Flood stratigraphy

[rmwilliamsll]

I'll bite -- why do you say "could not have been deposited by the flood"? What is there about these deposits that makes that impossible? (not just unlikely)

multiple layers of embedded animal tracks.
animal burrows
fossilized trees, upright with their roots in fossilized soil.

 

[laptoppop]

multiple layers of embedded animal tracks.
animal burrows
fossilized trees, upright with their roots in fossilized soil.

Thanks for answering so quickly. The details are important - but since my Star Trek transporter broke down, it will be hard for us to beam over to the sites.

Embedded animal tracks are not a problem. I have no problem with multiple layers of mud formed over a period of a month or so. As I said in another post, I do not envision the flood appearing all at once. I see rain combined with underground flooding, etc. -- different sources -- flooding the entire earth over a period of a few weeks. Local conditions, while wet, could have periods of relative dryness. Given the size of the earth, I could even imagine some areas which dry out fairly completely, and even have sunny skies for periods. Eventually, one would have a series of localized floods that could come and recede, come and recede, getting bigger all the time. The animals would be doing their best to survive, moving from place to place during this time. Given the size and scope of a truly global event, it is to be expected that certain areas would exhibit highly improbable conditions.

Burrows do not present a problem for similar reasons. Of course, their exact placement in the strata makes them more or less probable. If they are at the bottom, then its especially easy.

Upright trees with fossilized roots are actually strong evidence against a long period of time. The fact that they are preserved intact argues for relatively quick burial, quick enough that the tree does not have time to rot. If the burial happened within a few weeks -- the growing of the global flood, the state of the trees makes the most sense.

Again, one could easily argue that these occurences seem very improbable. However, given the unprecedented scope and scale of the global flood, local anomalies are to be expected. We see wide variation in *local* floods -- how much more would we expect to see in a *global* flood?

 

[Mallon]

To add...

multiple layers of embedded animal tracks.

Terrestrial animal tracks at that!
Not to mention rain drop impressions, aeolian dune deposits and mudcracks.

Eventually, one would have a series of localized floods that could come and recede, come and recede, getting bigger all the time. The animals would be doing their best to survive, moving from place to place during this time. Given the size and scope of a truly global event, it is to be expected that certain areas would exhibit highly improbable conditions.

Keep in mind, however, that the "rain fell on the earth" all the while, according to Genesis, so one could hardly expect the ground to dry in the meantime to account for those mudcracks (NOT syneresis cracks, so don't try it!).
Not to mention that if we're going to take our Bibles "literally", Genesis says "the flood kept coming on the earth", which does not bode well with the sort of ebb and flow Flood oncoming you describe.

Burrows do not present a problem for similar reasons. Of course, their exact placement in the strata makes them more or less probable. If they are at the bottom, then its especially easy.

Terrestrial and marine animal burrows are found throughout the fossil record.

Upright trees with fossilized roots are actually strong evidence against a long period of time. The fact that they are preserved intact argues for relatively quick burial, quick enough that the tree does not have time to rot.

I agree. And in fact, the lycopod 'trees' at Joggins were likely burried quite quickly. But the occurrence of these giant trees in sequenced forests, with immature paleosols, does not bode well with a Flood scenario. Otherwise, the Flood would have had to have occurred over a period of thousands of years.

Thanks for addressing the OT, laptoppop.

 

[Floodnut]

1. you have no physical evidence for a global flood
2. there exists lots of compelling evidence that it did not happen
3. we have local flood, like the Washington state badlands that do show what an enormous flood can do.

i'll take the evidence over your bare denial. thanks for playing.

1. I have no physical evidence for a literal resurrection of the Crucified Savior
2. There exists lots of compelling evidence that it did not happen, and could not happen.
3. There are many fine religions that do not involve a literal resurrection.
However, I will take the Scripture over this orderly little list of nonsense and your bare denials. Thanks for saving me Lord Jesus.

 

[Mallon]

1. I have no physical evidence for a literal resurrection of the Crucified Savior

Indeed. And nor is there any physical evidence contrary to the resurrection, either (unlike the Flood account). Therefore, I take it on faith that the Christ is risen.

2. There exists lots of compelling evidence that it did not happen, and could not happen.

Indeed. I believe Jesus' resurrection was a miracle, suspending the natural laws God created. You might feel the same way about the Flood, but since the Flood is said to have affected the earth in a way we do not observe in the rock record, I do not subscribe to the global Flood account.

3. There are many fine religions that do not involve a literal resurrection.

Are you showing me the door? Is there only enough room in your Christianity for YECists? The door to heaven may be narrow, but I don't remember God telling us that we have to believe in YEC to get in...

Thanks for saving me Lord Jesus.

Thanks for saving US.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

1. you have no physical evidence for a global flood
2. there exists lots of compelling evidence that it did not happen
3. we have local flood, like the Washington state badlands that do show what an enormous flood can do.

1. I have no physical evidence for a literal resurrection of the Crucified Savior
2. There exists lots of compelling evidence that it did not happen, and could not happen.
3. There are many fine religions that do not involve a literal resurrection.
However, I will take the Scripture over this orderly little list of nonsense and your bare denials. Thanks for saving me Lord Jesus.

why conflate the two?
doesn't the Resurrection rise or fall on it's own merits?
why confuse and unjustly tie together the two events?

if the Noahic flood was local vs global, universal vs partial, partial mythological or wholly historical, what difference would that make to the death and Resurrection of Christ Jesus? What essential and crucial theological issue makes you unify them in your theology?


This "changing the subject" from the scientific evidence for a global flood to the Resurrection of Christ seems to be a deliberate rhetorical tactic not just to conflate the two issue but to escape the scientific evidence for the flood by trumping it with your highest card (switching metaphors for a moment). When playing cards you ought to hold your best trump card until you either must play it or in playing it you can capture the most valuable card the other player has.

Why would someone trump the science of a global vs local flood (universal flood is another issue) with the Resurrection? What gain is there? The majority of Christians certainly see the Noahic flood as local and probably have for just over a hundred years.

You'd think that you would want to save the Resurrection trump card to cover something really big....like sin. not some measly scientific theory.

 

[Floodnut]

Indeed. And nor is there any physical evidence contrary to the resurrection, either (unlike the Flood account). Therefore, I take it on faith that the Christ is risen.

Of course there is abundant evidence that the resurrection did not occur, evidence contrary to any resurrection ever, anywhere.

Indeed. I believe Jesus' resurrection was a miracle, suspending the natural laws God created. You might feel the same way about the Flood, but since the Flood is said to have affected the earth in a way we do not observe in the rock record, I do not subscribe to the global Flood account.

Are you showing me the door? Is there only enough room in your Christianity for YECists? The door to heaven may be narrow, but I don't remember God telling us that we have to believe in YEC to get in...

Thanks for saving US.

The door is not mine to show you. It is possible for a person to be in unbelief about the Flood, and yet be in faith about the atonement. You can be wrong about the fact of Creation and the literal flood and still be saved, . . . but you are still wrong and in unbelief.

 

[Floodnut]

This "changing the subject" from the scientific evidence for a global flood to the Resurrection of Christ seems to be a deliberate rhetorical tactic not just to conflate the two issue but to escape the scientific evidence for the flood by trumping it with your highest card (switching metaphors for a moment).

No changing of the subject here. I am saying that I am not interested in scientific evidence when the issue that matters is the blantant rejection of the inspired word of God in Scirpture. You care about what the evidence of "science" "Proves" and I care about what Jesus believed and what I believe about the truth of his word. You too are in unbelief toward the word of God.

 

[shernren]

No changing of the subject here. I am saying that I am not interested in scientific evidence when the issue that matters is the blantant rejection of the inspired word of God in Scirpture. You care about what the evidence of "science" "Proves" and I care about what Jesus believed and what I believe about the truth of his word. You too are in unbelief toward the word of God.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2848141-the-scientific-myth-of-creationism.html

Answer what I present here and I will be convinced that I am in unbelief. It is YECism that has bowed and pandered to science in interpreting the Bible, not TEism.