Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains?

[OldWiseGuy]

How do we distinguish local floods, mudslides and such from a global flood?

I don't think we can, except in cases like the large polished quartzite boulders described in another link. As the waters recede and begin to flow over the various topographic features widely differing patterns of erosion and deposition would occur. The one large flood breaks up into smaller regional/local floods depending on the terrain. Evidence of previous flooding might be washed away and deposited in other places. I contend that a flood of this magnitude might actually erase more evidence than it leaves behind.

The Grand Canyon might well be evidence of the flood. As a believer in an old age earth I can see those sediments being laid down over vast time spans, but I can't really reconcile the Colorado River alone creating the canyon. It still looks like it was washed away in a flood (when viewed from the cheap seats).

I have repeatedly called for an accurate flood model to be created using known hydrological principles, flood mechanics, rate of water flows, total duration of the event, topography and elevations. To my knowledge this has never been done.

 

[StormanNorman]

1. Fish are not invertebrates. They have a skeleton.
2. The majority of fossils being of marine life tells us that bodies of water are more condusive to fossilization than terrestrial environments. A global flood would not favor fossilization of marine over terrestrial life.
3. Deep water life would be the least affected by a global flood. That is just basic logic.
4. How does a global flood result in tectonic activity which then results in an ice age? What mechanisms are involved?
5. Where in the bible does it record any ice age?

In fact, my understanding is that most terrestrial fossils involved water of some type, e.g., lake beds streams, ponds, etc.... or the ever-so-helpful quick blanketing of volcanic ash. In any case, both events are much rarer and, hence, we have far less terrestrial fossils ... unfortunately.

 

[Loudmouth]

I see your point, that local floods resulted, but there is evidence of actually a global scale flood, not a little, but a lot of evidence...

No, there isn't. Lake varves, tree rings, and ice layers are uninterrupted during this time period. A recent global flood is directly contradicted by the evidence.

1. Evidence like the sedimentary layers show a global flood evidence. It can be interpreted as several local floods, but that would be the agenda of the evolutionary uniformitarian doing that, not typically those who adhere to creation and global flood catastrophy theory both.
   
2. Evidence such as the fact that fossils are typically buried in huge floods not local floods. Like the Dinasaur graveyard in north eastern montana that is about 1.5 miles by .25 miles wide where 10,000 duckbill dinasaurs are buried in 3 foot thick sedimentary layer. (one of the largest bone beds in america). Thats definitaly not a flash flood.
   
3. Evidence of Fossils buried quick, deep water fossils mainly!
   I mean, how do you bury fossils so fast that their food is still in their mouth!
   
   
   
   and here:
   
   
   
   
   Or bury a fish so fast that she didn't have time to give birth! (seen here
   
   
   
   That must have happened quick, with a lot of force, and a lot of mineral deposit to cement the hard tissue of the animal.
   
4. Evidence such as this: among the majority of fossils are vegetation yes, however among invertebrate fossils: 95% are marine invertebrates (mainly fish). That ought to tell you something. Also among those fossils are mollusks/clams (which are often closed.) If the majority of invertebrates are deep water life, that means that something must have happened to join the existing oceans and the land masses. Among with even the clams are closed... Meaning that they did not have time enough for bacteria and scavengers to pry open after death which takes an hour to days. IF most of the fossils are deep water life, as Fish don't typically live in puddles then it was not a local flash flood. Any of it! Thirdly, local flood doesn't provide a heavy enough pressure to bury say 10,000 dinasaurs in 3 feet of dirt (montana), sealed, cemented with chemical injected into the mold enough to preserve nearly all body impressions. The evidence is obviously a global flood, which resulted in techtonic activity, and a resulting Ice age.

Hehe, a reptile giving birth. That's a good one.

I guess you are unaware that organisms can lie on top of one another?

 

[freezerman2000]

Aren't all reptiles egg layers anyway? If not,which ones are live bearers?

 

[Loudmouth]

well again, I haven't seen any type of dates you post. Either for the lava flow or as in your perspective "the eruption." Either one will suffice for me. (I understand that the lava is composed of existing material which would be older than said eruption). I was reffering to the eruption. When asking for the age of a child, you don't carbon date their skin. You look at the birth certificate.

You were referring to dishonest claims made by creationists. They picked rocks that are known to have bits of older rock in them, and they try to use these rocks to cast doubt on radiometric dating. That's as dishonest as it gets.

 

[createdtoworship]

1. Fish are not invertebrates. They have a skeleton.

Bony fishes, which include most fish species, have a backbone. Cartilaginous fishes like sharks, rays and skates don't have any bones, just cartilage, so they don't have a backbone. Also the group of fishes that includes hagfishes and lampreys don't have a backbone.

