The biggest evidence of the Flood? The world ocean.

[Idolater]

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.

Interesting I want to say 'parallelism', to the great lack of intermediate organisms in the fossil record.

... I am discussing my imperfect understanding of evolution, and trying to understand what and how creationists believe what they believe.

There's a motivation to take the Bible as literally as possible, since we all Christians take it literally as regards Christ's Resurrection anyway. If this is literally true, then perhaps other scriptures are also as literally true as we take the eye witness accounts of the Resurrection being literally true. Like the six day creation and the global Flood.

 

[Yorzhik]

Polystrate fossils are rare overall.

They are not rare. They are ignored by geologists (like they ignore human footprints in what they say is old rock) so I guess that makes them rare to you. But they are so plentiful that laymen that make a serious effort have found them every time they look for them.

And they ignore carbon-14 in dinosaur bones, too.

Some trees die standing up like in a petrified forest.

It depends on how you define forest. If you mean a bunch of trees that have grown together in situ, then there are no petrified forests. We know this because the examples claimed to be petrified forests have little to no roots and the tree bases are at different levels.

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.

Some trees live while sediments accumulated around them (don't say "debris")? Care to show us that taking place in modern times with relatively homogeneous layers of sediment with either a)almost nothing around them, and no other life disturbing the boundary between these layers of sediments or b) many trees around it at different levels, but still no other life disturbing the boundaries between the mostly homogeneous sediments around it?

If you weren't so committed to the narrative, you'd find the claim that petrified forests are trees that grew while sediments accumulated around them to be preposterous.

Where do you get the idea that polystrate fossils would be more common than we see if there were a worldwide flood? I don't suppose you are one of those silly people that thinks rain kind of magically appeared on the entire earth until the water was deep and then magically disappeared? Just how do you think the mechanics of the worldwide flood happened?

It is better than foot prints.

I'm curious why you would add this? You've already shown you aren't qualified to assess what is better or worse compared to footprints.

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.

You are typing words without saying anything.

Erosion doesn't occur almost at all for thousands of square miles? At every layer? Over millions of years? You aren't even curious about that?

What fossils are you talking about that were removed by what erosion where?

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

Of course it was done by creationists. They are the only people free to do science. You quickly find out as an establishment scientist not to do science that gets you cancelled.

But here is some information on carbon dating dino bones.

Maybe you are just trying to posture yourself as a know-it-all of sorts.

I'm not a know-it-all, but I'm telling you about some of the few things I do know about because I took time and effort to study them.

I am discussing my imperfect understanding of evolution, and trying to understand what and how creationists believe what they believe.

Your understanding of common descent is not imperfect. It's perfect. Very wrong, but you can't follow the narrative any better.

And you aren't trying to understand what and how creationists believe what they believe. If that were true you'd first assume good intentions on behalf of creationist scientists. You'd assumed they've listened to honest criticism of their ideas and accounted for it. You'd assume they've incorporated all of the evidence available into their theories. But I say you aren't trying because you don't even know of any footprint evidence and when you are told the mechanics of a worldwide flood you continue with a cartoon version instead.

And this is where you accuse me of being a know-it-all because I take an honest assessment of the evidence for common descent. I used to believe in common descent myself, but then I started to look at the evidence with an understanding of scientific rigor and applied those principles to how I processed the data. It wasn't too scary for me because I was a theistic evolutionist, and I didn't feel it would have a bearing on my salvation (not only were Christian YECs brothers in Christ before I agreed with them on creation, but I knew Christian theistic evolutionists were still brothers in Christ after I changed to YEC). So I was free to think and believe the truth where ever it lead. YOU, on the other hand, already know that you cannot let a divine foot in the door (ht Richard Lewontin in his review of Carl Sagan's book, Dr. Lewontin said, "materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door").

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.

Better yet, show you are qualified to have an opinion and look up some of the data yourself. Can you find the holes in this account supposedly debunking the human prints in the Paluxy River?

 

[Idolater]

I remember finding clam shells in a hill in Michigan. I see that as evidence of a time when water covered the earth.

Average sea depth is like four kms. Average land elevation is less than 1 km. Plus, the world ocean covers like 70% of the earth's surface and land only 30%. So if all the land were to be 'leveled down', the whole planet would be completely covered in over 2 kms deep water, just with the water that's already in the world ocean.

If before the Flood a lot of this water was under rocky land (meaning under enormous pressure and force), and then suddenly it all rushed up onto the surface (through even just a single fissure in the rock somewhere), then it would be very interesting to know what all that mass transfer and those pressures and forces would do. I'd be curious to see the results of such a cataclysmic event.

