Why the Fossil Record Can't Be Due To Noah's Flood

[EarlyActs]

You can't use Bretz work as an argument for a global flood when Bretz himself does not argue for a global flood

I am however a bit confused why they would censor him and 2, why are you showing an outdated map? When I visited the Autzen stadium, Eugene OR, about 2005, it said that Lake Missoula soil was that far south in the Williamette. That's a lot of hyrdological power.

If the Cordilleron was breaking up, is that a "global" event?

 

[TB2]

I am however a bit confused why they would censor him

They didn't "censor" him they just didn't accept his work. Bretz still published his findings, and debated with scientists who disagreed. Eventually he won geologists over on the basis of the evidence.

why are you showing an outdated map? When I visited the Autzen stadium, Eugene OR, about 2005, it said that Lake Missoula soil was that far south in the Williamette. That's a lot of hyrdological power.

I'm not. Watch that video link I posted, shows Missoula floods into Oregon

If the Cordilleron was breaking up, is that a "global" event?

No, the melting of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet was not a global event.

Here's a question: if scientists are so bad and unfair and are running a conspiracy and "censored" him, then why did scientists eventually recognize his claims and award him the highest achievement in modern geology for his work?

Bretz was the one who discovered ancient Lake Missoula as the water source of the Missoula floods. Again, Bretz work can't be used to support a global flood, because Bretz himself did not claim it was evidence of a global flood, but a regional flood caused by the breaking of an ice dam

 

[EarlyActs]

They didn't "censor" him they just didn't accept his work. Bretz still published his findings, and debated with scientists who disagreed. Eventually he won geologists over on the basis of the evidence.

I'm not. Watch that video link I posted, shows Missoula floods into Oregon

No, the melting of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet was not a global event.

Here's a question: if scientists are so bad and unfair and are running a conspiracy and "censored" him, then why did scientists eventually recognize his claims and award him the highest achievement in modern geology for his work?

Bretz was the one who discovered ancient Lake Missoula as the water source of the Missoula floods. Again, Bretz work can't be used to support a global flood, because Bretz himself did not claim it was evidence of a global flood, but a regional flood caused by the breaking of an ice dam

re scientist: because they were steered by the Huxleys to war on Christian faith. It is that simple. They wanted the elite races to dominate the world, which is why the frontispiece of the originals of OS says just that. They were pissed about the loss of $ from evangelicals 'messing with the trafficking of slaves.' Also about the US Constitution's Creator and rights. They supported and funded the Friday Club and the Mosleyites in WW2 who bent over backward for the Third Reich and wanted it to take England. Sanger in LA studied under C Goethe, Nazi philosopher, and such a core 'scientist' that a Sacramento park and CA campus and sites at Yosemite were named for him. These were the major 'dealers' in science of the time, and you want me to like them, to pretend they are pure wind-driven snow?

If you watch the bio pic of Darwin by the BBC or other British production co, you will see some of this 'in action.' CREATION. It is astounding that the thing which would have provided hope in the face of his daughter's death was debated for 15 years before he let go and gave in to the pressure of the Huxleys over his own doubts and misgivings and known obstacles. Why would a person wait 15 years on such a decision, and still decide against his misgivings??? This way too much messing around with information and facts for me and apparently for millions of others.

I do not share your belief that science is so pure and innocent.

So they buried Pellegrini, and the delayed Bretz 40 years. Media control can do a lot with 40 years. And they did. In they 1950s they worked to eliminate 'grand juries' and replace them with elected prosecutors for 6 years at a time, to ruin the Christian basis of society in a similar way. You will find that G Soros, also an active Nazi in his youth, was important in this whole process.

The Cordilleron break up was the slowest part of a global event, the Cataclysm; if it had not been global, the icefield would still be intact. So slow that I mentioned the Glacier Bay mouth item dated 1760. Mentioning that does not mean it was not a global event.

Tell me how the Cascades were breached.

Tell me how Monterey is 3x the volume of Grand and the material is from half a continent away. Trickles do not make the world's largest canyon.

 

[TB2]

I do not share your belief that science is so pure and innocent.

I never said it is. Science is very fallible. But there's a big difference between that and imagined convoluted, conspiracies that on closer examination don't hold up under scrutiny. Like that fact that Bretz wasn't actually censored and was ultimately accepted by scientists.

Tell me how the Cascades were breached

They weren't. We've been over this.

