The biggest evidence of the Flood? The world ocean.

[Right Divider]

Rock layers where fossils are found contain volcanic ash that can be dated.

Dated how? With methods that are invalid?

Different layers are consistent with different ages.

Only if you force them to be by fudging the data.

Dinosaurs and humans are not even close.

Fake news.

The fossils themselves are not as old as dinosaurs either. https://earthathome.org/quick-faqs/how-do-scientists-date-rocks-and-fossils/

More fake news.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The idea that even a whole mountain of water could move a mountain made of rock (a real mountain iow)

What are you talking about?

is a stretch, prima facie. But if you have a 'piston and cylinder' arrangement, where the 'cylinder' is filled with water, and the 'piston' made of solid rock, "floats" on the water, then this becomes mechanically possible to my brain. I can picture and appreciate that rock can under those conditions float on water, even though rock is 2-3 times as dense as water. With a piston and cylinder, the piston pushes against the fluid in the cylinder, and liquid water while not perfectly in-compressible (if I remember my Science studies correctly) is not perfectly compressible either (like a gas), so it would hold whatever weight the rock piston would impose upon it. The water wouldn't be crushed, iow.

So if that's the arrangement you have between water underground, and the ground, then we would expect the "Blue Marble" image from 7000 years ago would be more green and less blue.

Was this rock floating on water uniformly covering the earth? Or were mountain ranges like the Andes already extant? It seems from both the scriptures and from a model where there is rock floating on water, that it can't be that the mountain ranges were already there before the Flood. They must have formed during the Flood period.

The crust wasn't floating. It was resting on "pillars," which on the other side of the crust were indentations that formed the seas mentioned in Genesis 1:9-10.

So what physical evidence do we expect to find on the highest peaks of mountains that will conflict with the idea that they have been mountains for 'millions of years' instead of just for 5000 years? There must be something. Something microscopic, something 'quantum' or other, something 'relativistic', something we can observe or measure.

Sea shells on the tops of the mountains, for example.

If there's anything at all at the peaks of all the world's tallest mountains that's in conflict with the theory that they have been the highest mountain peaks for a million years, and if there's a complete absence of anything there that conflicts with mountain peaks being no more than 5000 years old, then this is a pretty good case.

 

[Right Divider]

https://earthathome.org/quick-faqs/how-do-scientists-date-rocks-and-fossils/

From the article:

Relative Age Dating​

Relative dating in geology depends on two assumptions and one observation:

 

[Right Divider]

The crust wasn't floating. It was resting on "pillars," which on the other side of the crust were indentations that formed the seas mentioned in Genesis 1:9-10.

Resting on pillars and on highly pressurized water trapped below the crust.

 

[Idolater]

... Sea shells on the tops of the mountains, for example.

Yes. Are sea shells on the tops of many mountains?

 

[Skeeter]

Dated how?

The link explains two methods,

With methods that are invalid?

No. They are valid given two assumptions and an observation. Assumption checks and the observation can be reasonably made.

Only if you force them to be by fudging the data.

Fake news.

More fake news.

I provide the milk; you provide the fudge.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes. Are sea shells on the tops of many mountains?

That's what JR said. Yes.

 

[Right Divider]

The link explains two methods,

Yes, they are invalid.

No. They are valid given two assumptions and an observation.

Invalid assumptions.

Assumption checks and the observation can be reasonably made.

Funny.

I provide the milk; you provide the fudge.

You are no more funny than you are knowledgeable about science. Is your PhD in gender studies?

 

[Skeeter]

Yes, they are invalid.

Invalid assumptions.

Really? Because you say so? Because they are assumptions? Any assumption invalidates a method? As I told you before and should know as a computer guy, all inferential statistics have assumptions of their own. So, do not just throw up your hands when they exist. Verify that the assumptions can be reasonably made at each dig site.

Assumption check: Is there evidence of adulteration or inversion of rock layers? No Breaks? No major change in pattern of the layer? Then the oldest layer in a stack of rocks is at the bottom, and that the youngest is at the top. The assumption of superposition seems easy to check.

Observation: We notice that different kinds of fossils occur in different layers and that the order of the various kinds of fossils from bottom to top is always the same. This is true or it is not. Just look.

