre-Flood fossil carbon, then the first simplistic approximation to the time of burial of fossil carbon is 19,000 years ago. A reasonable upper limit for the time of burial is 25,000 years ago, and with favorable assumptions regarding the pre-burial 14C/C ratio, a time of burial as recent as 4,300 years ago (the traditional Masoretic date for the Flood) is not unreasonable from these considerations alone.�(link)

This is simply garbage, mainly because he starts with a false assumption,"Since it is believable that most fossil carbon has roughly the same 14C/C ratio". No, it is not "believable", fossil carbon ratios vary greatly with the amount of time they have been buried until about 50,000 years when C14 levels drop below detectability(the 0.05 pmc he cites will be found in any carbon OF BIOLOGICAL ORIGIN that is over 50,000 years old). The ages greater than about 50,000 years must be determined by radioisotopes, as this man would know if he wasn't a hack and a shill for the Creationist cause. He is being "simplistic" to the point of rank stupidity.

Grumpy

[Alan Clarke]

The fact is that dinosaurs had feathers. All sorts of dinosaurs have now been found with feathers. Another fact is that birds are the ONLY animals alive today that have feathers, therefore the theory is that dinosaurs (or certain lineages of dinosaurs) eventually evolved into birds.

The fact is that all of your theorizing has gained you nothing. Different species of animals with similar components in no way proves that they have a common ancestor. What’s worse, the idea of destructive mutations being able to design complex feathers is untenable. Mutations are random. To illustrate, I’ll throw rocks at machines or animals of your choice all day long. If you don’t like rocks then I’ll use a blow torch or sand blaster indiscriminately. After I treat them, you can pick out whichever ones you want which look improved. Actually, evolution doesn’t even work that well since your “choosing� is intelligent. Since God has been booted out the door for creating it complex to begin with, you’re stuck with dumb, slow, and inefficient mechanisms to do your choosing. The blind forces of nature will never achieve your design. Wind on sand dunes makes pretty patterns but even this is the product of something ALREADY complex and unexplainable: The LAW of gravity. I contend that God is the one and only lawgiver. But suppose you are given gravity for your building mechanism. Can gravity build feathers? You’ve been duped. Click here to learn how bird legs turn men into monkeys.

“Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.� – Richard Dawkins

YES WE CAN OBSERVE IT!! I don’t mean to take center stage, but could someone provide a collage of something more convincing in the way of “beneficial� changes?


Persons with hand mutations like that depicted above may have increased dexterity as evidenced by hospital emergency logs void of the following combinations:

1. employed as auto mechanic
2. injury to hand
3. beneficial hand mutation

[micatala]

Moderator Intervention

The fact is that dinosaurs had feathers. All sorts of dinosaurs have now been found with feathers. Another fact is that birds are the ONLY animals alive today that have feathers, therefore the theory is that dinosaurs (or certain lineages of dinosaurs) eventually evolved into birds.

The fact is that all of your theorizing has gained you nothing. Different species of animals with similar components in no way proves that they have a common ancestor. What’s worse, the idea of destructive mutations being able to design complex feathers is untenable. Mutations are random. To illustrate, I’ll throw rocks at machines or animals of your choice all day long. If you don’t like rocks then I’ll use a blow torch or sand blaster indiscriminately. After I treat them, you can pick out whichever ones you want which look improved. Actually, evolution doesn’t even work that well since your “choosing� is intelligent. Since God has been booted out the door for creating it complex to begin with, you’re stuck with dumb, slow, and inefficient mechanisms to do your choosing. The blind forces of nature will never achieve your design. Wind on sand dunes makes pretty patterns but even this is the product of something ALREADY complex and unexplainable: The LAW of gravity. I contend that God is the one and only lawgiver. But suppose you are given gravity for your building mechanism. Can gravity build feathers? You’ve been duped. Click here to learn how bird legs turn men into monkeys.

“Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.� – Richard Dawkins

YES WE CAN OBSERVE IT!! I don’t mean to take center stage, but could someone provide a collage of something more convincing in the way of “beneficial� changes?