Tell me how Monterey is 3x the volume of Grand and the material is from half a continent away. Trickles do not make the world's largest canyon

Carving a canyon's one thing, but first depositing 2-3 miles thick of sediment including slow growth stromatolites and reefs and sea level rising and falling six times and mass deposits of arid dry *sand dunes* (not underwater), and evidence of erosion and scouring and karst topography in between and within these 2-3 miles, and 60% of Grand Canyon sediments low energy carbonates and shales that require non-catastrophic quiet waters to settle out (etc, etc, etc....)

AND THEN time for those 2-3 miles thick sediment to lithify and cement, so THAT THEN THE GRAND CANYON CAN BE ERODED AFTER ALL THAT.... You can't do all that in one year.

 

[TB2]

and the delayed Bretz 40 years

No one delayed or censored Bretz. He published dozens of articles in the scientific journals during those 40 years that ANYONE could look up and read.

The bottom line is that Bretz showed (with evidence) that massive regional flooding occurred (more than once, multiple times) with water from ancient Lake Missoula when an ice dam periodically failed. Bretz proved a regional flood, not a global flood.

 

[EarlyActs]

No one delayed or censored Bretz. He published dozens of articles in the scientific journals during those 40 years that ANYONE could look up and read.

The bottom line is that Bretz showed (with evidence) that massive regional flooding occurred (more than once, multiple times) with water from ancient Lake Missoula when an ice dam periodically failed. Bretz proved a regional flood, not a global flood.

Where did that much ice come from, if not a global event? Why are so many polar ice cores turbid instead of clear?

Who said it was a year? The initial hydrological event was, but look how long ice field melting has gone (Glacier Bay's mouth 1760). For that matter, is Mt St Helens "outside" of the event? The 10K ft slip in S. Africa?

I don't recall a thing about the Cascades, sorry. I do have common sense to know that you've got to bust through it before you can have Missoula slurry get to Eugene.

Why build a ship as big as the ark for a local flood? Are you saying that part is specious as well? At the dock nearby, I can see what hull north Pacific commercial fishermen need for 3 meters (https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...620&p=median+wave+height+north+pacific+winter), so it appears Noah and co were expecting about 10x that...for a regional flood? Really? The Hebrew term is actually destruction.

btw, all this talk was about delayed descriptions. Do you understand my position, and the 3 other examples I gave (mountains, Luke re the Jewish war issues, the 'and also after' about the Nephilim)?

by way of follow up to the above post about racist science, I found this item: that S. Africa did not teach evolution in public school because of its inherent connection to racism, until 1980. It seems that it became an op for creating tension useful to certain political forces. Not hard to figure out whom.

 

[TB2]

Where did that much ice come from, if not a global event? Why are so many polar ice cores turbid instead of clear?

Ice Age. But the ice was just blocking flow of water from ancient Lake Missoula

Who said it was a year?

Scripture

I don't recall a thing about the Cascades, sorry. I do have common sense to know that you've got to bust through it before you can have Missoula slurry get to Eugene.

Flowed through Columbia River Valley Gorge. See maps and video link

Why build a ship as big as the ark for a local flood? Are you saying that part is specious as well?

Bible depicts a flood beyond global, of cosmic proportions

appears Noah and co were expecting about 10x that...for a regional flood? Really? The Hebrew term is actually destruction

You are conflating science and Scripture

On the science side if things: bottom line, Bretz determined that Lake Missoula was the source of this regional flood

 

[EarlyActs]

A few weeks after the Juneau flood occurred this month, NOAA posted that this stood for 'decades of erosion.' I think this shows a misunderstanding of the process and the event. The event was a day long. A glacial lake burst. Water seeks to get level and stable the quickest way possible. No decades of erosion would cause the same thing, because there is such low force to them.

It is simply a rate x time question. If there is high rate, there is low time, and vica-verca. There are thus gobs of streams and rivers that have never done anything destructive because the rate--and energy in it--is so low.

The event hit a high that was 2x the normal flow; I have measurements of stream ravines that show an event in an area that averaged 225x the normal winter high. All damage is tragic, but this was hardly a disaster. It can, however, help us understand the magnitude of the Cataclysm.

 

[EarlyActs]

Interesting how fossils are "scarce" when the footage from docs of these sites is that they are slammed together in vast piles. They might spend more time on explaining those piles than fragmenting all discussion to how their jigsaw is so stingy about pieces needed.

The Continuously Evolving Picture of the World’s Largest Raptor

Utahraptor is an official state dinosaur and an NBA mascot’s inspiration. Understanding it has been anything but simple.

getpocket.com

 

[EarlyActs]

Before he left, I recall TB2 looking up a Discover magazine article on Biblical floods and saying it didn't exist.

