Potential Evidence for a Global Flood

We have reached the point where this thread is about to be closed.JustbeReal Made a good A4 page of claims that he believed soundly supported a global flood.he narrowed this down to his two 'favourites'.I have been meaning to weigh in but have found that there is already quite a number of replies contesting his claims.But JBR seems to be mysteriously silent.Maybe we could start a new thread beginning with JBR's original list of support for the global flood.His list seems to cover all of the major supprting arguements for his hypothesis. It would be a handy reference to go back to when the issue comes up again.It would only work if JBR felt that he could actually support his claims. It will only be a worthwhile debate if he means to stand by his statements.It looks like Robert Byers could weigh in as well. He could use a bit of work on his Geology though. I can recommend Dr A's Introduction to Geology thread. here it is Message 1Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

They also say "millions of years ago....". Why would you want to mention it when arguing for a "flood that happened 4000 years ago"? No, turbidity currents explain turbidity currents and the resulting sediments. We’ve even seen them with our own eyes in reservoirs in the Alps recently. No global flood involved. http://infoscience.epfl.ch/...of_reservoir_sedimentation.pdf Grades of sediment? Sorry, do you mean coarse grained sediment grading into finer grained sediments at the top? That’s the normal working of gravity. No global flood involved. Are you telling porkies, Robert? Turbidites have always been seen as turbidites. No slow movement involved. Do you have any reference where anyone has ever said that turbidites are the result of "slow geology presumptions"? I bet you don't. You just like telling porkies. There’s literally millions of ways. A turbidity current is one of them. You don’t need special events. It happens every day, in normal circumstances. Even in lakes and reservoirs. No special events involved. Above the k-t line, too! Numerous times. Right in front of our own very eyes. No global flood involved. And all those areas not covered by sedimentary rock? How do you explain those? Evidence for a global flood. You’ve got absolutely none. Which flood? The one you wish for in your head? Sorry, your wishful thinking doesn’t constitute evidence. Physical evidence is used for these stories. Not wishful thinking. Lots of reasons. Unconformities, for one. Which witness? The one’s who have seen those turbidity currents in the Alps, where no global flood was involved? Yes, I know. People in my local mental institution thrive on wishfull thinking. They even talk to Elvis, every day. Any evidence for this same great event?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : Added a sentence or two: "Do you have any reference where anyone has ever said that turbidites are the result of "slow geology presumptions"? I bet you don't. You just like telling porkies."

Hi Robert,This is from Walter Alvarez's book The Mountains of Saint Francis: Discovering the Geologic Events That Shaped Our Earth: Do you see where he describes each graded bed as the product of one flow? Do you understand that you have misinterpreted Alvarez?--Percy

Uh ... only if you believe that these geologists were right in assigning turbidites to turbidity currents rather than to a magic flood.Why are you citing these geologists when your own point of view is that they're completely wrong about everything? Whereas by your own hypothesis non-"special events" caused the geologically identical strata above the KT line.When will you get round to answering this?According to you, a magical process is responsible for sedimentation below the KT line, whereas normal processes are responsible for sedimentation above the KT line --- and they look identical. Why should we ascribe what is below the KT line to impossible magical processes when you yourself admit that the same results (above the KT line) were produced by real non-magical processes? What else? Well, you could ask for something that looks like it was produced by a global flood, rather than something which by your own admission looks exactly like it was produced by non-magical processes. Except that you yourself believe that they were not produced by the same event. According to you these "layered rock strata" were produced by the magic flood if they're below the KT line and by normal processes if they're above it.Could I please get an answer to this?Do you really not see the problem?It's as though you were to say to me: "I concede that after 1972, everyone who died of botulism was infected by botulistic bacteria. But before 1972, everyone who died exhibiting the exact same symptoms was struck down by a miracle from God, so you should accept all deaths from botulism before 1972 as evidence for a miracle".Well, why shouldn't I regard them as normal cases of botulism? When you admit the existence of botulistic bacteria, and when you admit that they produce the symptoms of botulism, why should I regard the existence of such symptoms before 1972 as evidence of God doing magic?

