Biblical Flood

[Mallon]

Marine life in the Himalayas:

Those fossils aren't just found on the surface of the mountain. They comprise the rock that make the mountain. How does that happen in a global flood?

Ripple marks in the mountains of Germany;

Ripple marks at high elevation in Utah:

Ripple marks are formed in shallow water. Yet ripple marks like this are found throughout the fossil record, from bottom to top. Are you arguing that the flood was only a few inches deep at any one time?

Green River Formation in Wyoming. The same question arises here. Flood conditions (with subsequent earthquakes and volcanoes) provide the best conditions for the formation of fossils:

For what it's worth, animals die and fossilize in flood conditions even today. It doesn't take a global flood to do it. Take wildebeest, for example:

Dinosaurs instantly buried and fossilized while in the act of fighting:

The top view of the same thing...from Mongolia.

Those dinosaurs were buried in aeolian (desert) sands. They were not buried in a flood.

Polystrate fossils of trees extending through what is supposed to be 'millions of years' of sediment and rock. There is no way those trees could have stood for that long without deteriorating. Evolution is a myth.

You're arguing against a strawman, here. No one is saying that all sedimentary deposits take millions of years to form. Some form fast; some form slow. Polystrate trees were obviously buried quickly. Palaeosols were obviously formed slowly. Please read a basic geology textbook.

Entire forests buried with the trees standing upright in layer after layer of strata. This begs the same question: Did all those trees (many without bark or roots) stand for millions of years awaiting slow and gradual burial by evolutionary forces? No way.

Fossil forests like the ones in Joggins, NS occur in different horizons. How do entire forests sprout up in the middle of a year long flood?

The flood of Noah is responsible for most of the fossils we find in nature and not the slow and gradual processes of uniformitarianism.

If the Flood created the fossil record, why do we find evidence of scavenging throughout the fossil record? If the Flood created the fossil record, why do we find desert deposits throughout the fossil record? If the Flood created the fossil record, why do we find footprints throughout the fossil record? If the Flood created the fossil record, why do we find termite mounds in Jurassic deposits? If the Flood created the fossil record, why do we find dinosaur nests throughout the fossil record? If the Flood created the fossil record, why do we find palaeosols throughout the fossil record? If the Flood created the fossil record, why do we find reefs throughout the fossil record?

The Flood didn't create the fossil record.

 

[Orogeny]

We have a global ocean which is only a few hundred meters lower than 30% of the earth.

I guess we should have been more clear: Present an argument, with geological evidence, that indicates the occurrence of a global flood as described in the Bible. This evidence should ONLY support a flood hypothesis. If it can be explained in the context of regular geology, it IS NOT evidence of a global flood.

I've already refuted this particular argument, and will do so again:

Small Water Comets

Volcanic Gases and Their Effects

This argument also requires that sea level be much lower pre-flood. I am not aware of any verse in the Bible that alludes to this.

 

[Orogeny]

I thought we had agreed that we weren't making personal attacks in this thread, C4? Didn't we? Let's be civil, shall we? Attacks do nothing but distract from the conversation.

 

[Calypsis4]

More evidence that the flood of Noah occured and is a better explanation for the fossil record (at least most of it) than the evolutionary view: uniformitarianism.

A fish obviously destroyed by quick burial during catastrophic conditions:

Exactly what one would expect if indeed the 'fountains of the great deep broke up' like Moses tells us in Genesis.

An entire village of people who were suddenly crushed together was uncovered in Germany. The geologists who found them observed that all the adults were all looking in the same direction; south. Was this the direction the first great wave of rock & sediment from the flood came to that part of the world?

Human beings and larger animals would most likely be the last to be destroyed in the flood...many of which were fossilized instantly by quick burial.

The creature depicted below was obviously crushed very quickly and violently. This kind of evidence extends over the whole globe and no amount of local flood or volcanic activity could possibly account for all of it.

Evolution is a myth. It is not even worthy of serious consideration.

