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]

On the other hand, I think it is fair to say that otseng is mistaken in saying no predictions based on the SG have been offered. As I recall, I have offered at least some cursory predictions.

I believe the farthest we got was post 513:

I would agree the SG along WITH the other data we have about the age and history of the earth would imply that some faulting etc. would not affect all layers

However, there was no resolution to the matter of folds and erosion. If a presentation of the full prediction for SG in regards to the appearance of stratas will be given, I will accept that and retract that no prediction have been offered.

However, when a model or its predictions, either one, run counter to observed data, then the model is discarded.

As well, I believe SG is inconsistent with the model and the data.

1) No salt on ice caps over Greenland and elsewhere. otseng has explained this by saying the ice caps formed after the flood. This does not work, since we can date, in a number of different ways, the layers in the ice caps. The data falsifies a flood within roughly the last 100,000 years.

I'll promise that we'll address the issue of ice layers after we deal with the appearance of the stratas.

Can otseng explain how the FM can account for not only the multiple salt layers cited here, but the characteristics of the many intervening layers, all of which can be found in one geographic location?

We'll have to add this to the queue.

In fact, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of ... anyon_area for a picture of the geological layers in the grand canyon. Is this not exactly the kind of example otseng has been asking for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_0 ... i_2007.jpg

Even looking at the Grand Canyon, the pattern is the same. Layering prior to deformation and erosion. According to SG, the oldest layers are roughly 2 billion years old. Then 75 mya the area was uplifted, then the Colorado river starts eroding it. But, for a period of 1.925 billion years, prior to the Laramide orogeny, there is very little evidence of orogenies or erosion. Or put another way, what did the area look like 80 mya? Would SG predict this?

[Grumpy]

otseng

However, there was no resolution to the matter of folds and erosion. If a presentation of the full prediction for SG in regards to the appearance of stratas will be given, I will accept that and retract that no prediction have been offered.

Which specific area?

However, when a model or its predictions, either one, run counter to observed data, then the model is discarded.

As well, I believe SG is inconsistent with the model and the data.

The model for which area? Over a fault line there will be faults. In areas covered by shallow seas, there will be undisturbed layers(as seen in the plain the Grand Canyon was cut from), in areas subject to the collision of two plates there will be mountains and folding(Rockies, Himilayas, Appalachians).

I'll promise that we'll address the issue of ice layers after we deal with the appearance of the stratas.

If you weren't so insistent on setting up strawmen we could have moved on long ago.

Can otseng explain how the FM can account for not only the multiple salt layers cited here, but the characteristics of the many intervening layers, all of which can be found in one geographic location?

We'll have to add this to the queue.

That queue gets longer and longer the longer you continue your quest for a strawman.

Even looking at the Grand Canyon, the pattern is the same. Layering prior to deformation and erosion.

Without layering there is nothing to fold or erode, so, duh?

Even looking at the Grand Canyon, the pattern is the same. Layering prior to deformation and erosion. According to SG, the oldest layers are roughly 2 billion years old. Then 75 mya the area was uplifted, then the Colorado river starts eroding it. But, for a period of 1.925 billion years, prior to the Laramide orogeny, there is very little evidence of orogenies or erosion. Or put another way, what did the area look like 80 mya? Would SG predict this?

Yes, the sea that covered much of the midwest was in the process of receeding, it looked much like it did for the previous ~2 billion years, only shallower. The Late Cretaceous Western Interior Sea dissappeared about 80 million years ago, leaving salt flats, chalks, plains and, in the case of the Grand Canyon, the Colorado River Basin which grew into the Grand Canyon. More info to be found here...

http://www.oceansofkansas.com/index2.html

So, suppose a fault happened 50 mya. And it had stratas A,B,C at the time of the fault. There would be a fault extending through stratas A,B,C. 25 mil years elapses and strata D forms on top of ABC. Another 25 my elapses and strata E forms on top of ABCD. So when another fault occurs, it would occur exactly along the original fault line of ABC?

Fault lines rarely come and go, they are almost always permanent forces where they exist, but are largely unknown where they do not exist, so all layers will almost always be affected in much the same way over time(IE all layers faulted or no layers faulted). A good example of how knowing the forces and history of an area is necessary to make predictions about what will be found.

Grumpy

[micatala]

On the other hand, I think it is fair to say that otseng is mistaken in saying no predictions based on the SG have been offered. As I recall, I have offered at least some cursory predictions.

I believe the farthest we got was post 513:

I would agree the SG along WITH the other data we have about the age and history of the earth would imply that some faulting etc. would not affect all layers

However, there was no resolution to the matter of folds and erosion. If a presentation of the full prediction for SG in regards to the appearance of stratas will be given, I will accept that and retract that no prediction have been offered.

Alright, I am going to make another prediction, but this is the last time.

The SG predicts exactly what we find in the geological record.

Now are you happy?


And I am only being half facetious here. The SG has become the dominant model BECAUSE it is consistent with what we see in the record.

THe SG would predict that if you find trilobites below dinosaurs which are below flowering plants which are below sea urchins of a certain type which are below mammoths in one area, then when you find the same kinds of fossils in another area, you will find them in the same sequence. This is what we see.

The SG predicts that when igneous rock layers are in a sequence from low to high and show no evidence of massive movement, the lower ones will date older than the higher ones. This is what we see.

The SG makes predictions concerning where one is most likely to find oil and natural gas. Energy companies use the SG because its predictions work.

However, when a model or its predictions, either one, run counter to observed data, then the model is discarded.

As well, I believe SG is inconsistent with the model and the data.

But you haven't shown this in the least. You have asked for a particular type of prediction which both grumpy and I believe is inappropriate from a scientific standpoint. When grumpy asks you to provide more parameters for making the prediction, you seem to demur.

Why exactly do you think the SG is inconsistent with the data we have? You keep pointing to this expectation that the SG should include the possibility that there are layers formed, then folds in these layers, then layers on top of these. We agree.

You have NOT shown that this does not exist. And in fact, I provided a link to a graphic of the grand canyon which shows that exactly what you are looking for occurs there.

Now, I do not know how to get pictures into the thread. But if you go to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of ... anyon_area

which is the very link you cited in your photo, you will see exactly what you asked for. Go down just one scroll click and look next to the contents on the right.

Or, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grand ... olumn.jpeg for a full size version.

We see that layers formed. Then tilted. Then eroded away flat, then many more layers formed on top.

Note how far down the boundary between the pre-tilt layers and the post-tilt layers is. I suggested earlier that this is exactly what you might find according to the SG. I noted that one HAD to take into account the time scales and so you might not find what you were asking for very often, especially close to the surface which is where most of the examples you have posted are from. You never specified how often you expected this to happen, only that you expected such phenomenon to be somehow uniformly distrbuted through the record. I noted how uniform depended on how long the sequence of events to occur and if it tended to take a long time, you may not see this "very often" in the layers.


Now, grumpy has not provided pictures or diagrams that I can recall from his area, but he has claimed he also sees what you are looking for every day as he drives around PA.

We also had another example of a formation near a shore whose name escapes me now.


So, I must emphatically insist that we HAVE shown you what you asked for and it is consistent with the SG and is INCONSISTENT with all the layers being laid down in a flood as you have claimed.

I have also explained why we are not likely to find a huge number of these examples, at least close to the surface.

1) No salt on ice caps over Greenland and elsewhere. otseng has explained this by saying the ice caps formed after the flood. This does not work, since we can date, in a number of different ways, the layers in the ice caps. The data falsifies a flood within roughly the last 100,000 years.

I'll promise that we'll address the issue of ice layers after we deal with the appearance of the stratas.

I refuse to offer more predictions based on the SG as condition for addressing the more relevant data which falsifies the FM.


Let me make an analogy for what you are doing from my point of view. It is a little bit like saying the prosecuting attorney is not allowed to enter ballistics evidence and eye-witness testimony against a shooting suspect until he answers the defense attorney's question concerning what the suspect ate for breakfast the day of the alleged crime.

You are refusing to consider the most relevant evidence until the less relevant evidence has been gone through ad nauseum.

As I have said before, a model gets discarded when the evidence shows it is false. I have provided MULTIPLE EXAMPLES of evidence to show the FM is simply not feasible. Some of the lines of evidence falsify the FM all by themselves. In conjunction, the case is pretty air tight. Why should we continue to compare the SG agains the FM when we know the FM is false and we have no such evidence against the SG?


I hope you will understand that I refuse to have consideration of this evidence dismissed or further postponed because you are not yet satisfied at the multiple attempts I have made to address your questions, especially when you have not shown your questions are really scientifically relevant.

Can otseng explain how the FM can account for not only the multiple salt layers cited here, but the characteristics of the many intervening layers, all of which can be found in one geographic location?

We'll have to add this to the queue.

Let's make it #2 in the queue after the previous item on ice layers, but before any further consideration of what global predictions the SG should make.

In fact, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of ... anyon_area for a picture of the geological layers in the grand canyon. Is this not exactly the kind of example otseng has been asking for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_0 ... i_2007.jpg

Even looking at the Grand Canyon, the pattern is the same. Layering prior to deformation and erosion. According to SG, the oldest layers are roughly 2 billion years old. Then 75 mya the area was uplifted, then the Colorado river starts eroding it. But, for a period of 1.925 billion years, prior to the Laramide orogeny, there is very little evidence of orogenies or erosion. Or put another way, what did the area look like 80 mya? Would SG predict this?

I know I alluded to this above, but again, you missed the relevant graphic.

