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?

[Goat]

Is that 'thought experiment' valid?

I'm not proposing anything that is out of the ordinary. Unless one believes that folds/faults/erosion did not occur in the past.

However, how you are suggesting the standard model 'should behave and predict' is something other than what we see. In other words, you are priming the thought experiment to favor the FM, rather than look at the real world evidence.

It's one thing to have 'thought experiments'. Let's see you back up things with real world examples.

Since Scotracer asked for predictions, I came up with one. If we agree to these predictions, then we can start looking at real world data.

One thing I would think a 'flood model' would predict is that all the strata shows signs of intense hydro interaction.

Could you elaborate?

Do you think that the FM explains the Grand Canyon?

Yes. But, let's take one thing at a time.

Trust me, it's the same point. We'll get there..

[Scotracer]

All strata would indicate hydro interaction? But this flood was a one-time event, was it not? I'm not sure I get what you are implying.

[Goat]

All strata would indicate hydro interaction? But this flood was a one-time event, was it not? I'm not sure I get what you are implying.

The claim I believe is that all the strata is caused by the flood.

[otseng]

However, how you are suggesting the standard model 'should behave and predict' is something other than what we see. In other words, you are priming the thought experiment to favor the FM, rather than look at the real world evidence.

Yes, I'm suggesting how standard geology "should behave and predict". As well as for the FM. If one disagrees with my predictions, then please provide another version.

We have not got to the real world evidence yet. And that is the nature of predictions. The predictions should come from the models. And then they can be compared to the empirical data. If they match, then it shows the validity of the model. If they do not match, then the model is not correct.

But, let's not jump ahead yet to the real world data and first come to a consensus on the predictions.

The claim I believe is that all the strata is caused by the flood.

That is correct.

[Goat]

However, how you are suggesting the standard model 'should behave and predict' is something other than what we see. In other words, you are priming the thought experiment to favor the FM, rather than look at the real world evidence.

Yes, I'm suggesting how standard geology "should behave and predict". As well as for the FM. If one disagrees with my predictions, then please provide another version.

We have not got to the real world evidence yet. And that is the nature of predictions. The predictions should come from the models. And then they can be compared to the empirical data. If they match, then it shows the validity of the model. If they do not match, then the model is not correct.

But, let's not jump ahead yet to the real world data and first come to a consensus on the predictions.

The claim I believe is that all the strata is caused by the flood.

That is correct.

Am I also correct in saying that you say that the FM is within the last 5000 years?

[Scotracer]

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.

[otseng]

Before I answer additional questions, please address mine. All I'm asking for is either a "yes" or a "no, why not?" to the predictions I proposed. And remember, we're not looking at the data yet. We're only looking at the models themselves and asking what should we see based on the models.

To recap, these are the predictions:

In standard geology, stratas are formed over long time periods (thousand, millions of years). Each successive strata are formed on top of older stratas. So, the entire strata sequence at any point in the world could span on the order of millions/billions of years.

In the Flood Model, practically all the stratas were formed within a short period (on the order of months). For almost all cases, only after all the stratas were formed, did things occur to the entire sequence like folding, faulting, erosion, etc. (More details on this in the link I provided above)

In standard geology, geological events should've occured throughout Earth's history, so these events should be evident in the stratas.

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]

See my Chalk deposit refutation. That shows how they can't be formed in months.

[otseng]

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

See my Chalk deposit refutation. That shows how they can't be formed in months.

I guess then you're not going to answer my question.

OK, I'll quickly address your claim. From this picture, how long did it take for these stratas to form? Could it have been formed from a single event?

[Scotracer]

I know that event and suspected you would use that image (it's a common creationist image).

That was caused by pyroclastic flow from Mt St Helens. It was done over the course of a couple of months indeed but that is just one deposition type and on top of that, not produced by any flood mechanic. I'm not doubting that rapid deposition is possible but we know how fast Chalk deposition forms...very slowly! So, if you have one piece of refuting evidence your theory/model falls apart.

Also could you please reiterate your question...I've lost it.

I just tried to get a source for what I was claiming and I actually found it, on all places, on a creationist site:

Caption for that very image:

It would be easy to think millions of years. However, the bottom layer formed in 6 hours on 18th May 1980, the middle layer was formed on 12th June 1980 and the top layer by mud flow in March 1982, following the eruption of Mt St Helens.

http://www.wasdarwinright.com/geologicalcolumn-f.htm

So, the burden is on you to show that a flood can cause as rapid deposition as you claim.