Biblical-Type Floods Are Real, and They're Absolutely Enormous

Geologists long rejected the notion that cataclysmic flood had ever occurred — until one of them found proof of a Noah-like catastrophe in the wildly eroded river valleys of Washington State.

www.discovermagazine.com

Lead notes:

• 
  
• /
• Planet Earth

Biblical-Type Floods Are Real, and They're Absolutely Enormous​

Geologists long rejected the notion that cataclysmic flood had ever occurred — until one of them found proof of a Noah-like catastrophe in the wildly eroded river valleys of Washington State.​

By David R MontgomeryAug 28, 2012 9:00 PM



[prob the same UW proof who guest-lectured at Harvard on the church's preservation of the history of geology. Youtube.]

 

[Frank Robert]

Interesting how fossils are "scarce" when the footage from docs of these sites is that they are slammed together in vast piles. They might spend more time on explaining those piles than fragmenting all discussion to how their jigsaw is so stingy about pieces needed.

The Continuously Evolving Picture of the World’s Largest Raptor

Utahraptor is an official state dinosaur and an NBA mascot’s inspiration. Understanding it has been anything but simple.

getpocket.com

Can you supply a link to the images of the "vast piles?"
I am not doubting that here could be hundreds of bones from millions of years of accumulation.

 

[ChristB4us]

WHY THE FOSSIL RECORD CAN'T BE DUE TO NOAH'S FLOOD

• This is not an argument against the biblical Flood.

• This is an argument against the common assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood.

1. The Bible doesn't actually say that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. That is an assumption.

2. There are biblical reasons to question this assumption.

3. There are scientific reasons to question this assumption.

‐-----‐‐----------------------------------------------‐------------
*Here is a biblical reason to question the assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah Flood:

1. The Bible identifies the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers as two of the four rivers associated with the Garden of Eden before the Flood.

2. The Bible identifies the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers as still existing after the Flood.

3. But if the fossil record was the result of Noah's Flood, then the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers should no longer exist today, but should be buried underneath >5 miles of fossil record sediment.

View attachment 316

*Counterargument: The usual reply to this is that the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers in Genesis 2 (Pre-Flood) are not the same rivers as the (Post-Flood) Tigris and Euphrates Rivers referenced later in Genesis.

Problems with this Counterargument: (1) There is nothing in Genesis to suggest that two entirely different rivers (with the same names) are being referred to. (2) Genesis 2 identifies the (Pre-Flood) Tigris River with reference to (Post-Flood) Asshur (ancient capital of Assyria). (3) It is a completely ad hoc counterargument only proposed in order to try to save the assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. (4) The straightforward, literal understanding of Scripture that the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers are referring to the same rivers throughout Scripture (and not different rivers by the same name) was never questioned until recently in modern times, when oil drilling in the Middle East revealed that the Tigris & Euphrates are underlain by >5 miles of fossil record.

For the point of the counter argument, if there were not entirely different rivers, why are they finding ruins underneath the Euphrates?

Falling waters of Euphrates, Tigris rivers reveal submerged archaeological sites Read more: https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2022/08/falling-waters-euphrates-tigris-rivers-reveal-submerged-archaeological-sites#ixzz8F1pLv64E

Another link below;

Learn About The Historic Ruins Found Beneath The Euphrates River

It is obvious that the route of the two rivers are different from what it was before the global flood and it should be obvious that the global flood covered those ruins too.

What formed the two rivers originally by the mists before the flood but now by rainfall since the flood, should be weighed in on how the two rivers were formed again but creating a different route than what they may have been previously known for before the global flood.

It would explain why nobody can find the Garden of Eden yet.

 

[ChristB4us]

For the point of the counter argument, if there were not entirely different rivers, why are they finding ruins underneath the Euphrates?

Falling waters of Euphrates, Tigris rivers reveal submerged archaeological sites Read more: https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2022/08/falling-waters-euphrates-tigris-rivers-reveal-submerged-archaeological-sites#ixzz8F1pLv64E

Another link below;

Learn About The Historic Ruins Found Beneath The Euphrates River

It is obvious that the route of the two rivers are different from what it was before the global flood and it should be obvious that the global flood covered those ruins too.

What formed the two rivers originally by the mists before the flood but now by rainfall since the flood, should be weighed in on how the two rivers were formed again but creating a different route than what they may have been previously known for before the global flood.

It would explain why nobody can find the Garden of Eden yet.

