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?

[ReligionOFTHEsemites]

It would, but plants are stunningly resilient and may have higher survival rate than expected. Consider coconuts floating in the ocean for months or years before reaching any land, and once it finds a suitable ground, it can grow. Or seeds carried by floating plant remains etc.

So, finding one plant that is somewhat resilient somehow means that all currently plant life somehow sustained a year of underwater? If you overwater your lawn, your grass dies. I'm pretty sure you are WELL overestimating the ability of plant life. Most seeds don't float and almost all plant life would die permanently due to a year-long flood.

The situation is not as simple as excess of water on a land.
Most flood catastrophes in modern times are mud slides driven to a lower ground by water. Underneath the liquid part on top is murky composition of floating materials, clay, sands, plant remains, animal remains, etc.

And the "global flood" wasn't like most "flood catastrophes". The global flood was when, according to Genesis, the entire Earth was covered with water up to the highest mountain. I'm pretty sure mudslides and floods are two completely different things anyways. But however you want to put the square peg into the round hole is completely fine with me.

From Wikipedia:
"Australopithecus afarensis fossils have only been discovered within Eastern Africa."
Of course those fossils can be found in the same certain layer in one large area, but not in various places on earth.

Well if a global flood happened, wouldn't it all be mixed up? Afarensis would be found in any layer...but corresponds with the animal life that lived during 3-4 million years ago. There is evidence piled on top of evidence proving you wrong. All organisms from a certain time period are found in the same geological layer, no matter where they exist on Earth with very rare exceptions due to geological processes that I mentioned before.

Oh and you purposely forgot to mention that I also stated "as other organisms that were living around 3 million years ago" along with the australopithecus afaransis comment I mentioned in my last response. Which you cannot find any evidence to deny. All members of the Jurassic period are all found on the same geological layer, no matter where on Earth they may be found. All members of the precambrian period are all found in the same geological layer...ect ect. So...nice try. If there was a flood all animals would be mixed up...according to you. This is not what is found whatsoever.

On the other hand, there were layers of sediments in large area that contain no significant fossils of plants nor animals, and it is supposed to be the deposit during millions of years. How can those sediments barren for millions of years without any organisms?

Yeah...like what? Examples? I'm not saying it can't happen, but some sort of example would help explain what you're talking about. Not all places on Earth were inhabited by organisms like it is today and I'm sure it can be explained pretty easily.

[Mugview]

It would, but plants are stunningly resilient and may have higher survival rate than expected. Consider coconuts floating in the ocean for months or years before reaching any land, and once it finds a suitable ground, it can grow. Or seeds carried by floating plant remains etc.

So, finding one plant that is somewhat resilient somehow means that all currently plant life somehow sustained a year of underwater? If you overwater your lawn, your grass dies. I'm pretty sure you are WELL overestimating the ability of plant life. Most seeds don't float and almost all plant life would die permanently due to a year-long flood.

Does it really die? or actually resorting to "latent" forms?
How about aquatic plants that live in "overwater" condition?
Fascinating phenomena in tide pools as organisms juggle between the "overwater" and "dry" conditions every day.
Many plant life would survive just a year-long flood. Or else how could they survived the "million" years of Ice Age?

The situation is not as simple as excess of water on a land.
Most flood catastrophes in modern times are mud slides driven to a lower ground by water. Underneath the liquid part on top is murky composition of floating materials, clay, sands, plant remains, animal remains, etc.

And the "global flood" wasn't like most "flood catastrophes". The global flood was when, according to Genesis, the entire Earth was covered with water up to the highest mountain. I'm pretty sure mudslides and floods are two completely different things anyways. But however you want to put the square peg into the round hole is completely fine with me.

The suggestion from earlier posts was to observe the modern flood calamities. Lately there are more occurred in areas not usually impacted.
Close observation showed that the flood did not just involve "water", but the deadly force is the mud. It may seem to be a square and a round, but it takes a "square" drill to make a "round" hole.

From Wikipedia:
"Australopithecus afarensis fossils have only been discovered within Eastern Africa."
Of course those fossils can be found in the same certain layer in one large area, but not in various places on earth.

Well if a global flood happened, wouldn't it all be mixed up? Afarensis would be found in any layer...but corresponds with the animal life that lived during 3-4 million years ago. There is evidence piled on top of evidence proving you wrong. All organisms from a certain time period are found in the same geological layer, no matter where they exist on Earth with very rare exceptions due to geological processes that I mentioned before.

