Potential Evidence for a Global Flood

Using the lines of evidence that you have chosen, how would you distinguish between the effects of a single global catastrophe and the cumulative effects of many smaller, localised events ?

quote:

---

That argument doesn't work because it is complete gibberish, but it doesn't apply to us because we are, by the creationists insistence, a single species. :-)

---

Arguing that Noah's Ark contained only representatives of the Creationist "kinds" rather than species is a dodge to reduce the number of animals that need to be on board. But it makes the genetic bottleneck problem even worse. Instead of having to deal with only the genetic diversity of one species (already too high) they need to deal with the genetic diversity of the entire group of species considered to be in the same "kind" (even higher).

quote:

---

Baumgartner has offered some evidence which appears to make sense. I suggest a reading and responses to questionable statements in it.

---

To add a little to Coyote's excellent reply:Baumgartner's claims deal ONLY with radiocarbon dating. They do not apply to ANY other method.They make assumptions about the amount of carbon and radiocarbon present pre-flood and no supporting evidence is offered for this figure. He adds in assumptions about magnetic fields and accelerated radioactive decay. It's not clear what the relevance of the alleged Flood is to any of this - it MIGHT be somehow connected to the carbon and radiocarbon estimates but I doubt that it is sufficient to explain the figures, and the magnetic field changes and changes to radioactive decay rate are clearly additions, not based on anything in the flood story. The carbon figures are irrelevant to many dating methods so you're left with no reason to assume that the flood or pre-flood environment affected them at all.He does NOT explain why the alleged effects are completely missing in the data used to calibrate carbon dates. Nor does the article seem to take a serious look at even the data he does talk about.So really this doesn't help you. It's a long way from supporting your claims since it relies on adding other factors to even get the desired results from one dating method, and the only parts that relate to the Flood and pre-Flood environment don't apply to geological dating methods at all. Even if the evidence weren't against Baumgartner's hypothesis you'd need to offer a lot, lot more to support your claim.And yet you expect others to unquestioningly agree with your claim. Despite your repeated failure to offer any valid reason why it should be considered to be even possibly true.