Scientific proof of flood.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So you agree that the Colorado river could not have formed the grand canyon without a large water flow. The specifics are unimportant to the point and I will accept the concession.

Of course, there were times in the past when it carried much more water than it does today and it was blocked by lava dams at various times over the past few hundred thousand years.

(Referring to triblobites)
Like at the bottom of a lake where they could be easily buried and make excellent fossils.

Some lived at the bottom of the oceans, some were free swimming and some lived in intertidal zones. They are not the lowest lying fossils in the Grand Canyon however, that would be the stromatolites in some of the precambrian deposits.

You see its not only where were they but where were they that would have been most often preserved.

But somehow no modern bottom dwellers, even those that lived fixed to the bottom got buried with them. Why not?

(with regard to flying reptiles)What would you call a bat?

A flying mammal of course.

The point was high ground is not where you would have the best chance of finding fossils.

But fossils of oligocene and miocene mammals are very common. They are never found in the Grand Canyon or anywhere else were fossils of earlier organisms are common.

Very interesting that you have concluded that humans ( and the cities they built ) existed before or during the ice ages.

How did I conclude this?

What underwater cities are you talking about? Are you talking about the Black Sea flood or what?

I am sure you will change your mind when you find out the dates you are suppose to believe. The under water cities are dated at 8000 years or less by non-catastrophic dating methods.

But for now we agree.

Let's see some evidence so far you have provided nothing but assertions about underwater cities and no evidence for a global flood.

The centennial drift idea would place winter climate fossils at the equator along with tropical fossils at the poles.
Winter climate fossils have not been found at the equator, so large movements of the continents is not a possibility.

Continental Drift is well established by many factors. I suggest you study it.

Thank you, if you accept the catastrophic evidence you are one step closer.

The catastrophic evidence IS the evidence of a global flood when it is found on a mountain peak as in the picture in the starting post on this thread.



This of course is only true if the meteor striks are random.

No it is true because that many meteor strikes and volcanoes around the time of the flood would have extinguished life on earth. It has nothing to do with whether they are random on not.

If we had an encounter with one large object which either broke up or was composed of several objects to begin with then a global flood and iceages are a expected result.

But we have had encounters with many large objects in the 4.5 billion years of earth's existence and there have been many massive lava flows and super volcanoes in the last billion years. It is trying to cram all this into a young earth framework that causes the problem for the YEC myth.

Actually there have been many ice ages during the last billion years of earth's history providing yet another falsification of your young earth mythology.

Indeed they are not.

As soon as one looks at the base assumptions and realizes that the base assumptions can not be true it is understandable why the accepted dates are questioned by well informed intelligent people.

You only think the base assumptions can't be true because they falsify your myth. The evidence for multiple ice ages over many million of years is overwhelming and YEC attempts to argue against them are easily seen to be seriously flawed.

It is not my intent to say the much of what is given is not good information, however we must be careful not to forget how we have arrived to a specific conclusion and not deem the theory as some kind of inspired unchangeable truth.
To do so would define one as a religious fanatic which unfortunately neither side of the argument is immune to.

If the shoe fits....

I must complement you on your reasoning.
It both challenging and enjoyable.

Duane

Thanks. I have been studying these issues for about 20 years and I think I pretty well up on the "mainstream" YEC claims and their multiple flaws. My Ph.D. is not in geology or paleontology but I have spent quite a bit of time studying those subjects as well.

Have fun camping. I will be at a research conference for the next week so my posting time will be limited as well.
FB

 

[John16:2]

Of course, there were times in the past when it carried much more water than it does today and it was blocked by lava dams at various times over the past few hundred thousand years.

Some lived at the bottom of the oceans, some were free swimming and some lived in intertidal zones. They are not the lowest lying fossils in the Grand Canyon however, that would be the stromatolites in some of the precambrian deposits.

But somehow no modern bottom dwellers, even those that lived fixed to the bottom got buried with them. Why not?

A flying mammal of course.

