It is no problem for the Flood that there are places where there are no strata or fossils. Why should that be a problem? They object that such a flood wouldn't create strata or fossils at all, then they object that it would have created more than it did.[Portillo]If a flood occurred, what would you expect to find? Billions of dead things, which we call fossils, laid down by water all over the world.[Pressie]There's lots of areas all over the world with no fossils at all. Therefore, those fossils are not all over the world. Therefore, no such flood.
The next post is creationist ICANT making HIS ridiculous argument about the Bay of Fundy's very high tides, which he thinks demonstrates what a worldwide flood would have done -- pretty much nothing, no evidence, no destruction, nada. Then as I've noted in earlier posts Moose picked that up as a supposedly wonderfully refreshing creationist position which actually made me cry over the stupidity and irrelevance and how far this debate is from anything that could ever make any sense. Unfortunately a great deal of the silliness in this debate does come from the creationist side, and it just snowballs from there. I'm sure that is partly because there isn't an established creationist position on some of the questions, but only partly, because some of the creationist arguments at EvC, such as ICANT's, are so far out in neverneverland it makes that basic difficulty far worse than it has to be. However, I have my own hobbyhorse positions as well, which also differ from some of the main creationist organizations, so I guess I can't complain too much. Except of course I think mine make sense and theirs don't.
So of course many are now answering ICANT's claim. I'm not sure why Moose was so taken with it as most of the other evos can see what's wrong with the idea.
Panda eventually comes along and answers Pressie quite effectively:
There are flowers all over my lawn - but my lawn is not 100% covered in flowers.Except of course he has to get in a dig too:
This 'wiggle room' will allowed the statement to be 'adjusted' whenever someone tries to pin it down.I dunno,why should any wiggle room be needed?
But of course Pressie isn't giving up:
Sure, this is a version of the commonsense expectation. The problem is this isn't what actually happened as anyone can see. Probably most of us would expect something like a jumbled mess of both dead things and sediments, not the layering we actually see, but commonsense thinking about something in the distant past that nobody has ever seen the like of can't be trusted.[Portillo writes]: If a flood occurred, what would you expect to find?In one big global flood occurring at the same time all over the world, covering the entire world in water, I would expect to find at least one stratum of sedimentary deposits with comparative characteristics that covers the entire world. From pole to pole. It would contain unsorted debris all in one layer. In laymen's terms, all mixed up.
Also, the commonsense view really is an uneducated view. The ocean has powerful streams in it that can carry things quite a distance. It also has layers of its own. And currents and waves to boot. There is no reason to expect it to homogenize everything just because the land has been submerged for a few months. The ocean doesn't leave the same debris on beaches all over the world, it leaves specific things in specific places, specific kinds of sand for instance. Currents and waves in one place will have different effects from the currents and waves in other places. The ocean has many separate circulating systems going on in it, it isn't just one big mass of water.
But it's also something to think about that if we turn the tables and ask what should we expect of a planet that simply went on its daily business as usual for a few billion years, had some local floods but no worldwide flood, evolved all kinds of life from something primordial and so on, my answer would certainly NOT be stacks of sedimentary rocks that just happened to preserve a neat record of the stages of that evolution, it would be something just as chaotic as they are imagining for the Flood. Jumbles of things everywhere, maybe some fossils but not necessarily many, maybe some signs of bodies of water that came and went, but never would anyone dream up the strata and its contents for that scenario. Or in other words the strata and its fossils are really quite extraordinary with respect to anything we're familiar with or have normal means of explaining. They're always trying to claim they see the strata forming today. No they don't.
Floodists don't have to bother with commonsense guesswork, we can SEE what the Flood did even if conventional geology can't because they've got it all tied up in their false theory. No other agency could have created those strata but a worldwide Flood. No other agency could have produced the conditions for the burial and fossilization of so many living things. It could not have happened piece by piece over hundreds of millions of years. THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FLOOD WAS TO KILL LIVING THINGS. What more evidence do you want than the worldwide graveyard of the strata?
And yes it IS worldwide, in the sense Panda said -- it's everywhere just like the dandelions in his lawn, without implying it covers every square inch of the planet. However, much of the strata was broken up and washed away as the Flood was receding and draining away, which must account for some of that. And the enormous quantities of sediments that were washed away had to get strewn somewhere if they didn't all make it to the ocean which no doubt a great deal didn't. That would cover up layers downhill or downstream to a great depth in some places. Then the tectonic forces occurred in the final stages of the Flood or some time afterward, not entirely clear about the timing, and there had also to be places where for whatever reason layers didn't form. Also there are parts of the planet that look peculiarly like they were formed from water just spreading hither and thither in swirls and whatnot. I posted a satellite view of that sort of thing some time back.
There was also a lot of volcanic action that followed the stratification. We know it followed it because it vents upwards through the strata in every diagram I've ever seen, shoots up dikes of stuff through those strata and spreads out sills between the existing strata as well. (Shouldn't that make evolutionists wonder why volcanism waited so long, even until recent time* to occur? Is that accounted for in conventional geology or is it even noticed?
Same thing with tectonic distortion of great blocks of strata, clearly already in place for supposed millions of years, right? The most dramatic example of this kind of action AFTER all the strata were in place is the Grand Canyon-Grand Staircase area where clearly the volcanoes in the area erupted after the strata were all in place, up to "recent" time in the Staircase, and clearly all the canyons and the steps of the staircase were formed after all the strata were in place -- up to the "Permian" in the Grand Canyon. The strata beneath are all neatly horizontal throughout the whole area, only minimally distorted or tilted as a whole by the general uplift of the area.
Clearly no more of those horizontal strata will ever be laid in that region. None are being laid and none could be laid that would conform to the existing stack because of all the volcanism and tectonic disturbances that have made the area no longer quietly horizontal as it clearly was for those supposed billions of years until the canyons were cut. Why should strata stop being built if the geo time table is correct? Shouldn't the planet just go on accumulating these markers of the supposed time periods indefinitely? Well, clearly it's stopped in the GC/GS region and can never be resumed.
Shouldn't that make evolutionists wonder why all the disturbances, volcanic, tectonic, etc., WAITED until recent time to occur? Why the strata are all so neatly horizontal and undisturbed until recent time? It should, it should. Sure was one quiet planet for all those billions of years until all at once in "recent time" all that activity suddenly began to occur. This is a fact that makes no sense on conventional geology's time table and should be recognized to utterly trash it.
I started off that rant wanting to make the point that volcanic action would also destroy strata in some places. But what I got said instead is more important than that.
In fact I think I'll stop here. The rest of that EvC thread just goes on with silly meaningless posts from Pressie and ICANT and nothing sensible is being said anyway.
*Need to clarify: I don't say all that volcanic action waited until say the "Permian" period which is the uppermost layer of the Grand Canyon because clearly the whole area was originally covered with strata up to the highest "recent" time period of the Grand Staircase to the north of the Grand Canyon, and all those upper strata were broken up and washed off the area of the Grand Canyon, leaving the Kaibab plateau (representing supposed "Permian" time) as the uppermost surface at its rims. The magma of course vented at that level because that's what was there after all the rest washed away, while at the Grand Staircase it climbed all the way to the uppermost "recent" level where the lava pooled.
There are plenty of places where it could be supposed that the tectonic or volcanic activity occurred in the supposed time period that forms the uppermost layer of a particular block of strata, but my argument would be that there had originally been strata above that level that washed off there too. That's a long argument of course, but at least this should make clear what I'm trying to get at. ALL THE STRATA all over the world were laid down BEFORE volcanoes erupted through the column or tectonic forces distorted it.