Trace Fossils Falsify the Global Flood

Please refer back to post #82 for an explanation of "this particular earth".

There must be a valid reason why marsupials were favored in this part of the world over mammals. The current ozone depletion gives a "possible" scenario of increased UV perhaps being a causal factor. Even if you do not believe in the flood there must be a reason other than isolation, as in where did the mammals go? They appear every other place on the planet in great numbers and varieties.

The raging storm thing: First it isn't mentioned in the Bible. In the case of the flood there is no mention of a New York state sized chunk of ice impacting the earth either, it says it rained. So if the Bible is correct it rained. The theory of space snowballs impacting the atomosphere in sufficient number to cause the great flood is mine.

There is scientific evidence that this still occurs today, probably everyday, just not in the amount of the flood time. These snowballs hit the atomosphere and are vaporized, they turn into particles of water which eventually fall to the earth as rain. In the flood time to rain in the amount that the earth is covered with water would require that the whole atomosphere would be impacted by these snowballs.

The reason we have violent storms is because of differences in air masses. Cold masses over the top of warm air masses bring with them high winds, tornados, hail, etc. If the whole atomosphere is being impacted with these snowballs then there would be no different air masses. Sure there would be some differences but not like we have today, hence not high winds, no giant waves.

The local flood idea does not make sense if it took 150 days before the water level began to drop. If it was a local event the water would have begun to drop as soon as the water rushing down from the mountains had completed its journey, 150 days is way out of line for a local flood, let alone 1 year.

Here's what I said John:

Do you publicly display photos of subjects you've altered to appear more spotted, blemished, wrinkled, or heavy than they really are without their consent? That's what you do here, John. Please understand the analogy.

I can vouch for that: It wouldn't do anything. First of all, how did that "could" of ice particles came to be? Why didn't it clung together in the years that it stayed over the earth? Why didn't it fell to the earth earlier? It's impossible for such a phenomena to exsist, back then or now.

Secondly, the same amount of energy would be needed due to friction, and ionisation of said molecules. tada. A kilo feathers is as heavy as a kilo lead.

Rubish, unsuported garbage. By either scripture and geological evidence.

That doesn't support the evidence that's in your backyard. Look outside, are you suggesting that the earth had it's trees repoplutated by magical tree fairies? I mean, there are many diverse trees.

Not to mention that not even weed seeds can surive a year in partially salt water. And not to mention that the pressure on those seeds are unbearable if 8 km³ of water is resting on top of them.

What Does tempreture rizes have to do with anythin? Also: the thermossphere can be many times hotter or colder then 100 degrees.

Exempt: The thermosphere is remarkable for its electrical activities and range of temperature , which is from below 0 degrees F to 2200 degrees F.

Unfortunatly even you don't know how the atmoshpere works today. So what gives you the empircal (non)knowledge to say how it was back then?

In any case people can trace things like athmospherical changes in Ice-cores. Ice cores contain an abundance of climate information --more so than any other natural recorder of climate such as tree rings or sediment layers. An ice core from the right site can contain an uninterrupted, detailed climate record.

This record can include temperature, precipitation , chemistry and gas composition of the lower atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sea-surface productivity and a variety of other climate indicators. So yes, we could see that if there was such a great diffrence back then, then you nowadays suggest, in ice-cores. Even floods that have been only there for a couple of weeks can be seen in ice-cores, so why not a flood that've been there for a year AND left us a complete diffrent athmospherical structure?

If you're talking about the vapor ging into our atmosphere, then we wouldn't be able to see stars, or we would be able to detect it when we go into space.

you're using to many ifs and mays. Suffice to say: the global flood did not occur.

Yes it would. And even if the flood wasn't a raging storm it would have left a HUMOUNGOUS amount of evidence for it. We're talking about 8km³ of water presurring down onto the earth. The flood did not occur it's that simple. you have no evidence for it. If you do, please present it, if not SHUT UP about it.

Why would it be impossible for a cloud of ice particles to travel through space? I read a story in Popular Science a few years back about haystack sized snowballs that impact the atomosphere on a daily basis.

The vaporization of ice or dust particles is the result of heat generated by the compression of air in front of the particle. Thermodynamically, the energy in this conversion comes from the momentum of the particle itself.

Well then, I should just pack my bags. The first rainbow appeared after the flood, usually these are seen when sunlight is refracted through rain drops.

But, I understand why you do not understand what I am refering to. This present earth is the second earth according as I explained in post #82. If you are familiar to ships, think of this earth as being a ship that was taken out of mothballs and retrofitted for a new crew/mission. It rained much on the first earth no doubt. A majority of the exposed rocks are sedimentary rocks, resulting from the compaction of erosional debris in marine environments. But the Bible says concerning the present earth:

GEN 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

I am reminded of a country in South West Africa that is watered this way. The Crockodile Hunter had an episode showing the mist covering the land.

What you say here may be true about some weed seeds. But I know of many seeds that require light to germinate, others require a freeze to crack the protective shell such as a peach pit. Some need to pass through a digestive system to have the outside coating dissolved by acid. Some seeds would have floated, such as the coconut, walnut, etc. Then you have those seeds that would have been in the fur, hair, and digestive tracts of the animals that went into the ark.