Persons with hand mutations like that depicted above may have increased dexterity as evidenced by hospital emergency logs void of the following combinations:

1. employed as auto mechanic
2. injury to hand
3. beneficial hand mutation

Let's stick to the topic, per Rule #4. Mutations and evolution are really only relevant to the extent that they have something to do with supporting or refuting either the FM or the SG.

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

Different species of animals with similar components in no way proves that they have a common ancestor.

Yes, it certainly does, and feathers(and other common traits) certainly do mean dinosaurs and birds are closely related and share a common ancestor.

What’s worse, the idea of destructive mutations being able to design complex feathers is untenable. Mutations are random.

But they are not all destructive. Bacteria developing resistence to antibiotics, being able to digest nylon and being manipulated to produce medicines are all PROOF that our current understanding of evolution is accurate.

To illustrate, I’ll throw rocks at machines or animals of your choice all day long. If you don’t like rocks then I’ll use a blow torch or sand blaster indiscriminately. After I treat them, you can pick out whichever ones you want which look improved.

This has nothing to do with evolution, which you would know if you knew anything at all about the subject(as you have demonstrated you don't).

The blind forces of nature will never achieve your design.

And yet the "blind forces of nature" are able to fashion snowflakes all on their own. Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination(or knowledge).

YES WE CAN OBSERVE IT!! I don’t mean to take center stage, but could someone provide a collage of something more convincing in the way of “beneficial� changes?

Can you be any more crude or crass. Birth defects are not evolutionary changes, they are failures of development in the womb. You know little and understand even less(as demonstrated by your obscene abuse of pictures of unfortunate children in you ignorant attempts to disprove what you know nothing about). Just because you are losing an argument is not a reason to act this dispicably. Hopefully the moderation of this forum will set you straight.

Grumpy

[Alan Clarke]

Let's stick to the topic, per Rule #4. Mutations and evolution are really only relevant to the extent that they have something to do with supporting or refuting either the FM or the SG.

Connect the dots. The SG model is based on an old-Earth interpretation in order to buy sufficient time for evolution to happen. Just as Charles Darwin married a woman, Darwinian evolution married a SG model. (SG = “Standard Geologic�, not “Super Girl�.) Nevertheless, the other looks pretty “on the surface�:

SG MODEL


But NO amount of time will suffice for mutations to create feathers on lizards. Too little time is available for mutations to create humans from single-cell organisms swimming in a primordial soup or baking on a crystalline substrate. The marriage of the SG model and the EM model (evolution model) is likened to an alcoholic whose “enabler� wife makes trips for him to the corner liquor store. If he dies, the wife will suffer because the monthly disability check will cease. You cannot discount the importance of the SG-EM marriage. The SG model’s husband suffered severely under the attacks of anatomist Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) who made this observation:

He [Cuvier] also pointed out that Napoleon's expedition to Egypt had retrieved animals mummified thousands of years previously that seemed no different from their modern counterparts. "Certainly," Cuvier wrote, "one cannot detect any greater difference between these creatures and those we see, than between the human mummies and the skeletons of present-day men."

Multiplying no change times millions of years equals no change. Note that Darwin didn’t publish his “Origin of Species� until 27 years after the death of Cuvier. From this, we know that the ideas of the SG model’s husband were rejected even before he was popularized. But worse yet, the integrity of the SG model was doubted by her near kin, Stephen J. Gould:

Lyell's gradualism has acted as a set of blinders, channeling hypotheses in one direction among a wide range of plausible alternatives. Its restrictive effects have been particularly severe for those geologists who succumb to Lyell's rhetorical device and believe that gradual change is preferable (or even required) a priori, because different meanings of uniformity are necessary postulates of method. Again and again in the history of geology after Lyell, we note reasonable hypotheses of catastrophic change, rejected out of hand by a false logic that brands them unscientific in principle.

* The SG model photo was used to communicate a fundamental idea: Her outer beauty is not indicative of her ability to sustain happy relationships, bear children, or engage in philosophical discussions.