Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

[otseng]

Zzyzx and I have agreed to do a head-to-head debate on the Biblical flood.

The question for us to debate:
Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

[Zzyzx]

.
My questions, clearly stated were:

If the Earth’s sedimentary rocks were deposited at the same time, why aren’t the fossils mixed as one would expect?

How could there be a complete absence of strata which contain BOTH old fossils (say trilobites) and newer fossils (say mammals) when all rock units are supposedly of the same age and were supposedly deposited together?

Simplifying further: Stratum A contains fossils of trilobites but no fossils of mammals. Stratum B contains mammal fossils but no trilobites.

You assert that the Earth’s sedimentary rocks were deposited by the flood.

How does a “literal flood” account for the SORTING of fossils so that they occur in separate strata?

Kindly do not change the topic or dodge the questions. And kindly provide substantiation for:

1. The Earth’s sedimentary rocks were deposited during the flood. Evidence? Source?

2. The Sorting of fossils into separate strata during the flood. Evidence? Source?

[otseng]

If the Earth’s sedimentary rocks were deposited at the same time, why aren’t the fossils mixed as one would expect?

I would not expect the fossils to be uniformly mixed. I would think what would be expected is that more life should be buried in lower layers than in higher layers.

How could there be a complete absence of strata which contain BOTH old fossils (say trilobites) and newer fossils (say mammals) when all rock units are supposedly of the same age and were supposedly deposited together?

I assume you are referring to something like finding fossil rabbits in the Precambrian. Well, of course something like this would not be found because the Precambrian is marine life (including trilobites). If an area underwater was rapidly covered with sediments, it would be considered highly unusual if a rabbit (or any other land animal) was found with it.

Also, what can really be considered an "old" fossil and a "new" fossil? We have animals that were considered extinct millions of years ago, only to be recently found to be currently alive.

So, let me then present one of the main evidence of a global flood.

When we look at geological stratas, the basic pattern that seems to be seen universally is that layers were all deposited horizontally. Then after all the layers were deposited, something happened to those layers. Could be deformation, erosion, normal fault, etc. Or could be a combination of these.

What we do not commonly see is one layer forming, then deformation/erosion/faulting. Then another layer. Then more deformation/erosion/faulting. And so on.

This pattern is so prevalent that it needs an explanation for this. The Flood Model is consistent with this in that all the layers were deposited horizontally. Then deformation/erosion/faulting occurred after the layers were formed.

[Zzyzx]

.

If the Earth’s sedimentary rocks were deposited at the same time, why aren’t the fossils mixed as one would expect?

I would not expect the fossils to be uniformly mixed.

“Uniformly mixed” has nothing to do with the question. I asked “why aren’t the fossils mixed”? Why do they occur in discrete layers rather than mixed in with one another?

Kindly focus on the question asked and attempt to use credible sources of information regarding the specific topic.

I would think what would be expected is that more life should be buried in lower layers than in higher layers.

You have stated a PERSONAL OPINION -- with no evidence of knowledge or training in the field. I specifically asked for references and evidence rather than personal opinions.

You will find that people who actually study rocks and life forms conclude exactly the opposite. Lower strata are often identified as Pre-Cambrian sedimentary rocks which are characterized by a general absence of life forms larger than microscopic size or life forms lacking in hard body parts.

As you have observed, if the flood tale was literal and if all sedimentary rocks were deposited during the flood, dead animals might be expected to be most heavily concentrated in the lowest rock units AND they should be all mixed up with one another (not sorted into discrete layers) – exactly the OPPOSITE of what is observed in reality.

If your theories are correct and the sedimentary rocks were deposited during the year of the flood, the various life forms should not be confined to specific layers and absent in others. According to your theories, wasn’t all of the Earth’s life killed at the same time in a worldwide flood and all the sedimentary rocks deposited within a year? Shouldn’t the fossils be all mixed up with one another if that is true?

Please explain, citing credible sources of information and conclusions, why the segregation or sorting of fossils occurs instead of mixing.

How could there be a complete absence of strata which contain BOTH old fossils (say trilobites) and newer fossils (say mammals) when all rock units are supposedly of the same age and were supposedly deposited together?

