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?

[Cmass]

As you can see, air really can't hold that much water - you'd need a HUGE volume of air to hold anywhere near enough water for a flood.

Where do I posit that the water canopy is the source of water for the flood?

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.

[Scotracer]

As you can see, air really can't hold that much water - you'd need a HUGE volume of air to hold anywhere near enough water for a flood.

Where do I posit that the water canopy is the source of water for the flood?

Well to be honest, you haven't accounted for the water...at all. It is quite obvious that the water canopy and "subterranean water chambers" are to try and justify Genesis' account of the earth. Just face it - Genesis was proven wrong centuries ago.

Where is your evidence, from a proper source, that trees did not produce rings millenia ago? We can use Ice Cores which have the proper indentation of warm-cold-warm periods from the same age.

[r~]

Animals grow larger in times of energy abundance; not so much natural catastrophe or icy ages.

What do you mean by "energy abundance"? How does this translate into larger land plants and animals?

Place animals in a garden.
How might they change over unlimited generations?
What might happen as fertility in verse size or state of garden might change?

There tends to be less energy available within confinement as island. Elephants and humankind and other animals tend toward smaller in verse smaller island. There are exceptions.
As energy is abundant, size prevails. Climates (energy abundance) and confinement size have fluctuated greatly over the days of earth.

Please forgive.
What I mean is that god’s tongue in verse heaven and earth and flesh is change and evolution.

How might one even better explain?
Please tell again of your very best observation that contradicts the story of change and evolution written by the days and sediments of earth.

I am
ItS
r~

[Grumpy]

otseng

If I understand what r~ is saying, he has a good point. Giant animals exist when it is a reproductive/survival advantage to be large. The largest animal we have ever known of exists today. Ten thousand years ago our ancestors killed off the mammoths, short-faced bears, giant sloths and saber-toothed lions that existed in North America. The largest bird ever known only went extinct after man had invaded it's habitat in South America. If it weren't for man, we would still see giant animaals today

People often think that all dinosaurs were huge, when in actuallity the huge ones were just as exceptional during their rein as they are today. For most of the 150+ million years that the dinosaurs existed they were not nearly as large as an elephant(though there were a few exceptions). It was during the last part of that time where we see an "arms race" between the apatasauruses and tyranisaurs. Even then, the most deadly of the hunters were the man sized velociraptors.

Giantism is only one of the traits that will be selected for if it gives an advantage, it all depends on what the conditions are that would make being bigger, better.

Grumpy

[Scotracer]

Indeed, animals will tend to grow large where they have sufficient energy resources and where large size actually helps against predators. But it must be noted that most dinosaur species were actually quite small (most smaller than us). There are the Sauropod and Therapod exceptions of course but they are just that. When environmental pressures are low or uniform, any manner of creature can arise.

The Blue Whale is the largest animal to have ever lived (well, those which we've discovered so far anyway) by quite some margin.

[FinalEnigma]

[/quote]Please provide evidence that an increased atmospheric pressure can produce larger animals. Any experimentation done to test this?[/quote]

Insects in the past grew to larger sizes than they do now due to higher oxygen density in the air. 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.

The same principle applies to lungs. With a higher density of oxygen in the air the lungs could assimilate and move more oxygen into the blood and allow for larger animals.

I can site this if I need to.

[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.

[otseng]

As you can see, air really can't hold that much water - you'd need a HUGE volume of air to hold anywhere near enough water for a flood.

Where do I posit that the water canopy is the source of water for the flood?

Well to be honest, you haven't accounted for the water...at all. It is quite obvious that the water canopy and "subterranean water chambers" are to try and justify Genesis' account of the earth. Just face it - Genesis was proven wrong centuries ago.

In other words, you have a strawman argument since you cannot identify where I said that the water canopy is the primary source of water for the flood.

As for trying to justify the Genesis account, several points on that charge.
- There are numerous extra-Biblical flood accounts. The worldwide flood is not exclusive to the Bible.
- Where have I quoted the Bible to support my case?
- The main reason that people object to the FM is that it is similar to the Bible. The predominant objections to my arguments have been charges such as yours, instead of counter-evidence or a logical argument.

Where is your evidence, from a proper source, that trees did not produce rings millenia ago?

"In tropical rainforest regions with constant year-round climate, growth is continuous and the growth rings are not visible with no change in the wood texture."
http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/t/Tree.htm

"The morphology of the Carboniferous plants resembles the plants that live in tropical and mildly temperate areas today. Many of them lack growth rings, suggesting a uniform climate. "
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/carbonifer ... blife.html

We can use Ice Cores which have the proper indentation of warm-cold-warm periods from the same age.

What age are you talking about?

[Goat]

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?'

[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?