The list of extinctions compared to the list of 'evolved' organisms

[TasManOfGod]

I prefer to look at what the text says and try to understand that, rather than base my interpretation on what I need it to say to deal with other problems wit interpretations. In othe words, just because you need an explanation for the where the water came from, it doesn't mean this passage has to tell you.

Yes it a bit too smart of God to allow His Word to line up with reality isn't it?

Of course I don't have a problem with all that water since I don't think the passage is describing a global flood or that the water had to cover Everest.

You seem a bit confused here. It seems that you want to understand what the text says but you dont think "water covering mountains" actially means water covering mountains or that "all living creatures on the face of the earth" actually means all living creatures on the face of the earth. I dont get from where you are coming.

 

[Assyrian]

Yes it a bit too smart of God to allow His Word to line up with reality isn't it?

Aren't springs and artesian wells gushing in a downpour real too? Just because you think the fountains of the deep line up with a particular aspect of your idea of reality, it doesn't mean it is what God was talking about there. The text could still be saying something completely different.

You seem a bit confused here. It seems that you want to understand what the text says but you dont think "water covering mountains" actially means water covering mountains or that "all living creatures on the face of the earth" actually means all living creatures on the face of the earth. I dont get from where you are coming.

The word translated 'mountains' can just as easily be translated 'hills' and the word for 'earth' more often refers to a region, a particular 'land'. Just look at the what 'the face of the whole earth' means in Exodus 10:15 For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt. It just meant Egypt was covered with locusts, not the whole planet. What the text of the flood describes could just as easily be a local region where the waves washed over all the highest hills in the land.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Aren't springs and artesian wells gushing in a downpour real too? Just because you think the fountains of the deep line up with a particular aspect of your idea of reality, it doesn't mean it is what God was talking about there. The text could still be saying something completely different.


The word translated 'mountains' can just as easily be translated 'hills' and the word for 'earth' more often refers to a region, a particular 'land'. Just look at the what 'the face of the whole earth' means in Exodus 10:15 For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt. It just meant Egypt was covered with locusts, not the whole planet. What the text of the flood describes could just as easily be a local region where the waves washed over all the highest hills in the land.

God bless you in your quest to rightly divide the Word of truth.
It is strange really. You accuse me of observing the things of creation and trying to assimilate it to God's Word, whereas you take the word of atheistic scientists and try and make the Bible fit what they say.
Is it not written that the wisdom of God is foolishness to man (and vice versa)

 

[Assyrian]

God bless you in your quest to rightly divide the Word of truth.

Thank you

It is strange really. You accuse me of observing the things of creation and trying to assimilate it to God's Word, whereas you take the word of atheistic scientists and try and make the Bible fit what they say.

Hardly, I don't try to make Genesis 1-3 fit science do I? Once you stop trying to fit the bible to your world view, it is much easier to look at what it actually says and what God was speaking to people through his word. If you try to make the text fit what you think it should say, isn't there a danger that all you let the word of God speak to you is your own ideas you read into it in the first place?

Even though I showed you the language used can describe a local event, you seem pretty attached to the idea of a global flood, why do you think that is?

Is it not written that the wisdom of God is foolishness to man (and vice versa)

Isn't that talking about the cross? 1Cor 1:18 For the message about Christ's death on the cross is nonsense to those who are being lost; but for us who are being saved it is God's power.

 

[valkyree]

A flash flood will do that, so will natural traps like tar pits, deep mud, or drying up watering hole. What you need to show is that these are part of a global flood, not ordinary local events. The problem is these fossils beds are isolated not global, and they occur in vastly different geological strata, in other areas outside the concentrated fossil bed and in the strata in between, life carries on as normal with evidence of soil formation, burrows, footprints, plant roots, termite nests, dinosaur nests, and in lakes and seas the slow deposition of silt that can only occur in very calm water. There is no evidence for a single layer of erosion and flood sediment spanning the globe.

flash floods will not rapidly bury millions of salt-water fish or clams or other sea creature into a single thick sediment accumulation and then somehow push it up high onto a continent

a global flood of Biblical proportions would not be expected to produce a single layer of flood sediment - what it would create is many layers of sediment in all sorts of configurations

it would also create tons of huge lakes up high on recently uplifted plateaus - some of which would later cause more localized flooding when their loose sediment debris dams were breached such as what happened to Lake Missoula in Montana when it's waters created the scablands of eastern Washington State

there are enough very thick accumulations of global sediment full of billions of plant and animal remains to satisfy the requirements of a monstrous global flood

 

[valkyree]

How can you call the OP an excellent post and in the very next line agree with the point I made refuting it?