But fossils of oligocene and miocene mammals are very common. They are never found in the Grand Canyon or anywhere else were fossils of earlier organisms are common.

How did I conclude this?

What underwater cities are you talking about? Are you talking about the Black Sea flood or what?
Let's see some evidence so far you have provided nothing but assertions about underwater cities and no evidence for a global flood.

Continental Drift is well established by many factors. I suggest you study it.


No it is true because that many meteor strikes and volcanoes around the time of the flood would have extinguished life on earth. It has nothing to do with whether they are random on not.

But we have had encounters with many large objects in the 4.5 billion years of earth's existence and there have been many massive lava flows and super volcanoes in the last billion years. It is trying to cram all this into a young earth framework that causes the problem for the YEC myth.



You only think the base assumptions can't be true because they falsify your myth. The evidence for multiple ice ages over many million of years is overwhelming and YEC attempts to argue against them are easily seen to be seriously flawed.

If the shoe fits....

Thanks. I have been studying these issues for about 20 years and I think I pretty well up on the "mainstream" YEC claims and their multiple flaws. My Ph.D. is not in geology or paleontology but I have spent quite a bit of time studying those subjects as well.

Have fun camping. I will be at a research conference for the next week so my posting time will be limited as well.
FB

Address the origin of vast oil deposits, as classically taught by science; "fossil fuel" being the grease from various creatures deposited in silt and decomposing, in clusters, to form underground lakes of oil. That's SCIENCE evidence of a flood, is it not?

 

[raphael_aa]

Address the origin of vast oil deposits, as classically taught by science; "fossil fuel" being the grease from various creatures deposited in silt and decomposing, in clusters, to form underground lakes of oil. That's SCIENCE evidence of a flood, is it not?

Some people have proposed coal forms from floating mats of dead plant material deposited in deep water in a short amount of time. Although not too far from the conventional explanation (dead plant material, sometimes transported), it can not explain the majority of coal deposits. Most coals are found in sedimentary rocks deposited in terrestrial river floodplains. They have river channels, levees, and fossil soil horizons. Often soil horizons are found immediately below coal seams, and these are often filled with plant roots. All these structures are similar to modern peat-forming environments. The common occurrence of rooted upright trees that can not be transported (because they have delicate rootlets embedded in the sediment) is compelling evidence that most coals form near the surface in terrestrial environments (see the "polystrate trees" above). However, even more convincing is the co-occurrence of dinosaur footprints and upright trees on the top surface of several coal seams at a Cretaceous-age locality near Price, in southeast Utah: It is impossible to interpret these deposits as formed by a single event of short duration. The plants that form coal take time to grow, coal takes time to accumulate and decay, and trees take many years to grow. There are multiple coal seams and multiple tree and footprint horizons, and this is only in one short interval of the geologic record in one area. There are many other areas of similar coal deposits (e.g., Joggins, Nova Scotia). Rather than being a significant problem for conventional geology, coal is explained quite easily by analogy to modern peat environments. Coal deposits and associated sediments are an immense problem for any interpretation involving a "global flood".

from http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Earthscience/Geology/Coal/AboutCoal/Coaldeposits/Coaldeposits.htm

 

[John16:2]

from http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Earthscience/Geology/Coal/AboutCoal/Coaldeposits/Coaldeposits.htm

Coal is dry. Coal IS NOT OIL. Explain vast underground lakes of oil originating without flood, as you claim. That response did not address oil deposits, nor debunk the classic explanation of oil deposits as "fossil fuel" from dead creatures.

 

[corvus_corax]

Address the origin of vast oil deposits, as classically taught by science; "fossil fuel" being the grease from various creatures deposited in silt and decomposing, in clusters, to form underground lakes of oil. That's SCIENCE evidence of a flood, is it not?

Grmorton...........
paging grmorton.....

