Summations Only

The evidence is the fossils, not your claims about them. It seems you are incapable of comprehending this.You need to explain why and how the abundance of fossils supports your claim that they they are more consistent with a fludde than the mainstream scenario. Including how they are distributed in the stratgraphy. And making up more ad-hoc fantasies is not support.We see the abundance and have an explanation which is consistent with all else scientific we know about the Universe.

Thanhk you very much for attempting to make this clear. I am too distracted right now to try to deal with it but do want to. This sounds very very strange to me but as I said I have to come back to it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Good GRIEF I can't believe anyone would have such a view. The mere abundance of dead things seen all over the world is in itself something one would expect of the worldwide Flood: it fits with what the Flood was intended to accomplish, and it fits with the ideal conditions afforded by such a worldwide inundation for fossilization. That is no doubt part of the reason for the stubborn refusal to see its obvious compatibility with the idea of the Flood, you really think that, but nevertheless if you could just step outside that frame of reference for half a second I would think the applicability of the Flood would be obvious.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

A white swan is technically evidence that all swans are white.The abundance of fossils - even if it were shown to be broadly consistent with the Flood story is little better.If it were to be shown that the Flood were the best explanation of the abundance Faith would have a point. Unfortunately for her, a large number of fossils is expected given an old Earth (for reasons that should be obvious). And that is all she has.If Faith had good evidence she wouldn’t bother with something so worthless. The fact that she puts it forward as her best example shows that she has no real case.

I think we're all still trying to understand what Moose meant when he said you had a less wrong view of Walther's Law than I did, and that your flood model followed Walther's Law. He posted a reply later, but it didn't seem to address these issues and I still don't know what to think. Yeah, I feel bad about that - I apologize and hope Moose forgives me. I don't follow your reasoning, but Moose's post was the strongest expression of support for your views that I think I've ever seen here, and on an extremely technical point, too. But in saying that your flood model was consistent with Walther's Law it seemed to me that he was weakening on that position. Not in that post he wasn't. Well, it certainly raised some questions that haven't been answered yet. I've posted quite a bit of information about Walther's Law to you. I hope you get a chance to look it over. I don't think it costs anyone here to honestly express and defend their views. I certainly haven't seen any hostility or resentment expressed toward Moose.--Percy

The conditions for fossilization are not fulfilled by the Old Earth scenarios, you have to do a lot of piecemeal speculating to make it fit together. but the conditions are abundantly fulfilled by the worldwide Flood. You don't have the conditions and you don't have any reason for expecting to find preserved dead things either.

But this is exactly what is so unfair. A person ought to be able to judge one small point as true without being considered to be weakening on the overall argument. The small point is that Walther's Law should apply to rising sea water whether it is slow or fast. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the Flood argument, it's simply an observation he made about this one small point.What you are are saying is that nobody could ever agree with any factual statement I make because any small factual point supports the whole Flood model. This is nonsense and very unfair. You are confirming what I said: nobody could ever support the tiniest side point for fear it would sound like they are agreeing with my whole argument. Same problem. One small point of fact does not change a person's whole orientation. It's not as if he said it can't happen slowly according to the conventional theory. Unfortunately your way of thinking about this does suggest that none of this has anything to do with objective truth, it's all about emotional bias.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The conditions for fossilization are not fulfilled by the Old Earth scenarios, you have to do a lot of piecemeal speculating to make it fit together.

---

No, we just have to assume that floods and rivers and swamps and volcanoes and sandstorms and so on were pretty much the same in the past as they are now. And with hundreds of millions of years worth of all those things, of course there are a lot of fossils.Your point is just silly nonsense.

To believe this accounts for all the fossils requires believing that local "floods and rivers and swamps and volcanoes and sandstorms and so on" are what is seen in the geologic/stratigraphic column and it is obvious that they are not. Most of the strata extend across vast areas which is not the case with any of the phenomena you refer to, and they do NOT produce flat sedimentary rocks over all that area. You are fooling yourself.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That observation is not sufficient to call fossils evidence for the Flood. And as has been explained to you dozens of times, the problem is that the competing theories also are consistent with the same abundance of fossils.Do you have any counter, whatsoever, for that argument? Because to date you have not presented one.Further, the scientific view is consistent with the details of those fossils and is not consistent with the Flood.

quote:

---

To believe this accounts for all the fossils requires believing that local "floods and rivers and swamps and volcanoes and sandstorms and so on" are what is seen in the geologic/stratigraphic column and it is obvious that they are not.

---

According to your uninformed opinion. In reality they are found. We’ve seen pictures of river channels, read reports of fossils produced by being covered in volcanic ash, I’ve even seen fossils buried in sandstorms, in a museum.

quote:

---

Most of the strata extend across vast areas which is not the case with any of the phenomena you refer to, and they do NOT produce flat sedimentary rocks over all that area

---

Geological formations are not simply flat and featureless slabs of a single type of rock. We know this. If you don’t by now then the problem is entirely yours.

Oh, the abundance is probably consistent with a fludde. It's also definitely consistent with the mainstream explanation. So it's no basis for thinking one explanation is better than the other. So, unless you can make a rational argument that the abundance is not consistent with the mainstream explanation, it's a wash and discussing it is fruitless. BTW depreciating isn't rational argument; don't say "stupid", "silly", "ludicrous" or the like.The distribution , now that's a different story. Again we have an explanation which is consistent with all else scientific we know about the Universe. You have "no known physics can account for it but something must have done it". We know a lot of physics. There's good reason to believe only direct Divine intervention could produce what we see by a fludde.There our explanation clearly is better, and the distribution of fossils is an observed fact that cries out for explanation.

That is total and utter bullshit Faith and why it is bullshit has been explained to you a brazillion times and it is only the dogma of your Cult that you present, not any evidence.It is impossible for a flood to sort the samples found in reality in the order found in reality.There was never a Biblical Flood!That's fact and truth, Faith. Claiming there is evidence for the Biblical Flood is just lying and fantasy.

That is all I asked to be acknowledged. Thank you for that much. The rest is irrelevant.And if you are going to keep saying things like this would require divine intervention, which it wouldn't, I'm going to keep pointing out that the standard interpretation is indeed ridiculous,.

Where you find fossils forming today has absolutely nothing to do with the fossils in the stratigraphic/geologic column, which are clearly NOT found in such local places, as I explained.The strata in the geo column are indeed flat and featureless and cover huge areas and that's where the Flood deposited all the dead creatures. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.