A flash flood will do that, so will natural traps like tar pits, deep mud, or drying up watering hole. What you need to show is that these are part of a global flood, not ordinary local events. The problem is these fossils beds are isolated not global, and they occur in vastly different geological strata, in other areas outside the concentrated fossil bed and in the strata in between, life carries on as normal with evidence of soil formation, burrows, footprints, plant roots, termite nests, dinosaur nests, and in lakes and seas the slow deposition of silt that can only occur in very calm water. There is no evidence for a single layer of erosion and flood sediment spanning the globe.

which animals are stupid enough to walk into tar or mud and get stuck and die? over and over again?

have you looked at any tar sediments? such as the famous ones at La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles

what you will find is many different kinds of animals and many different species of plants all tangled up with each other and broken up into many pieces - you do not find single animals who got caught individually in the tar

this tangled mess of plant and animal debris of many different species also shows evidence of being transported to it's present destination - none of the creatures died at the site of the deposit - they were caught up in a flood and died by drowning while they were being swept away by tons of water

if you don't believe me go look at the deposits for yourself - when you look at the actual deposit of broken and tangled debris it is clear the evolutionary story of each animal dying individually by getting caught in the tar is ridiculous

 

[valkyree]

Blame Whitcomb and Morris then, that was the idea in their book the Genesis Flood that kick started modern creationism. The thing with floods is they leave an awful mess behind, easily identifiable in the geology. There should be a worldwide unconformity consisting of either an erosion surface or flood detrius. Such a tremendous worldwide event should be unmistakable in the geological strata, completely different from normal geological features.

it is unmistakable if you look at global sediments and stay away from the evolutionary literature

but don't expect a single easily identifiable unconformity that goes on uninterrupted around the entire planet with a big sign on it that says ''this is the global flood unconformity''

as to whatever ''normal geological features'' would be - if the earth is young and if a single catastrophic series of closely spaced events such as a global flood did occur and then the earth settled back down again then global flood deposits would be the dominant sedimentary geologic feature left behind - they would be ''normal'' and they would be everywhere - as indeed they are

 

[valkyree]

Isn't the Grand Canyon evidence enough? And that is only one of many gouged out canyons around the world. Additionally what about the shells and fish fossils found on high mountains - not good enough Flood detrius eh? It seems that a flood that covered mountains is too difficult to contemplate the damage so it gets trivilised to just some local flooding.

yes it is to someone who knows what to look for

tons of water could have carved out the Grand Canyon shortly after being deposited and before the huge pile of flood sediment was hardened and cemented into solid rock

today it is solid rock and so this is hard to imagine - especially to someone who has been taught an evolutionary scenario for his entire lifetime

but to the east of Grand Canyon there is evidence of a huge remnant lake left behind as the flood waters were receding and if this lake had a soft sediment dam that weas breached and caused a huge secondary local flood it could have carved out the canyon and left behind the small undersized stream that is on the canyon today

Steve Austin PhD and other geologists have studied the evidence left behind of this remnant lake - and the entire Basin and Range country of western Utah and all of Nevada and eastern CA also shows tons of evidence of many other remnant lakes left behind after the great flood - so the existence of this remant lake is reasonable

 

[valkyree]

Isn't the Grand Canyon evidence enough? And that is only one of many gouged out canyons around the world. Additionally what about the shells and fish fossils found on high mountains - not good enough Flood detrius eh? It seems that a flood that covered mountains is too difficult to contemplate the damage so it gets trivilised to just some local flooding.

exactly right - the Himalaya and the Alps are full of ocean mud and billions of ocean creatures - no local flooding caused all those creatures to be rapidly buried alive and then pushed up to almost 30,000 feet above sea level

 

[valkyree]

The Grand Canyon was just created by the Colorado River.

