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?

[otseng]

Considering the vast amount of water needed to come to the surface, we would have similar situations. If you don't think that water doesn't support the ground above it, think "Sink Holes". You see crumbling and holes, not bending and folding.

I think I know what you're saying now. However, the FM doesn't say that the layers formed directly on top of the subterranean water. The layers formed on top of the crust (which is about 5 miles of granite).

Here is a diagram:

[otseng]

Do you think Einstein could have predicted that stars BEHIND the sun would be visible during a total eclipse before he had worked out the mechanism by which this was possible? That is what a scientific prediction requires, understanding of the history and forces involved, not psychic abilities.

This is precisely what I mean by prediction (and I assume what LittlePig meant too when he started this thread). Einstein made a prediction of light bending by gravity altering spacetime. At the point he proposed the general theory of relativity, there was not much empirical evidence to support it. But, the data came later that confirmed the prediction.

[Goat]

Considering the vast amount of water needed to come to the surface, we would have similar situations. If you don't think that water doesn't support the ground above it, think "Sink Holes". You see crumbling and holes, not bending and folding.

I think I know what you're saying now. However, the FM doesn't say that the layers formed directly on top of the subterranean water. The layers formed on top of the crust (which is about 5 miles of granite).

Here is a diagram:

And the evidence is strongly against that claim.

It doesn't matter if it is 5 miles deep, for there to be that amount of empty amount of caverns that is void of water.. and the amount of volume needed to 'flood the whole world' would cause a collapse.

[Grumpy]

otseng

Grumpy wrote:
Do you think Einstein could have predicted that stars BEHIND the sun would be visible during a total eclipse before he had worked out the mechanism by which this was possible? That is what a scientific prediction requires, understanding of the history and forces involved, not psychic abilities.

This is precisely what I mean by prediction (and I assume what LittlePig meant too when he started this thread). Einstein made a prediction of light bending by gravity altering spacetime. At the point he proposed the general theory of relativity, there was not much empirical evidence to support it. But, the data came later that confirmed the prediction.

That is not accurate. Einstein knew EXACTLY how much bending would occur years before the bending was observed. He had studied the affects his theory would have on light before he made any prediction. The direct obsevation was simply confirmation. A geologist must study the forces and history of those forces of a particulat area BEFORE he will make any predictions about what can be found. Since there are simply too many combinations possible there can be no widely applicable predictions made about GM(other than the sorting by time and associated fossils, and the older layers being below the younger ones except where disturbed by inversion).

The FM, on the other hand, is based not on evidence, but on belief based on an ancient book. All evidence must be explained by a world wide flood. You already have your answers, now you must try to fit the evidence to it, leading to really off-the-wall ad hoc explanations like a water canopy and completely ridiculous underground oceans, not to mention young Earth non-sense. This is the exact opposite of real scientific research. I guess you could go ahead and make some predictions(as the OP asks for) but they will not be scientific predictions, having more in common with prophecy, as they are not based on scientific study, but on belief.

Now, can we move on?

Grumpy

[otseng]

It doesn't matter if it is 5 miles deep, for there to be that amount of empty amount of caverns that is void of water.. and the amount of volume needed to 'flood the whole world' would cause a collapse.

Water would've always been between the granite and basalt as the subterranean water came to the surface. There would not at any time be a place void of water and replaced with air between the granite and basalt. As the volume of subterranean water decreased, the distance between the granite and basalt layers would've also gradually decreased.

[Goat]

It doesn't matter if it is 5 miles deep, for there to be that amount of empty amount of caverns that is void of water.. and the amount of volume needed to 'flood the whole world' would cause a collapse.

Water would've always been between the granite and basalt as the subterranean water came to the surface. There would not at any time be a place void of water and replaced with air between the granite and basalt. As the volume of subterranean water decreased, the distance between the granite and basalt layers would've also gradually decreased.

Show me the mechanism by which that can happen. the 'distance' would mean bending over thousands of years, considering how brittle rock is.

The process you are describing would not be a 'flood' in the sense the 'Flood Model' would have.. nor does it explain where the water went to after. The distance 'between the granite and basalt layers' woudl decrease not gradually, but it would collapse, just like we observe in modern times with volcano's and sink holes.

Sorry, but your explination violates all observations.

[McCulloch]

According to Glenn Morton of Dallas, Texas, B.S. in Physics from Oklahoma University, if the hydroplate theory was correct, then

• the crust must be absolutely impermeable to the water
• there are no mountains; the crust must be perfectly smooth (violating the Biblical record where it says that all the high mountains were covered )

A Few Silly Flaws In Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory

[otseng]

The FM, on the other hand, is based not on evidence, but on belief based on an ancient book.

