The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

[RickD]

audie wrote:
Also, I challenge you to find one (1) TIME I asked for evidence.

Here's 1 time you asked for evidence. I'm sure I can find more if you want:

Audie wrote:
So tell me, gentle modulator, what "version' of the flood, in what geographical area and at what date you choose as Truth, and let us see what sort of evidence you can provide. "Evidence for god from science"?

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 96#p203296

[Audie]

audie wrote:
Also, I challenge you to find one (1) TIME I asked for evidence.

Here's 1 time you asked for evidence. I'm sure I can find more if you want:

Audie wrote:
So tell me, gentle modulator, what "version' of the flood, in what geographical area and at what date you choose as Truth, and let us see what sort of evidence you can provide. "Evidence for god from science"?

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 96#p203296

Now lets see if you can provide evidence of your statement:

Seriously Audie?

Time and time again, you ask people for evidence for a global flood.

You are of course, presenting this as a pattern.

Pattern wise, nobody has any actual evidence to offer. Dust in a glacier, say.
is not evidence of a flood, tho one could I suppose say a sale at Macy's is flood evidence.

[RickD]

audie wrote:
Also, I challenge you to find one (1) TIME I asked for evidence.

Here's 1 time you asked for evidence. I'm sure I can find more if you want:

Audie wrote:
So tell me, gentle modulator, what "version' of the flood, in what geographical area and at what date you choose as Truth, and let us see what sort of evidence you can provide. "Evidence for god from science"?

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 96#p203296

Now lets see if you can provide evidence of your statement:

Seriously Audie?

Time and time again, you ask people for evidence for a global flood.

You are of course, presenting this as a pattern.

Pattern wise, nobody has any actual evidence to offer. Dust in a glacier, say.
is not evidence of a flood, tho one could I suppose say a sale at Macy's is flood evidence.

Audie,

My point is that you dismissed the video without even watching it. How is that different than "creationists" dismissing someone's argument for evolution without even studying it?

I don't care if the video is the biggest pile of crap. For you to dismiss it out of hand, is just wrong.

[Audie]

audie wrote:
Also, I challenge you to find one (1) TIME I asked for evidence.

Here's 1 time you asked for evidence. I'm sure I can find more if you want:

Audie wrote:
So tell me, gentle modulator, what "version' of the flood, in what geographical area and at what date you choose as Truth, and let us see what sort of evidence you can provide. "Evidence for god from science"?

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 96#p203296

Now lets see if you can provide evidence of your statement:

Seriously Audie?

Time and time again, you ask people for evidence for a global flood.

You are of course, presenting this as a pattern.

Pattern wise, nobody has any actual evidence to offer. Dust in a glacier, say.
is not evidence of a flood, tho one could I suppose say a sale at Macy's is flood evidence.

Audie,

My point is that you dismissed the video without even watching it. How is that different than "creationists" dismissing someone's argument for evolution without even studying it?

I don't care if the video is the biggest pile of crap. For you to dismiss it out of hand, is just wrong.

You do have a point, if a limited one. I dont have time to watch it. IF there is some concept
that is understood by the one who posted it, he should be able to express it.

i am not just dismissing it.

But in the 'seriously" dept. Would you say that the existence of hyperborea has been disproved?

Would you take a lot of time watching videos that call up old stories about the place?
Or that discusses what passed for science in the days, 150 yrs or so ago, when there were theories about subsurface warm currents that welled up, freeing the arctic of ice and encouraging a temperate climate?

Would it be just dismissing to say you'd already flown the polar route, and noticed it was all ice down there, and that the existence of hyperborea had been disproved long before you made your observations?

It appears to me that the floodies are just dismissing out of hand, no consideration given to the proof that there was no flood. I guess you told them that is wrong..?

[RickD]

audie wrote:
You do have a point, if a limited one. I dont have time to watch it. IF there is some concept
that is understood by the one who posted it, he should be able to express it.

Sure. But why would he spend the time with long explanations, when the video says it?

i am not just dismissing it.

But in the 'seriously" dept. Would you say that the existence of hyperborea has been disproved?

Never heard of it.