Fossils found on mountains are explained by tectonic plate theory.

Of course, the obvious questions is that if there was a single flood covering the whole planet, where did all the water go?

it went into the newly deepend ocean basins that cover 3/4 of the earth's surface

the ocean basins collapsed when the fountains of the great deep mentioned in Genesis exploded out all the trapped subterranean water that caused the flooding

prior to the flood the ocean basins were shallow

 

[valkyree]

As florida has pointed out, the fossil bearing strata look just like they were deposited on the floor of a sea, where shell fish live, turned into sedimentary rock, and then raised up to form these mountain regions. We can still measure mountain ranges like the Himalayas being raised up and track the movement of the Indian subcontinent pushing into the Tibetan plateau.

.

Florida is a piece of Africa where identical limestones are found and it has nothing to do with the geology of the rest of North America

The early Himalaya may have rose much more rapidly than it is rising today - during a cataclysmic global flood - which may have been the beginning of the crust of the earth breaking up into different plates - plate movement would be expected to be much more rapid than it is today

the past was different from the present - and the present is not the key to the past as modern geology claims

 

[valkyree]

What do you think it is about fossil fuels that is evidence of a global flood?

just about every single basin big and small around the entire planet is full of tons of decayed metamorphosed plant material that is now either oil or natural gas or coal or some other form of fossil fuel

and there is no such thing happening today

 

[TasManOfGod]

it went into the newly deepend ocean basins that cover 3/4 of the earth's surface

the ocean basins collapsed when the fountains of the great deep mentioned in Genesis exploded out all the trapped subterranean water that caused the flooding

prior to the flood the ocean basins were shallow

Actually you have to be a bit more precise here lest your explanation be torn apart. What is important is that after the initial release of water and the flood waters rose there was a period where the level stayed stable. That means that these "voids" were "closed" I could imagine that what happened is that the earth crust broke through -perhaps because of heat pressure and the water gushed out through a relatively small opening emptying the void. Then with all the debris and silt trying to flow back in, the opening could get blocked. Then the debris began to accumulate on top of this thin layer of crust finally coming to a point of total collapse due to the mass on top of it. This would cause a rapid inrush of water and debris causing powerful receeding water forces and forming the basis for the fossil fuel deposits.

 

[Assyrian]

flash floods will not rapidly bury millions of salt-water fish or clams or other sea creature into a single thick sediment accumulation and then somehow push it up high onto a continent

Living in the sea will do that though. And plate tectonics can push the sea bed up. We can measure the rate the Indian subcontinent is pushing into the Tibetan plateau and the rate the Himalayas are still being pushed up by it.

a global flood of Biblical proportions would not be expected to produce a single layer of flood sediment - what it would create is many layers of sediment in all sorts of configurations

You would still get a clear horizon separating flood strata from the geology from before the flood and another horizon for sediments formed after the flood. The flood is such a cataclysmic event and so totally different from anything before or after, strata formed by the flood should be easily identifiable. Unfortunately it is not and creationist differ wildly over which strata are supposed to have been laid down by the flood.

it would also create tons of huge lakes up high on recently uplifted plateaus - some of which would later cause more localized flooding when their loose sediment debris dams were breached such as what happened to Lake Missoula in Montana when it's waters created the scablands of eastern Washington State

Which you would also get from retreating icecaps at the end of an ice age. What is interesting is that scablands show us what the erosion from massive floods look like.

Channeled Scablands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
River valleys formed by erosion normally have a 'V' cross section, and glaciers leave a 'U' cross section. The Channeled Scablands have a rectangular cross section and are spread over immense areas of eastern Washington. They exhibit a unique drainage pattern that appears to have an entrance in the northeast and an exit in the southwest. The eroded channels also show an anastomosing, or braided, appearance. There are also immense potholes and ripple marks, much larger than those found on ordinary rivers. When first studied, no known theories could explain the origin of these features.
​

That isn't what we see in the Grand canyon.

there are enough very thick accumulations of global sediment full of billions of plant and animal remains to satisfy the requirements of a monstrous global flood

It isn't the number or the size of them, it is whether they are all together between two geological horizons, and whether within this region, all signs of life are gone. Unfortunately it isn't and we find signs of life footprints, nests, roots, burrows, soil formation, all though the geological strata.