 

[Calypsis4]

I thought we had agreed that we weren't making personal attacks in this thread, C4? Didn't we? [staff edit] Let's be civil, shall we? Attacks do nothing but distract from the conversation.

What personal attacks? Quote me.

Better yet, answer what I posted. He certainly didn't.

 

[Chesterton]

Come on in here, Juve, C4. Let's have a nice, friendly discussion.

Getting nice friendly discussion from C4 would be a bigger miracle than a global flood.

 

[Mallon]

quote Mallon;Those fossils aren't just found on the surface of the mountain. They comprise the rock that make the mountain. How does that happen in a global flood?

What brilliance. Does anyone here have any confidence that this poster can logically grasp what he is dealing with? I don't.

I didn't even state the exact location of those fossils. He assumes things. The truth is that fossils are found in virtually ALL locations...indicating that flood waters once laid down those strata of geology that we now observe.

Actually, you did say those fossils were in the Himalayas.
And I agree that fossils are found in mountains all over the world. Again, they comprise the rock that make those mountains. They're not simply found sitting on top of them as one would expect from a global flood. The traditional geological argument is that the marine fossils were deposited underwater, became fossilized, and then were uplifted via orogeny.

What a ridiculous argument. After being shown marine life at very high elevation in many places throughout the world he asks a question like that. But we could equally ask, "Did all that marine life in fossils represent marine creatures that crawled to high elevation like the Himalayas or the Rocky Mountians?" Stupid question, right?

Again, marine life at high elevations is easily explained with reference to uplift and orogeny.
I'll add that you didn't answer my question. If ripple marks are formed in shallow water and are found throughout the entire sedimentary record, does that imply that the Flood never rose above one's knees?

I don't see any fossils, do you dear readers? How many of those will likely become fossils...that is before they deteriorate and turn back to the soil? Guess.

The picture I provided wasn't an example of fossil formation, but evidence that it doesn't take a global flood to create mass death assemblages.
We do see fossils in the middle of forming today, though. They're called sub-fossils. Google it. Or read about it:
Amazon.com: Fossils in the Making: Vertebrate Taphonomy and Paleoecology (Prehistoric Archeology and Ecology series) (9780226041537): Anna K. Behrensmeyer, Andrew P. Hill: Books

The only 'straw man' are the bonehead arguments we've been given by the evolutionists so far. It's clear that this one is allergic to the truth that the evidence so clearly reveals.

Again, this is not an argument but an ad hom attack. The fact of the matter is that you do not understand geology if you think geologists insist that all strata take millions of years to deposit. They do not.

They don't. Broken or uprooted trees in a massive flood eventually come to rest like the trees depicted in the Spirit Lake photo. He isn't thinking honestly. He isn't even trying to.

Please quit with the personal attacks. It isn't very Christian of you.
The fact of the matter is that there are sequences of fossil forests preserved in the fossil record at places like Joggins, NS. We know they're in situ and haven't been uprooted because we can trace their roots into the ancient soils where they were buried. You can read more about this in the book Paradigms on Pilgrimage.

The Flood didn't create the entire fossil record.

But evidence for scavenging is found throughout the entire fossil record.

The erosion of the last few thousand years is seen at the foot of the plateaus all over the world...but where is all the rock/sediment that made the land once as high as the flat plateaus themselves? Only a great flood would be capable of moving all those land masses and redepositing them elsewhere in the world.

This doesn't address my point that the Velociraptor-Protoceratops "fighting" fossil you cited earlier as evidence for flood deposition could not have been deposited in a flood. They were found in wind-blown sands, not water-deposited sands.

A human sandal print stepping on a trilobite discovered near Delta, Utah (elevation approx 9,000 ft). Trilobites are supposed to have been extinct for 180 million yrs.

That claim is falsified here:
CC102: Sandal footprint found with trilobites
here:
The "Meister Print"
and here:
The "Meister Print"

But an answer to the question: Drying conditions because of receding flood waters. Why is that hard to figure?

So you're arguing that the fossils were deposited in a dry environment as a result of a global flood? That doesn't make any sense.

