and fossil graveyards, etc. that show multiple fossils which appear to be thrown together violently."appear"? Please explain what you mean?
3)Hydrodynamic sorting and deposition can explain the fossil record quite well.
Nope.
It is *crucial* to remember that a world wide flood is not a calm uniform event. Eventually, all of the mountains were covered, but during the initial stages there would be a multitude of local floods getting worse and worse over time. It is to be expected that there would be layers of silt deposition upon layers as the waters built up over time, washing over and receding, time and time again,
In thousands or millions of annual cycles? How many millions of years did this flood last?
until they were finally covered everywhere.
But then, many of these layers are rising upward into mountains, meaning that the water would have had to run uphill in many places (or rather, everywhere where we find mountains).
It is also important to remember that there are a huge variety of factors which affect sedimentation rates. The concentration of dissolved solids, temperature, speed of flow, etc., all affect how layers are laid down and can be affected easily. One would expect lots and lots of layer variation in a huge flood.
And yet we see astonishing regularity in large areas and consistency in fossil presence in the corresponding layers worldwide.
dealt with in this tread, incl. by you, so I will leave that one.
5)Again, while there is much more research to be done, the dynamics of a global flood are hugely varied. Some areas would be calm, others raging, others covered and uncovered repeatedly.
So your "hydrologic sorting" would have to vary accordingly, right? yet we don't see such inconsistency, nothing that fits your claim of these multiple, varied outcomes, in the fossil record. On the other hand, temporal sorting fits the record extremely well. So this is a case where you are trying for the more unlikely cause and have to explain away a lot of features in order to "fit" the data to your conclusion rather than look at the conclusion that actually fits the data.
What you said in the beginning of the tread was this:
"I am totally disenheartened by the level of discourse around here. I desire intelligent, respectful interchange with other believers. I believe in the iron sharpens iron concept, and I desire to grow and learn even if it means I need to change my opinion about something in particular. "
If you want to learn, if you want intelligent and respectful interchange, then you need to actually show such willingness and accept where the data doesn't fit your model. What I instead see you doing is to have certainly claims designed to fit your model, rejecting all other data. When your claims then are challenged and showed to simply not fit, then instead of deciding to learn from this, you instead merely discard that data you originally used as not valid anymore and merely dump it into the unusable data pile, going on with the exact same claim, just excluding what was not valid. That is NOT learning, that is NOT respectful. That is deceptive. Your disrespect for us is patent in such behavior.
Please do not assume a calm progression of waters everywhere.
And what of the areas where there really is no evidence for floods at all?
There would be areas where water trapped early, only to be let out whether before or after the flood. Many YECs believe the Grand Canyon, for example, was formed quickly after the flood as an inland sea found a path to the ocean.
And while this certainly is a BELIEF, there is no evidence in support of it and lots of evidence against it. So we are back to you insisting on fitting reality into your belief rather than taking an honest look at the actual evidence. As long as you insist on your unique belief as having to MUST be the fact, merely discarding data a it gets shown erroneously, then you are NOT engaging in "
intelligent, respectful interchange."
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you can't respect our posts, especially when you directly are discussing scientific evidence, then you should NOT expect any respect back. Right now, I see your "debate" tactic, if not you, as very dishonest. If it continues, now that I have drawn your attention to it, then I must conclude that it is deliberate.
However, modeling and understanding all of the dynamics of such a flood is in its infancy there is a LOT more research to be done.
As long as there is any actual evidence, yes. Unfortunately, creationists claims and beliefs don't fit what the evidence actually is and never has. So trying to prove something merely to fit beliefs is really not honest science.
The mechanics for the formation of the fossil record is one of the key discussions for this group. To a YEC, the geologic column stands in amazing tribute to a global catastrophic flood.
"tribute," perhaps, but based solely and purely on speculation in order to selectively fit selective data to fit a preconceived belief. Obviously, that has nothing to do with actual evidence, and as such, unless the YEC cease claiming any actual scientific significance to this belief, they are dishonest.
To a TE, I would guess theyd say it stands in tribute to millions of years of repeated localized events.
Nope, it doesn't stand in tribute to anything. Science is not about tribute in any way. It is about looking at the evidence and what it shows of the past and current.