Local Flood

notto · Jul 1, 2005

A4C said:
I am still wondering if scientists hae ever considered what I have mentioned in the above post. I would be interested to hear if any have and of any reference to documentation on the issue.

It was falsified over 150 years ago so yes, they have considered it. They do not take the premise of a world wide flood or your global catastrophy scenario seriously because the evidence falsifies the notion that one ever happened. The evidence that geologists find is inconsistant with a global flood and falsifies it.

Why would the beat a dead horse because of your religious ideas? They deal with the actual evidence that is found in the field and if a global flood would explain it, they would use that explanation. It doesn't so they don't.

Your scenarios don't explain things like the footprints, roots system, animal burrows, glacial morains, buried river beds, meteorites in the fossil record, stratification of fossils, preservation of desert landscapes, coral reefs and limestone, layers of lava and evidence of volcanic erruptions throughout the column, etc.

They might as well ask if there was ever a global sandstorm that killed everything and created what we find in a year. The evidence for that would be as strong as the evidence for a global flood or any other catastrophy like you are asking about - mainly, none.

A4C · Jul 1, 2005

notto said:
It was falsified over 150 years ago so yes, they have considered it. They do not take the premise of a world wide flood or your global catastrophy scenario seriously because the evidence falsifies the notion that one ever happened. The evidence that geologists find is inconsistant with a global flood and falsifies it.

Why would the beat a dead horse because of your religious ideas? They deal with the actual evidence that is found in the field and if a global flood would explain it, they would use that explanation. It doesn't so they don't.

Your scenarios don't explain things like the footprints, roots system, animal burrows, glacial morains, buried river beds, meteorites in the fossil record, stratification of fossils, preservation of desert landscapes, coral reefs and limestone, layers of lava and evidence of volcanic erruptions throughout the column, etc.

They might as well ask if there was ever a global sandstorm that killed everything and created what we find in a year. The evidence for that would be as strong as the evidence for a global flood or any other catastrophy like you are asking about - mainly, none.

I see so todays scientists are holding on to research done 150 years ago. Does that happen in the field of medicine as well or is it a discipline specific phenomenon. As for what my scenario is said not to explain -on the contrary it would satisfy every one .
When the lack of research into a global flood is highlighed for it's gross incompetance that it demonstrates, the suspicions of YEC's is only further enhanced

notto · Jul 1, 2005

A4C said:
I see so todays scientists are holding on to research done 150 years ago. Does that happen in the field of medicine as well or is it a discipline specific phenomenon. As for what my scenario is said not to explain -on the contrary it would satisfy every one .
When the lack of research into a global flood is highlighed for it's gross incompetance that it demonstrates, the suspicions of YEC's is only further enhanced

No, we have been collecting more and more evidence over the last 150 years. None of which points to anything you suggest, otherwise, it would be used as an explanation. What the evidence does point to is things that you ignore because they conflict with your religious views. Things such as ice ages and glaciation and an old age for the eart. A global flood continues to be falsified with each new find.

Your scenario doesn't explain specific and discreet pieces of evidence that we find because you never address them.

How does your scenario explain 15 feet of dinosaur egg nests that we find in the fossil record? How does it explain the preservation of animal burrows, termite mounds and root systems within the column? How does it explain coral reefs and limestone? Modern geology can explain them but the falsified idea of a global flood isn't used because it can't explain them. They directly conflict with the conclusion of a global flood.

Can you pick one specific and discrete piece of evidence that supports a global flood and explain how it does so? Broad claims of 'lots of dead' stuff won't do it because where we find it and how we find it doesn't match with what we would expect in a global catastrophe. Point us to a specific geologic formation, piece of evidence, fossil find and support its place in a world that suffered a global catastrophy or flood.

How does your model explain lava flows inbetween layers of sediment that shows no signs of being produced underwater? We know what lava produced underwater looks like so we know that the lave flows we find were not produced under water.

You are hanging onto a dead model with no explainatory power when looking at specific and discreet pieces of evidence. Your model doesn't explain what is actually found and your comments only address a caricature model of it. When confronted with real evidence, it falls apart.

A4C · Jul 1, 2005

Okay let us just take one of your debuncts apparently of the scientific community that you represent

notto said:
How does it explain the preservation of animal burrows, .

So what you are saying is that an animal burrow can become covered in a layer of cosmic dust forming one of the strata layers and although the animal that made the burrow might have lived for say 20 years max his burrow would stay intact for 100's of thousands of years while it got immortalised in solid rock.

Contrast this with the scenario of a flooding of the land where the burrow was made and covering with multiple layers of sediment all within a space of one year.
Now if the same scientist who believes the first and says the second is ridiculus i would suggest that he have his degree revoked for fraudulent behaviour and any financial support he received from the public purse for doing such reseach and coming to such a conclusion be paid back

notto · Jul 1, 2005

A4C said:
Okay let us just take one of your debuncts apparently of the scientific community that you represent

So what you are saying is that an animal burrow can become covered in a layer of cosmic dust forming one of the strata layers and although the animal that made the burrow might have lived for say 20 years max his burrow would stay intact for 100's of thousands of years while it got immortalised in solid rock.