Assumption check: When looking at fossils in stacks of rocks in different places, do we see layers containing the same fossils in separate locations? If so, age similarity correlates.

Not that hard. Is it?

 

[Right Divider]

Really? Because you say so? Because they are assumptions?

No, not because I say.... simply because they are.

Any assumption invalidates a method?

When the MULTIPLE unknowable assumptions are a fundamental part of the process.... ABSOLUTELY!

As I told you before and should know as a computer guy, all inferential statistics have assumptions of their own.

When you assume both the starting conditions and all of the conditions along the way.... that's not science... that's a vivid imagination.

So, do not just throw up your hands when they exist. Verify that the assumptions can be reasonably made at each dig site.

The entire PROCESS of radiometric dating is based on these invalid assumptions.

Assumption check: Is there evidence of adulteration or inversion of rock layers? No Breaks? No major change in pattern of the layer? Then the oldest layer in a stack of rocks is at the bottom, and that the youngest is at the top. The assumption of superposition seems easy to check.

No, it does NOT! You are ASSUMING it despite the evidence that there is a far better explanation for the vast and consistent sedimentary layers.

Observation: We notice that different kinds of fossils occur in different layers and that the order of the various kinds of fossils from bottom to top is always the same. This is true or it is not. Just look.

Liquefaction and water lensing. Just look.

Assumption check: When looking at fossils in stacks of rocks in different places, do we see layers containing the same fossils in separate locations? If so, age similarity correlates.

Nonsense. Just confirmation bias on your part.

Not that hard. Is it?

Not for those stubborn folks with vivid imaginations... like you.

 

[Skeeter]

No, not because I say.... simply because they are.

When the MULTIPLE unknowable assumptions are a fundamental part of the process.... ABSOLUTELY!

There are a few assumptions where evidence contrary would be readily apparent.

When you assume both the starting conditions and all of the conditions along the way.... that's not science... that's a vivid imagination.

You are stuck on a loop. We are talking a bout relative dating so far.

The entire PROCESS of radiometric dating is based on these invalid assumptions.

What about RELATIVE DATING? Focus. FOCUS!

No, it does NOT! You are ASSUMING it despite the evidence that there is a far better explanation for the vast and consistent sedimentary layers.

Liquefaction and water lensing. Just look.

So, humans float higher than dinosaurs? Water orders species in successive variant fashion? Define your terms. Explain yourself.

Nonsense. Just confirmation bias on your part.

Projection through retardation.

 

[Right Divider]

There are a few assumptions where evidence contrary would be readily apparent.

Building on the foundation of fantasy does nothing to support your dating.

You are stuck on a loop. We are talking a bout relative dating so far.

What about RELATIVE DATING? Focus. FOCUS!

What about it? It's no better than bogus absolute dating.

So, humans float higher than dinosaurs? Water orders species in successive variant fashion? Define your terms. Explain yourself.

There are many factors that affect where all of the dead animals and plants end up.

 

[Skeeter]

Building on the foundation of fantasy does nothing to support your dating.

The blandest fantasy I can think of.

What about it? It's no better than bogus absolute dating.

The layers of garbage in your apartment are likely chronologically lain. Are they not? Explain why you think this method is bogus. Besides the fact you do not like the results.

There are many factors that affect where all of the dead animals and plants end up.

None of which you are willing to describe!

 

[Right Divider]

The layers of garbage in your apartment are likely chronologically lain. Are they not?

The "layers of garbage in your apartment" are NOT laid down by a global flood.

You ASSUME that long ages are involved.

Explain why you think this method is bogus. Besides the fact you do not like the results.

I don't care what results come from illegitimate methods.

None of which you are willing to describe!

No, I'm not willing to spend more time on it since you cannot understand the basic issue.

 

[Skeeter]

The "layers of garbage in your apartment" are NOT laid down by a global flood.

You ASSUME that long ages are involved.

In your apartment I assume there are some layers from the 1970s.

I don't care what results comes from legitimate methods.

That is readily apparent.

No, I'm not willing to spend more time on it since you cannot understand the basic issue.