In case you dont know, grmorton is a geophysicist working in the oil industry. Quite frankly, his DIRECT experience in the field (and his studies) have led him to Theistic EVOLUTION.
Why?
Well, let's quote from his profile "because the geologic data simply doesn't support young-earth creationism".
He's a christian, and apparently became one the year I was born.
Yet, as a scientist (the real thing, the one who works with REALITY, the one who has seen the evidence), he feels that Intelligent Desig....er, Creationism isnt upheld by the actual evidence.

Now, really, are you going to say that YOU are more qualified than a Christian who has actually STUDIED geophysics and SEEN the evidence at hand?

How much field work have YOU done? How many of YOUR scientific predictions, how much of YOUR studies actually apply to your day to day JOB of working in the oil industry?

Oh....do I hear "none"?

 

[Usagihunter101]

I think one huge problem we're ignoring with the Great Flood theory is that of the smallest kind. Bacteria and other Microorganisms would've had a huge feast with all of this bio-mass being dumped into the suddenly swollen oceans. We probably would've seen a huge bloom in CO2 producing, O2 consuming Aerobic animals in the oceans.

After the flood receded you would have an ocean super-saturated with Aerobic creatures that would eventually consume both the oxygen and a sizable chunk of the anaerobic organisms that produce it. The immediate effect would've been the addition of a huge amount of the greenhouse gas Carbon Dioxide. This would've heated the atmospheric temperature by dozens of degrees and made it impossible for large, complex creatures, (especially mammals like Humans, who require a huge amount of oxygen to run our big, complex brains.) to survive. This doesn't include the hardships of fitting enough food to feed two or more of every land animal now in existance into a boat, but I digress.

Now let's fast forward a few hundred years, the plankton and bacteria and other assorted microbes that had been eating all this dead matter have essentially eaten themselves out of home, there is now not enough oxygen or dead matter to further sustain this life and all the Aerobic microbes start dying off. Pretty soon we see everythign swing way back to the other way, with very few predatory microbes to "hunt" them and an abundance of sun, warmth and CO2, the Anaerobic "plant" microbes now bloom out of control, creating huge amounts of oxygen that dramatically cool the planet, plunging it into what is called a "Snowball Earth" scenario, where ice covers 100% of the Earth's surface. If the heat and O2 deprevation didn't kill Noah and his constituations, than this certainly would have. In fact that only things that probably would have survived would be the bacteria that are found in under-water volcanic vents.

In short, complex life on earth, let alone humanity, would have never been able to survive the aftermath of a global flood. Some people may think it's far fetched, but scientist's believe that it's already happened at least three times in the history of life. (And thats the complete 2 billion year history, not the abridged 6000-year version some people are using...) There's even talk of using in a controlled way (dumping controlled amounts of rare ocean nutrients like iron.) to counteract global warming.

EDIT: Oh, by the way, first post.

 

[John16:2]

Grmorton...........
paging grmorton.....

In case you dont know, grmorton is a geophysicist working in the oil industry. Quite frankly, his DIRECT experience in the field (and his studies) have led him to Theistic EVOLUTION.
Why?
Well, let's quote from his profile "because the geologic data simply doesn't support young-earth creationism".
He's a christian, and apparently became one the year I was born.
Yet, as a scientist (the real thing, the one who works with REALITY, the one who has seen the evidence), he feels that Intelligent Desig....er, Creationism isnt upheld by the actual evidence.

Now, really, are you going to say that YOU are more qualified than a Christian who has actually STUDIED geophysics and SEEN the evidence at hand?

How much field work have YOU done? How many of YOUR scientific predictions, how much of YOUR studies actually apply to your day to day JOB of working in the oil industry?

Oh....do I hear "none"?

You avoided the subject of the classic theory of the origin of fossil fuel lakes of oil, younger than coal deposits by far. Only clusters of creatures dead could produce vast underground lakes of oil sporadically. It's classic evidence of the flood.

 

[Usagihunter101]

Actually, classic evidence of a flood on the scale you're talking about would be no oil at all, as it would not have had time to form from all. Keep in mind it takes millions of years to have dead biomatter to change into oil, so really all we'd have would be a bunch of subterranian peat-bogs, at best.

