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]

Actually, it's a good example of how it fits the FM prediction rather than the SG prediction. When did erosion occur in these formations? It looks like after all the stratas have been formed. Not while the stratas were formed. If the stratas were formed over a period of millions of years, where's the evidence in the stratas that erosion, folds, faults, etc have occurred during that time?

[perfessor]

If the stratas were formed over a period of millions of years, where's the evidence in the stratas that erosion, folds, faults, etc have occurred during that time?

Here's one:


From Wiki on Geologic Disconformities

On the bottom, the layers were laid horizontally (of course); Eventually, through faulting and folding, ended up vertical. Then they were overlaid by more layers of different rock.

[Scotracer]

Actually, it's a good example of how it fits the FM prediction rather than the SG prediction. When did erosion occur in these formations? It looks like after all the stratas have been formed. Not while the stratas were formed. If the stratas were formed over a period of millions of years, where's the evidence in the stratas that erosion, folds, faults, etc have occurred during that time?

How so? You said virtually all strata were formed in one instant. Chalk takes millions of years to form (and that's a fact) so how is this at all possible?

Just gotta ask you something: How much change do you actually think has happened to the geography of the planet? I mean, Chalk is formed on the sea bed yet it is at some points several hundred if not thousands of feet above it. For instance the South downs (the White Cliffs of Dover are included in this) were once at the bottom of the sea and the rising of the land that brought with it the alps raised it above the sea bed.

Your erosion question is pretty evident with regards to the South Downs...I mean, it's being eroded by the English Channel every day.



The Chalk was pushed up, as I said before during the alps formation and that is the resulting erosion. And you can see the up-push in that diagram.

[Grumpy]

otseng

[Grumpy]

otseng

Actually, it's a good example of how it fits the FM prediction rather than the SG prediction. When did erosion occur in these formations? It looks like after all the stratas have been formed. Not while the stratas were formed. If the stratas were formed over a period of millions of years, where's the evidence in the stratas that erosion, folds, faults, etc have occurred during that time?

Actually, we would NOT expect to see erosion until after uplift had happened IN THIS CASE. The chalk MUST form on the sea bed(it is, after all, simply the skeletons of small sea creatures that have built up over millenia). If they were part of flood debris, one would expect that there would be the remains of every other creature on Earth at the time. But, no, only the diamatious earth, pure and without other inclusions are found in most chalk deposits. The flood myth can not explain this or any other well known phenomina of the segregation of specific types of fossils found in specific sequences of strata. There is no reasonable explanation of this, other than that those specific creatures were fossilized at the specific time the layers were originally deposited, this COULD NOT OCCUR in a flood.

Grumpy

[otseng]

If the stratas were formed over a period of millions of years, where's the evidence in the stratas that erosion, folds, faults, etc have occurred during that time?

Here's one:


From Wiki on Geologic Disconformities

On the bottom, the layers were laid horizontally (of course); Eventually, through faulting and folding, ended up vertical. Then they were overlaid by more layers of different rock.

OK, let's look at this and see if we can come up with the sequence of events.

I see two major strata sequences. In the bottom right running from 5 to 11 o' clock (section A). And the middle left running from 8 to 2 o' clock (section B).

In the FM, all parallel layers were created first. Then the layers were displaced. So, the FM can account for this.

What you propose is that section A was created horizontally. Then some forces caused it to be displaced and end up sideways. Then section B slowly formed by successive stratas deposited on section A. Yet, we see parallel layers at an angle on top of A. How could parallel stratas at an angle be formed?

[otseng]

You said virtually all strata were formed in one instant. Chalk takes millions of years to form (and that's a fact) so how is this at all possible?

It's not a fact. It's a theory. Plus, we can produce many types of chalk quite quickly. There is nothing inherent in that it requires millions of years to form chalk.

I mean, Chalk is formed on the sea bed yet it is at some points several hundred if not thousands of feet above it.

So how can you account for that? In the FM, the entire world was flooded by water, so it can be accounted for.

For instance the South downs (the White Cliffs of Dover are included in this) were once at the bottom of the sea and the rising of the land that brought with it the alps raised it above the sea bed.

So, if it was raised, then there should be plenty of evidence of geological activity within the stratas. Unless one thinks the entire area was lifted perfectly vertically at the exact same rate at every point.

Another good demonstration of what the FM predicts.

The horizontal layers were created first. Then there was uplift. Then there was erosion.

[Scotracer]

Please verify your claim that chalk (the chalk that exists in the areas I've referenced) can be formed quickly. That is nothing but conjecture.

Another good demonstration of what the FM predicts.

The horizontal layers were created first. Then there was uplift. Then there was erosion.

How is that a prediction of the FM when it is clearly in line with SG?

For your interest:

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

This is the sticking point for your whole theory. If you cannot account for this, the Flood Model must be thrown out

[otseng]

Actually, we would NOT expect to see erosion until after uplift had happened IN THIS CASE. The chalk MUST form on the sea bed(it is, after all, simply the skeletons of small sea creatures that have built up over millenia).

Yes, chalk must form underwater.

But why did all the layers get formed underwater first, and then the entire sequence got uplifted after all the layers formed? What would cause such an uplift? Why is there no bending or folding evident? How could the entire area have gotten uplifted without bending?

[Scotracer]

Actually, we would NOT expect to see erosion until after uplift had happened IN THIS CASE. The chalk MUST form on the sea bed(it is, after all, simply the skeletons of small sea creatures that have built up over millenia).

Yes, chalk must form underwater.

But why did all the layers get formed underwater first, and then the entire sequence got uplifted after all the layers formed? What would cause such an uplift? Why is there no bending or folding evident? How could the entire area have gotten uplifted without bending?

What exactly do you think the feature here is? How is that not bent upwards?