Here's another old thread at EvC where I was piled on as usual, and where my very simple point was simply flatly contradicted and ignored as usual. Perhaps they absolutely can't see the facts, I guess that's possible, but it's hard to avoid the impression they just refuse to think about it at all. Anyway here's Global Flood Evidence. I'd already presented the evidence but this poster didn't see it so started this thread for the purpose of demanding evidence when I'd already given all I was going to give on the subject.

Faith:

There is so much evidence for a global flood it's staggering. It has to be a very strange blindness that keeps people from acknowledging it. Not even agreeing with it, just acknowledging that the amount of evidence is enormous. Just another case of flat out denial.

Stagger me, then.

He should already have been staggered by what I'd already pointed out. I guess he's blind. The worldwide extent of the fossils and the strata ARE staggering evidence for a worldwide Flood. What mental block do they have that interferes with their even picturing this fact?

So of course I answered:

The existence of fossils all over the earth in the great abundance they are found, everywhere, is fantastic evidence for a worldwide flood.

The existence of fossils worldwide is evidence that living things existed worldwide :rolleyes: . In no way can the global existence of fossils be considered evidence of the flood. In fact the localisation of fossil species argues against the flood. I suppose the global existence of extant life today is because of the flood, too?

See, he can't visualize it at all, or won't even try. Perhaps it's simply paradigm-blindness but then he should take extra pains in that case to overcome his prejudice.

The existence of FOSSILS is evidence for a cataclysmic sudden burial, NOT normal life and death patterns of worldwide living things. The incredible quantity of the fossils cannot possibly be explained in terms of NORMAL life and death patterns. Dead things NORMALLY disintegrate, they do not fossilize. It takes special conditions to bring about fossilization.

AND the fact that they are found within strata is staggering evidence for a worldwide Flood. The strata are worldwide, the fossils are worldwide. Strata are normally laid down in water. Look at the stack of them in the Grand Canyon. There are no breaks, there is nothing but a wall, a stack of layer upon layer upon layer of different rocks that were formed from loose sediments. I'd made this point over and over and over but they are blind to this obvious fact.

So I answer again:

Sure you can figure out how to explain this some other way if you have a mind to. But so what? The flood explanation is obviously adequate.

The flood explanation is utterly inadequate. The pattern of fossil forms is contradicted by hydrodynamics. In any flood, the smallest particles separate out last, the largest, first. This means all the large organisms first. What do we find at the bottom of the fossil record, bacteria. Where do we find large organisms? At the top. Exactly the opposite of what you would expect from the flood model. I could go on.

So instead of simply appreciating the obvious implication of the fact itself of the prodigious quantity of fossilized life, he shifts focus to HOW it could have happened. That is changing the subject. We don't have to know HOW it happened to know that the sheer fact of their existence in such quantities over the whole world is in itself tremendous evidence for a worldwide Flood. Also all the Hows of these things are purely speculative; he has no right to treat them as fact the way he does. He has no idea what sort of hydrodynamics would have been involved in such a Flood. All that is speculative.

The existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is also great evidence for a worldwide flood.

Mountains are observed to rise, so no great shakes there

. Funny how there's so MUCH marine life embedded in them, though, don't you think? Embedded in stratifications too.

Also, let's keep in mind that this is part of the evidence that there were no high mountains before the Flood, but they rose afterward, as the continents moved apart on their tectonic plates.

The existence of the stratifications called the geological column, also found all over the world, is terrific evidence for a worldwide flood.

Again, the flood is utterly inconsistent with the pattern of stratification. Why does the bottom of the geologic column not consist of breccia, followed by gravels, sands, muds & claystones, in order of particle size, as it should do if the flood occurred?

Why is he so certain what WOULD HAVE happened? He insists on being myopic about this while I'm trying to make a point about the overall big picture. I'm talking about the SHEER PRODIGIOUS QUANTITY OF FOSSILIZED LIFE AS WELL AS THE WORLDWIDE EXTENT OF THE STRATIFICATIONS. He wants to take a microscope to the bottom layer and ask utterly irrelevant questions considering the overall evidence of a Flood. He's trying to say it couldn't have happened based on some assumption of his own about HOW it would have to happen, instead of considering the staggering evidence that it DID happen which is what I'm trying to focus on.

The amount of disturbance of the surface of the planet that occurs in a few years is a strong clue that given millions of years not one of those strata could have survived intact.

Most of them don't exist on the surface. This also is irrelevant to flood evidence.

He wasn't bothering even to think about what I meant. Most of the strata HAD to have been on the surface at one time or other for the geologic time table to have any validity.

The presence of extinct forms of life in the fossil record is a clue to the enormous variety of life that inhabited the pre-Flood world.

Again, this is evidence of extinct forms, & in no way evidence of a global flood.

At this point I begin to suspect some sort of mental incompetence. The prodigious quantity of such life forms and their unusual varieties are GREAT evidence for a single worldwide Flood that wiped out all living things. Living varieties now are clearly related to them but are appreciably different, which is exactly what would have happened if most of the gene pool of each species had been wiped out.

It's all consistent with the Flood story.

As you have learned, the fossil record & stratigraphy is all utterly inconsistent with the fossil record.

So where is this "staggering" evidence of a global flood?

Right in front of his eyes, where it's always been but he just can't see it, and isn't the slightest bit interested in looking for it, just shooting off his mouth.

But I do very much appreciate what Purpledawn wrote, in a few of her posts on that thread. She's the only sane voice in the whole place. Go to message 74 for starters, I can't figure out how to link to it. This is the link to the start of the thread. Go from there to #74.

In post 74, Purpledawn says:

From what I have read of the original off topic post and the OP, Faith has already given you her evidence for a world wide flood.

Faith writes:

The existence of fossils all over the earth in the great abundance they are found, everywhere, is fantastic evidence for a worldwide flood.
The existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is also great evidence for a worldwide flood.

The existence of the stratifications called the geological column, also found all over the world, is terrific evidence for a worldwide flood. The alternation of different kinds of sediments with different fossil contents is just not at all compatible with the notion of deposition over millions of years, but water certainly can explain it, as some of the scenarios evos concoct even end up conceding.

The amount of disturbance of the surface of the planet that occurs in a few years is a strong clue that given millions of years not one of those strata could have survived intact.

The presence of extinct forms of life in the fossil record is a clue to the enormous variety of life that inhabited the pre-Flood world.

In your responses all you've essentially said is that you disagree with her.

Thank you, PD. Then she responds to my opponent:

quote:

In no way can the global existence of fossils be considered evidence of the flood. In fact the localisation of fossil species argues against the flood.

Why can't the global existence of fossils be considered evidence of a world wide flood?

How does the localization of fossil species argue against a world wide flood?

quote:

Mountains are observed to rise, so no great shakes there.

Why is that evidence against the world wide flood.

quote:

Again, the flood is utterly inconsistent with the pattern of stratification.

What are the geological columns and how is the flood inconsistent with that stratification. Also could you explain stratification in simple terms?

quote:

Most of them don't exist on the surface. This also is irrelevant to flood evidence.

Why is surface disturbance irrelevant to the flood?

quote:

Again, this is evidence of extinct forms, & in no way evidence of a global flood.

Why is the presence of extinct forms not evidence of the global flood?

quote:

As you have learned, the fossil record & stratigraphy is all utterly inconsistent with the fossil record.

I assume you mean inconsistent with the flood story, but again you've said it is inconsistent, but you provided nothing I could use to explain why they are inconsistent.

Ultimately a nonscientist like myself would have to digest information coming from someone like Faith and someone like yourself to decide whether I believe the flood to be world wide or not.

So far in this discussion, from the information I think I understand, I haven't seen anything that obviously tilts the scales in either direction.

Her other posts, 169, 176 and 180 continue in this same vein. In 180 she answers the charge that I'm not being scientific by saying:

Fossils, stratification, geological columns, fossil record. Sounds scientific to me.

No opinions or arguments from unbelief. Interesting.

Thank you again, PD.