Opinions --> Global flood and "fossil graveyards&qu

[Magnetic]

I will post what was said.

I completely explained why your so-called 'primitive' animals would be at the bottom. Many scientists could probably explain it better but I think I hit the major points. And yes, a year long global flood would have left a DEFINITE mark on the planet, AND IT DID! Because you choose to explain those marks away is not my problem. They are there. BTW, these 'fossil graveyards' that have been found do have many different types of animal bones in one 'level'. If the levels had taken millions of years to form, the evidence we see today would have long ago simply decayed or been ravaged by scavengers. No, these fossils were laid down very quickly, under lots of sediment and water. Hey, there the mark of a global year long flood you were looking for!

Let me know what you think.

[Darth Lucifer]

Let me know what you think.

It made me think I need to bone up on this topic. I Googled "Global Flood Myth" and found this for starters: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html. It may even help you with your opposition, who is clearly a few beers short of a six pack.

[LadyTevar]

I think he's a damn idjit, and so are you for debating such ignorance.

[The Silence and I]

Marks on the planet: Erosion does not happen quickly enough to remove most of what would have been an event of literally global scale, and far far more noticeable than the iridium layer we find which helps support the asteroid that finished off most dinos. You should be able to go to any site on earth, dig down or look for the right exposed layer and see a very thick, persistent band of flood sediment. All over the world, excessively thick, and all at the same period of time. We don't find that, we find 'small' local floods at various points in time at various places. Those kinds of things happen from time to time and do not cover the entire earth in miles of water yet they leave clear evidence. Imagine the kind of evidence we should have for something similar, but on a gargantuen scale

Fossile graveyards: The bones are found within a layer which may have taken a good long time to form. This does not require the bones within that layer to have taken as long--a flash flood can kill and cover many creatures in a thick layer of sediment which, gasp, formed quickly. Years go by and that is buried and compressed and it--and all the sediment from the same period of time in that area--slowly becomes rock. Millions of years later erosion or tectonic action exposes this layer and we see many bones that were buried there at the same time, within a layer of rock that is about the same age. The band spans a long time perhaps, but the massed bones represent one instant of time within this band of rock. Make sense? (I sure hope so, if not I might have to refresh myself--I haven't read a thing about this subject since I was in 7th grade )

Also, a year long global flood would result in WORLD WIDE MASS GRAVEYARDS. They would be a rather boring discovery:

"Hey Bob, I got another piece of that mass graveyard over hear"

"What a shocker there, Jim. Let me guess: it has all the same species we filled our museums with 70 years ago. Am I right?"

"Amazing, isn't it? You guess so well one might start to think you were psychic. Or that this here graveyard covers the whole earth's surface and has been studied for 100 yeas. One or the other..."

Of course we don't have this... wonder why, eh?

[John of the Dead]

Hey, Magnetic, it seems that you debate the global flood myth semi-regularly. You would really benefit from watching the Discovery Channel program, Noah's Ark: The True Story. It examines the Biblical story and goes into nice detail about why it simply could not have happened (or, at least, on a global scale). I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Noah's Ark: The True Story is available at the Discovery Channel store. Go! Get it!

[TheBlackCat]

What is probably the most damning anti-flood evidence: pollen. Pollen of particular species of plant is often found in extremely specific layers of sediment in many different areas, while layers of sediment have different pollen with similar basic properties, maybe even from a closely related species, but is nevertheless quite disctinctive from pollen in other layers in the same patch of ground. How could pollen be extremely localized in sediment if all the pollen has the same basic behavior in water? You would expect an even mixture of pollen from every plant species, but instead you find pollen from certain plant species only in particular layers (to such a degree that the pollen of particular species of plant can be used as a pretty accurate dating tool).

Pollen cannot run away, pollen of roughly the same size and shape are in widely different but still very specific layers so they are not being sorted by size or shape, pollen from different species are found in different layers in the same area so it is not a regional issue. None of the arguments that creationists use to explain away fossil animals apply to pollen.

[Surlethe]

If the primitive animals are at the bottom, then why are the stone and bronze tools at the top?

[Stark]

Sorry, if there's no proof for a mesopotamian inundation, there's sure as fuck no sediment layer all over the world. There are cities with uninterrupted layers of habitation through the period of the flood, IIRC.

[Wyrm]

Let's not forget dendrochronology. If this global flood did happen, then all the trees would be wiped out, in which case we would see, around the world, an interruption in the dendrochoronology timelines around the world at precisely the same point. Instead, we see fully anchored dendrochonology timelines going back some ten thousand years for various species, which includes the entire YEC timeline, and starts lining up beautifully with radiometric dating.

Then there's the ordering of zircon crystals by their geological (radioactive) age rather than their hydrostatic properites, which is what we would expect in an actual flood. Note also, that the radioactive datings agree with the geological column.

And those are just the ones I can name right off the top of my head.

[Darth Wong]

Then there's the little problem that some mountain ranges are more eroded than others. Pretty strange if they were all formed at once and eroded at once by the same Flood, isn't it?

[Magnetic]

Then there's the little problem that some mountain ranges are more eroded than others. Pretty strange if they were all formed at once and eroded at once by the same Flood, isn't it?

It rained harder there.

[Darth Servo]

I completely explained why your so-called 'primitive' animals would be at the bottom. Many scientists could probably explain it better but I think I hit the major points. And yes, a year long global flood would have left a DEFINITE mark on the planet, AND IT DID! Because you choose to explain those marks away is not my problem. They are there. BTW, these 'fossil graveyards' that have been found do have many different types of animal bones in one 'level'. If the levels had taken millions of years to form, the evidence we see today would have long ago simply decayed or been ravaged by scavengers. No, these fossils were laid down very quickly, under lots of sediment and water. Hey, there the mark of a global year long flood you were looking for!

Utter stupidity that doesn't even try to look at the actual evidence but rather just jumble it all together in a big mess and say, "yep, a year long flood would do that".

[K. A. Pital]

So... where is the POINT?



Where is the proof? What "marks" is he talking about, since there are NONE?

Where are his "major points"?

Why the snippy quoting, Magnetic, where is the bulk of the argument? Though I suspect the "bulk" is just as senseless as the "head".

[Magnetic]

So... where is the POINT?



Where is the proof? What "marks" is he talking about, since there are NONE?

Where are his "major points"?

Why the snippy quoting, Magnetic, where is the bulk of the argument? Though I suspect the "bulk" is just as senseless as the "head".

That's pretty much his argument. Oh, and the "proof" that he has illuded to (evidence left from the flood) is the . . . . Grand Canyon.

[defanatic]

Psh. I knew how the grand canyon was formed when I was 12. Wasn't the Genesis flood based off a Babylonian myth?