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]

When you constantly cite creation "scientists" who offer it up as part of their contrived explanations - explanations that become more and more bizarre and far fetched the more the creationists get boxed in with facts.

Well, I find SG explanations more bizarre, far fetched, ad hoc, disjointed, and lacking in explaining the most basic geologic observations (like the only prediction that I've presented so far). But, this is my opinion only. As well as your comment being an opinion only also. So these do not really further the debate.

So, the evidence you present for the water canopy , and the vast caverns of water that supposedly burst out of the ground to cause the flood is 'I find the SG explanations more bizarre?'

As I said, it is my opinion, I'm not presenting it as evidence.

As for presenting evidence, I certainly do have more, but if we can't get past the first prediction that I made, I have to question the value in presenting more evidence.

[Goat]

The limit to the size of most insects is the amount of oxygen they can pull through their exoskeletons, and if we go back far enough in time, the oxygen was more dense and they could grow larger.

What would cause the oxygen to be more dense in the past?

It isn't so much 'denser' but a high percentage of the atmosphere. Natural biological processes would be able to do that, .. plants and photosynthesis.

[Scotracer]

The limit to the size of most insects is the amount of oxygen they can pull through their exoskeletons, and if we go back far enough in time, the oxygen was more dense and they could grow larger.

What would cause the oxygen to be more dense in the past?

I mean, really. We are trying to have a scientific debate here and you have once again demonstrated a lack of understanding. Whilst not everyone has a science degree like myself, it is helpful if you are going to debate it at least understand the underlying principles.

Density is kg/m³ therefore if you increase atmospheric pressure you increase the mass per unit volume, i.e. higher density. Gases change in density pretty easily. And this was supposed to be your argument!

I didn't touch on your prediction as I was answering someone else at the time. Can you reiterate it once more (or at least link to the relevant post) so I can address now I have more time. Thank you.

[FinalEnigma]

The limit to the size of most insects is the amount of oxygen they can pull through their exoskeletons, and if we go back far enough in time, the oxygen was more dense and they could grow larger.

What would cause the oxygen to be more dense in the past?

I mean, really. We are trying to have a scientific debate here and you have once again demonstrated a lack of understanding. Whilst not everyone has a science degree like myself, it is helpful if you are going to debate it at least understand the underlying principles.

Density is kg/m³ therefore if you increase atmospheric pressure you increase the mass per unit volume, i.e. higher density. Gases change in density pretty easily. And this was supposed to be your argument!

I didn't touch on your prediction as I was answering someone else at the time. Can you reiterate it once more (or at least link to the relevant post) so I can address now I have more time. Thank you.

I suspect he was asking a leading question, Scotracer.

and his prediction is right here:

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

Would everyone agree with these predictions? If not, why not?

[Scotracer]

Thanks, FinalEnigma.

Otseng's prediction:

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

Would everyone agree with these predictions? If not, why not?

I'm not sure I follow what you are suggesting. How can one have "erosion that affects the entire rock stratas" (do you mean horizontally or vertically - i.e. the column?) if the stratas were laid down very quickly?

Can you please reword it, being more specific to what you are implying? I fail to see the difference between "folding/faulting/erosion affecting entire rock stratas" and "see roughly a uniform distribution of folding/faulting/erosion in the stratas". They sound the same thing to me.

What I would like you to address, otseng, is where the line between the strata being laid down due to this flood and subsequent stratafication occured. Can you point to a mechanic or something within the geological landscape that would indicate an area that was laid down very quickly to distinguish it? Or are you suggesting all strata were formed at this instant?

To illustrate what I mean:


Surface
_______________________________________________________

Stratafication since flood
_______________________________________________________





The Flood




_______________________________________________________

"Pre-flood" strata

[r~]

Well, I find SG explanations more bizarre, far fetched, ad hoc, disjointed, and lacking in explaining the most basic geologic observations (like the only prediction that I've presented so far). But, this is my opinion only. As well as your comment being an opinion only also. So these do not really further the debate.

Please forgive.
I also find difficulty believing specific opinions.

Please summarize the SG explanation you find most bizarre.
It is my opinion we might take this thread back toward reasoned observation only in verse working together.

ItS
Peace
r~

[otseng]

The limit to the size of most insects is the amount of oxygen they can pull through their exoskeletons, and if we go back far enough in time, the oxygen was more dense and they could grow larger.

What would cause the oxygen to be more dense in the past?

I mean, really. We are trying to have a scientific debate here and you have once again demonstrated a lack of understanding. Whilst not everyone has a science degree like myself, it is helpful if you are going to debate it at least understand the underlying principles.

Density is kg/m³ therefore if you increase atmospheric pressure you increase the mass per unit volume, i.e. higher density. Gases change in density pretty easily. And this was supposed to be your argument!

I didn't touch on your prediction as I was answering someone else at the time. Can you reiterate it once more (or at least link to the relevant post) so I can address now I have more time. Thank you.

I suspect he was asking a leading question, Scotracer.

Precisely. I'm not arguing against that oxygen density could've been higher in the past. In fact, it sounds plausible to me. What I'm leading to is that at least a water canopy could account for that scenario.

[otseng]

I'm not sure I follow what you are suggesting. How can one have "erosion that affects the entire rock stratas" (do you mean horizontally or vertically - i.e. the column?) if the stratas were laid down very quickly?

Well, both horizontal and vertical. Evidence of it would be seen in either.

What I would like you to address, otseng, is where the line between the strata being laid down due to this flood and subsequent stratafication occured.

Generally, all (sedimentary) stratas were formed by the flood. We have had some stratification events since then, but they are minor (eg Mt St Helens).

Or are you suggesting all strata were formed at this instant?

Yes, generally all the stratas.

[otseng]

Please summarize the SG explanation you find most bizarre.

It is not part of my argument in support of the FM, so there is no need to go into those.

[Scotracer]

I'm not sure I follow what you are suggesting. How can one have "erosion that affects the entire rock stratas" (do you mean horizontally or vertically - i.e. the column?) if the stratas were laid down very quickly?

Well, both horizontal and vertical. Evidence of it would be seen in either.

What I would like you to address, otseng, is where the line between the strata being laid down due to this flood and subsequent stratafication occured.

Generally, all (sedimentary) stratas were formed by the flood. We have had some stratification events since then, but they are minor (eg Mt St Helens).

Or are you suggesting all strata were formed at this instant?

Yes, generally all the stratas.

Well your argument is blown straight out the water by Chalk formation:







These were not produced by a flood...unless your flood lasted millions of years?