Geological Sciences v. YEC/Flood Geology

It seems as though every day on this forum the same empty statement is made that the evidence fits the Young Earth/global flood model of creationism without anything backing up the statement and even after it has been demonstrated to be a false model with respect to the geologic evidence.

The purpose of this thread is to be both a reference and debate thread. I keep posting the links to other threads falsifying YECism/flood geology and they are consistently getting ignored. Instead, I'm going to post the links at the beginning of the thread (feel free to add the ones I've missed while looking around, or bring up new points, of course). That is, whenever the same empty YEC claims are brought up, all we should have to do is bump up this thread or reference this thread when geology comes up. Other arguments that fall outside of geology such as biodiversity, biogeography, insects, etc. can be explored elsewhere (sorry, Frumious although you have brought up interesting and new arguments the forum hasn't really seen before...your threads are stand-alone classics). However, paleontological and biostratigraphic observations can and should be discussed here as they are relevant geological sciences.

My thread on 12 features in the Grand Canyon that cannot exist under a global flood/young earth model

notto's thread on the Hawaiian Island Chain and the submerged Emperor Seamount Chain illustrating the nature of plate tectonics

my thread (new as of 08.10.03) on the Hawaiian Island Chain as a supplement to the above link that gives a refutation of catastrophic plate tectonics and our ability to predict radiometric dates of the islands

ardipithecus' thread on angular unconformities, or erosional surfaces between stratigraphic sequences whose original horizontality has not been preserved (and unconformities in general have been discussed here also).

my thread on varves, or seasonal rhythmites deposited in lakes annually

Arikay's thread on the mathematical analysis of implications of a global flooding event with respect to implications in hydrogeology, the atmosphere, and other topics

Frumious Bandersnatch's thread (new as of 08.10.03) on evaporites

Frumious Bandersnatch's other thread (new as of 08.10.03) on large igneous provinces

and notto's thread (new as of 12.03.03) on Devil's Tower

The notion of a worldwide flooding mechanism has been long falsified as has a young earth.

It might be best to choose one point at a time to discuss from any of the above threads, or else bring up a new topic. However, bringing up a new topic does not make the above arguments that falsify flood geology go away at all.

Hopefully this can be used as a thread to reference when a geological topic comes up as it is fairly broad, but at least now the comprehensive geological arguments can now be found in one place and don't have to be repeated endlessly.

Perhaps I should instead start from a more generalized perspective and then the above topics can be addressed along the way once the framework of the discussion is better defined.

I'll start with a few questions that will operate under an assumption that denies the fact that there is not enough water on Earth to flood it as per Biblical specifications assumed by YECists/flood geologists (discussed in Arikay's thread linked above):

1. What stratum or sequence of strata in the geologic record represent a period of global flooding and the resulting sedimentary deposition?

2. What is the duration of this flooding event?

This will establish what strata we are talking about (if not all of them) as well as the time it took to deposit those strata, and we can then move on to problematic features based upon answers to the above questions.

...unless you have other ideas or topics to discuss relevant to the thread...

You don't seriously expect answers to these questions do you? What have you been smoking today?  Can I have some?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Hahaha....

Well, you know, when it's repeatedly claimed that the evidence "easily" fits a Young Earth model with the mechanism being a global flooding event, the answers to the questions or refutations of the evidence that falsifies their model should be no problem to post.

Yeah, I agree, if the evidence supports the YEC model then it should be easy to show how the YEC model is correct.

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

I think that statement would better be stated as follows Evolution Biased Geological Science v.s Creation Biased Geological/Flood Science.
The Clash of the Titans

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Descarte, “It is truth very certain that, when it is not in our power to determine what is true, we ought to follow what is most probable.”

Ya know if you were to flaten the earths surface their would be enough water to flood the earth completely in 100 ft of water.The mountain Ranges formed as a result of the flood. The geological processes involved was immence. Their are quit a few Creation scientists working on the flood model.
I would encourage you to read some http://www.icr.org/cgi-bin/search/se...late+tectonics

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Descarte, “It is truth very certain that, when it is not in our power to determine what is true, we ought to follow what is most probable.”

The problem is that as I mentioned before. If the evidence is out there that supports creationism, how come we have yet to see it?

You make a hypothesis (creation/flood) then you try to disprove it, if the evidence you find fits the hypothesis, then it strengthens it, if it doesnt fit, then you have disproved the hypothesis and move on.

If the hypothesis of YEC is true, then there should be some things that we should see. but we see the opposite.
Why?

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

Ok. So can your geological/flood science "titans" tell us exactly when the flood deposits commence and end in the geologic column? This was supposed to be a unique event that changed all the world's geology.  These "titans" you speak of should be able to tell us eactly which deposits are flood deposits. If they can't do it perhaps the reason they can't is because there are no deposits that were laid down by a worldwide flood. 

Of course they should be able to easily answer all the other questions that have been raised about the flood but I haven't seen much in the way of answers discussed here.  Start with the ones Mechanical Bliss discussed in his first post on the thread.  Maybe on your "titans" can explain the presence of hundreds of trillions of tons of salt that was supposedly deposited during the worldwide flood. I brought that up on the fun with flood math thread and I would really like to see an answer. This is one of those observations you claim can be easily fit into a young earth time frame if interpreted correctly so let's see your "correct" interpretation.

The Frumious Banersnatch

The problem is that this flood model doesnt answer many questions.

Basic Problems with it:

1) No biblical reference of mountain building after the flood.

2) If the mountains build during the flood, the ark would have been beached. If the mountains formed after the flood it would have killed off all the animals (for reason see #3)

3) The amount of energy needed to move the techtonic plates like that would have been enough to turn the earth into a ball of magma.

4) Doesnt explain the fossil record.

5) Geological evidence shows a slow growth, not fast.


I believe there are more problems with this model, but these are what I can remember.

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries