Potential Evidence for a Global Flood

To avoid massive posts, I'll pick one point at a time... These surface imprints are common? Well, so are floods.
You have provided an argument that areas of land are often flooded.
I doubt anyone would argue against that.Please explain why these features were not preserved by the normal localised flooding that we still see happening today.

You are trying to have an honest debate with a dishonest debater.
It is a waste of your time. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This appears to be taken from http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction6.html

quote:

---

Today, without rapid burial and a source of gentle blanketing sediments all mixed with cementing agents, trace fossils cannot be preserved.

---

If this is a claim that local flooding is not rapid enough and doesn't contain the required sediment then I can find no evidence to support this claim. .
. This appears to be taken from http://creation.com/hundreds-of-jellyfish-fossils

quote:

---

Also, ripples can only be preserved when covered by a different type of sedimentin this case, the ripples in coarse sand were overlain by a finer silty sand and red oxidized mud.

---

I can find no evidence to support this claim. .
. This appears to be taken from http://creation.com/hundreds-of-jellyfish-fossils

quote:

---

The multiple layers of ripples (and the variation in their alignment/orientation between layers) reflect their having been laid down by sediment-laden currents of varying strength (thus the variation in particle sizes between layers).

---

This is unconnected to whether a flood was global or not. .
.I see no evidence to support this conclusion.
If you could provide some evidence to back up these claims I would be very interested.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

A negative statement can be proven.
If I asked you to prove that a cat does not go "woof" every time you hit it - it would only require 1 cat and a stick to prove that negative statement true.You have claimed that localised flooding doesn't create ripples.
How do you know?
What research has been done to show this is true? They are your claims. This is meant to be your evidence. You need to substantiate your claims.
If all you are doing is saying that you have a hypothesis that localised flooding doesn't cause ripples, then fine.
But a hypothesis in not evidence.p.s.
If you accept that volcanoes create ripples - how do you know which ripples are caused by a global flood and which are caused by volcanoes?{abe} After Percy's comments about focussing on your strongest evidence first: I am happy to abandon this line of discussion and switch to another if that is what you would prefer.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

But you said:

quote:

---

The typical local flood events just don't produce these kinds of features.

---

How do you know this?If you are just making an unfounded statement or putting forward your hypothesis then that is not evidence.
You said you had evidence, but the quote above is just an unsubstantiated claim.Please show the evidence.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This is fine.
We all stand on the shoulders of someone.
But I would have expected these great men to have shown their working.
Where is their evidence? If I was to claim that there is no life on Mars, then that would not be evidence.
Someone would have to go search for life on Mars before I could claim to have evidence of there being no life on Mars.So, do you have any links to any research?
Or is it just a bare assertion?
Because so far you have not supplied any evidence.

Taking your time and making a well thought-out post is to be applauded.

I see no reference to kettle bottoms piercing through several layers.
I see references to them being found in mines and that they are dangerous.But I see no statements regarding your claim: "are commonly found piercing through several layers of these strata."
This completely undermines the rest of your post. p.s.
I see you have a lot of replies.
I'd rather wait for a reply - or not see one at all - than have a rushed answer that contains mistakes (solely due to rushing).
Remember: this is not a race. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.