If before the water was on top, it was underneath, and then all at once it all came up on top, then maybe there is unequivocal evidence of this occurring.

 

[Right Divider]

Average sea depth is like four kms. Average land elevation is less than 1 km. Plus, the world ocean covers like 70% of the earth's surface and land only 30%. So if all the land were to be 'leveled down', the whole planet would be completely covered in over 2 kms deep water, just with the water that's already in the world ocean.

If before the Flood a lot of this water was under rocky land (meaning under enormous pressure and force), and then suddenly it all rushed up onto the surface (through even just a single fissure in the rock somewhere), then it would be very interesting to know what all that mass transfer and those pressures and forces would do. I'd be curious to see the results of such a cataclysmic event.

If before the water was on top, it was underneath, and then all at once it all came up on top, then maybe there is unequivocal evidence of this occurring.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Average sea depth is like four kms. Average land elevation is less than 1 km. Plus, the world ocean covers like 70% of the earth's surface and land only 30%. So if all the land were to be 'leveled down', the whole planet would be completely covered in over 2 kms deep water, just with the water that's already in the world ocean.

If before the Flood a lot of this water was under rocky land (meaning under enormous pressure and force), and then suddenly it all rushed up onto the surface (through even just a single fissure in the rock somewhere), then it would be very interesting to know what all that mass transfer and those pressures and forces would do. I'd be curious to see the results of such a cataclysmic event.

If before the water was on top, it was underneath, and then all at once it all came up on top, then maybe there is unequivocal evidence of this occurring.

All detailed in Dr. Walt Brown's "In The Beginning."

And as I said before, Bryan Nickel did an excellent job explaining in video format the events of the flood according to the HPT model.

Here's the link again.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpl6E8stJTiIi8wdLgYj1eXpp-4o1UUkZ

 

[Idolater]

All detailed in Dr. Walt Brown's "In The Beginning."

Well that's good. Good to see that just thinking through the matter logically, we arrive at similar conclusions.

And as I said before, Bryan Nickel did an excellent job explaining in video format the events of the flood according to the HPT model.

Here's the link again.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpl6E8stJTiIi8wdLgYj1eXpp-4o1UUkZ

I'm trying to imagine what hydroplate means just based on the fact that me and Mr. Brown think the same way about the thing.

Thing being Flood.

 

[Right Divider]

I'm trying to imagine what hydroplate means just based on the fact that me and Mr. Brown think the same way about the thing.

Thing being Flood.

Please watch the videos by Bryan Nickel. Then you won't have to imagine what hydroplate means.

Or read the book.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well that's good. Good to see that just thinking through the matter logically, we arrive at similar conclusions.

I wasn't saying you were correct, or "arrived at similar conclusions."

I was telling you that the answers to your ponderings are found in Dr. Brown's book and in Bryan Nickel's videos.

I'm trying to imagine what hydroplate means

As I said, you don't need to just imagine it. You can see an artist's rendering of what it looks like in both the book and the videos.

just based on the fact that me and Mr. Brown think the same way about the thing.

Thing being Flood.

I'm saying you aren't thinking the same way about it. Hence my telling you to read or watch the provided materials.

 

[Idolater]

I wasn't saying you were correct, or "arrived at similar conclusions."

Oh then I misunderstood your post. I'm going to need to back up again.

Which part of the below is not correct thinking?

Average sea depth is like four kms. Average land elevation is less than 1 km. Plus, the world ocean covers like 70% of the earth's surface and land only 30%. So if all the land were to be 'leveled down', the whole planet would be completely covered in over 2 kms deep water, just with the water that's already in the world ocean.

If before the Flood a lot of this water was under rocky land (meaning under enormous pressure and force), and then suddenly it all rushed up onto the surface (through even just a single fissure in the rock somewhere), then it would be very interesting to know what all that mass transfer and those pressures and forces would do. I'd be curious to see the results of such a cataclysmic event.

If before the water was on top, it was underneath, and then all at once it all came up on top, then maybe there is unequivocal evidence of this occurring.

 

[Right Divider]

@Idolater A couple of comments about your other post.

• You say that the water under the crust "rushed out", but it actually burst out... Like you said, it was under enormous pressure.
• Not all of the water "came up on top". Some was launched into space along with much debris, forming comets, meteors, and TNO's.

 

[Idolater]

@Idolater A couple of comments about your other post.

• You say that the water under the crust "rushed out", but it actually burst out... Like you said, it was under enormous pressure.
• Not all of the water "came up on top". Some was launched into space along with much debris, forming comets, meteors, and TNO's.

Thanks.

I was looking at topography of the ocean floor and down between South America and Antarctica there is a breaking between the continental shelves that definitely makes me think it was caused by an obviously enormous rush of water that happened all at one time.