Where again have I based any of my evidence on any ancient book? The problem is not that I base my evidence on the Bible, but simply that what I present is mentioned in the Bible. This is the crux of the matter. And as I've mentioned before, if it is mentioned in the Bible, it is outrightly rejected and it is not because of the evidence.

You already have your answers, now you must try to fit the evidence to it, leading to really off-the-wall ad hoc explanations like a water canopy and completely ridiculous underground oceans, not to mention young Earth non-sense.

Again, if it is so unscientific, it should be easy to refute based on logic and counterevidence, rather than blanket assertions such as this.

Since there are simply too many combinations possible there can be no widely applicable predictions made about GM(other than the sorting by time and associated fossils, and the older layers being below the younger ones except where disturbed by inversion).

It is actually already implicitly accepted that the stratas demonstrate the general sequence of layering, folding, and erosion/faults. Goat has said that I'm "retrofitting" the predictions.

It sounds like you are making too many assumptions, and are trying to retrofit what you do know into predictions.

There is also a double standard being applied to the FM. People question what "real science" is used for the FM? What predictions can it make? I've made a reasonable prediction based on the model. And yet when I ask for a "real science" prediction of SG, this question has been dodged for over 50 pages. What would people think if I dragged out a thread for over 50 pages and not have presented any prediction for the FM? I think peoples' patience would've been out a long time ago.

[Goat]

The FM, on the other hand, is based not on evidence, but on belief based on an ancient book.

Where again have I based any of my evidence on any ancient book? The problem is not that I base my evidence on the Bible, but simply that what I present is mentioned in the Bible. This is the crux of the matter. And as I've mentioned before, if it is mentioned in the Bible, it is outrightly rejected and it is not because of the evidence.

You already have your answers, now you must try to fit the evidence to it, leading to really off-the-wall ad hoc explanations like a water canopy and completely ridiculous underground oceans, not to mention young Earth non-sense.

Again, if it is so unscientific, it should be easy to refute based on logic and counterevidence, rather than blanket assertions such as this.

Since there are simply too many combinations possible there can be no widely applicable predictions made about GM(other than the sorting by time and associated fossils, and the older layers being below the younger ones except where disturbed by inversion).

It is actually already implicitly accepted that the stratas demonstrate the general sequence of layering, folding, and erosion/faults. Goat has said that I'm "retrofitting" the predictions.

It sounds like you are making too many assumptions, and are trying to retrofit what you do know into predictions.

There is also a double standard being applied to the FM. People question what "real science" is used for the FM? What predictions can it make? I've made a reasonable prediction based on the model. And yet when I ask for a "real science" prediction of SG, this question has been dodged for over 50 pages. What would people think if I dragged out a thread for over 50 pages and not have presented any prediction for the FM? I think peoples' patience would've been out a long time ago.

Yes, when you say 'What might have happened', not only is there no evidence FOR it, you are ignoring all the known properities of matter that are against it.

Do you know how much weight woudl be on the crust ?? I gave you real life examples of what happens to the crust on a much smaller scale, yet you ignore those examples. Why?

We have real life examples of how crust responds.

[Grumpy]

otseng

What predictions can it make? I've made a reasonable prediction based on the model. And yet when I ask for a "real science" prediction of SG, this question has been dodged for over 50 pages.

Disingenuous at best, outright knowing falsehood at worst. Nobody has dodged anything except your unrealistic demands for an impossible prediction. I have given you the predictions that ARE possible, I've given you the conditions under which a prediction can be made, yet you are still trying to set up your strawman predictions, for whatever reason you think is so important. It's time you admitted your error and moved on, for it is you who are in the wrong here, noone else.

Again, if it is so unscientific, it should be easy to refute based on logic and counterevidence, rather than blanket assertions such as this.

It has been refuted, based on the evidence and the logic inherent in all the geology books written in the last few hundred years. It is you that is saying they are wrong. It is on you to provide evidence(as the OP asks for) that the flood model explains anything any better than the standard science so widely accepted now. You have been stuck trying to make predictions no real scientist would even attempt, knowing they are invalid. You need to move on.

It is actually already implicitly accepted that the stratas demonstrate the general sequence of layering, folding, and erosion/faults. Goat has said that I'm "retrofitting" the predictions.

goat wrote:

It sounds like you are making too many assumptions, and are trying to retrofit what you do know into predictions.

Goat has a good point, you are making too many invalid assumptions, and you do have the sequence of scientific inquiry backwards.

There is also a double standard being applied to the FM.

Well, it isn't science, so it doesn't meet the standards. Not our fault, you shouldn't be putting religious myths forward as real science(reality) in the first place.

As to your coyness about getting the story from the Bible, it really isn't productive to treat you opponents as being stupid, nor is it polite or respectful.

Grumpy