The 'Jurrassic period' was at a much different time than the evolutionary time scale requires.

The Jurassic period is smack dab in the middle of the fossil record. If we find termite mounds in the middle of the fossil record, that must imply that they were built in the middle of the global flood, according to you. Again, that doesn't make any sense.

Why is that a problem?

It's a problem because it implies that dinosaurs were busy building nests when they should have been retreating from the Flood.

Explain.

Palaeosols are fossil soil horizons that are found throughout the sedimentary record. Soils don't form overnight. They take hundreds and thousands of years to form. The fact that we find them throughout the sedimentary record implies that hardly any of it could have been deposited in flooding conditions. Floods don't deposit soils.

Again, your logic does not fit the facts. Explain this better.

Reefs of different sorts are found throughout the fossil record. Like palaeosols, they do not pop up over night. They take decades, centuries, or even millenia to build up. The fact that we find them throughout the fossil record implies that they were not formed or deposited by the Flood.

The Flood did create much if not most of the fossil record.

Well, I just provided a number of examples that are found throughout the fossil record that could not have been deposited by the Flood. So which parts of the fossil record were deposited by the Flood?

It will cost them eternally.

I didn't realize out salvation hinged upon our acceptance of a global flood. I always thought it hinged on our acceptance of Christ's sacrifice.

 

[Mallon]

A fish obviously destroyed by quick burial during catastrophic conditions:

The fish you posted was obviously NOT deposited in "catastrophic conditions". It is buried in a very fine sediment, so it was obviously deposited in very calm conditions. Raging waters deposit boulders and the like, not fine silts.
Besides, it's obvious that the fish fossil choked on another fish. You can see the tail sticking out of its mouth. No global flood required to account for this one.

An entire village of people who were suddenly crushed together was uncovered in Germany. The geologists who found them observed that all the adults were all looking in the same direction; south. Was this the direction the first great wave of rock & sediment from the flood came to that part of the world?

Maybe they were buried that way by their families. I don't know much about this find, and you didn't provide any details about it, so I can't comment much on it.

Human beings and larger animals would most likely be the last to be destroyed in the flood...many of which were fossilized instantly by quick burial.

Yet we find giant dinosaurs lower in the fossil record than rats. That doesn't make any sense. If your hypothesis was correct, we would find the biggest animals at the top of the fossil record and the smallest ones near the bottom. That's not what we see at all.

The creature depicted below was obviously crushed very quickly and violently.

Again, it is preserved in a fine sediment matrix. It was clearly preserved in a calm environment, like a lagoon. The crushing likely occurred taphonomically (look the word up if you don't know what it means).

Evolution is a myth. It is not even worthy of serious consideration.

... says the guy who cited a choked fish as evidence for a global flood.

 

[Calypsis4]

quote Mallon; Actually, you did say those fossils were in the Himalayas.

Would you PLEASE read what I say carefully and think about what I've said?!?! I also posted evidence of fish in the Alps and in the mountainous regions of the USA.

And I agree that fossils are found in mountains all over the world. Again, they comprise the rock that make those mountains. They're not simply found sitting on top of them as one would expect from a global flood.

Again... Mallon...you DO NOT read carefully what your opponents say to you. I never said all the fossils should be or would be sitting on top of the mountains as 'one would expect from a local flood.' I never even suggested that. Such a violent cataclysm as a universal flood would destroy much in the beginning and as the flood receded it would lay down dead plants and animals much the way local floods do in our day only on a much larger scale.

Now why are you having such a hard time grasping that?


The traditional geological argument is that the marine fossils were deposited underwater, became fossilized, and then were uplifted via orogeny.

I reject that interpretation. It makes no sense to me and you didn't document yourself.

Again, marine life at high elevations is easily explained with reference to uplift and orogeny.

It is not easily explained because you don't have observational evidence for this. It's guesswork on your part. The people who witnessed the flood however, handed down their eyewitness account which filtered down through the ages in the form of oral tradition...plus, Moses was given the exact and true account by God Himself. You aren't going to overthrow God's Word about this matter no matter what you say to the contrary.