2. The majority of fossils being of marine life tells us that bodies of water are more condusive to fossilization than terrestrial environments. A global flood would not favor fossilization of marine over terrestrial life.

We all agree with this, but this is evidence against you. The flood is actually water. So fossilization happening in a global flood would be a normal occurance. However global sedimentary layers only bring questions to the evolutionist, like how did water get out in a desert?

3. Deep water life would be the least affected by a global flood. That is just basic logic.

actually sediment will sink, and it is the sediment that does the sealing requirement for fossilization so again you are incorrect here.

4. How does a global flood result in tectonic activity which then results in an ice age? What mechanisms are involved?

Are you really questioning this? I mean after all, you were wrong before about the origins of plate tectonics being invented by a creationist and global flood advocate (antonio snyder-1859). Nevertheless I accept the challenge.

Read this abstract and let me know if you have any questions:
https://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Catastrophic-Plate-Tectonics-A-Global-Flood-Model.pdf

5. Where in the bible does it record any ice age?

funny you asked, it does not say anything about the Ice Age, but there are some hints in the Bible as to it's time. Much more recent than secular research indicates:

"It is reasonable to conclude that the start of the Ice Age roughly coincides with the Babel judgment."
from AIG
[EMAIL="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v8/n2/ice-age-biblical-history"]http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v8/n2/ice-age-biblical-history[/EMAIL]

 

[createdtoworship]

No, there isn't. Lake varves, tree rings, and ice layers are uninterrupted during this time period. A recent global flood is directly contradicted by the evidence.

so what fact do you disagree with, or are you simply going to lay out logical fallacies again as your arguments in this debate?

Hehe, a reptile giving birth. That's a good one.

I guess you are unaware that organisms can lie on top of one another?

maybe the generic wikipedia could help you, in regards to your unbelief of the obvious....

"They were viviparous (bore live young). Some adult fossils have even been found containing fetuses. Although they were reptiles and descended from egg-laying ancestors, viviparity is not as unexpected as it first appears. Air-breathing marine creatures must either come ashore to lay eggs, like turtles and some sea snakes, or else give birth to live young in surface waters, like whales and dolphins. Given their streamlined bodies, heavily adapted for fast swimming, it would have been difficult for ichthyosaurs to move far enough on land to lay eggs."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyosaur

 

[florida2]

Read this abstract and let me know if you have any questions:
https://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Catastrophic-Plate-Tectonics-A-Global-Flood-Model.pdf

Gosh, creationists putting forward a creationist model!

 

[Loudmouth]

so what fact do you disagree with, or are you simply going to lay out logical fallacies again as your arguments in this debate?

What fact do you disagree with? Here are facts that contradict a global flood:

Age-Dating-Correlations

We have correlating data from lake varves, tree rings from 3 different forests, annual ice layers from 3 different ice sheets, and stalagmites that runs right through this period with absolutely no interruption.

maybe the generic wikipedia could help you, in regards to your unbelief of the obvious....

Maybe you can show us why these are not separate fossils that were put on top of each other at separate times?

 

[Split Rock]

Bony fishes, which include most fish species, have a backbone. Cartilaginous fishes like sharks, rays and skates don't have any bones, just cartilage, so they don't have a backbone. Also the group of fishes that includes hagfishes and lampreys don't have a backbone.

Any organism with an endoskeleton is a vertebrate. It doesn't matter if it is cartilage.

We all agree with this, but this is evidence against you. The flood is actually water. So fossilization happening in a global flood would be a normal occurance. However global sedimentary layers only bring questions to the evolutionist, like how did water get out in a desert?

Marine, lake and river environments are not examples of any flood. Water does not mean "The Flood."

actually sediment will sink, and it is the sediment that does the sealing requirement for fossilization so again you are incorrect here.

You haven't yet shown I am incorrect about anything, just that you don't know what an "invertebrate" is. So what if the sediment sinks? It would only sink along the edges of the continents, and its effects would be minimal by the time it reached the ocean floor anyway.

Are you really questioning this? I mean after all, you were wrong before about the origins of plate tectonics being invented by a creationist and global flood advocate (antonio snyder-1859). Nevertheless I accept the challenge.
Read this abstract and let me know if you have any questions:
https://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Catastrophic-Plate-Tectonics-A-Global-Flood-Model.pdf

What a pathetic "paper." It is all assertions and "we believes." There is not one shred of original data and only one figure with any data at all in the entire paper. Junk science indeed. Hardly surprising from the "Insitutue of We Don't Do Any Creation Research."

funny you asked, it does not say anything about the Ice Age, but there are some hints in the Bible as to it's time. Much more recent than secular research indicates:

Its not "funny" at all. The bible certainly reads like there wasn't any ice age after the Flood. There is no reason for any ideas based on a "literal" reading of the bible to include an ice age after The Flood. The writers clearly knew nothing about any ice age in the past at all in fact.. and why should they? They had no access to any data even suggesting any ice ages in the past. None of the civilizations in the region at the time had any ice age myths to base such a thing on (in contast to flood myths). God would surely have known... but they weren't God. Another example of how ridiculous is the claim that God wrote the bible.

