originally posted by: thepowerisinyou
a reply to: Ghost147
Well first, I have a Creator. Second, I relate to the One in the Bible. Last, that's my logic.
And that 'logic' is using circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy.
originally posted by: thepowerisinyou
a reply to: Ghost147
How do you know it didnt occur?
Because we can prove it didn't.
A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
1) Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
2) In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted
as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
3) Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found
in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.
4) Layering of the floodwaters contradicts the Flood model, which proposes that the Flood was turbulent enough to stir up sediments on an
incredible scale. The model proposes that the floodwaters became the present oceans, so all the water flowing into the oceans would have ensured that
they were well mixed. The freshwater fish would have had no place to find fresh water.
5) The fact that many fish can tolerate wide ranges in salinity does not mean that all can. Furthermore, the problem applies to more than fish.
Freshwater invertebrates are commonly used as indicators of the health of streams. Even a tiny amount of pollution can cause many species to disappear
from the stream.
6) Aquatic organisms would have more than salinity to worry about, such as the following:
Heat. All mechanisms proposed to cause the Flood would have released enough heat to boil the oceans. The deposition of limestone would release
enough heat to boil them again. Meteors and volcanoes that occurred during the Flood, as implied by their presence in layers attributed to the Flood
by flood geologists, would probably have boiled them again (Isaak 1998). Woodmorappe (1996, 140) dismissed the problem of volcanoes but ignored all
the other sources of heat.
7) Acid. The volcanoes that erupted during the Flood would also have produced sulfuric acid, enough to lower the pH of the ocean to 2.2, which
would be fatal to almost all marine life (Morton 1998b).
8) Substrate. Many freshwater and marine invertebrates rely on a substrate. They anchor themselves on the substrate and rely on currents to
carry their food to them. During the Flood, substrates would have been uninhabitable at least part of the time, especially on land. Woodmorappe (1996,
141) suggested floating pumice as a substrate, but it would float with the currents, so currents would not bring nutrients to animals on them.
9) Pressure. The Flood would have caused great fluctuation in sea pressures. Many deep-sea creatures invariably die from the decompression when
brought to the surface. Other surface animals would die from too much pressure if forced deep underwater.
10) Woodmorappe predicted a sudden extinction of fish caused by the Flood. "[P]resent-day marine life is but an impoverished remnant of that which
had originally been created and had existed before the Flood" (1996, 142). However, the actual pattern of extinction we see shows convincing disproof
of the Flood. Living genera become decreasingly represented in fossils as one goes deeper in the geological column, until there are no recent genera
in the Triassic, and only about 12 percent of recent genera have any fossil record. Extinct genera continue back to the Cambrian (Morton 1998a). This
pattern exactly matches what one would expect from evolution. It contradicts a global flood, which should include modern fish more-or-less uniformly
throughout the flood-deposited sediments.
11) Not all plants could survive the Flood for some of the following reasons:
Many plants (seeds and all) would be killed if soaked for several months in water, especially salt water.
Some plants do not produce seeds; they would have been killed when the Flood either uprooted or covered them.
Not all seeds could survive a year before germinating (Benzing 1990; Densmore and Zasada 1983; Garwood 1989).
12) The Flood was an ecological catastrophe. Creationists credit it with eroding and redepositing sediments miles thick, raising mountains, carving
immense canyons, and even repositioning continents. This alone would doom many plants to extinction, even if they or their seeds survived the Flood,
for some of the following reasons:
Most of the world's seeds would have been buried under many feet -- even miles -- of sediment. This would keep them from sprouting.
Many plants require particular soil conditions to grow. The Flood would have eroded away all the topsoil which provides the optimum conditions
for most plants.
Some seeds will germinate only after being exposed to fire. After the Flood, there was nothing to burn.
Most flowering plants are pollinated by insects, but the only insects around after the Flood would have been those Noah carried aboard the
ark. The surviving seeds would have had to find the proper conditions of soil type and burial depth in a small area around where the ark landed.
Plants live not as individuals, but as communities. If you cut down the redwoods, you kill not only the redwoods but also dozens of other
plants that depend on the community structure. After the Flood, there would have been no ecological communities, only bare land. Any plant that
depends on a mature community (for shade, shelter, humidity, or support, for example) could not survive until such a community matures, which usually
takes years to decades.
Woodmorappe (throughout his book, not just regarding plants) made two fundamental errors:
He noted that "many" could survive the flood conditions, disregarding the significant number that could not, but that are alive anyway.
He assumed that plants and animals could live in isolation, ignoring that life lives in, and depends upon, ecologies. Simply preserving plants
and animals would keep them alive for a very short time. Noah would have had to rebuild many entire ecologies to maintain the life we see today.
13) Evolution predicts the geographical distribution of plant kinds that we observe, with many species occurring on one continent and not others.
Flood geology predicts that this pattern would not occur. Flood theory fails.
14) Varves within the geologic column show seasonal layers over many, many years. In many cases, such as the Green River formation, these layers
are too fine to have settled out in less than several weeks per layer. Varves in New England show evidence of climate change 17,500 to 13,500 years
ago, which matches climate patterns in other parts of the world (Rittenour et al. 2000). These layers prove that the geological record was not
produced in just one event.
And I can go on and on and on. Every single thing on Earth shows that there was never a global flood at any time