Contrast this with the scenario of a flooding of the land where the burrow was made and covering with multiple layers of sediment all within a space of one year.
Now if the same scientist who believes the first and says the second is ridiculus i would suggest that he have his degree revoked for fraudulent behaviour and any financial support he received from the public purse for doing such reseach and coming to such a conclusion be paid back

Actually, the burrows, roots, termite nests, bird nests, footprints, etc (like the dinosaur tracks we have been discussing) are IN and THROUGHOUT the sediment layers that were supposedly laid down by your flood. If your claim is that they were laid down before the flood then covered, it points to the problem with your claims. Does that mean that all of the material below these burrows, root systems, and termite mounds was laid down before the flood? You keep refusing to answer this question.

The burrows show us that the layer was not laid down at the same time as those below it and those above it and that there were dozens, hundreds, or thousands of years of life taking place in the layer before it was covered. Just like the layers below it. The burrows are dozens of feet down and show us a landscape where they are a few feet below the ground horizon at the time they were made and covered by dozens of feet of sediment after they were abandoned. They also show us that they were not covered by flooding because they are not filled in with sediment that is water based.

How can we tell that a layer was laid down by a flood? Can you point us to such a layer? Make sure to explain the layers above it and below it in your scenario. Include the fossils and geologic features we find in these layers in your explanation.

Your scenario does not explain the evidence. You continue to avoid it.

A4C · Jul 1, 2005

notto said:
Actually, the burrows, roots, termite nests, bird nests, footprints, etc (like the dinosaur tracks we have been discussing) are IN and THROUGHOUT the sediment layers that were supposedly laid down by your flood. If your claim is that they were laid down before the flood then covered, it points to the problem with your claims. Does that mean that all of the material below these burrows, root systems, and termite mounds was laid down before the flood? You keep refusing to answer this question.

The burrows show us that the layer was not laid down at the same time as those below it and those above it and that there were dozens, hundreds, or thousands of years of life taking place in the layer before it was covered. Just like the layers below it. The burrows are dozens of feet down and show us a landscape where they are a few feet below the ground horizon at the time they were made and covered by dozens of feet of sediment after they were abandoned. They also show us that they were not covered by flooding because they are not filled in with sediment that is water based.

How can we tell that a layer was laid down by a flood? Can you point us to such a layer? Make sure to explain the layers above it and below it in your scenario. Include the fossils and geologic features we find in these layers in your explanation.

Your scenario does not explain the evidence. You continue to avoid it.

Please give me details of documentation of this "find" regarding the multiple burrows.

notto · Jul 1, 2005

A4C said:
Please give me details of documentation of this "find" regarding the multiple burrows.

Paleosoils cannot be explained by the global flood.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/paleosol.htm

A4C · Jul 1, 2005

notto said:
Paleosoils cannot be explained by the global flood.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/paleosol.htm

There certainly isn't anything in that link ie primary data of animal burrows in different layers , that would support your previous assertions. Maybe you could give it another go or am I to assume you have no evidence at all?

notto · Jul 1, 2005

A4C said:
There certainly isn't anything in that link ie primary data of animal burrows in different layers , that would support your previous assertions. Maybe you could give it another go or am I to assume you have no evidence at all?

The link is well sourced and documented. You can look up the additional information from there. It shows the evidence of burrows, tree roots, and mature soils and animals and plants living in the soils that cannot be explained by a global flood.

The global flood does not explain paleosoils.

I'll provide more information if you start providing your sources for claims such as the eastern coast of the US not having sediment layers.

Burrows in paleosols are well documented and unexplainable by a global flood. Of course I expect you to ignore this evidence and simply say they don't exist, kind of like you did with the ice age and glaciation

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/se...=10.1046/j.1365-3091.2000.00274.x&cookieSet=1
http://www.palaeoentomolog.ru/New/ecology.html
http://www.myriapoda.org/diplopoda/millipede_fossils.html

I haven't seen you provide one single link to any of the stuff you talk about.

Why don't you pick a particular geological feature, artifact, fossil, area, or piece of evidence and explain it in detail using the flood model. You haven't done any of that yet. Does your model lake the ability to explain things like paleosols?

notto · Jul 1, 2005

So, were these burrows created before or after the flood? If they were before, the we can assume that anything below them is pre-flood, right? Where did the layers they are dug into come from? If after, how did they get covered and filled in on dry land so quickly?

http://www.proctormuseum.us/Nebraska/Nebraska%20Fossils/Terrestrial%20Beaver%20Dens/Paleocastor.htm

The global flood does not explain trace fossils in the fossil record.

A4C · Jul 1, 2005

notto said:
So, were these burrows created before or after the flood? If they were before, the we can assume that anything below them is pre-flood, right? Where did the layers they are dug into come from? If after, how did they get covered and filled in on dry land so quickly?

I cant believe that you profess to know something about science and ask a question like that
Where do you think anything beneath the flood come from. It was there from creation . What do you think the plants that the dinosaurs ate , grew in.
Now could you please show me a link that specifically shows primary data about multiple animal burrows in the sediment layers of the flood.

notto · Jul 1, 2005

A4C said:
I cant believe that you profess to know something about science and ask a question like that
Where do you think anything beneath the flood come from I was there from creation . What do you think the plants that the dinosaurs ate , grew in.
Now could you please show me a link that specifically shows primary data about multiple animal burrows in the sediment layers of the flood.