Oh and you purposely forgot to mention that I also stated "as other organisms that were living around 3 million years ago" along with the australopithecus afaransis comment I mentioned in my last response. Which you cannot find any evidence to deny. All members of the Jurassic period are all found on the same geological layer, no matter where on Earth they may be found. All members of the precambrian period are all found in the same geological layer...ect ect. So...nice try. If there was a flood all animals would be mixed up...according to you. This is not what is found whatsoever. [/quote]
It may not as straightforward as it seems. The layers are not identical all over the world. Some area lack identifiable layers. If only everywhere on Earth, certain fossils can be found in specific layer, just like a library books with Dewey codes, the work of archaelogy would be much easier. The fact is, layers all over the Earth are not as ordered as described in the textbooks. Scientists use the table to help the identification, but in reality, no place shows layers that fits nicely with the table.

On the other hand, there were layers of sediments in large area that contain no significant fossils of plants nor animals, and it is supposed to be the deposit during millions of years. How can those sediments barren for millions of years without any organisms?

Yeah...like what? Examples? I'm not saying it can't happen, but some sort of example would help explain what you're talking about. Not all places on Earth were inhabited by organisms like it is today and I'm sure it can be explained pretty easily.

It's not as easily explained as wished. The dynamic life on earth favors the rapid spread of organism to occupy any empty space for survival. There are no places on the surface on the earth that was left alone in a long time, not even in hours, let alone "million" years. Having been in most continents, seeing various habitats, even in remote places where "nothing" supposedly would live, all spots on earth actually teem with organisms, from the hottest point to the coldest point, the highest to the lowest/deepest. Nothing is left empty and wasted.

[ReligionOFTHEsemites]

Does it really die? or actually resorting to "latent" forms?

Yes. It dies.

How about aquatic plants that live in "overwater" condition?

Well, if we were speaking of aquatic plants, it would be a completely different topic.

Many plant life would survive just a year-long flood. Or else how could they survived the "million" years of Ice Age?

This was surprisingly a great question. But here is a quote from a key researcher of that field explains it in one sentence: "The closer you get to volcanoes, the more species you find. This pattern supports our hypothesis that species have been expanding their ranges and gradually moving out from volcanic areas since the last ice age."

The suggestion from earlier posts was to observe the modern flood calamities. Lately there are more occurred in areas not usually impacted.
Close observation showed that the flood did not just involve "water", but the deadly force is the mud. It may seem to be a square and a round, but it takes a "square" drill to make a "round" hole.

What is your point? Are you saying the Biblical account is inaccurate? Are we going by what Genesis states, or what you personally believed happened? Because if water was up to the highest peak on Earth, your comment has no importance whatsoever. If you have some sort of personal belief that conflicts with the Bible, I have no idea what it is and you will have to explain why your personal account states the biblical account is inaccurate.

It may not as straightforward as it seems. The layers are not identical all over the world. Some area lack identifiable layers. If only everywhere on Earth, certain fossils can be found in specific layer, just like a library books with Dewey codes, the work of archaelogy would be much easier. The fact is, layers all over the Earth are not as ordered as described in the textbooks. Scientists use the table to help the identification, but in reality, no place shows layers that fits nicely with the table.

That's weird...because I am an anthropologist (archaeology is one of the 4 branches of anthropology). And to correct you, the layers are found all around the Earth and can be measured by carbon dating and the clear separation of species by geological period...as I stated before. Jurassic organisms found in Europe are found on the Jurassic layer in America. There is no mixing of organisms much like you would see your mythical viewpoint of a global flood. There would be no consolidation of different geological periods whatsoever if a global flood occurred...yet no intelligent response will ever come from this comment (it will be ignored most likely).

It's not as easily explained as wished. The dynamic life on earth favors the rapid spread of organism to occupy any empty space for survival. There are no places on the surface on the earth that was left alone in a long time, not even in hours, let alone "million" years. Having been in most continents, seeing various habitats, even in remote places where "nothing" supposedly would live, all spots on earth actually teem with organisms, from the hottest point to the coldest point, the highest to the lowest/deepest. Nothing is left empty and wasted.