Would you take a lot of time watching videos that call up old stories about the place?

If it's a nice place to vacation, maybe. Is it pretty at Christmas?

Would it be just dismissing to say you'd already flown the polar route, and noticed it was all ice down there, and that the existence of hyperborea had been disproved long before you made your observations?

Hmmm...are you talking about the North Pole? Santa is real, you know.

It appears to me that the floodies are just dismissing out of hand, no consideration given to the proof that there was no flood. I guess you told them that is wrong..?

Yes, actually. I used to have a lot of discussions here, regarding young earth vs old earth, global vs local floods, etc.

Some people have their young earth view so tied to scripture, that it would be like they were dismissing God, if they dismissed young earth creationism.

But of course that's not unique to yecs, nor theists.

[hughfarey]

I managed ten minutes of the video, and it was so full of geological falsities I don't think I can be bothered to watch any more.

Walter Veith's main contention, in the first ten minutes, is that the world is entirely covered in a layer of cretaceous chalk, all formed at the same time, and that since chalk is a marine formation, that proves the entire world was once covered with water. This is simply false. Large areas of both the continents and the oceans have no chalk layer at all. At one point he mentions chalk at the mid atlantic ridge, without realising (obviously) that this chalk is miocene, and not contemporaneous with the cretaceous chalk. As I left, he was attempting to claim that since algal blooms can form very quickly, that accounts for the layer of chalk forming so incredibly fast. This is also claimed by answersingenesis, in a laughably poorly argued account at answersingenesis.org/geology/sedimentation/can-flood-geology-explain-thick-chalk-beds.

I do not know if Veith will go on to argue that this chalk layer marks the KT boundary event, which it doesn't, and that the extinction of the dinosaurs, of which we have abundant fossils, was also the extinction of predeluvian humans, of which, of course, we have no fossils at all.

The other links add nothing to my comment of the research that led to the articles a few pages ago.

[abelcainsbrother]

I managed ten minutes of the video, and it was so full of geological falsities I don't think I can be bothered to watch any more.

Walter Veith's main contention, in the first ten minutes, is that the world is entirely covered in a layer of cretaceous chalk, all formed at the same time, and that since chalk is a marine formation, that proves the entire world was once covered with water. This is simply false. Large areas of both the continents and the oceans have no chalk layer at all. At one point he mentions chalk at the mid atlantic ridge, without realising (obviously) that this chalk is miocene, and not contemporaneous with the cretaceous chalk. As I left, he was attempting to claim that since algal blooms can form very quickly, that accounts for the layer of chalk forming so incredibly fast. This is also claimed by answersingenesis, in a laughably poorly argued account at answersingenesis.org/geology/sedimentation/can-flood-geology-explain-thick-chalk-beds.

I do not know if Veith will go on to argue that this chalk layer marks the KT boundary event, which it doesn't, and that the extinction of the dinosaurs, of which we have abundant fossils, was also the extinction of predeluvian humans, of which, of course, we have no fossils at all.

The other links add nothing to my comment of the research that led to the articles a few pages ago.

How about you check out some evidence I posted for the world wide flood hypothesis that is based on new scientific findings that shows that the water on the earth came from inside it. By the way zircon crystals that date back about 4 billion years ago shows the earth had water on it as far back as we can go and so it was not a molten lava hell like has been believed in its beginning. Genesis 1:1,Job 38:4-10.

[hughfarey]

How about you check out some evidence I posted for the world wide flood hypothesis that is based on new scientific findings that shows that the water on the earth came from inside it.

I did. At length, in a post that began "Well, firstly can I say thank you so much for at last coming clean and actually presenting something." You do not appear to have read it, although you did respond. How about you go back and check it out yourself?

By the way zircon crystals that date back about 4 billion years ago shows the earth had water on it as far back as we can go

No, it doesn't. We 'go back' to the formation of the earth 4550 000000 years ago, and the oldest zircon crystal dates from 4276 000000 years ago. The difference between the two is a quarter of a billion years.

and so it was not a molten lava hell like has been believed in its beginning.

Yes it was. A lot can happen in a quarter of a billion years.