I assume you are referring to something like finding fossil rabbits in the Precambrian. Well, of course something like this would not be found because the Precambrian is marine life (including trilobites). If an area underwater was rapidly covered with sediments, it would be considered highly unusual if a rabbit (or any other land animal) was found with it.

You assume wrong (again) using your “rabbit fossils in Pre-Cambrian”. It is wise to ask when you are not certain.

I specified trilobites and mammals not occurring in the same strata. Could you explain why they do not – citing credible sources?

Below is a simplified version of the Geological Time Table. I realize that you may reject the times and the conclusions; however, try to understand that your layman’s opinion is NOT sufficient to overcome the combined knowledge of tens or hundreds of thousands of people who actually study the matter. Note: They actually study rocks and life forms and attempt to learn about them – seeking truth wherever it may lead.

There is NO reason to conclude that creationists who do not study the subjects can make pronouncements that have credibility (except perhaps among other creationists who want to believe the same things). Note: Creationists have an announced agenda – proving scriptures to be correct – the antithesis of searching for truth (when one assumes they possess the truth and seeks to verify their a priori conclusions).

In the information provided below, rocks identified as Jurassic, for instance, contain fossils of dinosaurs – but no human fossils. Cambrian rocks contain fossils trilobites but none of dinosaurs or humans. Carboniferous rocks contain the fossils of amphibians – but no dinosaurs, trilobites or humans. Ordovician rocks contain fossils of vertebrates and primitive fish – but Cambrian do not.

In fact, Cambrian rocks contain very few fossils and Pre-Cambrian rocks (often the lowest in stratigraphic column) contain no fossils above microscopic in size or with hard body parts. Why, if all sedimentary rocks were deposited during the flood and all life was wiped out at the same time?

CENOZOIC ERA

QUATERNARY 2 million years ago to present More mammals develop, including the now extinct Saber-Toothed Tiger and the Mastadon. Modern man appears.

TERTIARY 65-2 million years ago Mammals develop such as camels, bears, cats, monkeys, rodents, dogs.Grasses, fruit develop like what we have today.


MESOZOIC ERA

CRETACEOUS 136-65 million years ago Peak of development, as well as the downfall, of the great dinosaurs.Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus Rex, the giant Pterodactyl. Desiduoustrees.

JURASSIC 190-136 million years ago The giant dinosaurs developed, as well as abundant plant life and shellfish.Ammonites, lobster, shrimp.

TRIASSIC 225-190 million years ago The beginning of the dinosaurs. Plant eaters, meat eaters, flying reptiles,and crocodiles.

PALEOZOIC ERA

PERMIAN 280-225 million years ago Reptiles become abundant. Trees similar to the pine develop, trilobytes become extinct.

CARBONIFEROUS 345-280 million years ago Ferns are plentiful and the first reptiles evolve from the amphibians.Spiders, cockroaches, scorpions appear. First animals to live on dry land.

DEVONIAN 395-345 million years ago Fish evolve into more complex animals, sharks and amphibians multiply.

SILURIAN 440-395 million years ago The first true plants appear. Crinoids are abundant, and eurypterids- believed to be the first air-breathing animal appears.

ORDOVICIAN 500-440 million years ago Graptolites, Orthoceras, and primitive fish - the first verterbrates begin to appear.

CAMBRIAN 600-500 million years ago Algae, and invertebrae similar to jellyfish and worms. The firstshelled animals begin to appear in the Cambrian period. Arthopods, Brachiopods,Trilobytes

Taken from http://www.bestcrystals.com/timeline.html

Kindly do not attempt to change the subject or distract attention.

[Zzyzx]

.
Let me make this very clear and unavoidable.

The various rock units described and named by people who study them contain discrete sets of fossils. The fossils are NOT mixed in with one another as one would expect if they were all deposited at the same time (or within a year or few years).

There is no mechanism known to geologists that would account for the sorting of fossils if it occurred simultaneously as proposed by those who maintain that the Earth’s sedimentary rock were deposited all at one time during the proposed flood.

For instance, dinosaur fossils are found only in Mesozoic rocks (Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous) – and NOT in Cenozoic or Paleozoic strata. Human fossils (Homo sapiens) are NOT found in ANY strata other than Holocene (very high in the stratigraphic column). Mammals are NOT found in Paleozoic strata.