 

[Split Rock]

Gosh, creationists putting forward a creationist model!

A model based on no data is nothing but speculation.

 

[florida2]

A model based on no data is nothing but speculation.

But but but but...they all have Ph.D after their names!!!

That means they're right, doesn't it?

 

[createdtoworship]

What fact do you disagree with? Here are facts that contradict a global flood:

sorry but that link is full of facts that have wrong conclusions, let me point out two. For one, the tree rings support a young earth, not an old earth. For example, name one tree thats 4.5 billion years old, just one. I await your reply. Secondly, multiple pseudo-varves have formed quickly due to individual storms or unusual conditions so the fact that there are millions of varves (assumed to be annual) mean nothing, especially through an ice age of several million annual storms. If you can prove that every varve is annual then you may have some arguments. Like I said the facts are correct, the conclusions are .....hhhhmm no so much.

Age-Dating-Correlations

We have correlating data from lake varves, tree rings from 3 different forests, annual ice layers from 3 different ice sheets, and stalagmites that runs right through this period with absolutely no interruption.

like I said, there was absolutely no conclusions from that site that are trustworthy, the facts are debatable. But this means that the conclusions need more research. and I still am not sure what the idea is with the stalagmites and how this is evidence for no global flood?

Maybe you can show us why these are not separate fossils that were put on top of each other at separate times?

many more studies and more qualified than you or I have already said that it's a birth, as those species wer too skinny to walk on land to lay eggs. But if you have any scientist, periodical, or even a simply link to a website.....that believes what you do regarding this fossil. Please bring forth the evidence. Until then we will leave it up to the pros, it's obviously giving birth and you don't want to face the fact that I am correct regarding the speedy nature of fossilization and the improbability of fossilization happening in anything other than a water environment.

 

[createdtoworship]

Any organism with an endoskeleton is a vertebrate. It doesn't matter if it is cartilage.

maybe so, but last time you said if it had a backbone it's a vertebrate. So are you changing the bars here, a backbone is only part of an endoskeleton. And last time I checked, endoskeleton had nothing to do with it. I mean they can have an exoskeleton and still be a vertebrate. So it really just has to do with the back bone, and I emphasize "bone" because many fish, actually don't have one as I said before. They may be technically classified as invertebrates (like sharks), but since when is taxonomy a real science among evolutionists anyways. Ask one, they will always tell you the lines are blurred and confusing. I actually hold to a tighter taxonomy than an evolutionist, but this is one that is legitimately debatable. It seems you yourself are confusing the necessity of a backbone and a endoskeleton.

Marine, lake and river environments are not examples of any flood. Water does not mean "The Flood."

So you don't believe any of the above water attractions were ever caused by flooding (local or global)? This would be a stretch even for you. But maybe I have your comment a little confused? Please expand.

You haven't yet shown I am incorrect about anything, just that you don't know what an "invertebrate" is. So what if the sediment sinks? It would only sink along the edges of the continents, and its effects would be minimal by the time it reached the ocean floor anyway.

well, I just corrected you again. And I remember you were wrong about the inventor of plate tectonics being a global flood believing creationist.

Shall I go on?

What a pathetic "paper." It is all assertions and "we believes." There is not one shred of original data and only one figure with any data at all in the entire paper. Junk science indeed. Hardly surprising from the "Insitutue of We Don't Do Any Creation Research."

well, thats the game we play with citing links. You have to read the other view, and this isn't always that fun. But please refrain from the fallacies of poisoning the well, ad hominem, and abusive ad hominem. It doesn't make this christian forum a nice place anymore.

Its not "funny" at all. The bible certainly reads like there wasn't any ice age after the Flood. There is no reason for any ideas based on a "literal" reading of the bible to include an ice age after The Flood. The writers clearly knew nothing about any ice age in the past at all in fact.. and why should they? They had no access to any data even suggesting any ice ages in the past. None of the civilizations in the region at the time had any ice age myths to base such a thing on (in contast to flood myths). God would surely have known... but they weren't God. Another example of how ridiculous is the claim that God wrote the bible.

how do you know the Bible actually "reads" that there was's any ice age?

