ed:
"That is the whole point. We have evidence upon which the assumptions are based."
So do I have. Except my assumptions are also based on the evidence of the witnessed historocity and reliability of the bible.
"So, are you telling us that there are no fossils forming today? If there are, then are we in a state of global flood also?"
No offense, but are you really that naive to believe I think that way? *sigh* where has intelligent conversation gone? From now on, assume I have a standard college education - ok? It'll prevent these kinds of questions from appearing in our threads.
Jerry Smith:
Are you saying that there were fissures in the Earth's crust prior to the asteroid impact? If so, and if there was a subterranean sea, what kept that water from erupting violently through those fissures? Have you ever cooked in a pressure cooker?
Why don't you answer these questions yourself? Rather than posting basic questions, try postulatating end-of-the road problems. If you start with this angle of finding final unsolvable problems within a theory, you'll actually be able to think and rationalize solutions to premature questions such as these. When you hit a road block, let me know.
We've sadly replaced true learning in schools with wrote memorization of someone else's concepts.
In regards to your question, let me replace a few terms to maybe make it clear:
"If there was a subterranean sea of magma, what keeps that magma from erupting violently through those fissures?"
..umm... let me see... nothing. There are eruptions. Called volcanoes?
(see my point?) It's all logical if you really think about it.
If you know how a thing is formed, then see the thing in nature, you must have good reasons for postulating some other event that is not known to form it.[
Um, let me point out: a possible written historical record, oral traditions, and stories passed down from our father way way way back into antiquity? Come on, try at least to think where I'm comming from. If not, then this is going to be a loooonnng conversation before we get to the real meat and point of it.
I'm trying to prove that the same evidence evolutionists have can just as well be interpreted to fit into a Global Flood theory. But also with Global Flood theory, I take into account the human historical record: legends, stories, migration of whole groups of people, natural species expansion/seperation/adaptaion, languages, ethinic groups... so many variables loudly sharing in one common answer to what we see all around us today.
What is strange is that fossils are found in practically every stratum of rock, from the highest strata to some of the deepest (though in "pre-Cambrian" strata, very few fossils are found).
Which would probably be consistent with the Flood somehow.
Radiometric dating confirms that the highest strata are much younger than the lowest, so if fossils are found in the high and low strata, then yes, the only decent interpretation is that they represent seperate incidents of fossilization.
It would be the ONLY 'decent' interpretation? What we don't see in the rock are dates. What we see are in fact different levels of radiation. Let me give you an analogy: take a gathering rainstorm:
First there is the cloud. No rain.
Then there are more clouds. It starts to sprinkle.
Then there are many clouds. It rains.
Then the clouds become a storm. It rains harder.
The storm grows to its final form. It rains very very hard.
Now take a sponge, lay it outside right as the cloud gathers and there is no rain. It is very dry. As the first sprinkles come down, lay down another sponge layer. Then another, and another, while it rains harder and harder. Suspending the idea that gravity would pull the water down through the other sponges, what would we see? I'll tell you: The top sponge would be soaking wet. The bottom, absolutely dry. Say this takes place within the space of an hour. If someone didn't know that the storm ever gatherd, but instead assumed it had always rained that hard, forever into the past, then as that 'rain scientist' dated the age of the layers by the amount of rain in them, he'd be way the wack off - would he not? After all, he believe the levels of rainfall had always been the same - thus the drier layers beneath him would be very very very very very very very old - since it would have to take a long time for them to dry since the top layer is obviously so wet because it rains so darned hard, and anything below that is dry MUST have been rained on as hard before.
Same thing with radiometric dating of any kind. We assume it's always been the same constant cosmic bombardment of different particles. But taking into the written historical account of the bible, that has not always been the case. The atmosphere was so constructed that it never rained, yet the bible records the "floodgates of heaven opened" - meaning there must have been a good deal of water vapor up there - perhaps enough to block out all of the cosmic radiation there was. OR maybe that's wrong. In such case, think of an ocean of water over a land surface. As the water receeded, higher land would be exposed to the "rainstorm" of particles, thus becomming more saturated than land being exposed later on as the water receeded. There are lots of solutions. It just takes someone with enough "umpf" to think about them.
Furthermore, the Flood Model raises more questions than it solves by far.
That's because no one getting paid to explore 'accepted' science ever seriously considers them.
Furthermore, some kinds of fossils (i.e. chalk deposits) can be formed just by the slow accumulation of normal, every day, non-catastrophic, sedimentary deposits.
Maybe I'm not communicating well enough. I never said fossilization doesn't occur today. It would be stupid assert that! However, I do say that a global flood can create the most signifigant quantity of fossils than other natural processes - which is why I stipulated that all of the fossils we do find that somehow seem to support evolution, are usually fossils encased in sediment caused by a flood. It is my conclusion that that flood was perhaps the Global Flood as mentioned by Noah.
Why always dinosaurs below elephants? Why oaks (and modern ferns) above extinct species of ferns?
Now THIS is a big assumption. For which there are other explanations - some quite logical. In fact, I would almost postulate that what scientists are looking at are in fact strata layers world wide, and not a layers in one specific area with a fish, an ape, and human remains stacked on top of another in "chronological" form. Or in your case, an extinct fern fossil right below a few layers or so from a modern fern fossil.
What would be expected is that the first layers would be the early debris layers of the flood: sea creatures, fish, small animals; as it "flooded" everywhere. As swimming mammals could survive longer and better, they'd be found less and less at the bottom layers of this event. Birds, would hardly ever be found - in fact, it would be nearly impossible, unless of course it couldn't fly; for dead flying birds would probably be able to make it above the waters before falling and becomming part of the final ungly flotsam bouncing on the waves worldwide.
Big land dinosaurs, probably would either be encased in massive mud swells, probably as the flood levels rose to reach the deep-land areas where they roamed to feed.
It is no wonder that we find many of these creatures in vast fossil deposits - as the layers of flood sediment washed in again and again with new and more surivivable creatures - thus giving us what we see today: dead, simple sea creatures at the bottom, bigger, larger, faster, more flood-'surviveable' animals at the top. Man itself would be very resilient, and I doubt any of their non-decomposed remains will ever be found for they would probably have survived debris and mud "encasement" unlike more stupid animals would find themselves in.
And by the way, who do you suppose witnessed the flood? I thought that the oldest parts of the Bible were written (according to tradition) by Moses.
Written yes. But written from what? Most likely, 'accepted' oral tradition. Keep in mind, to the Jews, family history is everything! It was probably common knowledge about Adam & Even and Noah, since they were all ancestors of the Jewish people - of whom Moses was himself a Jew with access to these stories. In fact, who is to say that Moses didn't have written copies of these other stories before he began composing them all into one single work?
I've found that you are great at comming up with working assumptions, but do you even realize that you are using them without questioning them? Question everything!
In regards to your other statements about layers and such, I refer you to think for yourself about the chonology of the flood event, and the time afterwards.
Sure there was pressure, but where was the coal? Did the coal form during the first two weeks, then the diamonds in the year following?
Coal probably formed almost instantly in the folding of the land. Diamonds, probably formed with the coal as things settled down over a period of a thousand years.
But again, you're asking questions about data and interpretations. Stop that! Think for yourself what my answers would be. Instead, let's get to the heart of the matter: the whole point of this conversation: the theory itself. COULD a REASONABLE flood theory of cause-and-effect be made to explain what we see today, and read about as history?