[theophilus]

Pattern wise, nobody has any actual evidence to offer.

There is plenty of evidence of a flood. The earth is covered with fossils of living creatures that were buried in the flood. The reason this evidence isn't recognized is that most researchers don't believe the flood took place and they assume that the fossils were formed over millions of years. Here is just one example of such evidence:

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fo ... creatures/

[theophilus]

Pattern wise, nobody has any actual evidence to offer.

There is plenty of evidence of a flood. The earth is covered with fossils of living creatures that were buried in the flood. The reason this evidence isn't recognized is that most researchers don't believe the flood took place and they assume that the fossils were formed over millions of years. Here is just one example of such evidence:

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fo ... creatures/

[Audie]

Pattern wise, nobody has any actual evidence to offer.

There is plenty of evidence of a flood. The earth is covered with fossils of living creatures that were buried in the flood. The reason this evidence isn't recognized is that most researchers don't believe the flood took place and they assume that the fossils were formed over millions of years. Here is just one example of such evidence:

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fo ... creatures/

Posting falsehoods and nonsense twice wont make them better.

There is no sense in my explaining where this is off the rail, you demonstrated already that you wont even bother to acknowledge a response.

[hughfarey]

There is plenty of evidence of a flood. The earth is covered with fossils of living creatures that were buried in the flood.

No, theophilus. You give yourself away by adding those last six words, which turn your supposed evidence into ideology. It is true that the earth is covered with fossils, but that is not evidence for any kind of flood. The answersingenesis article is rather naive, and factually wrong in important details:

"Wouldn’t we expect to find rock layers all over the earth that are filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were rapidly buried and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime?" Not really, no. We would expect the flood to have eroded the land, washing sediment into the ocean basins in huge quantities, but not sediment over the top of the continents. Once the flood had covered the highest land, it would not then erode anything, and such sediment as it carried simply as a result of being disturbed would not amount to very much. So the sediment layer on the bottoms of the ocean would be much thicker than the layer over the continents. That is exactly the reverse of what we find. Furthermore, we would certainly not expect the sediment, wherever it settled, to sort itself and the "billions of dead animals and plants", into the complex layers in which we actually find it. So no, the geological record does not support this statement.

"Though at the top of the sequence, this limestone must have been deposited beneath ocean waters loaded with lime sediment that swept over northern Arizona (and beyond)." No. Limestone is not generally from eroded sediment, but from organisms living peacefully in the sea, and the Kaibab limestone is no exception. It is strong evidence that no turbulent conditions occurred in that area as it was being laid down.

"The crinoids, for example, are found with their columnals (disks) totally separated from one another, while in life they are stacked on top of one another to make up their “stems.” Thus, these marine creatures were catastrophically destroyed and buried in this lime sediment." No. Again. Crinoid fossils are common because of their carbonate "vertebrae" which remain after the connective tissue has decomposed, but, since there's nothing to hold them together, they fall apart. Crinoids buried suddenly remain in one piece, as there is no time for the connective tissue to decompose. The evidence cited is evidence for gradual settlement and decomposition, not for catastrophic destruction.

"All geologists agree that ocean waters must have buried these marine fossils in these limestone beds. So how did these marine limestone beds get high up in the Himalayas?" In two words, plate tectonics.

"We must remember that the rock layers in the Himalayas and other mountain ranges around the globe were deposited during the Flood, well before these mountains were formed." Clever, but no cigar. The rock layers of which parts of the Himalayas are formed were indeed deposited before the mountains formed, but there is no evidence that they were deposited during a flood. Quite the reverse; they show every sign of having been deposited very gradually, over thousands of years.

"There is only one possible explanation for this phenomenon—the ocean waters at some time in the past flooded over the continents." Nonsense. There are much better explanations.

And so on.

The reason this evidence isn't recognized is that most researchers don't believe the flood took place and they assume that the fossils were formed over millions of years.

No. That's not the way we 'researchers' work. We don't assume a conclusion and then make the evidence fit it. We first look at the evidence and then derive a conclusion. The neatly sorted layers of rock, each strata containing a different collection of fossils, look as if they were formed over millions of years. We are familiar with the effects of floods, and the geological column looks nothing like it.

