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]

Moderator Comment

While I understand it is possible to reasonably infer the knowledge or motivations of another poster from the positions and arguments they make, comments along those lines are really not part of the debate.

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.

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.

To ask repeatedly for what does not exist is to show how little you understand the subject.

As an observation, it seems to me there is some amount of "talking past each other" going on here which is leading to some frustration. If we are simply repeating positions and arguments at this point, it might be time to consider closing the thread. However, I will not take that action at this point.

[otseng]

What I have been attempting to do is to answer the OP since the very beginning:
"What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?"

The only reason I ask for a counter prediction from SG is so that we can apply "real science" to compare the predictions to see which model is the "best explanation". And since none has been offered, my conclusion is that SG cannot make a counter prediction regarding how stratas should look like.

Based on this alone, only the FM has the predictive power on how stratas should generally look like. The FM offers a clear prediction and is testable and falsifiable. If the data shows that faults/erosion is uniformly distributed (in time) throughout the stratas, the FM is falsified. If folds are also uniformly distributed in the stratas, it is falsified.

I would say the appearance of stratas would be basic to geology. This is not some small arcane issue, but spans a significant amount of space and time. More than likely where you are standing now there are many stratas under you.

Since SG cannot provide a prediction on what stratas should generally look like, I would even argue that SG is at best a conjecture.

Scientific ideas that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best "conjectures", or at worst "pseudoscience". Because they cannot be tested or falsified in any way, there is no way to determine whether they are true or false, and so they do not gain the status of "scientific theory".

I will now go on to look at the data to see if it matches the prediction of the FM. I will also address other issues raised as time permits.

[Grumpy]

otseng

only the FM has the predictive power on how stratas should generally look like.

The FM has no predictive or explanitory power at all. You have still not explained how a flood could explain the near perfect segregation by age of strata and fossils. And that is just the beginning.

Since SG cannot provide a prediction on what stratas should generally look like, I would even argue that SG is at best a conjecture.

Not meeting your strawman criteria shows nothing about the real world or the SG. The Standard Geological models stand because of the data and their predictive power(under the conditions imposed by reality, not the strawman you tried to construct).

my conclusion is that SG cannot make a counter prediction regarding how stratas should look like.

Your conclusion is dead wrong. As with all creationist conclusions, it can only be reached by ignoring the contrary evidence. You have ignored the evidence I and others have presented as if we had said nothing at all. I see no reason to further waste my time with anything you say on this subject, but reserve the right to post corrections of your(or anyone elses) posts where it involves the science I taught for over 30 years.

I will now go on to look at the data to see if it matches the prediction of the FM. I will also address other issues raised as time permits.

At least we can now move on, I suppose that can be called progress.

Grumpy

[otseng]

To recap, the prediction that I presented for the FM is:

So, a prediction by the FM is that for the vast majority of cases, we should see folding/faulting/erosion that affects the entire rock stratas.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 090#241090

Here are some pictures of normal faults that confirm the FM prediction.


http://www.pitt.edu/~cejones/GeoImages/ ... aults.html


http://www.pitt.edu/~cejones/GeoImages/ ... aults.html





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greensand.jpg


http://mrhollister.com/getout/geology_t ... 80791.html

Of course, this is only a small sampling. But, it is representative of the normal faults that we see. That is, most normal faults that we see extend to the top most strata. The FM alone predicts this and can explain this general pattern.

[Goat]

To recap, the prediction that I presented for the FM is:

So, a prediction by the FM is that for the vast majority of cases, we should see folding/faulting/erosion that affects the entire rock stratas.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 090#241090

Here are some pictures of normal faults that confirm the FM prediction.

And how does that 'confirm' FM prediction? How is that different that how the
Standard Model predicts It? Show the work, and show the article that explains
how that structure is 'predicted' by the FM.

To me, that looks like evidence of stress caused by plate teutonics, where the mechanism is that one plate causes stress on the other plate, and the rocks crack
to relieve the pressure. This structure is demonstrated in modern day earth quakes, and can be shown with 'before and after' photos to happen without the flood model. We can see this kind of structure happening in places that are earthquake prone, and we can even have 'before and after' pictures where before the earthquake, it is solid, and after, it is skewed like that.

Since we have real time evidence this structure can occur without a 'flood', why should this structure be considered 'evidence of the flood model'?

[Grumpy]

otseng

Here are some pictures of normal faults that confirm the FM prediction.

Sorry, they are just as consistent with SG(for those specific areas). Nor have you established that they are in any way typical of all areas. Even the predictions you have made for FM are just too vague to be of any use.