So, I know asking for evidence is like pulling teeth on this site...but how on earth do make that conclusion? Life cannot inhabit areas in which it's not adapted for. You cannot be on land without legs or the ability to breath just oxygen...and considering it took millions of years for that to happen...so I don't see how this assertion is true. I could be wrong...I"m all ears.

[Mugview]

Does it really die? or actually resorting to "latent" forms?

Yes. It dies.

Then, this should be a "resurrection"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... s-science/
32,000-Year-Old Plant Brought Back to Life—Oldest Yet

Note: nothing about volcanoes. The seeds were discovered in Siberia.

The suggestion from earlier posts was to observe the modern flood calamities. Lately there are more occurred in areas not usually impacted.
Close observation showed that the flood did not just involve "water", but the deadly force is the mud. It may seem to be a square and a round, but it takes a "square" drill to make a "round" hole.

What is your point? Are you saying the Biblical account is inaccurate? Are we going by what Genesis states, or what you personally believed happened? Because if water was up to the highest peak on Earth, your comment has no importance whatsoever. If you have some sort of personal belief that conflicts with the Bible, I have no idea what it is and you will have to explain why your personal account states the biblical account is inaccurate.

Allow me to walk through slowly:
1. Flood starts with water overflow
2. If it's just gradual increase of water level, there would be time to evacuate and leave the area. However, most of the time, water gathered at natural dams, blocking of water pathways.
3. The increase of quantity of water (from continuous rain) breaks the dams and then huge amount of water pour down at high speed and great destructive energy.
4. The flow of water pulls out loose materials (soils, sands, etc) to form the "mud"
5. As mud is more solid, it has bigger impact on collisions in subsequent overrun of lower area.
6. Mud deposits freeze living organisms at high rate and the heat exchange dries the layers directly covering the organisms, creating "shells" that preserve the structure, footprints, imprints of feathers, soft tissues, long after those materials decomposed and deteriorated.
7. Mud moves slower than liquid flood materials, so some newly formed mud can be falling on top the old mud layers, building stacks of layers, each day during the long raining period.
8. Meanwhile the liquid water continues to increase and if some people somehow ended up on a boat or "ark", they could only see the liquid part of the flood and using simple anchors could assess how far they float above the highest point they used as final reference, before all they could see was water.

All of these support the statements of the Bible, and can be reproduced in smaller scale in the laboratories, as well as can be observed in flood disasters around the world.

It may not as straightforward as it seems. The layers are not identical all over the world. Some area lack identifiable layers. If only everywhere on Earth, certain fossils can be found in specific layer, just like a library books with Dewey codes, the work of archaelogy would be much easier. The fact is, layers all over the Earth are not as ordered as described in the textbooks. Scientists use the table to help the identification, but in reality, no place shows layers that fits nicely with the table.

That's weird...because I am an anthropologist (archaeology is one of the 4 branches of anthropology). And to correct you, the layers are found all around the Earth and can be measured by carbon dating and the clear separation of species by geological period...as I stated before. Jurassic organisms found in Europe are found on the Jurassic layer in America. There is no mixing of organisms much like you would see your mythical viewpoint of a global flood. There would be no consolidation of different geological periods whatsoever if a global flood occurred...yet no intelligent response will ever come from this comment (it will be ignored most likely).

The separation of species by geological period may not be as clear as hoped. Only in limited area the data seemed matched, but there are issues with lower or upper layers of that particular area as well. Wikipedia noted that Jurassic layers in Europe (where the name originates) are different from those in America or Africa. Different thickness, some layers missing or not well represented, made identification of some geological markers confusing, and so consensus has been made, pending to more definitive information. In places, where the layers are not well defined, the organisms are used as markers. Hence, "organisms in Jurassic layers in Europe are the same as in America" can as well be "Jurassic layers in America are identified based on the organisms found in Jurassic layers in Europe".

It's not as easily explained as wished. The dynamic life on earth favors the rapid spread of organism to occupy any empty space for survival. There are no places on the surface on the earth that was left alone in a long time, not even in hours, let alone "million" years. Having been in most continents, seeing various habitats, even in remote places where "nothing" supposedly would live, all spots on earth actually teem with organisms, from the hottest point to the coldest point, the highest to the lowest/deepest. Nothing is left empty and wasted.