Please explain, using credible sources if possible, how the flood could have wiped out life on Earth – AND carefully separated the fossils into separate layers instead of mixing them together as would be expected under such conditions.

[otseng]

.

If the Earth’s sedimentary rocks were deposited at the same time, why aren’t the fossils mixed as one would expect?

I would not expect the fossils to be uniformly mixed.

“Uniformly mixed” has nothing to do with the question. I asked “why aren’t the fossils mixed”? Why do they occur in discrete layers rather than mixed in with one another?

As to discrete layers, it would be by a combination of factors. One is through sediments settling at different rates in water. Another is different layers forming at different times. Another is tidal forces acting on the sediments.

Further, discrete layers would seem to me more plausible by rapid deposition, rather than a slow deposition. If sediments were deposited slowly, why should discrete layers exist? Rather, I'd expect a smooth transition where no distinct lines should be evident. Instead of a striped pattern, I'd expect a gradient pattern.

As to why we see certain animals in certain layers, my theory is that generally, the higher layer animals have more mobility than the lower layer animals. Animals with less mobility would not have any method of escaping from a flood and would immediately be buried. Higher mobility animals would be able to postpone being buried by running to higher ground/water, or even running on sediments that were deposited.

I would think what would be expected is that more life should be buried in lower layers than in higher layers.

You have stated a PERSONAL OPINION -- with no evidence of knowledge or training in the field. I specifically asked for references and evidence rather than personal opinions.

You will find that people who actually study rocks and life forms conclude exactly the opposite. Lower strata are often identified as Pre-Cambrian sedimentary rocks which are characterized by a general absence of life forms larger than microscopic size or life forms lacking in hard body parts.

I make the statement more as a prediction of the FM.

As to the Precambrian sedimentary layers, compared to the rest of the stratas, there is not much. Which raises the question, where wouldn't there be more sedimentary layers in the Precambrian? If the Earth existed for billions of years, wouldn't erosion have taken place during that time? Shouldn't there be billions of years of sedimentary layers in the Precambrian?

As you have observed, if the flood tale was literal and if all sedimentary rocks were deposited during the flood, dead animals might be expected to be most heavily concentrated in the lowest rock units AND they should be all mixed up with one another (not sorted into discrete layers) – exactly the OPPOSITE of what is observed in reality.

I have been trying to find global fossil distributions according to depth, but have been unable to find this.

This chart though shows a correlation between extinction rates and greater depths.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

I specified trilobites and mammals not occurring in the same strata. Could you explain why they do not – citing credible sources?

Why should they necessarily be found together?

Human fossils (Homo sapiens) are NOT found in ANY strata other than Holocene (very high in the stratigraphic column).

Human fossils would've been formed after the flood.

[otseng]

So, let me then present one of the main evidence of a global flood.

When we look at geological stratas, the basic pattern that seems to be seen universally is that layers were all deposited horizontally. Then after all the layers were deposited, something happened to those layers. Could be deformation, erosion, normal fault, etc. Or could be a combination of these.

What we do not commonly see is one layer forming, then deformation/erosion/faulting. Then another layer. Then more deformation/erosion/faulting. And so on.

This pattern is so prevalent that it needs an explanation for this. The Flood Model is consistent with this in that all the layers were deposited horizontally. Then deformation/erosion/faulting occurred after the layers were formed.

I'll start with evidence from mountains. The layers in mountains were all formed horizontally first. And then horizontal compression caused the mountains to form.

Here is mountains near the Sullivan River in southern British Columbia, Canada:


Here is another picture of the same area.


The layers are quite deformed. Yet, there is little evidence of fracturing in the layers. Suppose you have a stack of dry lasagna. Then you press the sides together. What'll happen is that the lasagna strips will fracture. But, if the lasagna strips were not dry, but have been soaked in water, then you'll be able to bend them without any fracturing. So, in the mountain above, it would be more reasonable that the layers were wet when they were compressed, rather than solid rock.

http://www.geo.umn.edu/courses/1001/Sum ... ssJura.jpg


In the above diagram, it is interesting that the sedimentary layers are folded, but nothing happened to the bedrock underneath. If they were all solid rock, why would there be such a boundary? However, if the sedimentary layers were not solid rock, then the discrepancy can be accounted for.