I'll add that you didn't answer my question. If ripple marks are formed in shallow water and are found throughout the entire sedimentary record, does that imply that the Flood never rose above one's knees?

Oh, I answered your question all right. I destroyed it. You are just a stubborn customer to deal with.

The picture I provided wasn't an example of fossil formation, but evidence that it doesn't take a global flood to create mass death assemblages.

It was evidence of dead animals in a river. Nothing more.

We do see fossils in the middle of forming today, though. They're called sub-fossils. Google it. Or read about it:
Amazon.com: Fossils in the Making: Vertebrate Taphonomy and Paleoecology (Prehistoric Archeology and Ecology series) (9780226041537): Anna K. Behrensmeyer, Andrew P. Hill: Books

And?

Again, this is not an argument but an ad hom attack. The fact of the matter is that you do not understand geology if you think geologists insist that all strata take millions of years to deposit.

I was trained in geology in college so don't give me that nonsense. You aren't going to pull the wool over my eyes nor anyone elses eyes with your frivilous, ill-thought out explanations.

They do not.


Please quit with the personal attacks.

I don't like being told lies about earth's past when God's Word says something totally different.

It isn't very Christian of you.

Tell me what a Christian is. You want me and apparently others like me to accept your inane arguments that make no sense whatsoever. It isn't going to happen.

The fact of the matter is that there are sequences of fossil forests preserved in the fossil record at places like Joggins, NS.

Document it! Where is your source? Where are the pictures? Can you verify by observation that that forest was laid down the way you claim? Do it.


We know they're in situ and haven't been uprooted because we can trace their roots into the ancient soils where they were buried. You can read more about this in the book Paradigms on Pilgrimage.

You have a healthy imagination. But its more like tortured logic.

But evidence for scavenging is found throughout the entire fossil record.

Document that the ENTIRE fossil record has it and then explain why it disproves the Noahic deluge.

If the Flood created the fossil record, why do we find desert deposits throughout the fossil record?

Again, why is that a problem. I asked you to give evidence of this and you did nothing more than give an opinion.

This doesn't address my point that the Velociraptor-Protoceratops "fighting" fossil you cited earlier as evidence for flood deposition could not have been deposited in a flood. They were found in wind-blown sands, not water-deposited sands.


That claim is falsified here:
CC102: Sandal footprint found with trilobites
here:
The "Meister Print"
and here:
The "Meister Print"

Nope. Been there; done that. I reject those arguments. Some of your comrades even went so far as to say that was NOT a sandal print and that was NOT a trilobite. The fools. They must think we are blind.

Besides that I don't believe one thing that the atheists at talk/origins say nor do I believe Glen Kuban is an honest person.

So you're arguing that the fossils were deposited in a dry environment as a result of a global flood? That doesn't make any sense.

Once again, you do NOT read carefully what I say. Go back and read that paragraph again...and this time THINK.

The Jurassic period is smack dab in the middle of the fossil record. If we find termite mounds in the middle of the fossil record, that must imply that they were built in the middle of the global flood, according to you. Again, that doesn't make any sense.

Really, Right in the middle of the fossil record, huh?

Observe:

The strata of the Grand Canyon...missing 7 layers of strata amounting to 247 million years. Where is the Jurassic level there? And what, pray tell, happened to the other six missing levels of strata that represent so many millions of yrs of 'evolution'?

How about this one:

From the Morrison Formation in the western USA. This diagram (printed by evolutionists) reveal 750 million missing years of strata. Where is your 'Jurassic period' stratum, Mallon? The truth is that the so-called 'geologic column' exists almost nowhere in the world.

Some science.


It's a problem because it implies that dinosaurs were busy building nests when they should have been retreating from the Flood.

I never suggested they all died at the same time nor under the same circumstances. Timing is a key factor which neither of us can fully explain until judgment day when God will reveal how it all happened. That won't be a nice day for you and those of your persuasion.

