Scientific Evidence does not support a Great Flood

My very great apologies, my R2 ref 8 is bad. In copying from the other debate, I picked the wrong reference. As such, I will re-cite it. My apologies once again. I. PT Dr. Baumgardner has actually himself responded to these criticism [3]. “If these critics had read my papers carefully, they would have learned that a low thermal diffusivity actually aids the runaway mechanism. Whether or not the runaway occurs at all depends on a competition between heat production due to deformation and heat loss due to thermal diffusion. Low, rather than high, thermal diffusivity assists this process. The timing of the uplift of today’s high mountain ranges is actually a problem for the uniformitarians. The current uplift rate for the Himalayas of 1–2 cm/year, for example, implies 10-20 km (or 33,000-66,000 feet) uplift per million years! Again, if the critics had read my papers, they would know my time scale for the isostatic rebound is the centuries after the catastrophe rather than months. ” This is partially why I quoted from Baumgardner’s original article. Critics don’t read creationist models before criticising. Furthermore, the point made about a problem for uniformatarians is vastly more than that faced by creationist is a very good one. The second objection contains the same problem as the first. The critic has not read the arguments. Ocean basins are, in this model, formed and deepened near the end of the flood, thus, we should not expect what Ishaak expected. The third objection has also been answered clearly by Baumgardner [3]: “[Baumgardner] place the end of the Flood near the end of the Cenozoic, near the point that the Pliocene sediments begin in the record. ” Thus, the objections fail as catastrophically as the Flood itself! II. Fossil conditions Once again, my apologies, the correct references is [2]. To support my arguments, I will quote from 2. “Physical transport was important, as shown by the alignment of elements, the uniform shapesand size distribution of the commonest specimens, and abrasion. Rare larger blocks show evidence of alignment of elongate elements, parallel to each other and to other clasts (Fig. 5). Inaddition, the distribution of bone sizes shows strong evidence for physical sedimentary sorting. Nearly all the bones are compact robust elements, vertebral centra, metapodials, and phalanges of ornithopods (Fig. 8), of comparable dimensions, namely 20-70 mm maximum diameter. Largerlimb bones are broken into segments rarely exceeding 100 mm in length, although the com-plete elements would have been 300-450mm long. The delicate pterosaur bones, some 100segments of limb shafts, and rare ornithopod teeth, are surprisingly well preserved, perhaps by having been caught up in spaces between the larger more robust elements. ” (Emphasis mine)We can see clearly from this that they were not killed by a meteor impact. A much more likely explanation is a global flood. My apologies once again for the non permissible failure in citing. From what you’ve already quoted of 1, I will quote the exact portion which I think supports my case. “The most parsimonious scenario suggests that Centrosaurus material represents part of a large aggregation of animals (possibly numbering in the thousands) that died by drowning on the alluvial plain. ” Drowning? That sure doesn’t sound like a meteor impact, but much more like a Global Flood. III. Strata Microsuck has actually basically conceded this point. All I have to do now is to show that the author is correct. Indeed he is. Why? For many years, as the author pointed out, and like I also did, laminae was long assumed to represent eons of time. This experiment is certain falsification of that idea. Just because you increase the depth of layers by hundreds of meters does not mean that the experiment is wrong. All one has to do is to increase the height of water and amount of sediment. Hence, Global Flood. To prove that the idea of eons is still prevalent despite experiments to the contrary, I will quote from Wikipedia. “Lamination develops in fine grained sediment when fine grained particles settle, which can only happen in quiet water” [4]As shown by the experiments though, this is false. Contention 1: The Animals As I have not much space, I will refute in brief. Firstly, animals of the past were not as specialized as present animals. It is known that when speciation happens, the new species is not as robust in terms of genetics than the older species. This has been observed happening, but is not evolution. Koala’s dependence on gum is actually an addiction. Not a drug addiction, but an addiction nonetheless. [5] Furthermore, the biogeography of vegetation in the past is much different than the present. Those arthropods could actually have gained access to the cave before 100% humidity went away. 100% humidity must have occurred after the flood. What the whole contention fails to note is the fast rate of diversification observed in nature. Island species are basically specialized versions of mainland species. Sometimes the mainland species dies out due to predators of their own but the island species remain. This is another observed fact of nature. [6]All points about travelling are mute if we consider that they actually spread out over the whole world but died out in all but their present ranges. This is a scientifically acceptable view. You actually have your facts a little off. Marsupials are found in the Americas as well. Animals normally thought to be carnivores have regularly been known to consume vegetation. [7] This is not an isolated case, google “vegetarian lions” to find more. As such, more pairs of clean animals are not needed. I do not understand your point about seeds and saltwater. Firstly, plants did not have to grow directly after the flood, those that propagate more rapidly could have grown and have been eaten faster than those that needed special conditions. Secondly, and very much more importantly, Darwin himself conducted experiments on soaking seeds in saltwater. [8] He was trying to understand how plants got to the islands. Once again, experiments show that the Flood is highly possible. The point about genetic erosion is no problem for creationist. Creationist have long been pointing out that the first created kinds were much more genetically robust than the species of the present. Bottlenecking them would not be too much of a problem. I have several more arguments that I would have made. The first of thosewould be the ref 8 of the previous round about soft-bodied fossils. However, I will not go into it. Instead, I will conclude. (The second contention has been answered thoroughly by CPT) Conclusion Firstly, I would like to thank Microsuck for the debate. Moving on, his arguments has little weight because most of his objections apply to uniformatarian views as well. To cite it as a problem for creationist and as such implying that uniformatarian views are right is just incorrect.1. . http://www.intl-palaios.geoscienceworld.org... (A better version than jstor (Ref 7))2. . https://docs.google.com...3. . http://www.trueorigin.org...4. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(geology)5. . http://creation.com...6. . http://www.nature.com...7. . http://books.google.com.sg...8. . http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk...