Unfortunately I spent a good amount of time preparing a post, only to be greeted by a mess of formatting texts that won't go away upon my posting. Had to do some re-working.
Ouch. Sorry.
More or less, having read through the entire article several times, I have a very hard time understanding what you mean by such evidences having been "debunked", and even worse, how you insist there is "no evidence", when there clearly is evidence? I got alarm bells ringing.
I understand. It's imperative to understand an important distinction here. There is evidence that can be explained by both a global flood and modern geosciences. But it is important to understand that within that body of evidence, some things are explained better by one or the other theory, and there are evidences that modern geology can explain efficiently, but that a global flood cannot.
So what you really need in order to justify the historicity of a global flood is hard evidence that a global flood as described in the bible can explain efficiently, and that modern geology cannot explain at all. This is your task, and, unless you are far more accomplished than the flood advocates I have encountered in the past, you will not be successful. If you are, as I said before, I will personally help you write and publish your data.
Polystrate fossils. Now why exactly do we observe these? Let me get this straight, tree fossils found perpendicular to the strata they were re-deposited within, being found within different intervals of approximately 2,500 feet of strata, traversing different types such as sandstone, limestone, shale,and even coal beds?
There's a pretty comprehensive polystrate fossil thread
here. You will see that the geologists in this thread dismantle the flood hypothesis of polystrate fossil deposition. If you disagree, feel free to join in the thread.
What about the fossils themselves. A mysterious "comet" that apparently fell somewhere in Mexico (not the first guess) that was the cause for a known global extinction event, yet we know we could only get so many fossils on such a world-wide scale if they were only buried immediately, rapidly, and extensively in mud, considering the incredible level of preservation of many of them. Am I missing something here?
I don't know if you're missing something, but I'm definitely missing your point. The
crater that resulted from the K-T impactor is readily visible on gravimetric surveys. Not only that, but there is a significant
Iridium anomaly in the correlative strata, as well as a pretty serious
tsunami deposit found in southeastern Missouri and elsewhere in correlative strata.
What about the fossil "problematica", and how out of order many seem to be buried, perplexing many a scientists?
There are many problematic fossils. That these fossils cannot be reliably assigned a taxonomic designation does not in any way support the occurrence of a global flood.
What are we to make of all those animal remains found in fissures/caves, as mentionned in the article, in England, Wales and other parts of Western Europe?
"In virtually every case, the bones are disarticulated, without teeth marks, un-weathered, and in most cases broken and splintered."
This doesn't seem too difficult. The bones were brought into the caves by hominids (hence, no weathering), stripped of meat (lack of teeth marks), and then broken to extract marrow (a dietary mother lode of fats, proteins, and minerals). Why is a global flood a better explanation of this phenomenon, particularly considering the fact that caves are generally found in strata said to have been deposited by a global flood?
Also, you'll note that I requested you present your evidences in your own words, but you've been copy-pasting from websites. I don't participate in copy-past debates- I use my own words and knowledge. If you aren't sophisticated enough in you grasp of the subject to post using your own words, you need to abstain from posting until you are.
"In caves and fissures in England and Whales and all over western Europe are found bones and bone fragments of many types of extinct and extant animal species -- including the mammoth, hippopotamus, rhinoceros, horse, polar bear, bison, reindeer, wolf and cave lion."
"Why should so many wolves, bears, horses, and oxen have ascended a hill isolated on all sides?"
Predation is a pretty natural phenomenon. Why this should be attributed to flooding, much less global flooding, is beyond me. Please explain why flooding is a better explanation than predation, a process we observe today.
Why are we founding massive whale fossils in such fashions?
In caves? Please provide evidence of whale fossils found in caves that were clearly subaerial at the time of whale carcass deposition.
"Or should we say "a fossil of a whale? It's true, but what is most interesting about it is how it was buried. In 1976, workers from the Dicalite division of Grefco inc. found the remains of a baleen whale entombed vertically in a diatomaceous earth quarry."
Again, you're simply copy-pasting from your link. If you haven't an argument of your own to make, please abstain until you have sufficient command of the subject. At this point, you're simply parroting those that support your world view.
Now then: was the whale actually found in a position where its length is perpendicular (or even sub-perpendicular) to the orientation of the unit in which it was buried?
I don't think so. If you've evidence to the contrary, present it.
"In bogs covering glacial deposits in Michigan, skeletons of two whales were discovered ... How did they come to Michigan in the post-glacial epoch? Glaciers do not carry whales, and the ice sheet would not have brought them to the middle of a continent... Was there a sea in Michigan after the glacial epoch, only a few thousand years ago?"
"Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level..."