 

[Valkhorn]

You avoided the subject of the classic theory of the origin of fossil fuel lakes of oil, younger than coal deposits by far. Only clusters of creatures dead could produce vast underground lakes of oil sporadically. It's classic evidence of the flood.

No avoiding was done. He just gave you an answer you didn't want to hear.

Get over it.

 

[John16:2]

No avoiding was done. He just gave you an answer you didn't want to hear.

Get over it.

His answer was about COAL, not oil. & the theory about coal doesn't account for vast underground oil deposits, for the volume & sporadic distribution.
Schools taught me that oil was from clusters of dead creatures, deposited by waves.

 

[Valkhorn]

His answer was about COAL, not oil. & the theory about coal doesn't account for vast underground oil deposits, for the volume & sporadic distribution.
Schools taught me that oil was from clusters of dead creatures, deposited by waves.

No. People gave you answers about oil in other threads that you conveniently ignored.

 

[John16:2]

No. People gave you answers about oil in other threads that you conveniently ignored.

OH? Allow me to quote ---seed.sib.com---

"Most scientists agree that oil deposits are biogenic in nature, from plants AND ANIMALS".

The massive volume of oil deposits sporadically indicates MANY animals carcasses clustered led to vast oil deposits. Still looks like waves clustered them to me! No proof it was actually dinosaurs that caused the oil, like classic teaching says, could be humans among the oil deposits instead.

 

[notto]

OH? Allow me to quote ---seed.sib.com---

"Most scientists agree that oil deposits are biogenic in nature, from plants AND ANIMALS".

The massive volume of oil deposits sporadically indicates MANY animals carcasses clustered led to vast oil deposits. Still looks like waves clustered them to me! No proof it was actually dinosaurs that caused the oil, like classic teaching says, could be humans among the oil deposits instead.

Or they formed in seas and swamps, much like we see today all across the world. No waves or global flood needed.

The majority of oil isn't from large carcasses. It is from microscopic plants and animals forming biomass - not unlike what we find in swamps and seas today.

You say that it looks like waves clustered them. What leads you to that conclusion? How does your model explain the types of rocks above and below oil sands and deposits?

Please pick an oil deposit and fully explain the geology we find there using your model. I'm guessing you can't even come close to even telling us what the geology of an oil deposit looks like. That would be a good step before claiming that they look like they were formed a particular way.

What is the geology of oil sands and deposits? What type of rock do we find above and below them? How thick are the deposits? What are the geological features we use to identify a probably source of oil? What evidence is there of these waves you speak of?

 

[John16:2]

Or they formed in seas and swamps, much like we see today all across the world. No waves or global flood needed.

The majority of oil isn't from large carcasses. It is from microscopic plants and animals forming biomass - not unlike what we find in swamps and seas today.

You say that it looks like waves clustered them. What leads you to that conclusion? How does your model explain the types of rocks above and below oil sands and deposits?

Please pick an oil deposit and fully explain the geology we find there using your model. I'm guessing you can't even come close to even telling us what the geology of an oil deposit looks like. That would be a good step before claiming that they look like they were formed a particular way.

What is the geology of oil sands and deposits? What type of rock do we find above and below them? How thick are the deposits? What are the geological features we use to identify a probably source of oil? What evidence is there of these waves you speak of?

By your logic, there SHOULD be oil everywhere there's underground water, then!

 

[raphael_aa]

His answer was about COAL, not oil. & the theory about coal doesn't account for vast underground oil deposits, for the volume & sporadic distribution.
Schools taught me that oil was from clusters of dead creatures, deposited by waves.

You have now been given several replies to your 'oil is evidence of the flood' theory. Here's another http://www.chevron.com/products/learning_center/crude/

Geologists generally agree that crude oil was formed over millions of years from the remains of tiny aquatic plants and animals that lived in ancient seas. There may be bits of brontosaurus thrown in for good measure, but petroleum owes its existence largely to one-celled marine organisms. As these organisms died, they sank to the sea bed. Usually buried with sand and mud, they formed an organic-rich layer that eventually turned to sedimentary rock. The process repeated itself, one layer covering another.