What were the size of the particles in the graded bedforms? Were they large or fine? Did these graded bedforms also contain alternating layers of diatoms and clay? Did these process sort organic debris by minute differences in 14C concentrations?Until you answer these questions you have no case. Catastrophic events create large deposits of coarse grained sediments, not fine grained sediments. Therefore, fine grained sediments are evidence against a catastophic event and are instead evidence of long term sedimentation. This is further supported by annual deposition of seasonal diatoms and the sorting of terrestrial organic debris by 14C content. Yes there is. I list several reasons above, and you refuse to deal with them.

I'm not sure if this thread is continuing.
So i will continue conservatively.Everyone seemed to say the same thing.The case here of turbidity sediments is a great case for re interpretation of data.
they thought first one thing and then a revolution took place. A correction so very important.
They no longer thought slow layering accounted for segregated layers in these rock columns.
instead a confused sediment group was thrown aggressively into deep water and instantly sorted itself into many layered or segregated sediments.
this is a example and perhaps sometimes the actual mechanism for much of what is found in the rock strata .
A single chaotic flood event throws sediment into deep water and mechanism separates it and deceives that it was from slow annual events.
The example alone here is how imagination and better research/thinking figures out there is no need to see strata of rock as demanding each layer from a different age.
Segregated flows can do the same thing and then, like the turbidites turn all to stone.The example of the turbidite by the way i see as a post flood event.
below and above the k-t line the same processes worked in special episodes.
The turbidite example is a modern process but just rare or never happens now. The special case of massive water moving about is today unknown.The discovery of turbidity events is actually an embarrassment to geology. They had no reason to guess how these sediment layers were created. Once a few thought harder it was figured out although they had to change earth events.
The author did get excited that old ideas can be overthrown.
Right!

Turbidites were first described in 1962, by a guy called Arnold H. Bouma. Turbidite - Wikipedia Your reference from 2008 is a bit late. Bouma actually described the Bouma Cycle very well, too: Lots of segregated layers are a result of very slow layering. You can even see it happening today all over the world! Robert Byers is always confused. Sediments would really look weird if they are confused. Not even deep water. We see it in reservoirs and lakes, too. I even gave you a reference earlier. Telling porkies again, are you? Oh, we see it often. It also is not a single event. A single event deposits one layer, grading from coarse grained to fine grained at the top. Lots of these on top of each other indicate lots of events. Definitely not one global flood involved. Who has ever done that? Setting up a straw man again, are we? And all those other events way before the K-T line? Just ignoring them? All natural. No global flood involved. Stop telling porkies Robert. Oh, the Gulf Stream is not unknown at all. So also the Benguela Current. So are lots of currents. No global flood involved. It didn’t seem like an embarrassment when it was first published in 1962. It explained a lot! No, a few people thinking harder won’t change earth events. Events on earth would keep going on, regardless of what some people think (scientists) or what some people don’t think (creationists). Maybe you think so because you don’t know what you are talking about?

Hi Robert, I believe the Bible account of creation and I also believe the Noah flood took place.But it takes trillions upon trillions, upon trillions upon trillions of tons of decayed life forms to produce the trillions upon trillions of barrels of oil, and trillions of tons of coal, and trillions of cubit feet of natural gas in the Earth.These items are buried under miles of rock, does your little chaotic flow structure produce enough material to cover those life forms to the depth they are buried?I would assume the bigger problem would be where did all those life forms come from that was buried in the short span of 2,000 years?In the Bay of Fundy the water rises and falls over 55 feet 2 times in a 24 hour period and does very little damage and leaves little evidence that it rose and fell that much.It never ceases to amaze me at all the hoops people try to jump through just to be able to present their beliefs. That goes for those on both sides of the argument.If the text is correct and I believe it is, all the land mass was in one place when the flood took place and was not divided until the days in which Peleg lived.Yes it took outside intervention for the flood to take place as presented in the Bible.Yes it took outside intervention for the Earth to be divided as presented in the Bible.But anyone who believes Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning created God the Heavens and the Earth" should have no problem believing the two events spoken of above took place.But if you (or anyone else out there) have any information or idea how our natural resources got buried under up to 5 miles of rock and their source please share.God Bless,

SummeryThere is potential evidence for the flood by the very thing found in the field.
Massive sedimentary rock stratas over most of the dry land today.
This hints alone at water deposition being massive in the past.
This is what should be expected if the great flood was true.Segregated strata is only segregated flows as it would be.then the same force of water would squeeze everything into stone.The bible says there was a flood and so Christianity , the great faith, says so and on earth is great accumulation of sediment moved/deposited by water including the creatures caught up in at the time.This is at least potential evidence and plain damn good evidence.

This thread provided a showcase for the strong correlation between ignorance of all things geological and misinterpretation of geological evidence. The less you know the crazier the explanations that make sense to you.This thread also highlighted the inability or unwillingness of creationists to address evidence that was brought to their attention, for instance the fine sedimentary layers of varves or the miles of limestone that both require quiet water and the passage of much time. Or how a flood could deposit the layers of the Grand Canyon and crush them into stone under a great weight, then erode the canyon itself.But evidence for the flood? Nowhere to be seen.I can see a successor thread being useful.--Percy

In this thread several potential and essential pieces of evidence of the Biblical flood were presented, things that IF the Biblical Flood actually happened must be found.Unfortunately not one of the potential and essential pieces of evidence exists and thus the Biblical flood is refuted as completely as a claim that a score was made even when the game was not played.

Hi Percy How about a focused successor thread?We could reopen Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? with the caveat that the discussion is limited to what the fossils show and whether this is consistent with a generic flood (rather than the special case Noachin flood).Anything that does not address

1. what the fossils actually show, OR
2. what is consistent with known actual floods

Would be off topic.Anything that can cover both

1. what the fossils actually show, AND
2. what is consistent with known actual floods

Can then be taken as fossil evidence of a flood, an initial step to then determining if it is evidence for a global flood.If you want a new topic like this I can rewrite the OP to be this specific.Enjoy.

As usual, no convincing evidence was offered in support of the global flood idea, and as usual evidence was presented which refutes the flood idea--only to be ignored.What is so amusing is the nature of some of the "evidence" offered in support of the flood:

--Massive sedimentary deposits, for example, that clearly can be dated to different time periods and that exhibit internal structures formed over large time spans, showing it could not have occurred during a single flood.

​

--The assurance by two different creationists that the flood occurred 1) at the time of the Cambrian explosion (>500 million years ago) and 2) at the K-T boundary (just over 60 million years ago), while biblical scholars place it about 4,350 years ago.

Creationists also must ignore evidence from archaeologists, who deal with the period around 4,350 years ago all the time. Instead of a disruption which would have resulted from such a flood we find continuity of human cultures, genomes, fauna and flora, etc.This thread has shown that the idea of a global flood is a belief contradicted by the facts.

The things that creationists claim as evidence for a global flood are things that we can see today being produced not by a global flood, and indeed almost invariably not a by a local flood either.As such they are simply not evidence for a global flood any more than something that looks exactly like the hoof-print of a horse is evidence for a magic rainbow-colored unicorn.One reason that creationists make this mistake is that (as illustrated by JBR) they are blissfully ignorant of what geologists actually claim. To continue the analogy, someone who thought that orthodox zoologists claimed that horses have six legs terminating in claws and talons and weigh two hundred tons would not recognize the hoofprint of a horse as being, in fact, the hoofprint of a horse.But they are also ignorant of what a flood would actually produce. The game (which we see in other areas of creationism) seems to be to find something which would confute strawman geologists, and then ascribe it to a global flood by default. Now even if varves (for example) required a magical explanation (which they don't) then it would be more plausible on the face of it to ascribe them to Magic Varve Pixies than to the cataclysmic events described in the book of Genesis; and if creationists have ever so much as attempted to supply a diluvian mechanism for such sedimentary forms, they have not done so on this thread.A further peculiarity is evident in the assertions of Robert Byers, who is prepared to assign rocks above the KT boundary to normal processes and yet to claim that rocks below the KT boundary are evidence of a global flood. Which is as though having actually admitted that some footprints are made by horses, he then went on to assert that identical footprints are evidence of unicorns. It has so far proved impossible to find out exactly what mistake he's making here: whether he believes that rocks above the KT boundary are different in some way, or whether he is simply a very poor reasoner, or both; and as this thread is about to close we may never know.