John Solum

Brought to you by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed

<a href="http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/18-flood.htm" target="_blank">http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/18-flood.htm</a>

Here's a few of my favorites:

"(26) Globally, there is an almost complete absence of any evidence of animal and plant root activity within the tiny layers of sediment. Slowly deposited layers should show this activity, flood deposits wouldn't."

vs.

"(42) Animal tracks and other ephemeral markings (ripple-marks and raindrop imprints) have been preserved throughout the geological column. Rapid covering of these markings is required for this preservation worldwide - ie. by a global flood"

I think I get it. The absence of trace fossils, etc. is evidence of a global flood except for when the presence of trace fossils, etc. is evidence of a global flood.


Here's another:

"(35) There is a worldwide distribution of most of the fossil types, indicating transportation on a global scale by a global flood."

vs.

"(37) Worldwide, fossils from different 'ages' are often found in the wrong order. This indicates a global mixing of fossils as a consequence of a global flood."

So there's a global distribution of fossils except for where there isn't a global distribution of fossils. (to be fair, I suppose he could be saying that the same fossils are found worldwide but not in the same order).

And finally:

"(47) Raised shorelines are found worldwide indicating a time when the world had a different sea level. A consistent interpretation of this is that a global flood altered the levels of the oceans and seas."

vs. this piece from his introduction:

"Recent discoveries in plate tectonics and crustal physics have shown that a much flatter Earth could have easily been flooded, with the resultant volcanic and geologic activity altering the land surface."

So the modern land surface is a result of the flood but shorelines on that post-flood land surface are the result of pre-flood ocean levels?

Coragyps

Emphasis on the "Dip" part, perhaps?

Principia

I'm a newbie on this board. But, would someone please remind me again why the Flood is a subject of debate? What exactly are its implications?

SC

Valentine Pontifex

Simple, the young-earth creationists (YECs) use the Noachian Deluge to "explain" everything and are give the most silly "proofs" that it happened and was world-wide in extent.

More information can be found at:
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html</a>

Valentine Pontifex

John,

This might be worth posting to the talk.origins newgroup. You have a shot at PotM.

tgamble

I think I posted that url a while back and patrick trashed a few of the "proofs" there.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001188" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001188</a>

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

Coragyps

Scientiae: The Noachian Flood comes up over and over in many of the less-evolved creationist arguments (Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research) as a necessary part of world history. Lots of those folks believe that the whole earth really flooded, in a 40-day to one-year event, about 4200 years ago. The consequences of this view for biological evolution are pretty amazing: 600 million years' worth of fossils formed in one year, all present land life "evolved" from the critters that could fit on the Ark.....
Now, as to why this malarky is a subject of debate, I'm not so sure I can really say: in my case, I think it's just because of the entertainment value. But seriously, there are a bunch of people around my neck of the woods who believe that the Flood happened as written and feel that those "facts" should be taught in public schools. And I will fight that until they throw me out of town.

Oh, and where are my manners? Welcome !!

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: Coragyps ]</p>

Principia

Thank you! I think I live in the same neck of the woods you do... The people around here make daily attempts to 'convert' me. I am not sure why Christians have suddenly (or so it seems) become so desparate to prove the literal truth of the Bible to me. Sigh...

I'll be asking plenty of questions on how best to address these people tactfully and accurately.

SC

John Solum

Thanks a lot LordValentine, I'll give it a shot. I'll also mention that these "evidences" come after the section on logic.

John Solum

It looks like the same guy to me, except back then his list was only 45 items long. I guess he's been busy unmasking evolution.