Then, over millions of years, the seas withdrew. In lakes and inland seas, a similar process took place with deposits formed of non-marine vegetation.

In some cases, the deposits that formed sedimentary rock didn't contain enough oxygen to completely decompose the organic material. Bacteria broke down the trapped and preserved residue, molecule by molecule, into substances rich in hydrogen and carbon. Increased pressure and heat from the weight of the layers above then caused a partial distillation of the organic remnants, transforming them, ever so slowly, into crude oil and natural gas.

Your argument seems to be: 'formed in water therefore global flood'. What proof do you have that all oil deposits formed at the same time? Why don't oil companies hire creationists to help them find oil?

 

[notto]

By your logic, there SHOULD be oil everywhere there's underground water, then!

Nope. That is just a silly statement that shows that you don't understand the geology of oil deposits.

I notice that you didn't try to address the questions in my post and simply avoided them with a rather silly statement.

You say that it looks like waves clustered them. What leads you to that conclusion? How does your model explain the types of rocks above and below oil sands and deposits?

Please pick an oil deposit and fully explain the geology we find there using your model. I'm guessing you can't even come close to even telling us what the geology of an oil deposit looks like. That would be a good step before claiming that they look like they were formed a particular way.

What is the geology of oil sands and deposits? What type of rock do we find above and below them? How thick are the deposits? What are the geological features we use to identify a probably source of oil? What evidence is there of these waves you speak of?

 

[John16:2]

You have now been given several replies to your 'oil is evidence of the flood' theory. Here's another http://www.chevron.com/products/learning_center/crude/



Your argument seems to be: 'formed in water therefore global flood'. What proof do you have that all oil deposits formed at the same time? Why don't oil companies hire creationists to help them find oil?

Your "random decomposition hypothesis" model says there's oil everywhere there's underground water.

 

[notto]

Your "random decomposition hypothesis" model says there's oil everywhere there's underground water.

Where does it say that? Please be specific. Point us to a book, paper, article, interview, anything from a mainstream geologist that suggests this.

You are repeating a silly statement that shows you don't even understand what you are railing against, much less the actual geology of oil finds.

You say that it looks like waves clustered them. What leads you to that conclusion? How does your model explain the types of rocks above and below oil sands and deposits?

Please pick an oil deposit and fully explain the geology we find there using your model. I'm guessing you can't even come close to even telling us what the geology of an oil deposit looks like. That would be a good step before claiming that they look like they were formed a particular way.

What is the geology of oil sands and deposits? What type of rock do we find above and below them? How thick are the deposits? What are the geological features we use to identify a probably source of oil? What evidence is there of these waves you speak of?

 

[John16:2]

Where does it say that? Please be specific. Point us to a book, paper, article, interview, anything from a mainstream geologist that suggests this.

You are repeating a silly statement that shows you don't even understand what you are railing against, much less the actual geology of oil finds.

You say that it looks like waves clustered them. What leads you to that conclusion? How does your model explain the types of rocks above and below oil sands and deposits?

Please pick an oil deposit and fully explain the geology we find there using your model. I'm guessing you can't even come close to even telling us what the geology of an oil deposit looks like. That would be a good step before claiming that they look like they were formed a particular way.

What is the geology of oil sands and deposits? What type of rock do we find above and below them? How thick are the deposits? What are the geological features we use to identify a probably source of oil? What evidence is there of these waves you speak of?

The random decomposition hypothesis means the only place that shouldn't have oil is oil rich Saudi Arabia, for lack of foliage to convert.

 

[notto]

The random decomposition hypothesis means the only place that shouldn't have oil is oil rich Saudi Arabia, for lack of foliage to convert.

Right. Keep beating that strawman.

Can you point us to the geology book you pulled this from?

Can you even describe the geology of an oil find? What do we find there? How does it show any 'wave' action?