When did the flood happen?

--The article you cited does not give any "summery of what they examined[in the 1700's and 1800's], what they concluded, and why they concluded it." I think they rejected a young earth and global flood nearly 200 years ago for reasons which are probably known today to be falliceous. Or at least this will remain my suspision until you can support your assertions and show it to be otherwise.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

The article I cited gives a detailed description of the geologic column in one location and explains why it can't be the result of a global flood.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

Can you at least tell us which of those layers are flood deposits?

The frumious Bandersnatch

--The earlierst reference cited was a geological dictionary in 1936, the rest are citations from the 60's 70's, 80's, and apparently mostly 90's. This isn't helping your assertion that the flood was disproven 150-200 years ago.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

Please explain how all the layers of the Paleozoic era are preflood deposits. The Paleozoic runs from the Cambrian through the Permian last time I looked and of course you all have some Precambrian sedimentary layers to account for and there are Precambrian fossils. Did God create these layers with their fossils intact or did they all somehow form between creation and the flood? If so how? This makes no sense at all to me.

The frumious Bandersnatch

I think you have me confused with Lucas. However, it was the work of Agassiz on glaciers that is usually said to have driven the last nail into the coffin of the worldwide flood as a serious scientific hypothesis. Maybe we should open a new thread on the history of geology. Meanwhile we have several showing how the geology of today falsifies the worldwide flood. Fro example.

http://christianforums.com/t41209&page=1

Glenn Morton lays out the geologic column in North Dakota in detail. Please tell us which layers are flood deposits and why.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

The frumious Bandersnatch

JM: Huh? It's ok to disagree with a point being made, but it's also important that you check your facts carefully. The 18th and 19th centuries contain a rich tapestry of characters and writings on the subject of the Noachian flood and how it fit, or in the end, did not fit with the many field observations that were being made. Lucaspa described many of the luminaries and their conclusions regarding the global flood. Frumious has mentioned Louis Agassiz who was a staunch global flood, ye-creationist until he began to study the glacial evidence and concluded that glaciations could not be harmonized with the global flood. The notion of a young earth was also being demolished during this period of time by people like Hutton, Comte de Buffon and later Kelvin, Darwin and finally Holmes in the 20th century. You will get some idea about the history of geology in your second semester course in Historical Geology (GLY2100 here at UF). So, keep exploring, but also realize that there are going to be, at least for a short time, people with a knowledge base that far outspans yours. That's not to say that you should not question the answers, but don't challenge simply to challenge. For example, it would be best to accept the fact (well documented) that the global flood story was destroyed by observation during the 18th and 19th centuries. You may then go on to say...., "but now I think I can harmonize the onset of the flood at the Paleozoic-Mesozoic boundary based on more recent data that I will present to you". What you should do now is show us that those scholars were wrong and that you can actually harmonize the stratigraphic record with a global flood for the time period you have asserted. So, tell us why you think this is an important interval for the onset of the flood? When you deny what is well known and documented, it makes you look naive and poorly read. You are neither of those.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Here's a good summary of Agassiz
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/agassiz.html

Who really cares if the flood happened. We are here on this earth at this very moment. Why does the human race always have to try to find the truth? Just accept that you will never know the truth and live your life!

I'm sure just about every historian, geologist, biologist, and anthropologist on the planet cares deeply about the earth possibly being 6,000 years old.

Thank you but I do not find ignorance to be enlightening.

"Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated"
-311, "Wake Your Mind Up"

__________________

If you dont find ignorance to be enlightening then i guess you are one depressed person. The only thing we can be sure in life, is that we cant be sure of anything. You cant prove anything (religion, if the universe is infinite or not) just to name a few. So why try to obtain the impossible?

Nope

Given a few basic assumptions (your existance being one of them) you can be quite sure about many things.

Gathering knowledge is not an attempt to "prove" something. It is an attempt to, in most regards, discover things about the universe and apply them for the benefit of mankind. Other types of knowledge exist only to satisfy human curiousity; I don't see anything wrong with that.

Would you be a happier person today if Cuvier, Owen, and Mantell (to name a few) decided those bones in the ground were useless knowledge and, hence, we never discovered everything we now know about dinosaurs?

__________________