So, I know asking for evidence is like pulling teeth on this site...but how on earth do make that conclusion? Life cannot inhabit areas in which it's not adapted for. You cannot be on land without legs or the ability to breath just oxygen...and considering it took millions of years for that to happen...so I don't see how this assertion is true. I could be wrong...I"m all ears.

Without has to go to "million" years or "thousands" years, fossils are discovered where they wouldn't been found today, such as whales in Himalayas.

World's oldest whale is found in the Himalayas
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 93848.html

"The ancient whale, called Himalayacetus subathuensis, probably only spent some of its time in water, returning to dry land to rest and breed."

Can you imagine a place on the surface of the earth, where life could not have inhabit?

[ReligionOFTHEsemites]

Then, this should be a "resurrection"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... s-science/
32,000-Year-Old Plant Brought Back to Life—Oldest Yet

Note: nothing about volcanoes. The seeds were discovered in Siberia.

First off, if you actually read the article, the seeds wouldn't germinate on their own and had the help of scientists to grow. Secondly, being frozen (not underwater for a year) are two completely different mediums which have completely different results. "The new study suggests that permafrost could be a "depository for an ancient gene pool," a place where any number of now extinct species could be found and resurrected, experts say." So pretending this extends to flood-type medium is fallacious.

Allow me to walk through slowly:
1. Flood starts with water overflow
2. If it's just gradual increase of water level, there would be time to evacuate and leave the area. However, most of the time, water gathered at natural dams, blocking of water pathways.
3. The increase of quantity of water (from continuous rain) breaks the dams and then huge amount of water pour down at high speed and great destructive energy.
4. The flow of water pulls out loose materials (soils, sands, etc) to form the "mud"
5. As mud is more solid, it has bigger impact on collisions in subsequent overrun of lower area.
6. Mud deposits freeze living organisms at high rate and the heat exchange dries the layers directly covering the organisms, creating "shells" that preserve the structure, footprints, imprints of feathers, soft tissues, long after those materials decomposed and deteriorated.
7. Mud moves slower than liquid flood materials, so some newly formed mud can be falling on top the old mud layers, building stacks of layers, each day during the long raining period.
8. Meanwhile the liquid water continues to increase and if some people somehow ended up on a boat or "ark", they could only see the liquid part of the flood and using simple anchors could assess how far they float above the highest point they used as final reference, before all they could see was water.

All of these support the statements of the Bible, and can be reproduced in smaller scale in the laboratories, as well as can be observed in flood disasters around the world.

That's just adorable that you made some of this stuff up, but according to my college-level geology textbook, much of this is wrong. Mud freezes in a flood? Since when? It still doesn't make any sense why you are posting this. What is your point still? Showing that mud has something to do with this imaginary flood is supposed to prove what? You fail to connect this information with any point you are trying to make. And I just read the flood account to be surprised that almost none of what you said is supported by Genesis.

The separation of species by geological period may not be as clear as hoped. Only in limited area the data seemed matched, but there are issues with lower or upper layers of that particular area as well. Wikipedia noted that Jurassic layers in Europe (where the name originates) are different from those in America or Africa. Different thickness, some layers missing or not well represented, made identification of some geological markers confusing, and so consensus has been made, pending to more definitive information. In places, where the layers are not well defined, the organisms are used as markers. Hence, "organisms in Jurassic layers in Europe are the same as in America" can as well be "Jurassic layers in America are identified based on the organisms found in Jurassic layers in Europe".

Actually the separation is really clear. The organisms from one time period are all on the same layer no matter where on Earth with few exceptions due to geological processes, like I said before. Actually taking a class, instead of glancing at wikipedia, will show this. If there was a flood and all organisms would be buried, not by time period, but by random. Your response does nothing to further your argument of a global flood by furthering the notion that species are separated by time periods even in the slightest.

Without has to go to "million" years or "thousands" years, fossils are discovered where they wouldn't been found today, such as whales in Himalayas.

World's oldest whale is found in the Himalayas
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 93848.html

"The ancient whale, called Himalayacetus subathuensis, probably only spent some of its time in water, returning to dry land to rest and breed."

