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]

I don't know that we had explicit agreement, but it was shown to my satisfaction that having a large proportion of the water required for the flood in the canopy was simply untenable.

I agree that it is not possible for all the water in the flood to have originated in the water canopy. And I do not propose this. The primary source of water for the flood is the subterranean water.

As I recall, the basic claim is that the water we have on earth at presence was largely in the subterranean chambers, and that the crust (5 miles of it as I recall) was basically totally supported by the water. I would suggest we try to settle the possibility of this first.

We can address this again. I think the last thing you mentioned is that with the pressure on it, it could not be a liquid. Was that where we left off?

But, can we also address the prediction? We started to make some progress that faults should be seen to stop at lower stratas. I'd like to continue discussions and elaborate on this.

[otseng]

Scientists know better than to START with predictions based on insufficient evidence. Given enough evidence one can THEN construct a model and make predictions. I am saying that your attempts to predict are too general to apply to any particular area, nor will they be useful in describing general features, and are thus useless.

We are talking about providing a prediction for SG here, not the FM. If SG is so scientific, it should be able to make a prediction on what stratas should look like.

Let me break the options down. Either SG can or cannot make a prediction on what stratas should look like. There is no other alternative to this. And if SG can make a prediction, then that prediction needs to be presented. If it cannot make a prediction, then I'll accept that.

[Grumpy]

otseng

If SG is so scientific, it should be able to make a prediction on what stratas should look like.

That's the point, the SG can make predictions GIVEN THE HISTORY AND FORCES INVOLVED IN THE SPECIFIC AREA IN QUESTION. It is not being scientific to try to construct useless strawmen to win an argument. I can predict that if an area is in a fault zone, there will be discontinuous layers. I can predict that if the area has always been covered in water and not subject to faulting or folding the layers will be distinct and successive. If an area is or has been subjected to folding, uplift and erosion then we get the jumble we see in the Appilachian mountains. If it first spent millions of years in a shallow midcontinental sea, then was uplifted during the same period a large fast flowing river cut meandering channels into it, you will get something like the Grand Canyon. If there was a rift where two continental plates were seperating you will get a rift valley like in Africa. If an island sits on top of a rift where two continents are drifting apart you get unique formations as seen in Iceland. And if you have an area that has seen all of these forces over time you will get whatever you get, there is no prediction you can make beforehand that will tell you squat, that's why you have to go see, study and determine the history and forces involved.

This world is far more varied and complex than the simplistic tales of the Bible can describe. It is far older and has had a much greater span of histories than man can even comprehend. Dinosaurs were on this Earth for over 100 million years, 25 times as long as men have been here so far(if you count Austrailopithicus as men)If the entire history of the Earth were one year, man and his entire history(from ook, ook to Aha!) would be contained in the last ten seconds of New Years Eve. That cannot be described in any relivant detail in one book written long ago by scientific illiterates.

Let me break the options down. Either SG can or cannot make a prediction on what stratas should look like. There is no other alternative to this. And if SG can make a prediction, then that prediction needs to be presented. If it cannot make a prediction, then I'll accept that.

So sorry, you don't get to dictate what is and what is not scientifically possible. I don't think you understand the process. You are here presenting a false dichotomy, it's just not that simple. Scientists are often criticized for qualifying their answers with statements like "Under these conditions..." or" If this...then that..." or "Given the particulars of this case..." or "This is true if...". But they do this because they know there is no Black and White, This or That answers in the real world. What you are insisting on is not possible, as I have been straining myself telling you. Your picture of predictions is not a scientific one.

As I have patiently explained over and over, science can give very good predictions IF you first determine the history and forces involved in the specific area. Then we will know which of the many models neccessary to describe a complex world we will need to use on that specific area. There is no universal model that can tell us anything useful about all areas. To ask repeatedly for what does not exist is to show how little you understand the subject.

Am I getting through???

We are talking about providing a prediction for SG here, not the FM.

No, we're not, only you are. The OP asked for what predictions the FM makes

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?

I see nothing in the OP asking for a model or prediction for the SG, quite the opposite. Shall we stop trying to set up strawmen and get back to the topic of the thread now???

Grumpy

[Goat]

I would like to see , in principle, how the FM could cause folding or faulting. How much energy woudl it take to cause a fold? Wouldn't water cause an equal amount of pressure along the entire length, and therefore not cause folding at all? We see the process of folding and faulting happening today in earthquake zones.. yet we don't see similar processes happening during floods.

The water pressure along the surface of a strata would not cause folding or faulting. Rather, it is the movement of the crust with all the layers deposited on it and then hitting the mantle would cause the layers to buckle. It is the momentum of the crust/stratas moving that is the source of the energy for the folding. Also, all the layers deposited have not lithified at this point. So, the energy required for folding would be much less than what is required for SG.

Woudl it?? That isn't the way I would see it. Such an extreme amount of change in such a short amount of time would not cause it to buckle, ti would cause massive breaks.. something we don't see.

Not only that, but we see folding of many of the sedementary layers, something that had to happen AFTER it was laid down.. and you claim those layers were formed IN the flood.

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

I'm rather surprised to see you concur with the authenticity since it supposedly has soft tissues but is more than six times as old as Mary Schweitzer's T. Rex bone with soft tissue:

These soft parts had a similar consisitancy of the dangling legs of a shrimp and their rather soft antennae. When a trilobite is fossilized these soft tissues have very slim chance of being preserved, much less than that of the hard-calicified exoskeleton. To quantify the rarity of soft tissue preservation, I would say...

The fossil preservation of the soft tissue parts is not the same thing as finding soft tissue itself. You are simply misunderstanding, again, something a scientist says. You should probably stop opining about things you obviously just don't "get".

Grumpy

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

You should probably stop opining about things you obviously just don't "get".

Be reminded that you can make your points without making personal comments about others. Doing so does not help your case in the slightest, and is against the rules.

[otseng]

I would like to see , in principle, how the FM could cause folding or faulting. How much energy woudl it take to cause a fold? Wouldn't water cause an equal amount of pressure along the entire length, and therefore not cause folding at all? We see the process of folding and faulting happening today in earthquake zones.. yet we don't see similar processes happening during floods.

The water pressure along the surface of a strata would not cause folding or faulting. Rather, it is the movement of the crust with all the layers deposited on it and then hitting the mantle would cause the layers to buckle. It is the momentum of the crust/stratas moving that is the source of the energy for the folding. Also, all the layers deposited have not lithified at this point. So, the energy required for folding would be much less than what is required for SG.

Woudl it?? That isn't the way I would see it. Such an extreme amount of change in such a short amount of time would not cause it to buckle, ti would cause massive breaks.. something we don't see.

What do you mean by "massive breaks"?

Not only that, but we see folding of many of the sedementary layers, something that had to happen AFTER it was laid down.. and you claim those layers were formed IN the flood.

Yes, all the layers were formed during the flood. However, the FM has phases to what happened during the flood. The formation of layers was only during one of those phases.

1. Rupture phase where cracks formed at oceanic ridges
2. Flood/stratification phase where water and sediments covered the entire earth and all parallel stratas formed
3. Buckling phase where strata folding occurred
4. Erosion phase where canyons formed and stratas were eroded

[otseng]

That's the point, the SG can make predictions GIVEN THE HISTORY AND FORCES INVOLVED IN THE SPECIFIC AREA IN QUESTION.

That would not be a prediction, but an explanation. Sure, SG can attempt to make an explanation of what we observe at specific locations, but that does not mean it can make a prediction.

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

Ad hominem again.

I see nothing in the OP asking for a model or prediction for the SG, quite the opposite. Shall we stop trying to set up strawmen and get back to the topic of the thread now???

That is true the OP does not specifically ask for predictions for SG. However, if the predictions of both the FM and SG are the same, it is pointless to go into those predictions since it would not prove things one way or the other. But, if we can establish the fact that the predictions are different, we can then see which model better aligns with the data.

[Goat]

I would like to see , in principle, how the FM could cause folding or faulting. How much energy woudl it take to cause a fold? Wouldn't water cause an equal amount of pressure along the entire length, and therefore not cause folding at all? We see the process of folding and faulting happening today in earthquake zones.. yet we don't see similar processes happening during floods.

The water pressure along the surface of a strata would not cause folding or faulting. Rather, it is the movement of the crust with all the layers deposited on it and then hitting the mantle would cause the layers to buckle. It is the momentum of the crust/stratas moving that is the source of the energy for the folding. Also, all the layers deposited have not lithified at this point. So, the energy required for folding would be much less than what is required for SG.

Woudl it?? That isn't the way I would see it. Such an extreme amount of change in such a short amount of time would not cause it to buckle, ti would cause massive breaks.. something we don't see.

What do you mean by "massive breaks"?

From a real life example, in volcano's, when the lava chamber empties, and you have a hole there, the volcano collapses into the chamber and you form a caldera.

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.

From our real life experience , your model is falsified.

[Grumpy]

otseng

Grumpy wrote:

That's the point, the SG can make predictions GIVEN THE HISTORY AND FORCES INVOLVED IN THE SPECIFIC AREA IN QUESTION.

That would not be a prediction, but an explanation.

No, a prediction, in scientific terms, means you can tell something about a process based on the evidence you have gathered. In civilian terms, a prediction is telling something about it without having any evidence. Like theory, the words mean different things in science than they do in everyday conversation. You are simply wrong.

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

Ad hominem again.

No, truth. I have repeatedly explained why what you are trying to do is not scientifically valid, yet you keep insisting that I(or others) do what just cannot be done, make a prediction(prophecy) about what will be found underground without knowing a thing about the area in question. As I have explained repeatedly, no such prediction(prophecy) can be made that can have any validity at all. A prediction(scientific) must first be informed by the study of the area in question. 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.

Grumpy

I see nothing in the OP asking for a model or prediction for the SG, quite the opposite. Shall we stop trying to set up strawmen and get back to the topic of the thread now???

That is true the OP does not specifically ask for predictions for SG. However, if the predictions of both the FM and SG are the same, it is pointless to go into those predictions since it would not prove things one way or the other. But, if we can establish the fact that the predictions are different, we can then see which model better aligns with the data.

The data indicates a precise seperation of layers by time, fossils found in those precisely seperate layers are also precisely seperated by types. Fossils of a certain type are always found only in layers of a certain age. All of this precise ordering is impossible by any flood mechanism, not all fossilization events are associated with water.

When you actually look at the evidence the flood hypothesis isn't even in the running.

Grumpy