• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Fossil Record Observation

FutureAndAHope

Just me
Site Supporter
Aug 30, 2008
6,764
3,101
Australia
Visit site
✟887,857.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How could there be ash in the air if the world was subjected to a global flood?! How? What mechanism would project ash, a byproduct of a volcanic eruption or catastrophic impact, if the world was covered in water?

Creationist model do expect volcanic activity leading up to the flood. How would God push up or break up the sea beds as the bible said he did without volcanic activity.

Also if you read up the fossil record you will see evidence of volcanic activity in many places.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,767.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single

But a global flood would not show give any clear indication of volcanic ash covering dead animals, creating fossils.
The exact opposite of what we see!
 
Upvote 0

FutureAndAHope

Just me
Site Supporter
Aug 30, 2008
6,764
3,101
Australia
Visit site
✟887,857.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But a global flood would not show give any clear indication of volcanic ash covering dead animals, creating fossils.
The exact opposite of what we see!

A creationist model would expect traces of volcanic material in slowly rising flood waters. Why would you say there would be none.

A slow rising flood would be filled with sediment the volcanic debris would find its way into these layers.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
41,914
45,028
Los Angeles Area
✟1,002,985.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
A slow rising flood would be filled with sediment the volcanic debris would find its way into these layers.

Perhaps, but they would look like flood deposits, not volcanic deposits.

Any ideas about the plants?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
A creationist model would expect traces of volcanic material in slowly rising flood waters. Why would you say there would be none.

A slow rising flood would be filled with sediment the volcanic debris would find its way into these layers.
But we do not see that sort of deposition nor erosion. Did you forget your failure with the embedded meanders at Goosenecks State Park? We barely got into that and you lost.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single


And we can date this activity. Over 99% of it happened to long ago to be caused by your flood.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,767.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
A creationist model would expect traces of volcanic material in slowly rising flood waters. Why would you say there would be none.

A slow rising flood would be filled with sediment the volcanic debris would find its way into these layers.

@essentialsaltes said it: if there was volcanic ash mixed in with a slow rising flood, it would look like regular flood deposits, not volcanic deposits.
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The obvious question is if fossils are sorted by ability to escape flood waters. That raises problems as modern trees seem to be better climbers than raptors under that explanation.
 
Reactions: Paulos23
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The obvious question is if fossils are sorted by ability to escape flood waters. That raises problems as modern trees seem to be better climbers than raptors under that explanation.
You have heard of "ents" haven't you?
 
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,795
✟236,977.00
Faith
Seeker
 
Upvote 0

homohabilis117

Chew Manioc
Feb 22, 2016
126
26
United States
✟23,350.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship

Habilis respects views, but thinks flood geology wrong. Above meme raises valid point. But problem bigger than elephant vs pterodactyl. Why no grass in lower fossil record? Or flowering plants? Why no pollen alongside older strata that have pre-flowering plants and big ferns? If flowers alive before flood, lower strata should at least have pollen, if not blossoms. But all over world, invariably, no pollen or flowers have ever found in lower strata. Habilis sees this as big problem for worldwide flood. But again, respects views and thanks for post.
*chews manioc*
 
Reactions: lasthero
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
72
Chicago
✟131,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married

This should be a fabricated correlation.
Geologic slip rate is an average value over a long time. The GPS measured rate is an instant value. At the moment of slip, the GPS could measure 30000 mm/yr slip rate over a place where the geologic slip may be averaged as 6 mm/yr.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
72
Chicago
✟131,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married

There is no ... . Of course not.
But there was.
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,338
1,559
77
England
✟256,526.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
Humans are more capable climbers that most animals so would be able to scale cliffs, and other out crops, accounting for their late arrival in the strata.

In fact human beings are very vulnerable to floods, partly because human settlements tend to be built near to rivers (we need a supply of water), and because we tend to stay in our homes until it is too late to leave.

Also, if you imagine trying to escape from a flood at night, in torrential rain and complete darkness, particularly if you were pregnant or hampered by young children, you may have have second thoughts about our ancestors' ability to keep their heads above water longer than other animals.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
72
Chicago
✟131,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married

"but it does mean for a meander to form the rate of flow must be slow."

That is not right.
If you like to know why, ask.
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,338
1,559
77
England
✟256,526.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
At the very bottom you would expect to find large animals that either could not swim, or had trouble supporting their weight (such as dinosaurs), which we do see.

Crocodiles can swim, and their fossils occur in Mesozoic rocks, along with the dinosaurs.
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,338
1,559
77
England
✟256,526.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
but not the Dino birds (avian's) [why? they can fly, for a while, or move quicker to higher ground].

Have you ever lived near the sea? I have, and I have seen a beach strewn with the skeletons of birds after quite an ordinary storm.
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,653
1,812
✟312,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The reason I am here is to have my ideas challenged and put to the test.

What's your reasoning behind that? I mean, are you willing to have your ideas refuted, to learn something new, to change your mind in the light of new evidence, or, are you hold tight to your ideas no matter what, and you'll be mental gymnastics on steroids, trying to justify your ideas?

We get chest beaters here on a regular basis. They think they got something to prove. They're the ones who, no matter how much evidence and reasoning to the contrary, they will not budge. They are myopically focused and will not change, regardless of all the rest.

We also get sincere and rational people here, who honestly want to get a better understanding of things. They're the ones who learn, who's questions are sincere, and who learn from their mistakes. Science works the same way. If a hypothesis fails the reviews and tests, it's back to the drawing board with new knowledge.


So, which one are you?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0