"India was once a small, separate continent that lay far to the sound of Asia. But subduction (*process when one geological layer goes under another) consumed the ocean between India and Asia, and India moved northward, finally slamming into the southern margin of Asia about 40-50 million years ago (weird...the fossil was dated over 50 million years ago!). Continental crust, unlike oceanic crust, is too buoyant to subduct. So when India collided with Asia, the attached oceanic plate broke off and sank down into the deep mantle while India pushed hard into Asia, squeezing the rocks and sediment that once lay between the two continents into the 8-km-high welt that we now know as the Himalayan Mountains." - Earth - Portrait of a Planet (college level geology textbook)

So, this quote disproves your whole argument. A 53-million year old fossil was found in an area that wasn't yet a mountain until 3-13 million years later.

[Mugview]

Then, this should be a "resurrection"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... s-science/
32,000-Year-Old Plant Brought Back to Life—Oldest Yet

Note: nothing about volcanoes. The seeds were discovered in Siberia.

First off, if you actually read the article, the seeds wouldn't germinate on their own and had the help of scientists to grow. Secondly, being frozen (not underwater for a year) are two completely different mediums which have completely different results. "The new study suggests that permafrost could be a "depository for an ancient gene pool," a place where any number of now extinct species could be found and resurrected, experts say." So pretending this extends to flood-type medium is fallacious.

The article is to give evidence that some seeds just refuse to "die" as you may have thought it would. These seeds happened to need tender loving care of scientists to grow. However, million others already grew and populating the earth without any help, once the habitat is beneficial again, after years of Ice Age, or any other calamities (forest fire, earthquake, tornadoes, flood, etc.)
One year of flood is considered a short-term pause for many seeds, just as coconuts experience.
The word "suggests" and "pretends" could be interchangeable in the absence of evidence, although labeling "fallacious" is limited to personal opinion.

Allow me to walk through slowly:
1. Flood starts with water overflow
2. If it's just gradual increase of water level, there would be time to evacuate and leave the area. However, most of the time, water gathered at natural dams, blocking of water pathways.
3. The increase of quantity of water (from continuous rain) breaks the dams and then huge amount of water pour down at high speed and great destructive energy.
4. The flow of water pulls out loose materials (soils, sands, etc) to form the "mud"
5. As mud is more solid, it has bigger impact on collisions in subsequent overrun of lower area.
6. Mud deposits freeze living organisms at high rate and the heat exchange dries the layers directly covering the organisms, creating "shells" that preserve the structure, footprints, imprints of feathers, soft tissues, long after those materials decomposed and deteriorated.
7. Mud moves slower than liquid flood materials, so some newly formed mud can be falling on top the old mud layers, building stacks of layers, each day during the long raining period.
8. Meanwhile the liquid water continues to increase and if some people somehow ended up on a boat or "ark", they could only see the liquid part of the flood and using simple anchors could assess how far they float above the highest point they used as final reference, before all they could see was water.

All of these support the statements of the Bible, and can be reproduced in smaller scale in the laboratories, as well as can be observed in flood disasters around the world.

That's just adorable that you made some of this stuff up, but according to my college-level geology textbook, much of this is wrong. Mud freezes in a flood? Since when? It still doesn't make any sense why you are posting this. What is your point still? Showing that mud has something to do with this imaginary flood is supposed to prove what? You fail to connect this information with any point you are trying to make. And I just read the flood account to be surprised that almost none of what you said is supported by Genesis.

What part of the post that is not supported by Genesis?

The separation of species by geological period may not be as clear as hoped. Only in limited area the data seemed matched, but there are issues with lower or upper layers of that particular area as well. Wikipedia noted that Jurassic layers in Europe (where the name originates) are different from those in America or Africa. Different thickness, some layers missing or not well represented, made identification of some geological markers confusing, and so consensus has been made, pending to more definitive information. In places, where the layers are not well defined, the organisms are used as markers. Hence, "organisms in Jurassic layers in Europe are the same as in America" can as well be "Jurassic layers in America are identified based on the organisms found in Jurassic layers in Europe".

Actually the separation is really clear. The organisms from one time period are all on the same layer no matter where on Earth with few exceptions due to geological processes, like I said before. Actually taking a class, instead of glancing at wikipedia, will show this. If there was a flood and all organisms would be buried, not by time period, but by random. Your response does nothing to further your argument of a global flood by furthering the notion that species are separated by time periods even in the slightest.