And you have yet to address the rest of the evidence, IE the near perfect segregation of strata by age. Any theory must deal with all of the evidence, cherry picking not allowed.

Grumpy

[otseng]

How is that different that how the Standard Model predicts It?

Has anyone offered what SG predicts what it should look like? No. And I've been asking this since the very beginning of this thread. Since no prediction has been given, the FM differs in that it is the only model that predicts it.

Show the work, and show the article that explains how that structure is 'predicted' by the FM.

The images confirm my prediction that I offered since the very beginning. What article are you asking for me to produce?

[otseng]

Sorry, they are just as consistent with SG(for those specific areas).

As we've covered already, SG offers no prediction. You cannot say that it is consistent with any prediction when no prediction for SG has been offered.

Nor have you established that they are in any way typical of all areas.

I do not need to show all areas. It is a prediction. But, if you want me to show more images of normal faults, it is very easy for me to find this.

Even the predictions you have made for FM are just too vague to be of any use.

Exactly the opposite. Only the FM can give a rational cause for the data that we observe. The SG is so vague that it is not able to give any prediction or explanation for the data that we observe.

And you have yet to address the rest of the evidence, IE the near perfect segregation of strata by age. Any theory must deal with all of the evidence, cherry picking not allowed.

Addressing the OP is not cherry picking. Rather, raising all these other issues and not even addressing the OP would be more like cherry picking.

As time allows, I'll address the other issues. But, I would like to address the OP first. I've been quite gracious already in addressing all the issues brought up already (like around 30 pages). I'd like to fully treat the prediction before we address all these questions that are not even in the OP.

[Scotracer]

Sorry, they are just as consistent with SG(for those specific areas).

As we've covered already, SG offers no prediction. You cannot say that it is consistent with any prediction when no prediction for SG has been offered.

"Standard Geology" is the accepted science and as such, it doesn't have to make the predictions. It can quite easily explain all of the pictures you have shown. If "normal faults" had no explanation within Geology, the following Wikipedia page wouldn't exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault_(geology)

Even the predictions you have made for FM are just too vague to be of any use.

Exactly the opposite. Only the FM can give a rational cause for the data that we observe. The SG is so vague that it is not able to give any prediction or explanation for the data that we observe.

Wot? Standard Geology addresses far more data than the flood model could ever hope to cover. Once again you are forgetting that specific areas will undergo specific stresses and strains. If standard geology was wrong, we'd throw it out. But I guess you are amongst other creationists who claim it's one big conspiracy?

And you have yet to address the rest of the evidence, IE the near perfect segregation of strata by age. Any theory must deal with all of the evidence, cherry picking not allowed.

Addressing the OP is not cherry picking. Rather, raising all these other issues and not even addressing the OP would be more like cherry picking.

No, when a "theory" (actually it's barely even a hypothesis) has overwhelmingly glaring contradicting element(s) (i.e. the fossil distribution within strata) these should be accounted for pretty quickly.

As time allows, I'll address the other issues. But, I would like to address the OP first. I've been quite gracious already in addressing all the issues brought up already (like around 30 pages). I'd like to fully treat the prediction before we address all these questions that are not even in the OP.

The strata issue was brought up weeks if not months ago.

[Grumpy]

otseng

As we've covered already, SG offers no prediction. You cannot say that it is consistent with any prediction when no prediction for SG has been offered.

Can we not expect a little honesty from you? This statement just is not true and you know it(or at least you should). I have offered to make predictions about any specific set of forces and their history at any specific site of your choice. These are the ONLY valid predictions that can be made(as I have pointed out many times in this thread).

Your claim to have made valid predictions is not true. You made a vague prediction and found a few examples you think validate it. Those same examples are also covered by known forces and history in SG. Therefore, in deciding which model is more accurate, your claims and examples are USELESS!

Exactly the opposite. Only the FM can give a rational cause for the data that we observe. The SG is so vague that it is not able to give any prediction or explanation for the data that we observe.

Then explain, using the FM(as the OP asks) how every single strata laid down throughout history is younger in age than any layer that it is layed down on. Additionally, explain, using FM, how all fossils ever found are segregated not by size or weight, but by the age of the stone it is found in. Men are not found in rock that dinosaurs are found in and vice versa. No multicellular organisms are found in any rock strata older than ~800,000,000 years, prior to that ONLY single celled organisms are found worldwide. These are valid predictions that CAN be made about SG. When you blithely say SG has made no predictions(or that no one has brought them up), you are not being truthful. You have just ignored them in favor of your insistence on invalid strawmen predictions.

I call FOUL!!! I think an uninvolved adjudicator is needed in this thread!

Grumpy