I disagree with your central contention and you are fussy because of it. Additionally, an explanation of God's centrifuge comes off quite cartoonish, so you'd rather not spell that out. I don't blame you.

 

[Right Divider]

In your apartment I assume there are some layers from the 1970s.

I have a house.

That is readily apparent.

Because you say so?

I disagree with your central contention and you are fussy because of it.

That's too bad. The layers of sedimentary rocks are clearly not laid down gradually over millions of years but quickly in a global flood.

Additionally, an explanation of God's centrifuge comes off quite cartoonish, so you'd rather not spell that out. I don't blame you.

The detailed explanations are here: In the Beginning

I will not try to type it all for you in this forum.

 

[JudgeRightly]

In your apartment I assume there are some layers from the 1970s.

I have a house.

 

[Yorzhik]

Rock layers where fossils are found contain volcanic ash that can be dated. Different layers are consistent with different ages. Dinosaurs and humans are not even close. The fossils themselves are not as old as dinosaurs either. https://earthathome.org/quick-faqs/how-do-scientists-date-rocks-and-fossils/

Different layers are not consistent with different long ages. Different layers are consistent with, in geological timescales, a single event. We know this is true of the layers because of polystrate fossils aren't confined to a small percentage of the Joggins formation. Or the whale fossil buried in diatom layers (that much diatomaceous earth at one time has to have unusual conditions). Geologists don't even want to know polystrate fossils exist as evidenced by their refusal to even come up with a standard name for such a phenomenon. Go ahead and compare the completeness of the information on this page relative to the lack of information on this page.

And that's just one strong point. Others include the rather homogeneity of the layers that have boundaries that are flat against each other with little to no erosion between them. And these boundaries are like this in continent sized swaths. These three things alone would require a belief in a worldwide flood according to logic and reason. But it gets even more convincing because of other evidence that is consistent with a worldwide flood.

Other consistent evidence is dinosaur blood and carbon dating of dinosaur fossils. Which means the layers dinosaurs are found in are not nearly as old as you've been told, and is consistent with the human prints found with dinosaur prints.

But there's more. All this was said with me knowing your evidence as well. While you on the other hand:

Foot print evidence is yours to present. Why would I go looking for your evidence?

I already have the evidence. We were just testing to see if you were qualified to have an opinion. You aren't.

 

[Yorzhik]

I don't think that anyone has claimed that the initial blast is what killed everyone.

Not only that, but some may have made it a long way through the flood year. I don't think they would have made it that far, or made footprints, with no breaks exhaustively, in water 15 cubits deep and deeper.

 

[Skeeter]

Different layers are not consistent with different long ages. Different layers are consistent with, in geological timescales, a single event. We know this is true of the layers because of polystrate fossils aren't confined to a small percentage of the Joggins formation.

Polystrate fossils are rare overall. Some trees die standing up like in a petrified forest. Some trees live while debris is accumulated around them. That would represent an intrusion into another stratum that would be accounted for. A worldwide flood would create polystrate fossils quite commonly, and that is not what we see.

It is better than foot prints. It s something to be studied. It does not cancel the other evidence about strata being accumulated chronologically with vast array of life consistent with evolution rather than the same forms random through out.

And that's just one strong point. Others include the rather homogeneity of the layers that have boundaries that are flat against each other with little to no erosion between them. And these boundaries are like this in continent sized swaths. These three things alone would require a belief in a worldwide flood according to logic and reason.

Erosion occurs under predictable conditions. It does not occur at all in others. The erosion that did occur ruined the fossils we don't have.

Other consistent evidence is dinosaur blood and carbon dating of dinosaur fossils. Which means the layers dinosaurs are found in are not nearly as old as you've been told, and is consistent with the human prints found with dinosaur prints.

Carbon dating done solely by creationists? A link here would help. This could be compelling.

But there's more. All this was said with me knowing your evidence as well. While you on the other hand:

I already have the evidence. We were just testing to see if you were qualified to have an opinion. You aren't.

Maybe you are just trying to posture yourself as a know-it-all of sorts. I am discussing my imperfect understanding of evolution, and trying to understand what and how creationists believe what they believe.

You have added something of substance to the discussion unlike your comrade. So, there is that. Maybe you will add the footprint data which is what I was expecting.