The best way is of course looking at the fossils themselves, which are not difficult nowadays. Many such places are open for tourists. There one can see the layers, supposedly 35 million year apart, contain polystrate fossils. Bones of species, million years apart in textbooks, entangled to each other, etc.

Without has to go to "million" years or "thousands" years, fossils are discovered where they wouldn't been found today, such as whales in Himalayas.

World's oldest whale is found in the Himalayas
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 93848.html

"The ancient whale, called Himalayacetus subathuensis, probably only spent some of its time in water, returning to dry land to rest and breed."

"India was once a small, separate continent that lay far to the sound of Asia. But subduction (*process when one geological layer goes under another) consumed the ocean between India and Asia, and India moved northward, finally slamming into the southern margin of Asia about 40-50 million years ago (weird...the fossil was dated over 50 million years ago!). Continental crust, unlike oceanic crust, is too buoyant to subduct. So when India collided with Asia, the attached oceanic plate broke off and sank down into the deep mantle while India pushed hard into Asia, squeezing the rocks and sediment that once lay between the two continents into the 8-km-high welt that we now know as the Himalayan Mountains." - Earth - Portrait of a Planet (college level geology textbook)

So, this quote disproves your whole argument. A 53-million year old fossil was found in an area that wasn't yet a mountain until 3-13 million years later.

How would it disprove the argument that organisms can live all over the earth?

Can you imagine a place on the surface of the earth, where life could not have inhabit?

[ReligionOFTHEsemites]

The article is to give evidence that some seeds just refuse to "die" as you may have thought it would. These seeds happened to need tender loving care of scientists to grow. However, million others already grew and populating the earth without any help, once the habitat is beneficial again, after years of Ice Age, or any other calamities (forest fire, earthquake, tornadoes, flood, etc.)
One year of flood is considered a short-term pause for many seeds, just as coconuts experience.
The word "suggests" and "pretends" could be interchangeable in the absence of evidence, although labeling "fallacious" is limited to personal opinion.

Million other grew without any help? I have to ask again, did you read the article? Where does it say any of the seeds grew on their own? The whole point of the article is to show how one can bring plants back that aren't around anymore from ancient seeds, with scientific help.

What part of the post that is not supported by Genesis?

What part of it is? Genesis doesn't speak of mud or mud freezing (something you blatantly made up). 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 all weren't in the Genesis account of the flood. It DOES state that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights...which is pretty cool except that it rained in Texas for 45 days and no world flood.

The best way is of course looking at the fossils themselves, which are not difficult nowadays. Many such places are open for tourists. There one can see the layers, supposedly 35 million year apart, contain polystrate fossils. Bones of species, million years apart in textbooks, entangled to each other, etc.

You are right, looking at the fossils themselves would be the best way. Take an archaeology class or a geology class and you will be able to see it for yourself. Polystrate fossils...LOL! Polystrate fossils, like I said before, are due to geological processes and are incredibly rare. Creationists find a few of these and claim it's evidence for something lol. The VAST MAJORITY OF ORGANISMS are separated by time periods. Your little exceptions are just that, exceptions in which I already addressed in my original response. Subduction, abduction, sea floor spreading, tectonic movement, slab pull and many other geological processes explain 100% of your few exceptions.

How would it disprove the argument that organisms can live all over the earth?

This is a red herring. It wasn't supposed to. If you read it (which I am finding hard to believe), it was directed toward your ancient whale comment...which is a completely different topic.

Can you imagine a place on the surface of the earth, where life could not have inhabit?

Yes.

[micatala]

Of course it does not happen (without the necessity to consult the Grand Canyon).
Not ALL plants should be under all the creatures killed during the flood.

If you ever saw a flood calamity, that you might see tree trunks, plant remains were swept by the current, floating on the surface of the water, covering houses, cars, dead creatures, and settled down on top of them.

It is true that plant matter can float. However, you ignoring the fact that many plant fossils, and in addition corals, have been buried and fossilized in place as they live.

How could a coral or a plant fossilized in tact as it lived end up over fossils of land animals?

How does one know that those organisms have been buried and fossilized in their original places? Most plant fossils were not found in groves as is expected when unmoved.

You are equivocating with your use of "most." Even if most plant fossils are not found in groves as expected when alive, this does not mean such fossilization does not happen.