Palaeosols are fossil soil horizons that are found throughout the sedimentary record. Soils don't form overnight. They take hundreds and thousands of years to form. The fact that we find them throughout the sedimentary record implies that hardly any of it could have been deposited in flooding conditions. Floods don't deposit soils.

I nearly fell over when I saw that statement. You've lost all credibility with me fella.


Floodplain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reefs of different sorts are found throughout the fossil record. Like palaeosols, they do not pop up over night. They take decades, centuries, or even millenia to build up. The fact that we find them throughout the fossil record implies that they were not formed or deposited by the Flood.


Well, I just provided a number of examples that are found throughout the fossil record that could not have been deposited by the Flood. So which parts of the fossil record were deposited by the Flood?

You didn't do ANYTHING to overthrow the obvious conclusions that should be drawn from the evidence I present. Moses and Jesus told the truth and evolutionary geology is a lie. The facts I posted above and a lot more I have not yet posted say so loudly and clearly.

I didn't realize out salvation hinged upon our acceptance of a global flood. I always thought it hinged on our acceptance of Christ's sacrifice.

If you don't believe what Jesus Christ said about the flood that He taught you will never see heaven. To place Him in question is to call Him a liar.

"37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Jesus in Matthew 24:37-39.

Both Moses and Jesus were very plain about this matter and in no uncertain terms described what happened to the unbelieving world during the flood. If you do not believe them then you will perish forever. Both scripture and science agree on the facts of Genesis.

 

[Mallon]

Would you PLEASE read what I say carefully and think about what I've said?!?! I also posted evidence of fish in the Alps and in the mountainous regions of the USA.

Right, and the same argument applies to those fossils. They comprise the rock that makes the mountains. They are found IN the mountains, not just on them. From the perspective of a global flood, this doesn't make sense.

Such a violent cataclysm as a universal flood would destroy much in the beginning and as the flood receded it would lay down dead plants and animals much the way local floods do in our day.

That still doesn't explain how the fossils get deep inside the mountains. You accuse me of not listening, but I think the show is on the other foot.

I reject that interpretation. It makes no sense to me and you didn't document yourself.

I don't need to document it myself. It's already been done in the literature. Seriously, just open an introductory geology textbook and learn for yourself. This is pretty basic stuff, but you don't seem to be familiar with it.
More refutation here:
CC364: Marine fossils on mountains

It is not easily explained because you don't have observational evidence for this. It's guesswork on your part. The people who witnessed the flood however, handed down their eyewitness account which filtered down through the ages in the form of oral tradition...plus, Moses was given the exact and true account by God Himself. You aren't going to overthrow God's Word about this matter no matter what you say to the contrary.

Meh. Luther said the same thing about geocentrism.

I was trained in geology in college so don't give me that nonsense

You might have taken a course or two, but it doesn't show.

Tell me what a Christian is.

Someone who recognizes that Christ is their saviour from sin (as opposed to a belief in young-earth catastrophism).

Document it! Where is your source?

I cited you the source earlier. It's in the book Paradigms on Pilgrimage, among other places. It's ironic that you tell me that I'm not reading your posts when it's pretty obvious that the opposite is true.

Document that the ENTIRE fossil record has it and then explain why it disproves the Noahic deluge.

Evidence for scavenging disproves the Noahic deluge because it shows that animals were busy milling about eating dead things when they should have been running from the flood waters. Off the top of my head, we see such evidence throughout all the Phanerozoic and likely through much of the Palaeozoic, though I'm not as certain about that one.

Again, why is that a problem. I asked you to give evidence of this and you did nothing more than give an opinion.

Desert deposits in the middle of a supposed flood are a problem because floods don't deposit desert sediments, which are found throughout the sedimentary record. Again, basic geology.

Nope. Been there; done that. I reject those arguments. Some of your comrades even went so far as to say that was NOT a sandal print and that was NOT a trilobite. The fools. They must think we are blind.

Besides that I don't believe one thing that the atheists at talk/origins say nor do I believe Glen Kuban is an honest person.