That would the the typical fallacy of "argument from silence"

let me give you some examples to show you what I mean by argument from silence.

I could equally say that there is no hint of evolution in the Bible. The logic is valid, it is simply unconclusive however to argue from silence.

again I am not saying that all arguments from silence are invalid, However convincing arguments of silence are, there is always a second opinion in the matter, and this is what makes it inconclusive. As a result arguments from silence are inconclusive.

So here too your argument fails,

 

[mandyangel]

some people lack the FAITH they need to BELIEVE

 

[StormanNorman]

I could equally say that there is no hint of evolution in the Bible. The logic is valid, it is simply unconclusive however to argue from silence.

,

Whether or not the Bible hints at evolution is irrelevant and has absolutely no impact on the validity of the theory. Science doesn't rely on religion.

 

[Joshua0]

That means there right, doesn't it?

Unless you can show us where they are wrong. Care to give it a shot?

 

[florida2]

Unless you can show us where they are wrong. Care to give it a shot?

Split Rock has already had a good go at that.

It's all assertions and stating what they believe without original research and data. They are trying to stuff things into their creationist theory.

 

[Joshua0]

Split Rock has already had a good go at that.

In other words no you can not. That is what I thought.

 

[Split Rock]

maybe so, but last time you said if it had a backbone it's a vertebrate. So are you changing the bars here, a backbone is only part of an endoskeleton. And last time I checked, endoskeleton had nothing to do with it. I mean they can have an exoskeleton and still be a vertebrate. So it really just has to do with the back bone, and I emphasize "bone" because many fish, actually don't have one as I said before. They may be technically classified as invertebrates (like sharks), but since when is taxonomy a real science among evolutionists anyways. Ask one, they will always tell you the lines are blurred and confusing. I actually hold to a tighter taxonomy than an evolutionist, but this is one that is legitimately debatable. It seems you yourself are confusing the necessity of a backbone and a endoskeleton.

Wow. It is just really hard for you to admit you were wrong, isn't it? If an organism has a backbone, it is a vertebrate. It does not need to be made of bone, it can be cartilage. Technically, there are other types of endoskeletons, but usually when one refers to an endoskeleton, it is a vertebrate one. That is what I meant. In any case, my point was that it could be cartilage and still be classifed as a vertebrate. No one classifies sharks as invertebrates. No one. The defining characteristic is a vertebrate column, not necessarily one made of bone. Here: Vertebrate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you don't believe any of the above water attractions were ever caused by flooding (local or global)? This would be a stretch even for you. But maybe I have your comment a little confused? Please expand.

I am saying that fossils of a marine environment are indicative of a marine environment. Not a flood. Got it now?

well, I just corrected you again. And I remember you were wrong about the inventor of plate tectonics being a global flood believing creationist.

You claimed plate tectonics was an idea created by creationists and stolen by evolutionists and twisted by them. This is false. I never claimed that no creationist had come up with the idea that the continents were once together. This is hardly the same as plate tectonics, though the concepts are obviously related. In fact it was Alfred Wegener who described what he called continental drift in 1912. He actually proved more evidence than just the shape of the continents, but had no mechanism. It was the mapping of the ocean floor that provided the definitive evidence and the mechanism which became plate tectonics.

Shall I go on?

Please do. Also please show us your vast knowledge of vertebrate biology while you are at it.

well, thats the game we play with citing links. You have to read the other view, and this isn't always that fun. But please refrain from the fallacies of poisoning the well, ad hominem, and abusive ad hominem. It doesn't make this christian forum a nice place anymore.

I pointed out there was no original data and very little data at all provided by the paper you cited. For you citing links is really nothing more than a game. Thank you for admitting this.

how do you know the Bible actually "reads" that there was's any ice age?

That would the the typical fallacy of "argument from silence"

let me give you some examples to show you what I mean by argument from silence.

I could equally say that there is no hint of evolution in the Bible. The logic is valid, it is simply unconclusive however to argue from silence.

again I am not saying that all arguments from silence are invalid, However convincing arguments of silence are, there is always a second opinion in the matter, and this is what makes it inconclusive. As a result arguments from silence are inconclusive.

So here too your argument fails,

If you are using the bible as an historical guide, then it is quite telling that no ice age following the flood is indicated in the bible. The bible in fact goes into some detail concerning the events of flood and those following it. How could there have been an ice age immediately after the flood with no documentation in the bible? That would be like telling the history of 20th century Europe and including WWI but not WWII. If nothing else, this would indicate that the bible is a flawed history source, which still puts you in the same arkward position if relying on it as your ultimate source of information on earth's history.