Also I'm wondering if Mr. Brown even loosely identifies what Flood-denying geologists call the "Cretaceous" as the time before the Flood, the "Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) boundary" as being caused by the Flood, and the "Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) extinction event" as actually being the Flood, in Flood-denying geologist-speak.

I'm not asking for an answer, just chronicling.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm not asking for an answer

There's your problem.

 

[Tambora]

I see the world ocean as evidence that water once covered the entire planet, because it currently still covers 80% of it even today.

Genesis 7 KJV​

(11) In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.​

It seems that water came from below and from above.
Which some scholars believe to have connections to:

Genesis 1 KJV​

(7) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.​

It's interesting to contemplate the landscape of what Eden may have been like before the fall.
Since there is no "sea" mentioned but only "rivers".
And scripture says the whole land was watered by rising mist:

Genesis 2 KJV​

(6) But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.​

Someday we will know.

Revelation 21 KJV​

(1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.​

​

​

Revelation 22 KJV​

(1) And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.​

(2) In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.​

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Genesis 7 KJV​

(11) In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.​

It seems that water came from below and from above.
Which some scholars believe to have connections to:

Genesis 1 KJV​

(7) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.​

It's interesting to contemplate the landscape of what Eden may have been like before the fall.
Since there is no "sea" mentioned but only "rivers".
And scripture says the whole land was watered by rising mist:

Genesis 2 KJV​

(6) But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.​

Someday we will know.

Revelation 21 KJV​

(1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.​

​

​

Revelation 22 KJV​

(1) And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.​

(2) In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.​

Problem is, young earth creationists that hold to heliocentrism, don't have a firmament.
Evidenced by their claim that debris shot up into outer space.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Problem is, young earth creationists that hold to heliocentrism, don't have a firmament.

What are you talking about?

The firmament is the crust of the earth, and the firmament of the heavens is the sky.

Evidenced by their claim that debris shot up into outer space.

How is that evidence that we don't have a firmament?

 

[Tambora]

Problem is, young earth creationists that hold to heliocentrism, don't have a firmament.

Believe them or believe the scriptures.

Evidenced by their claim that debris shot up into outer space.

Dang liter bugs!

 

[JudgeRightly]

Believe them or believe the scriptures.

You realize he's a flat-earther mocking those who believe that the earth orbits the sun, right?

Dang lit[t]er bugs!

All creation groans...

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

What are you talking about?

The firmament is the crust of the earth, and the firmament of the heavens is the sky.

I'm talking about what God said.
God called the firmament heaven not earth.
Day 2

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

How is that evidence that we don't have a firmament?

God doesn't call the firmament earth.
God made the dry land appear in the waters below the firmament.
Day 3

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

There are two bodies of water not two firmaments.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm talking about what God said.

Me too.

God called the firmament heaven not earth.

Yup. "Heaven" was what God called the crust of the earth, because God was creating "heaven on earth," as we today would call it. A paradise for His creation to live in.

Day 2

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Notice that the firmament in the midst of the waters is in the same "waters" from verse 2. The "deep" is the lower depths of the global ocean that existed on day 1.

God doesn't call the firmament earth.

Correct. He calls the dry land Earth, and the bodies of water he called Seas.

The dry land that He called earth was a part of the "Heaven," the firmament God created in the midst of the waters from verse 2.

Note that the first five uses of the term "firmament" do not have the modifying phrase "of the heavens" attached to it. Meaning the first five uses of the word are talking about the same firmament, while the rest of them are talking about something else.

God made the dry land appear in the waters below the firmament.

Incorrect.

God gathered the waters above the firmament (not "of the heavens"), but under the heavens (plural), together into one place.

Meaning the waters under the sky. Those waters he called Seas.

The waters BELOW the firmament (not "of the heavens") are referred to as "the deep." "The deep" usually refers to water, usually deep water. Subterranean waters definitely fit that description.

Genesis 1:2; 7:11; 8:2; 49:25; Deuteronomy 33:13; Nehemiah 9:11; Job 28:14; 38:30; 41:31, 32; Psalm 69:14, 15; 104:6; 107:24; Proverbs 8:27, 28; Isaiah 44:27; 63:13; and so on...

Day 3

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Note that the next and remaining usages in the chapter of "firmament" have "of the heavens" attached to it, which ALL refer to the sky, the "firmament of the heavens," and not the ground/crust/dry land known as simply the "firmament."

So, in actuality, we don't have just one firmament, we have TWO, because of what scripture says.

 

[Tambora]

You realize he's a flat-earther mocking those who believe that the earth orbits the sun, right?

So?
He has a right to his viewpoint of what "firmament" means.