The below link has a diagram of the Appalachian mountains which is too large to display here.
http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/geo/xsec1.html

So, these diagrams show that folding/faults/erosion would've happened after horizontal layers were formed.

[Zzyzx]

.

Human fossils (Homo sapiens) are NOT found in ANY strata other than Holocene (very high in the stratigraphic column).

Human fossils would've been formed after the flood.

Are you saying that humans were NOT killed DURING the flood and that their bodies were NOT incorporated as fossils in the rocks supposedly deposited during the year of the flood?????

Doesn’t the “literal flood theory” maintain that the flood killed ALL life on Earth nearly simultaneously (within a year)?????

I specified trilobites and mammals not occurring in the same strata. Could you explain why they do not – citing credible sources?

Why should they necessarily be found together?

They SHOULDN’T in reality because they are separated by millions of years in time. They AREN’T in reality.

However, according to creationist’s “Flood Model”, all life on the Earth was wiped out within a few weeks or months – less than a year (depending on how fast they could move uphill and how long they could tread water).

Since your theories propose that all life on the Earth was killed by a flood in less than a year, please explain why the fossils of the animals killed were sorted into separate and distinct layers – often hundreds or thousands of feet apart vertically.

.

If the Earth’s sedimentary rocks were deposited at the same time, why aren’t the fossils mixed as one would expect?

I would not expect the fossils to be uniformly mixed.

“Uniformly mixed” has nothing to do with the question. I asked “why aren’t the fossils mixed”? Why do they occur in discrete layers rather than mixed in with one another?

As to discrete layers, it would be by a combination of factors.

Are you stating that there are multiple causes of sorting of fossils into discrete layers?

Is this personal opinion or conjecture -- or do you intend to cite supporting evidence?

One is through sediments settling at different rates in water.

Are you stating this IS a cause or are you speculating that it COULD be a cause?

Have you conducted any studies or experiments – or can you cite such investigations by others?

I am not asking you for guesses. You claimed that you would defend the flood as being literal – not guess that it was literal. A guess is worthless in discussion or debate.

Another is different layers forming at different times.

Another guess???? Please cite evidence.

Another is tidal forces acting on the sediments.

Another guess???? Please cite evidence

Please discuss the exact mechanism by which tidal forces acting on sediments produce sorting.

Further, discrete layers would seem to me more plausible by rapid deposition, rather than a slow deposition.

This is a personal opinion of someone who has no knowledge of the field.

Can you verify your conjectures?

If sediments were deposited slowly, why should discrete layers exist?

Discrete rock strata represent the conditions that existed at the time of their deposit. Sediments deposited in standing water differ from those deposited on dry land. Those in salt water differ from those in fresh water. Dry land deposits accumulated in arid climates differ from those of humid climates. Those in hot areas differ from those of cold areas.

As conditions change, subsequent rock strata may differ from previous strata. For instance, a limestone stratum may be deposited in warm, shallow salt water. Later deltaic deposits may form atop the limestone. Eventually, that area of the continental shelf may be elevated and be eroded or may receive stream-borne sediments – or evaporites may accumulate if it becomes a basin of interior drainage (without outlet to the sea).

This is very elementary geology. One who wishes to discuss or debate such topics beyond introductory level should study the topic for a few years to gain some familiarity with the terms and concepts, and the materials and processes. It is not a simple subject that can be learned by reading a few creationist articles.

Rather, I'd expect a smooth transition where no distinct lines should be evident. Instead of a striped pattern, I'd expect a gradient pattern.

In reasoned debate a personal opinion by people without knowledge of the subject have no credibility.

Please cite supporting information.

As to why we see certain animals in certain layers, my theory is that generally, the higher layer animals have more mobility than the lower layer animals.

Interesting theory. Please provide documentation and evidence to verify the hypothesis. Show how mobility difference would produce sorting of fossils throughout thousands of feet of sedimentary strata.

Animals with less mobility would not have any method of escaping from a flood and would immediately be buried. Higher mobility animals would be able to postpone being buried by running to higher ground/water, or even running on sediments that were deposited.

Interesting theory. Please demonstrate that it applies as something more than a personal guess.