Yes, we see layers forming and then subsquent erosion, but all of this is occuring on top of previously formed and tilted layers. Again, exactly what you asked for and claimed we should see according to the SG.






Let me make another analogy. Suppose we want to attempt to reconstruct the history of all human warfare in the world. We might create a model of why wars occur, based on current examples. We might use that to predict what circumstances would have led to wars in the past. However, it is doubtful such a model could ever, by itself, allow one to predict exactly when and where you would find evidence for wars in the historical or archeological record, unless you knew what the circumstances were at particular times and places in the past . It is also not likely to help you determine how often wars occurred in the past or how far back the first war occurred.

This is exactly what grumpy has been pointing out for a number of pages.

In addition, all of our scenarios about wars would be hypothetical until we actually have some data to go against. The measure of our model would be how accurately does the model predict war when the parameters we have identified are present. We would always measure the model in the context of a particular time and place based on the data we have from that time and place.

If we wished, we could use the model to predict where war is most likely to break out in the near future. With wars, we might not have to take long.

With the SG, we can also predict where certain occurrences are most likely to happen in the future. We can pretty confidently predict more earthquakes will occur along the San Andreas fault. Indonesia is likely to experience more Tsunamis. Kansas is likely to be geologically quiet. Mountains are likely to form where we can currently identify plates moving together.

The problem of course is that many of the events we predict will not take place, if they do, for thousands or millions of years.




The thread is whether there is evidence for the flood. I call for a halt to further consideration of predictions of the SG until at least the two pieces of evidence presented by the grand canyon and the worlds ice layers can be adequately explained by the FM. Based on previous posts, the FM includes but is not limited to:

1) All the sedimentary layers above the base basalt layer were laid down by the flood.
2) The water for the flood came predominantly from underground chambers.
3) There were no high mountains prior to the flood, and these were created during the flood as a result of the water pressure from the vents pushing continents apart and into each other.

Please add other important aspects of the FM I have not recalled at this time.

[nygreenguy]

The flood as described in the bible never happened. Period.

This isn't even an issue that's up for debate.

[McCulloch]

The flood as described in the bible never happened. Period.

This isn't even an issue that's up for debate.

The point is that without the Bible, there is no reason to believe that there was a universal flood. There is no one who admits to believing in a universal flood based solely on the geological evidence.

[nygreenguy]

The flood as described in the bible never happened. Period.

This isn't even an issue that's up for debate.

The point is that without the Bible, there is no reason to believe that there was a universal flood. There is no one who admits to believing in a universal flood based solely on the geological evidence.

This goes WAY beyond geologic evidence. The flood would also break the laws of physics, its ecologically impossible, biologically impossible and so on.

If you want to say there was a great flood, you may as well argue the sun revolves around the earth because its just as ridiculous.

[otseng]

Which specific area?

Since we've already brought up the Grand Canyon, we can start with this.

If you weren't so insistent on setting up strawmen we could have moved on long ago.

Again, addressing the OP is a not strawman.

Without layering there is nothing to fold or erode, so, duh?

Can there be folding with only one layer? Two? Three? How many layers should exist before folding is seen?

Yes, the sea that covered much of the midwest was in the process of receeding, it looked much like it did for the previous ~2 billion years, only shallower.

OK, is this the sequence?

2 billion years ago, there were no sedimentary stratas in the area.
Over a series of successive millions of years, different stratas were deposited underwater. Each layer was deposited and formed flat layers. This happened for the next 1.925 billion years.
75 mya, the area was uplifted and the Colorado river started to erode and form the Grand Canyon.

So, suppose a fault happened 50 mya. And it had stratas A,B,C at the time of the fault. There would be a fault extending through stratas A,B,C. 25 mil years elapses and strata D forms on top of ABC. Another 25 my elapses and strata E forms on top of ABCD. So when another fault occurs, it would occur exactly along the original fault line of ABC?

Fault lines rarely come and go, they are almost always permanent forces where they exist, but are largely unknown where they do not exist, so all layers will almost always be affected in much the same way over time(IE all layers faulted or no layers faulted). A good example of how knowing the forces and history of an area is necessary to make predictions about what will be found.

That did not answer my question. When a normal fault occurs, would it occur exactly along a normal fault line that formed millions of years ago?

[otseng]

The SG predicts exactly what we find in the geological record.

Now are you happy?

And I am only being half facetious here.

I would hope that you're being entirely facetious.

THe SG would predict that if you find trilobites below dinosaurs which are below flowering plants which are below sea urchins of a certain type which are below mammoths in one area, then when you find the same kinds of fossils in another area, you will find them in the same sequence. This is what we see.

I would be curious to see evidence of this.

The SG predicts that when igneous rock layers are in a sequence from low to high and show no evidence of massive movement, the lower ones will date older than the higher ones. This is what we see.