Cool. Whales have existed in their fully aquatic form for ~40Ma (
SOURCE). In the less time (both relatively and absolutely), the Organ Mountains batholith of southern New Mexico was uplifted to over 8,000 feet above sea level (
SOURCE)
The article also debunks the idea that geological uniformitarianism is an accurate model that fits the evidence, did you catch that part? The evidence, almost by default, is in contradiction with this idea. Do you expect me to believe you or should I follow the evidence where it leads? Can you convince me otherwise?
Probably not; you're likely set in your worldview. But if you want to follow where the evidence leads, have a look at the leading geology journals: AAPG Bulletin, GSA bulletin, Sedimentology, Paleos, Geology, etc. None of the scientists published therein, to my knowledge, are misrepresenting their findings in order to further a demonstrably false paradigm. If you'd like to elaborate on which parts of the article debunk uniformitarianism, without using uniformitarianism where it supports your conclusions, please do so. But I'm not going to dig around the article in order to support or refute your argument. That's your job.
-Mt. Saint Helen
-Palouse Canyon
Misrepresentation of both sedimentary geology and uniformitarianism (
source). Fresh volcanic ash has completely different characteristics than even loose detrital siliciclastics, much less lithified sediments. Also, uniformitarianism does not state that all sedimentary layers take millions of years to create; rather, it states that sedimentary layers are created by processes that are understood to operate today, and that some of these processes take minutes, while others take millions of years.
-Turbidity Currents
(To name a few)
See above, and amend your understanding of modern geology.
One would think that a million years would be more than enough time to turn massive sand laden sediments into sandstone,yet we have an example of sediments which are said to be 80 million years older than those above them, and yet they still had not become hard, but were in a wet and plastic state when an earth movement caused them to be forced up into the (supposedly much) "younger" sediments. Such things not only present serious problems for the evolutionary method of "dating", but also tell us that something is wrong with the millions of years mindset of evolutionary theory itself, and thus cause strongly suspicion that we are not being told the truth by the mass media, nor the "Scientific" community of believers in evolution.
Old-earth geology is not an 'evolutionary' idea; this is simply terminology used by creationists to cast doubt onto the relevant science. Dispossess yourself of these ideas.
Now then, what 'one would think' doesn't really matter, does it? What is observed is what matters, if I'm not mistaken. Please provide evidence of 80 million year old sediments intruding, via soft-sediment interaction, into zero-age sediments. I see no evidence backing this assertion.
Extensive Strata and Pancake Layering:
As we observe sedimentary strata throughout the world we see almost everywhere flat-lying (or "pancake") layered strata. Many of these layers are so extensive that they cover several states. Evolutionists believe that such layers were deposited slowly over millions and millions of years, or that they are simply "river" deposits or river deltas. Creationists, and a growing number of geologists see problems with such interpretations. First because there is virtually no evidence of erosion between the layers, and second, because the sheer size and extent of the strata suggests that the layers were neither formed by rivers, or river deltas.
Is there any reason why a global flood better accounts for horizontally-deposited stratigraphy than modern geology? After all, Steno's law of original horizontality is a uniformitarian principle, and you're trying to disprove those, aren't you. So you certainly can't invoke horizontal stratigraphy to support a global flood; that'd be using a uniformitarian principle. So you need your own principle. What is it?
Also, we see areas of horizontal deposition forming in the modern that are certainly as large as those found in the rock record (
SOURCE,
SOURCE, SOURCE,)
That's because many of the "layers" are quite thick, and cover (literally) hundreds and even thousands of square miles, and in many instances are the size of the state of Utah, or even larger.This, coupled with the presence of marine fossils that are buried in many of the layers, tells us that they were deposited by ocean currents (i.e. from a major, major Flood), like nothing we have ever seen before.
There is, to my knowledge, no evidence that any marine deposits now found on land can be better explained by a flood than by a combination of marine sedimetology and stratigraphy and tectonism. Modern geology explains quite clearly why we find marine deposits at high elevation, providing mechanisms for the occurrences. Flood geology, as far as I know, simply postulates 'the flood did it', with no physical, supporting evidence that cannot be explained by modern geology. If I am wrong, present this evidence now.
As a side note, if you would also submit to me that the Earth truly is 4.54 billion years old along with Darwinian evolution being real - further incentives for me to digress. They are all tied at the hip. No, I do not agree with either of these ideas, because contrary to what propaganda those quote unquote "scientific" proponents wish to spew, they are ideas that are clearly in contradiction with the evidence.
Provide evidence both against an old earth and against the factuality of evolution. And understand that simply saying 'they're not true' isn't functional; you need to both illustrate that they are not true and provide a theory that better explains the evidence available to us in biology and geology. That the two methods agree is a check on both, and certainly isn't an indictment of either.