 

[Assyrian]

which animals are stupid enough to walk into tar or mud and get stuck and die? over and over again?

They are usually only stupid enough to do it once But in answer to your question, carnivores. These particular hazards are referred to as 'carnivore traps'. You get the occasional herbivore wandering in by accident, it is their dead bodies that attract the carnivores, and dead carnivores attract other carnivores. The result is that these fossil beds skew the normal ratio of herbivores to carnivores, instead of being say 5% carnivores, in a predator trap carnivores make up 75% or even 90% of the fossils. Other hazards like swollen rivers or drying up water holes don't discriminate, and you find the larger number of herbivores you would expect in an ecosystem.

have you looked at any tar sediments? such as the famous ones at La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles

what you will find is many different kinds of animals and many different species of plants all tangled up with each other and broken up into many pieces - you do not find single animals who got caught individually in the tar.

Because a rotting carcase is like a dinner bell in the wild. Of course they are tangled, it would end up like a grim game of twister, and the previous year's remains would get trampled and broken by the next victims. Not all predators got themselves stuck and there is a curious ratio for larger herbivores like bison with only two sets of leg bones found for every skull. Either something ran off with these missing legs, or they got up and walked off themselves

this tangled mess of plant and animal debris of many different species also shows evidence of being transported to it's present destination - none of the creatures died at the site of the deposit - they were caught up in a flood and died by drowning while they were being swept away by tons of water

Evidence of being transported?

if you don't believe me go look at the deposits for yourself - when you look at the actual deposit of broken and tangled debris it is clear the evolutionary story of each animal dying individually by getting caught in the tar is ridiculous

They don't die individually, they attract predators who join them.

 

[Assyrian]

it is unmistakable if you look at global sediments and stay away from the evolutionary literature

but don't expect a single easily identifiable unconformity that goes on uninterrupted around the entire planet with a big sign on it that says ''this is the global flood unconformity''

as to whatever ''normal geological features'' would be - if the earth is young and if a single catastrophic series of closely spaced events such as a global flood did occur and then the earth settled back down again then global flood deposits would be the dominant sedimentary geologic feature left behind - they would be ''normal'' and they would be everywhere - as indeed they are

So where do we find the boundary between preflood rock and flood strata, and between flood strata and sediments deposited afterwards? Simply saying there isn't a big sign isn't enough. This unmistakable world wide event should show a worldwide boundary.

 

[Assyrian]

Florida is a piece of Africa where identical limestones are found and it has nothing to do with the geology of the rest of North America

Florida is a member of the forum who has posted in this thread. Perhaps I should have addressed him by his full name Florida2

The early Himalaya may have rose much more rapidly than it is rising today - during a cataclysmic global flood - which may have been the beginning of the crust of the earth breaking up into different plates - plate movement would be expected to be much more rapid than it is today

the past was different from the present - and the present is not the key to the past as modern geology claims

You are agreeing with me that the fossils got to the top of the Himalayas by begin lifted up by plate tectonics. You have just thrown in the Creationist timescale and superfast plate tectonics. Unfortunately there is no evidence continental crust ever moved that fast, or that it even could. Magma can move faster, but when it does, it melts the crust.

just about every single basin big and small around the entire planet is full of tons of decayed metamorphosed plant material that is now either oil or natural gas or coal or some other form of fossil fuel

and there is no such thing happening today

We don't have any bogs, swamps or plankton?

 

[sfs]

A nice analysis of some of the problems with Austin's YEC explanation for the Colorado Plateau can be found here.

Here are some of the features that are found in various layers in the Grand Canyon:

Note: there are multiple levels within the canyon (all supposedly laid down during the Flood) which show extensive weathering and erosion, before new material was added on top. Note also the varying depositional environments that the plateau formed in: sea bottom, shoreline, desert, fresh-water lake, swamp.

 

[Incariol]

Valkyree makes so. many. claims about geology and sources none of them.

 

[florida2]

Florida is a member of the forum who has in this thread. Perhaps I should have addressed him by his full name Florida2

No probs - maybe just call me Mike instead!