The order of fossils in the geological column

[Seipai]

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.)

Guam has no fossil record to speak of since it is a volcanic island.

 

[Seipai]

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.

Yes, except that flood was slow and did not retreat. The evidence of it is still under water. It does not match the Biblical flood in that manner.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, except that flood was slow and did not retreat. The evidence of it is still under water. It does not match the Biblical flood in that manner.

Then I'm at a loss as to what the big deal is about this "fossil sorting" argument.

Fossils can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

The evidence of it is still under water.

By the way, are you telling me that Mesopotamia is still under water?

 

[HitchSlap]

Then I'm at a loss as to what the big deal is about this "fossil sorting" argument.

Fossils can take a hike.

If I had a nickel every time ...

 

[Seipai]

Then I'm at a loss as to what the big deal is about this "fossil sorting" argument.

Fossils can take a hike.

Clearly you do not understand it. And if you don't understand something it is impossible to argue against it.

The fact is that fossil sorting is only one of many pieces of evidence that show the Flood never happened.

Instead of saying that something can "take a hike" why don't you learn? Then you can either debunk the claim or, and this might be far worse for you, learn that the theory of evolution is correct after all.

 

[Seipai]

By the way, are you telling me that Mesopotamia is still under water?

No, you mentioned the Black Sea as a possible source for the Flood myth. That area is still underwater. There was no flood in Mesopotamia. Well, there may have been very local ones along the rivers that flowed there, but nothing significant from a geological perspective.

 

[AV1611VET]

Clearly you do not understand it.

What tipped you off?

The fact that I'm asking questions?

And if you don't understand something it is impossible to argue against it.

I disagree.

One doesn't have to understand something in order to argue against it.

All one has to do is believe its antithesis.

The fact is that fossil sorting is only one of many pieces of evidence that show the Flood never happened.

Fossil sorting where? in Mesopotamia? what's different about it than any other place on Earth?

Instead of saying that something can "take a hike" why don't you learn?

I'll pass.

I've seen very learned men get ridiculed for "not understanding evolution."

I've even seen one of the most respected scientists around (the late Henry Morris) get pushed aside because he's talking outside of his field.

Besides, it's not what we say that counts; it's what we are.

And I don't care if you think that's "pouty" or not ... I'm speaking from experience.

Then you can either debunk the claim or, and this might be far worse for you, learn that the theory of evolution is correct after all.

The more one knows about evolution, the more one gets ridiculed by you guys for not believing it.

By the way, did you see the thread where I took on Split Rock with roles reversed?

I played the part of an evolutionist, and he played the part of a creationist, and we went tête-à-tête.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you mentioned the Black Sea as a possible source for the Flood myth. That area is still underwater.

What's underwater? the Black Sea?

And if the "area is still underwater," whatever that's supposed to mean, isn't that "area" part of the sea itself?

That's like saying the area around the Mariana trench is still underwater.

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.)

As far as I know, in no way whatsoever.

But if God cleaned up after a local flood, what difference would that make?

 

[Loudmouth]

Not true. You just don't consider my interpretation valid.

Your interpretation is not testable or falsifiable from what I can tell. That is why it is not valid.

 

[Queller]

Pretty old. Billion of years perhaps?

When did the Biblical Flood happen and did it cover the entire planet?

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?

There a few of problems with this idea.

One, boats move up and down in a tsunami as well. If they are far enough out they will still bob but won't be destroyed by it.

Two, the Bible states that the fountains of the deep "burst forth" the windows of heaven were opened, and it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. It is not reasonable to believe that this resulted in a gentle raising of the ocean level like the incoming tide raises boats at a dock.

Three/four, these are two related problems and I'll discuss both because I don't know where you stand on the geologic uplift question.