In fact, it has.

http://www.uni-muenster.de/GeoPalaeonto ... SEITE6.HTM

Stigmaria is the rooting system of tree lycopods, Lepidodendron, Lepidophloios and Sigillaria. The woody, a few times bifurcating axes borne hollow tube-like appendages which had the function of roots. Such rooting systems are called rhizomorphic; Isoetes is one of the very few modern lycopods with a rhizomorphic rooting system. Stigmaria rootlet beds are very common and often occur underneath coal seams. Most famous are in situ preserved forest stands with several stigmarian tree trunks, e.g. the Fossil Grove in Glasgow (Scotland) and Joggings (Nova Scotia).

This article describes fossilized coral reefs. Reefs would mean that the coral were fossilized as they lived.

http://www.cas.umt.edu/geosciences/facu ... oberts.pdf



This abstract refers to in situ plant burial by volcanic ash.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... _Republic)


So, yes, there are such examples, and I am sure I could find more.

I will try to address any remaining issues raised in your post later. However, it has been established that in situ (as they lived) fossilization of plants, corals, trees, etc. has occurred.

[micatala]

The concept that stratification was formed by a single event is fundamentally wrong. One cannot account for the layering the way it is with a single event; be it fossils or sedimentation order.

If a single event caused all the stratification we would expect a layering style called Graded Bedding. Graded Bedding is the phenomenon of larger, denser particles being at the bottom and smaller, less dense particles at the top - NOT layering that we see in reality. The layering we see in the real world has no specific pattern; we have seen dense layers on top of light ones. This can't happen in a single stratification episode.

Also how does the Flood Model account for Chalk deposits? Chalk areas (such as the White Cliffs of Dover) are made up of the shells of literally trillions of marine algae called Coccolithophores and this deposition happens at a rate we can measure (roughly 2 inches per 1000 years). So...how does the Flood Model account for that? By the way, the White Cliffs of Dover are over 300 feet tall on average.

And then we have how every single fossil ever found is where it should be, in terms of evolutionary timeline and geological timeline wise. That seems just a little too much to be a coincidence, don't you think?

The idea of a single event causing stratification is demonstrably wrong.

I thought I would bring to the fore some points previously made in this thread.

Now, I must allow that otseng was very specific in some of the aspects of his flood model. He argued that all or most geological strata were formed by the flood. Later, he did allow that the tilted layers at the very bottom of the Grand Canyon pre-dated the flood.

I would ask Mugview which layers in the Grand Canyon he is willing to argue were formed by the flood.

[micatala]

I spent several years in Missoula, Montana. On clear days I could see many horizontal lines going up the side of Mt Sentinel, at the edge of town. I later learned that these lines were primary evidences for a catastrophic flood 10-15K years ago.

Other evidences include oddly shaped hills on the valley floors, formed when water dropped its load of debris as it slowed, parallel ridges interpreted as ripple marks, and the Washington Scablands with their huge dry falls, plunge pools, and channels. See the link below

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/onli ... 2/sec5.htm

So we have overwhelming evidences of a flood at roughly the time period YECs give for the Flood. However, these evidences are of a localized catastrophe with a clear physical cause. An ice dam formed where the drainage of the Clarks Fork River exited the mountains, backing up its waters for decades. Ice will float, so when the water rose high enough the ice dam broke catastrophically. In a matter of 2-3 days a volume of water roughly equal to Lake Ontario came gushing out. This process was repeated at least 30 times as the ice dam formed again - never quite as high or strong as the first time, so less water backed up.

It boggles the mind. Almost Biblical in its proportions. Glacial Lake Missoula shows that given sufficient evidence scientists are willing to accept the reality of a flood.

AND YET ... None of these evidences that define the scientific theory of Glacial Lake Missoula are to be found generally in the world. In particular, the Grand Canyon, what the YECs call a "Monument to Catastrophe" are totally barren of these evidences. Where are the horizontal water marks? Where are the hollowed out canyons - U-shaped as opposed to V-shaped from of the rush of water? Where are the dry falls, the potholes, the wave marks?

We know what a flood will do, what the geological evidence looks like. It's not there. It's to be found only in a few isolated locales with clear physical causes.

Yet another post giving yet another line of evidence against a global flood.

Perhaps Mugview should peruse the thread to see just how profoundly the evidentiary decked is stacked against the idea of a global flood.