The source I cited you didn't question the reality of the trilobite. It said that the "sandal impression" is actually a spall pattern, which "do not occur in a trail but as isolated prints". That much is true regardless of whether you like Glen Kuban or not (another ad hom argument).

Really, Right in the middle of the fossil record, huh?

Yeah, pretty close. It's not at the top and it's not at the bottom. Yet we find fossil termite mounds in the Jurassic. How were they built in the middle of a supposed global flood?

I never suggested they all died at the same time nor under the same circumstances. Timing is a key factor which neither of us can fully explain until judgment day when God will reveal how it all happened. That won't be a nice day for you and those of your persuasion.

You know, for someone who thinks that we are saved based on our acceptance of creation science rather than our acceptance of Christ, I question whether I'll be the one left suffering eternally. I suspect you're going to be banned again pretty soon.

I nearly fell over when I saw that statement. You've lost all credibility with me fella.


Floodplain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure what argument you're trying to present here. There's nothing in the article to refute my argument that floods don't deposit stratified soil horizons like this:

They may deposit sediments that add to soil horizons, but they don't create the kind of stratified soils that take years and years to form in subaerial conditions. Again, basic geology.

 

[Mallon]

By the way, I can't report C4's posts because I've been responding to them, but to anyone else: please feel free to report him when he says self-professed Christians won't be saved for their lack of belief in creation science. That's against forum rules.

 

[juvenissun]

Those dinosaurs were buried in aeolian (desert) sands. They were not buried in a flood.

So, what were they doing in the desert? Did these dinos live in desert environment?

 

[Mallon]

Did these dinos live in desert environment?

Evidently, they did.

 

[Orogeny]

What brilliance. Does anyone here have any confidence that this poster can logically grasp what he is dealing with? I don't.

Stupid question, right?

The only 'straw man' are the bonehead arguments we've been given by the evolutionists so far. It's clear that this one is allergic to the truth that the evidence so clearly reveals.

He isn't thinking honestly. He isn't even trying to.

All from one post.

 

[juvenissun]

I guess we should have been more clear: Present an argument, with geological evidence, that indicates the occurrence of a global flood as described in the Bible. This evidence should ONLY support a flood hypothesis. If it can be explained in the context of regular geology, it IS NOT evidence of a global flood.

I've already refuted this particular argument, and will do so again:

Small Water Comets

Volcanic Gases and Their Effects

This argument also requires that sea level be much lower pre-flood. I am not aware of any verse in the Bible that alludes to this.

No. If that were the case, it will be difficult to make the flood.
The more likely picture is that the land was much closer to the sea level. And geology said it is true.

If the mind is not ready, evidence (miracles) will not be useful. Lord Jesus says that. (if you do not know what am I talking about here, then please ask, I will explain.)

 

[Calypsis4]

Evidently, they did.

Right!

And polar bears lived in the Amazon jungle too. If you don't believe that just ask Mallon!

 

[Mallon]

Right!

And polar bears lived in the Amazon jungle too. If you don't believe that just ask Mallon!

Not sure what your problem here is. Why is it so unbelievable that dinosaurs might have lived in desert environments? Animals of all stripes do today.

Your fundamentalism is just making you mean and contradictory, C4. Let some of that love for Christ that's supposed to fill your heart shine through once in a while.

 

[Orogeny]

The traditional geological argument is that the marine fossils were deposited underwater, became fossilized, and then were uplifted via orogeny.

So what you're saying is... orogenydidit?

 

[Mallon]

All from one post.

I doubt we'll have to listen to him much longer.

 

[Orogeny]

How about this one:

From the Morrison Formation in the western USA. This diagram (printed by evolutionists) reveal 750 million missing years of strata. Where is your 'Jurassic period' stratum, Mallon?

...he says, not realizing that the Morrison is a Jurassic formation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrison_Formation

Come on, man. Get serious. Are you here to have a scientific debate, or are you just going to lie, twist, ignore, ad hominem and goddidit your way through this thread?