This absolutely is handwaving. Put some corn seeds in water for a year and then try to plant them and see what happens. The fact that some weed seeds may live in soil for 50 years does not mean that most plants could have survived a global flood. The is the fallacy of hasty generalization and it is one of creationisms favorite logical fallacies, perhaps surpassed only by the fallacy of the false dichotomy.

I got my information from the "Fundamentals of Meteorology" by Batten. He was more concerned about what affects the weather than about the upper levels of the thermosphere, his graph ended at about 100 miles and 100 degrees. While the information you presented is true, it would be more relevent in a physics discussion than in a weather discussion, IMHO.

What this has to do with is the effect on the atomosphere of being impacted with those blessed snowballs. When the sunlight hits the atomosphere it expands. The energy of those snowballs would have had some effect, then the rain water would have had a dramatic affect on the climate after the flood was over. So though I may be ignorant of the actually effects, I can postulate with the facts that I do have, that there would be dramatic effects.

How true, now if you take fresh water at 70 degrees and place it a mile deep over the top of ice what would happen? First the ice would melt down a ways until a temperature equilibrium is reached. Then as the waters subsided you would have the remaining ice exposed. The same thing happens in Geology with unconformities, thousands if not millions of years in the record can disappear.

I am not an ice scholar so I do not know if there is a similar term for missing sections of time in ice cores as in the geological record.

Now as you said there could be a different atomospheric record in the ice from before and after the flood, but not necessarily so. There may be a gap due to melting and due to the fact that if the atomosphere did not contain enough moisture to rain prior to the flood it probably did not have enough to snow either. (Ice results from compacted snow.)

The vapor in our atomosphere is not of sufficient quantity to account for the flood waters evaporation. What I was referring to was the possibility of the vapor in abundance being blown out of orbit molecule by molecule by solar (divine?) wind. One of the main focuses of nature is to arrive at balance or equilibrium. The atomosphere would have been dramatically affected, it is possible that with all of the energy it could have expanded to twice its height with tremendous amounts of upper altitude winds whipping around. The Bible says:

Whatever this wind was it ended the flood. In my mind this wind caused the waters to leave. They had to go somewhere.

A heavy downpour striking the surface of the water is barely felt under the surface. It stays pretty calm once you get a few feet deep. And even under violent waves there is calm. As answered in my most recent previous post varves would have developed during the flood and after from erosion.

What evidence is left in a cup of water that is allowed to evaporate? The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

The best evidence that I have for the flood would be the reality that every major culture has the flood story in some fashion in its cultural history.

The pyramids around the world follow the basic pyramid design, known as the tower of Babel. The migration of these people can be traced from the fertile cresent, downhill from where the Ark is said to have landed.

The bottom line is that trace fossils cannot be used to disprove the global flood, however, they can be used to disprove the YEC concept which uses the flood to explain how marine fossils ended up on mountaintops.

You have posed many good questions. I hope I have given you some answers worth considering.

With regards to the flood some seem to leave God out of the picture and try to deal with the flood story as a natural event. Why do people do this?

A good dog can be trained to herd animals, it is done all over the world. If men can train dogs to herd animals, how about God? Can you give Him a little credit?

Science does not invalidate the Bible.

Science depends upon evidence that can be observed. Some claim that the remains of the flood cannot be observed. Well with what other global flood are they comparing the flood of Noah to, in order to claim that there is no evidence of this flood?

Comparing local floods to a global flood is comparing a cat scratch to a kilo of ground meat.

The remains of the flood are all over the place they are just are not considered remains of the flood, there is no contrast.

The flood remains are like that, they have been blended into the background.

For those who do not understand, take a tablespoon of salt and lay it next to tablespoon of surgar then push the piles together and look for the line that separates the piles. These two are comprised of completely different elements but yet appear to be the same.

Now what happens when the two piles are made up of basically the same elements, the discernment gets even more difficult.

Does the Bible say that Mount Everest was covered?
GEN 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered.

To me it appears that the mountains being referred to in the record are those in the area of the ark. Much the same as the record in the Bible concerning taxation:

I doubt that the Chinese, Navaho or Aztecs paid their taxes, do you?

Would it make any difference to anyone if Mount Everest was not covered? Providing all land animal life was destroyed, would it make a difference?

This was the purpose of the flood to end life, not cover mountains

"Fifteen cubits upward" seems like an insignificant number if you were already 10000 cubits above any mountain in over a thousand mile radius.

There is much we do not know, and much that we do know now that a hundred years ago would seem like magic, let us not be in a rush to discount what we do not know based upon what we cannot account for yet.

The Bible is not a science text book,

Science just tells us that the bible's literal reading is impossible.

There would appear to be a conflict between science and a traditional understanding of the Bible. But that does not mean there is a conflict between science and a literal reading of the Bible.

If you follow the basic rules of interpretation (Hermeneutics) then there will be no conflict between the Bible and Science. I personally take more of a expository approach to the Bible. But that is just the way I choose to study it.