So, we can assume that any material below these burrows is pre flood if they were covered by the flood, right? Yes or No.

If they were after the flood what were those beavers doing living in the middle of the flood sediment?

You seem to be avoiding the question. I expect that soon you will pull out the big stick, call evolutionists evil, and abandon the thread. (I'm sensing a pattern here).

You have been given several links that are referenced well. The rest of the information is in books and journals so you might have to dig that up yourself. You can start with google and go from there. You are just avoiding the evidence again. These things exist.

Can you point me to primary sources that say there are no sediment layers on the east coast and that glaciers and the ice age are fabrications? You have made several claims that you have failed to support with ANY references and now you are asking me for primary references (which generally are not available online)?

You demanding sources is rich. You have provided exactly 0 references or sources for your claims.

The flood cannot explain the burrows and paleosoils you have been given references to.

Why don't you pick a particular geological feature, artifact, fossil, area, or piece of evidence and explain it in detail using the flood model. You haven't done any of that yet. Does your model lack the ability to explain things like paleosols?

A4C · Jul 1, 2005

notto said:
So, we can assume that any material below these burrows is pre flood if they were covered by the flood, right? Yes or No.

Can you explain why the burrows themselves cannot be pre flood?

What do you know about what is underneath the burrows in the picture ?
How do you expect me to comment simply by having such sketchy information?

Dr.GH · Jul 1, 2005

Glenn Morton has a number of articles that fill the bill.

"While the Flood Rages, Termites Dig, Dinosaurs Dance and Cicadas Sing"

"Tracks and Raindrop, Hail and Ice Impressions Demonstrates Slow Deposition"

Here is the link to his index.

Dr.GH · Jul 1, 2005

Here is one more, "Texas Caves and the Flood"

notto · Jul 1, 2005

A4C said:
Can you explain why the burrows themselves cannot be pre flood?

What do you know about what is underneath the burrows in the picture ?
How do you expect me to comment simply by having such sketchy information?

You have been making claims about geology and about what the flood can and can't explain. Now you seem to be admitting that you really have no idea what is found in the earth itself.

Why don't you pick a particular geological feature, artifact, fossil, area, or piece of evidence and explain it in detail using the flood model. You haven't done any of that yet. Does your model lack the ability to explain things?

notto · Jul 1, 2005

A4C said:
Can you explain why the burrows themselves cannot be pre flood?

It's your model. Are they pre flood? If they are, then we can assume that anything below them was there before the flood, right?

If they are after the flood, then we can assume that everything above them happened after the flood, right?

See, the problem is, there is no indication above or below these that there ever was a global flood. Things like this and the other trace fossils that have been brought to your attention (dinosaur nests, footprints in coal, burrows, termite mounds, etc) exist in almost every layer that you would like to contribute to the flood. The flood can't explain how they got there.

Can you point to a layer that was created by the flood. Prove a source for your claim.

Perhaps you should aquaint yourself better with what we find in the ground and geology in general before making claims about what is or is not there.

There are sediment layers on the east coast. Did you ever retract that silly statement?

A4C · Jul 1, 2005

Dr.GH said:
Glenn Morton has a number of articles that fill the bill.

"While the Flood Rages, Termites Dig, Dinosaurs Dance and Cicadas Sing"

"Tracks and Raindrop, Hail and Ice Impressions Demonstrates Slow Deposition"

Here is the link to his index.

Thanks for your links with wonderful pictures showing the effects of a catastrophic flood on a global scale. It certainly confirms that the environment can be devastated and rearranged dramatically by natural diasters. The Asian tsunami was evidence of that albeit on a miniscule scale compared to the flood of Noah.
The nice pics for one thing show that receeding flood waters can certainly rearrange nicely put down sediment layers and "plant" things seemingly that dont fit there. At least flood geology has an answer where multi million year evolution struggles and all sorts of falsities have to be promoted to answer the most basic of questions

notto · Jul 1, 2005

A4C said:
Thanks for your links with wonderful pictures showing the effects of a catastrophic flood on a global scale. It certainly confirms that the environment can be devastated and rearranged dramatically by natural diasters. The Asian tsunami was evidence of that albeit on a miniscule scale compared to the flood of Noah.
The nice pics for one thing show that receeding flood waters can certainly rearrange nicely put down sediment layers and "plant" things seemingly that dont fit there. At least flood geology has an answer where multi million year evolution struggles and all sorts of falsities have to be promoted to answer the most basic of questions

Yep, you don't disappoint. See you later A4C.

Again, your claims are hollow, unsupported, fail to address the evidence we have, and unrealistic.

You are a fantastic creationist.

A4C · Jul 1, 2005

notto said:
You are a fantastic creationist.

Thank you :o

Local Flood

Legend

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Legend

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Legend

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Legend

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Legend

Legend

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Legend

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Doc WinAce fan

Doc WinAce fan

Legend

Legend

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Legend

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency