The order of fossils in the geological column

[AV1611VET]

This is what I would like to know about this fossil argument:

Is the order of fossils found in the Mesopotamian region different from the order of fossils found throughout the rest of the earth?

 

[Seipai]

This is what I would like to know about this fossil argument:

Is the order of fossils found in the Mesopotamian region different from the order of fossils found throughout the rest of the earth?

What do you specifically mean by "different". I am unaware of any contradiction between fossils from that region and the rest of the world.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am unaware of any contradiction between fossils from that region and the rest of the world.

If that's the case, then I take it the fossil record isn't evidence that the Flood was only a local one?

 

[TLK Valentine]

If that's the case, then I take it the fossil record isn't evidence that the Flood was only a local one?

Unless you believe that God cleaned up after Himself, and put all the fossils right where they would be... then the fossil evidence supports a local flood regardless.

 

[Seipai]

If that's the case, then I take it the fossil record isn't evidence that the Flood was only a local one?

A very poorly worded sentence.

There was no Flood, local or otherwise.

Why even assume a Flood? You need a lot more than the mythical parts of the Bible to do that.

 

[Seipai]

Unless you believe that God cleaned up after Himself, and put all the fossils right where they would be... then the fossil evidence supports a local flood regardless.

Or even "at best". There have been flood events over the history of the Earth. The flooding of the Black Sea could have been an inspiration for quite a few of the various flood myths. None of these floods would have required the building of an Ark, nor would an Ark have saved the various local animal species.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Or even "at best". There have been flood events over the history of the Earth. The flooding of the Black Sea could have been an inspiration for quite a few of the various flood myths. None of these floods would have required the building of an Ark, nor would an Ark have saved the various local animal species.

Yes, but AV is of the opinion that God, like a good little boy, cleaned up His mess after a Global flood -- which would explain the lack of evidence for one.

I'm just curious if AV would be so magnanimous to give God permission to clean up after a local flood -- or if such an unauthorized miracle is prohibited.

 

[janxharris]

Yes, but AV is of the opinion that God, like a good little boy, cleaned up His mess after a Global flood -- which would explain the lack of evidence for one.

?

 

[janxharris]

A very poorly worded sentence.

There was no Flood, local or otherwise.

Why even assume a Flood? You need a lot more than the mythical parts of the Bible to do that.

What criteria do you use to judge what is bible myth and what is not?

 

[[serious]]

Does the order of the fossils found, from lowest to highest, equate to what Darwinists (or Neo-Darwinists if preferred) would expect to find. Can they therefore say that the order of fossils that we would expect to find from the Noachian flood is inconsistent with the reality?

The order of fossils does match what we would expect from evolution and geologic processes.

The sorting we see does not align with sorting we would expect to see from a flood event. For example, according to one flood sorting theory, animals that were more able to swim or escape rising water should be at the top, and those less able should be at the bottom. Under this type of sorting, ALL heavy, slow moving, non swimmers should be found predominantly at the bottom of the stack. We don't see this. Instead, when we look at heavy non swimmers like snails and clams they are scattered throughout the column sorted by similarity to modern forms (as expected if the sorting was due to evolution over a long time scale).

 

[[serious]]

If that's the case, then I take it the fossil record isn't evidence that the Flood was only a local one?

Why would you assume that millions of years of fossils were laid down by a short local flood?

 

[EternalDragon]

Why would you assume that millions of years of fossils were laid down by a short local flood?

There is no millions of years of fossils.....

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no millions of years of fossils.....

Evidence please.

 

[Loudmouth]

What criteria do you use to judge what is bible myth and what is not?

I use the scientific method.

 

[Loudmouth]

Pretty old. Billion of years perhaps?



The YEC flood model has the flood taking up and laying down huge layers of sediment, creating fossils, causing massive uplift and destruction. Science attacks this model therefore making it it's 'flood model' as well. The biblical model does no such thing.

Both YEC and science envision a highly destructive flood going far beyond what God intended the flood to do. A good example would be the ark. Science says that such a structure would be destroyed by the flood as they envision both the ark and the flood. And of course it would be. But the story has the ark successfully resting on a mountain after the flood recedes, therefore all flood conditions and the integrity of the ark were substantially different than is commonly supposed. One cannot attack just one aspect of the story i.e. "Well, the ark would have sunk, therefore the whole event never happened."

Note that the ark was 'lifted up', not washed away in a tsunami-like flood. This suggests slowly rising water, which is supported by the time frame given in the story. If slowly rising, and equally slowly falling, whence all the destruction?

This would explain the 'missing' evidence. There is no 'evidence' of a massive, tsunami-like, gully washing, mountain moving, sediment making flood, because that flood didn't happen.

What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify your flood model?

 

[[serious]]

There is no millions of years of fossils.....

If you would rather, you could treat it as "if a flood didn't lay down all the fossils everywhere else, why would we expect a local flood in mesopotamia to lay down all the fossils in that region"

AV was trying to sneak in an unstated assumption that floods lay down large numbers of fossils.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It is an observation. You have not supported your claims either scientifically or Biblically.

Not true. You just don't consider my interpretation valid. The bible time-frame indicates a slowly rising tidelike flood, not a tsunami. Critics reject this although it is easily provable biblically. This fact alone changes everything about how the flood would act upon the land. A verdant earth covered with thick forests and centuries old grassland turf would be much more resistant to erosion than the surface of the earth post flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unless you believe that God cleaned up after Himself, and put all the fossils right where they would be... then the fossil evidence supports a local flood regardless.

In what way?

That's what I'm asking.

How is the fossil record in Mesopotamia different from the fossil record on Guam?

(Other than type of animal.)

 

[AV1611VET]

A very poorly worded sentence.

There was no Flood, local or otherwise.

Why even assume a Flood? You need a lot more than the mythical parts of the Bible to do that.

I believe even scientists believe there was a local flood around that time.

Something about the Black sea (or Caspian?) flooding the area or some such stuff.

 

[HitchSlap]

There is no millions of years of fossils.....

Oh you...