[abelcainsbrother]

The world wide flood hypothesis I go by does not state that the flood produced all of the fossils in the layers of strata. For one the sun was shining the whole time during Noah's flood which means the life that died in Noah's flood would have just decayed away. In order for there to be fossils life has to be buried under tremendous pressure to prevent decay. But also there is more extinct life in the earth than all of the life on the earth now so that there is no way the earth is only 6000 years old. This is one reason why I'm an old earth creationist. You simply cannot make the amount of death and extinction in the earth fit into a 1500 year period from God creating animals,plants and man to Noah's flood so it tells me their interpretation of the bible is wrong. However this does not mean a world wide flood did not happen,it did.

[Audie]

There is plenty of evidence of a flood. The earth is covered with fossils of living creatures that were buried in the flood.

No, theophilus. You give yourself away by adding those last six words, which turn your supposed evidence into ideology. It is true that the earth is covered with fossils, but that is not evidence for any kind of flood. The answersingenesis article is rather naive, and factually wrong in important details:

"Wouldn’t we expect to find rock layers all over the earth that are filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were rapidly buried and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime?" Not really, no. We would expect the flood to have eroded the land, washing sediment into the ocean basins in huge quantities, but not sediment over the top of the continents. Once the flood had covered the highest land, it would not then erode anything, and such sediment as it carried simply as a result of being disturbed would not amount to very much. So the sediment layer on the bottoms of the ocean would be much thicker than the layer over the continents. That is exactly the reverse of what we find. Furthermore, we would certainly not expect the sediment, wherever it settled, to sort itself and the "billions of dead animals and plants", into the complex layers in which we actually find it. So no, the geological record does not support this statement.

"Though at the top of the sequence, this limestone must have been deposited beneath ocean waters loaded with lime sediment that swept over northern Arizona (and beyond)." No. Limestone is not generally from eroded sediment, but from organisms living peacefully in the sea, and the Kaibab limestone is no exception. It is strong evidence that no turbulent conditions occurred in that area as it was being laid down.

"The crinoids, for example, are found with their columnals (disks) totally separated from one another, while in life they are stacked on top of one another to make up their “stems.” Thus, these marine creatures were catastrophically destroyed and buried in this lime sediment." No. Again. Crinoid fossils are common because of their carbonate "vertebrae" which remain after the connective tissue has decomposed, but, since there's nothing to hold them together, they fall apart. Crinoids buried suddenly remain in one piece, as there is no time for the connective tissue to decompose. The evidence cited is evidence for gradual settlement and decomposition, not for catastrophic destruction.

"All geologists agree that ocean waters must have buried these marine fossils in these limestone beds. So how did these marine limestone beds get high up in the Himalayas?" In two words, plate tectonics.

"We must remember that the rock layers in the Himalayas and other mountain ranges around the globe were deposited during the Flood, well before these mountains were formed." Clever, but no cigar. The rock layers of which parts of the Himalayas are formed were indeed deposited before the mountains formed, but there is no evidence that they were deposited during a flood. Quite the reverse; they show every sign of having been deposited very gradually, over thousands of years.

"There is only one possible explanation for this phenomenon—the ocean waters at some time in the past flooded over the continents." Nonsense. There are much better explanations.

And so on.

The reason this evidence isn't recognized is that most researchers don't believe the flood took place and they assume that the fossils were formed over millions of years.

No. That's not the way we 'researchers' work. We don't assume a conclusion and then make the evidence fit it. We first look at the evidence and then derive a conclusion. The neatly sorted layers of rock, each strata containing a different collection of fossils, look as if they were formed over millions of years. We are familiar with the effects of floods, and the geological column looks nothing like it.

Good response. More patience than I demonstrate.

I did give him an answer, in some detail, to a question about glaciers.

No response.

We will see if he can do better by you.

[abelcainsbrother]

How many of you have had a cup of ice sitting somewhere and you fill up the cup with something to drink and the ice stays stuck to the bottom of the cup until the ice melts enough to break the bond?