I would think what would be expected is that more life should be buried in lower layers than in higher layers.

You have stated a PERSONAL OPINION -- with no evidence of knowledge or training in the field. I specifically asked for references and evidence rather than personal opinions.

You will find that people who actually study rocks and life forms conclude exactly the opposite. Lower strata are often identified as Pre-Cambrian sedimentary rocks which are characterized by a general absence of life forms larger than microscopic size or life forms lacking in hard body parts.

I make the statement more as a prediction of the FM.

Specifically what is the prediction you are alluding to?

How are you qualified to make such analysis????

Where is the credible support for what you say? Or, is personal opinion all that you are offering?

As to the Precambrian sedimentary layers, compared to the rest of the stratas, there is not much.

Agreed. Please explain why that is true using your “literal flood hypothesis”.

Which raises the question, where wouldn't there be more sedimentary layers in the Precambrian? If the Earth existed for billions of years, wouldn't erosion have taken place during that time? Shouldn't there be billions of years of sedimentary layers in the Precambrian?

How can the presence or absence of Billions of years of sediments be of concern in a theory that proposes that the Earth is not over 100,000 years old?????

As you have observed, if the flood tale was literal and if all sedimentary rocks were deposited during the flood, dead animals might be expected to be most heavily concentrated in the lowest rock units AND they should be all mixed up with one another (not sorted into discrete layers) – exactly the OPPOSITE of what is observed in reality.

I have been trying to find global fossil distributions according to depth, but have been unable to find this.

You might have more success finding correlation between fossil distributions and AGE of rock units. However, that might be difficult to fit into a theory that assumes (without evidence) that the Earth is not over 100,000 years old.

This chart though shows a correlation between extinction rates and greater depths.

The chart you provide is interesting. However, it does not seem related to the discussion. Perhaps you can explain its significance and how it supports whatever point you are trying to make.

[Zzyzx]

.
For greater clarity:

According to the genesis account all life on Earth, including humans, was destroyed by the flood that supposedly lasted one year.

According to creationists and the Flood Model the Earth’s sedimentary rocks were deposited during the flood.

1. WHY are human fossils found ONLY in the highest (Holocene) sedimentary rock layers?

2. WHY are dinosaur fossils found ONLY in Mesozoic sedimentary rock layers?

3. WHY are trilobite fossils found ONLY in Paleozoic sedimentary rock layers?

4. If all life was destroyed by the flood relatively quickly (within a year), WHY are fossils not found mixed together – if they were actually all killed within a year or less?

Surely the imaginative Flood Model can account for the sorting of fossils into distinct and separate strata.

[otseng]

Human fossils (Homo sapiens) are NOT found in ANY strata other than Holocene (very high in the stratigraphic column).

Human fossils would've been formed after the flood.

Are you saying that humans were NOT killed DURING the flood and that their bodies were NOT incorporated as fossils in the rocks supposedly deposited during the year of the flood?????

No, I'm not saying that humans were not killed during the flood. What I'm referring to are the human fossils found near the surface.

But, the question would be how many humans would've existed prior to the flood? Were there billions? If there were, then humans fossils would more likely be found than if there were hundreds of thousands.

One is through sediments settling at different rates in water.

Are you stating this IS a cause or are you speculating that it COULD be a cause?

Have you conducted any studies or experiments – or can you cite such investigations by others?

I'll quote you for this:

Sediments settle to the bottom IN LAYERS. Here is a simple demonstration that shows beyond all doubt how that occurs. Fill a quart size or larger glass jar about three quarters with water, add a handful or two of soil. Shake vigorously, then set the jar in an undisturbed location and watch what happens over the next few days.

If there is any gravel in the soil it will settle immediately and form a layer. A layer of sand will settle rather quickly also (because “settling velocity” of sediments in water is partially controlled by particle size). Silt will form the next layer, perhaps in a few hours. The water will still be “muddy” and probably opaque. That is caused by clay (very small particles – less than 1/256 mm) in suspension. It may take a week or longer for the clay to settle out and form its layer.

Another is different layers forming at different times.

Another guess???? Please cite evidence.