3: If you accept standard uniformitarian geology and plate tectonics, mountains were uplifted at a slow rate and therefore the flood had to cover the highest mountains by 22+ feet of water. To cover Everest by that amount of water would require several hundred million more cubic miles of water than is available. Even if we allow for the idea that all that water came from the fountains of the great deep and the windows of heaven, the only way to get all of that water onto the planet in less than 150 days, is for it to pour in at a rate of around six inches of water, over every square inch of the planet, per minute. That is certainly not going to be slowly rising and slowly falling water. Not to mention that after the Flood, all that water had to go somewhere and it doesn't appear to be anywhere here on earth.

4: If you do not accept the standard theories of geology and plate tectonics, then I'm guessing you think that mountain ranges such as the Himalayas, the Alps, the Rockies, and others were uplifted during the Flood. Unfortunately, that not only violates most of physics as we know it, it would also produce massive tidal waves as well as huge amounts of heat that would boil off a good bit of the water while also poaching Noah, his family, and all the animals like a salmon.

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.

We also know exactly what flood plains that are inundated when rivers overflow their banks during rainy seasons look like (which seems to me to be the closet event we have to what you are proposing). Unfortunately, there is no evidence for that type of flood event either.

 

[Queller]

If I had a nickel every time ...

If he walked 5 miles (a decent hike) every time he said "take a hike" how far around the world would he be?

 

[Queller]

One doesn't have to understand something in order to argue against it.

It does if you want to argue successfully against it and not be thought of as a fool.

 

[AV1611VET]

But if God cleaned up after a local flood, what difference would that make?

It wouldn't.

But I'm stymied as to why you guys think the fossil record shows a local flood in the Mesopotamian region.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It wouldn't.

But I'm stymied as to why you guys think the fossil record shows a local flood in the Mesopotamian region.

I'll admit, I haven't been following this thread too closely -- who, besides yourself, is suggesting that the fossil record supports a local flood?

 

[AV1611VET]

It does if you want to argue successfully against it and not be thought of as a fool.

Thinking I'm an atheist, when I've already been called Omphalos, Last Thursday and YEC doesn't even register on my radar.

I could say I believe Jesus walked on water, and that would be enough to start ridiculing us.

I can't think of a time when I've ever argued successfully against anything here.

The Trinity, the Rapture, the Resurrection, dispensation theology, catastrophism -- all can take a hike as far as you guys are concerned.

Even posting in threads far from here brings ridicule.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I could say I believe Jesus walked on water, and that would be enough to start ridiculing us.

Actually, it wouldn't -- it's your desire to be ridiculed that would be enough for you (singular) to be ridiculed.

I can't think of a time when I've ever argued successfully against anything here.

You do maintain a perfect 0-for-lifetime record in the "winning rational discussions" category -- one has to wonder if it's due to lack of effort, or lack of ability.... or both.

The Trinity, the Rapture, the Resurrection, dispensation theology, catastrophism -- all can take a hike as far as you guys are concerned.

Even posting in threads far from here brings ridicule.

You invite ridicule, AV -- more to the point, you welcome it. It would be rude to deny you.

 

[HitchSlap]

Thinking I'm an atheist, when I've already been called Omphalos, Last Thursday and YEC doesn't even register on my radar.

I could say I believe Jesus walked on water, and that would be enough to start ridiculing us.

I can't think of a time when I've ever argued successfully against anything here.

The Trinity, the Rapture, the Resurrection, dispensation theology, catastrophism -- all can take a hike as far as you guys are concerned.

Even posting in threads far from here brings ridicule.

Hey, as long as you're north of dirt and still breathing air, there's time to let yourself accept that which comports with reality. Then you can stop telling it to take a hike.

 

[TLK Valentine]

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?

Getting back on topic here, Janx, the order of fossils is utterly inconsistent with a Noachian flood.

So if one wanted to look for evidence for a Flood, they would have to not just disregard fossils, but explain the apparent inconsistency. Many do this by assuming -- demanding, in fact -- supernatural interference.

Of course, once they demand supernatural interference into one aspect of reality, they instinctively demand it in all other aspects of reality as well... until reality itself becomes irrelevant... and can take a hike.