@TB2

Correction on my part; The boldened portion of the quote below is in error since the world was created by His words as well as the Garden of Eden in that 6th day rather than the two rivers being formed by that mist.

"What formed the two rivers originally by the mists before the flood but now by rainfall since the flood, should be weighed in on how the two rivers were formed again but creating a different route than what they may have been previously known for before the global flood.

The two rivers were formed by His words in creation week and the mist "may have" "sustained" the original two rivers by His words before the flood, but certainly did not formed the two rivers before the flood.

 

[EarlyActs]

And there's more.....

Then in the MIDDDLE of the what is supposed to be Noah's Flood, there are massive, regional scale (Permian) evaporite deposits of halite and gypsum salts that require evaporation to form.... right in the middle of what is supposed to be the Flood

And we also have another giant reef complex (Permian)

During the MIDDLE of what is supposed to be the Flood, we also find massive (Permian) Red Beds with layers of gypsum salt in between. The gypsum requires evaporation to form. And the red beds require atmospheric oxygen to literally rust out the iron. In both cases, dry, arid conditions on land are required.

And in the Triassic we find the same type of thing. Massive Red Bed deposits that can't form underwater but require dry, arid conditions and atmospheric oxygen to rust out the iron. These types of deposits can't form underwater

You must account for all the evidence, not just some. If you're going to cite "enormous area deposits," then you have to account for enormous distributions of slow growing stromatolites and reefs. But you also must account for "enormous area deposits" of evaporites and red beds right in the MIDDLE of the Flood that can't form underwater.

You also still haven't rebutted the Biblical reasons given for why the fossil record can't be due to Noah's Flood...

WHY THE FOSSIL RECORD CAN'T BE DUE TO NOAH'S FLOOD

• This is not an argument against the biblical Flood.

• This is an argument against the common assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood.

1. The Bible doesn't actually say that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. That is an assumption.

2. There are biblical reasons to question this assumption.

3. There are scientific reasons to question this assumption.

‐-----‐‐----------------------------------------------‐------------
*Here is a biblical reason to question the assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah Flood:

1. The Bible identifies the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers as two of the four rivers associated with the Garden of Eden before the Flood.

2. The Bible identifies the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers as still existing after the Flood.

3. But if the fossil record was the result of Noah's Flood, then the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers should no longer exist today, but should be buried underneath >5 miles of fossil record sediment.

*You need to provide solutions to all the above problems and that still just the beginning.

*You also need to identify the specific location in the fossil record where Noah's Flood allegedly started and ended.

Your oxidation lines puzzle me because you are saying they were never out of the water in the "middle" of the flood. How do you know?

 

[EarlyActs]

It's a forced fit. AiG makes such a big deal about following the literal teaching of Scripture and not compromising, but picks and chooses what it accepts as literal in the Bible. The six rise-fall global changes in sea level we see in the geologic record can't all be made to fit a single rise-and-fall Flood. Not if we're going to stay true to the literal teaching of Scripture.

Unless it is a description of the whole period without bothering with numerous details.

 

[EarlyActs]

Unless it is a description of the whole period without bothering with numerous details.

I’m puzzled at the dates of the two previous posts. I have been far too busy on other projects. My memory is that my last exchange with TB2 was almost a year ago.

 

[CrowCross]

Then in the MIDDDLE of the what is supposed to be Noah's Flood, there are massive, regional scale (Permian) evaporite deposits of halite and gypsum salts that require evaporation to form.... right in the middle of what is supposed to be the Flood

Rapid Formation of Salt Deposits (article)​

Salt deposits can form in other places and in other ways besides large salt lakes that evaporate over long periods of time (like the Great Salt Lake in Utah or the Dead Sea in Israel). Geologists have traditionally interpreted thick salt deposits as evaporites. In other words, they picture a large basin of seawater (like the Mediterranean Sea) being enclosed and sealed off from the surrounding ocean. The confined salt water evaporates, forming a thick deposit of salt on the bottom of the basin.

Conventional scientists have recognized that this model is fraught with many paradoxes and unresolved problems.31 Recently, a new theory of salt formation has been proposed that overcomes some of these difficulties.32 This theory points out that salt is not very soluble33 at high temperatures and pressures. These situations are common near deep-sea hydrothermal vents. The authors cite examples from the Red Sea and Lake Asale (Ethiopia) where these situations exist and are associated with abundant salts. Several times throughout the paper, the authors cite that rapid deposition of the salt with accompanying rapid sedimentation rates are necessary conditions for the salt to be preserved. If the salt is not rapidly covered, it will dissolve back into the seawater when the conditions change.