The evidence would be fossil tracks.


http://www.dinosaurstatepark.org/page3.html


http://creationwiki.org/Image:Redfleet_tracks.jpg


http://creationwiki.org/Image:Dino_tracks.jpg

Why do we see fossilized footprints of animals? It could not be that they simply walked on soil. It would be more like they walked on wet cement and it hardened immediately. Or they walked on wet soil and something was immediately poured into this cast. If animals makes tracks on soil, it would not be evident for too long before it disappears. But, something would have had to happen quickly after the prints were made to fossilize the prints.

Another thing is why do we only see footprints? That is, why is the surrounding area relatively flat? Why is there no evidence of anything else besides the prints?

So, footprints would be evidence that layers were formed at different times, rather than all of the layers forming at once.

Another is tidal forces acting on the sediments.

Another guess???? Please cite evidence.

Please discuss the exact mechanism by which tidal forces acting on sediments produce sorting.

Just like the moon affects tides, the moon would've affected settling rates.

Here is an example:



How can such regular alternating layers be accounted for? It can not just be a random chance that there is such a periodic layering. Some regular mechanism must've produced this.

Discrete rock strata represent the conditions that existed at the time of their deposit. Sediments deposited in standing water differ from those deposited on dry land. Those in salt water differ from those in fresh water. Dry land deposits accumulated in arid climates differ from those of humid climates. Those in hot areas differ from those of cold areas.

For millions of years, the exact same sediment composition was deposited. Then it abruptly changes to a different composition. And again for millions of years, the exact same composition is deposited. Shouldn't the composition change continually (let's say on the order of years) rather than stay the same for millions of years?

Interesting theory. Please provide documentation and evidence to verify the hypothesis. Show how mobility difference would produce sorting of fossils throughout thousands of feet of sedimentary strata.

Using your data:

CENOZOIC ERA
Saber-Toothed Tiger and the Mastadon
camels, bears, cats, monkeys, rodents, dogs

MESOZOIC ERA
dinosaurs
reptiles,and crocodiles

PALEOZOIC ERA
amphibians, spiders, cockroaches, scorpions
fish, sharks and amphibians
jellyfish, worms

There is a trend of higher mobility to lower mobility.

Specifically what is the prediction you are alluding to?

"I would think what would be expected is that more life should be buried in lower layers than in higher layers."

As to the Precambrian sedimentary layers, compared to the rest of the stratas, there is not much.

Agreed. Please explain why that is true using your “literal flood hypothesis”.

Practically all the sedimentary layers were formed during the flood. There would be some sedimentary layers before the flood due to erosion, but it would be insignificant compared to the layers deposited by the flood.

How can the presence or absence of Billions of years of sediments be of concern in a theory that proposes that the Earth is not over 100,000 years old?????

Because the data fits better with the FM than SG. We see little evidence of sedimentary layers in the Precambrian. The FM accounts for this. How does the SGM account for this?

You might have more success finding correlation between fossil distributions and AGE of rock units.

I'm willing to accept this data also. Do you have access to this type of information?

The chart you provide is interesting. However, it does not seem related to the discussion. Perhaps you can explain its significance and how it supports whatever point you are trying to make.

The greater the depth, the more that animals became extinct. Why should there be such a trend? Wouldn't it be more expected to be uniform or random for the SGM?

[otseng]

So, let me then present one of the main evidence of a global flood.

When we look at geological stratas, the basic pattern that seems to be seen universally is that layers were all deposited horizontally. Then after all the layers were deposited, something happened to those layers. Could be deformation, erosion, normal fault, etc. Or could be a combination of these.

What we do not commonly see is one layer forming, then deformation/erosion/faulting. Then another layer. Then more deformation/erosion/faulting. And so on.

This pattern is so prevalent that it needs an explanation for this. The Flood Model is consistent with this in that all the layers were deposited horizontally. Then deformation/erosion/faulting occurred after the layers were formed.

Next evidence is from normal/reverse/dip-slip faults. If faults occur all the time, then we should have plenty of evidence where a fault stops at one layer. And as new layers are deposited on top of it, there should be no fault line through the new layers. But, what we normally see are faults after all the layers are deposited.

For example, this is common to find:

Figure A

But, this is not so common to find:

Figure B

Below are examples of faults that match figure A above. If the SGM was true, wouldn't one expect figure B to be the norm instead of figure A?