Why do you specify igneous rock layers? Shouldn't all rock layers regardless of composition be like this?

The SG makes predictions concerning where one is most likely to find oil and natural gas. Energy companies use the SG because its predictions work.

How do they predict this? What are the predictions?

When grumpy asks you to provide more parameters for making the prediction, you seem to demur.

OK, let's put it this way. The FM is able to make a general prediction on the appearance of stratas regardless of the location. SG is not able to do this. According to Grumpy, it can only make a "prediction" when a specific location is pointed to. This makes falsification of SG impossible since it will then predict exactly what we see.

You keep pointing to this expectation that the SG should include the possibility that there are layers formed, then folds in these layers, then layers on top of these. We agree.

Not only a possibility, but this should be the norm and not the exception.

You keep pointing to this expectation that the SG should include the possibility that there are layers formed, then folds in these layers, then layers on top of these. We agree.

You have NOT shown that this does not exist.

I do not claim that they do not exist. I only claim it would not be frequently found. What should be frequently found according to the FM is that the vast majority of folds should affect all the layers. And I've presented evidence for this. And what I'm saying is that plates are moving all the time according to SG. Bends, faults, folds should be seen throughout the stratas, and not just simply affecting the entire strata sequence. I think perhaps where we are differing is exactly how often should this be seen. I don't think every layer necessarily should have evidence of folding or faults (though perhaps erosion). But, the distribution of them should not favor affecting the entire strata sequence.

And in fact, I provided a link to a graphic of the grand canyon which shows that exactly what you are looking for occurs there.

Now, I do not know how to get pictures into the thread. But if you go to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of ... anyon_area

I assume you mean this image:


Here's another image that gives a better perspective:


http://www.jamesgunderson.com/roadtrip2/default2.asp

This diagram shows that a huge section of layers were formed first. Then folding. Then fault and erosion. There is little evidence of folding while all the layers were formed. And there is little evidence of erosion between the layers while all the layers were formed.

As for the supergroup, we can perhaps investigate it in more in depth in another post.

Now, grumpy has not provided pictures or diagrams that I can recall from his area, but he has claimed he also sees what you are looking for every day as he drives around PA.

A photograph would be preferable than a testimony of saying that he sees it everyday.

So, I must emphatically insist that we HAVE shown you what you asked for and it is consistent with the SG and is INCONSISTENT with all the layers being laid down in a flood as you have claimed.

Besides the image of the Grand Canyon Supergroup that you mentioned, was there other evidence that was presented?

I have also explained why we are not likely to find a huge number of these examples, at least close to the surface.

I do not think it should matter. The images I've produced of normal faults range from very large to moderate size.

It is correct that we do not have images of all the normal faults in the world. But, the FM predicts that if and when we do, the vast majority will have faults that extend all the way to the top most strata.

You are refusing to consider the most relevant evidence until the less relevant evidence has been gone through ad nauseum.

I would totally disagree with this. Does not the OP itself ask about predictions? It is the only reason I'm harping on this issue. If it did not ask about predictions, I would not keep on trying to bring this issue up.

Further, I have addressed many issues that have been brought up: Siccar Point Unconformity, Oceanic ridges, magnetic anomolies, Iridium and KT, Chicxulub impact, Plate Tectonics, tree rings, large animals, uniform climate, etc. It is not that I have only been trying to talk about the prediction.

Also, was it not you that suggested that we not chase rabbits and just concentrate on one issue at a time? And so my suggestion was to simply answer the OP.

But, I'll do this. I'll go ahead and start addressing the issue of ice cores.

However, it is doubtful such a model could ever, by itself, allow one to predict exactly when and where you would find evidence for wars in the historical or archeological record, unless you knew what the circumstances were at particular times and places in the past .

However, in the case of the FM, it is able to make a generalized prediction without even knowing about the particular location. On this basis, the FM prediction is more powerful.

But, as I mentioned to Grumpy, if one place is required in order for you all to make a "prediction", we can discuss the Grand Canyon area first.

[otseng]

The flood as described in the bible never happened. Period.

This isn't even an issue that's up for debate.

The point is that without the Bible, there is no reason to believe that there was a universal flood.

Are you saying that if the Bible was never written, then there would be no reason to believe that there was a universal flood? If so, this would be incorrect. There are numerous cultures that have a universal flood story that have no knowledge of the Bible.



More references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

[nygreenguy]

Further, I have addressed many issues that have been brought up: Siccar Point Unconformity, Oceanic ridges, magnetic anomolies, Iridium and KT, Chicxulub impact, Plate Tectonics, tree rings, large animals, uniform climate, etc. It is not that I have only been trying to talk about the prediction.

.

Can you point me to this? I do dendrochronology and Im curious to what you have to say. (hey, this is 50 pages long, you cant expect me to search through all of them!)