Vegetation and Noah's Flood

[Collecemall]

I've seen all sorts of discussions about the flood and different ways that it is disproved but I've not seen a good treatment discussing land vegetation and how it would factor in the discussion. Other than it would be near impossible for plants to live underwater for a year. I would be interested in seeing how flood proponents explain why we don't see more of a random distribution of plant species. There would after all be seeds floating vast distances and mingling of various fauna back and forth between continents etc. Since this isn't what we see I'm curious how they deal with this if at all. I've seen crazy shit about animals flying through the atmosphere via volcano eruptions but me thinks this would be even more difficult to explain away. Is anyone aware of where I might find a discussion like this? Or is this something one of you brainiacs would want to do a blog topic on perhaps?

 

[Grumpy Santa]

I've seen all sorts of discussions about the flood and different ways that it is disproved but I've not seen a good treatment discussing land vegetation and how it would factor in the discussion. Other than it would be near impossible for plants to live underwater for a year. I would be interested in seeing how flood proponents explain why we don't see more of a random distribution of plant species. There would after all be seeds floating vast distances and mingling of various fauna back and forth between continents etc. Since this isn't what we see I'm curious how they deal with this if at all. I've seen crazy shit about animals flying through the atmosphere via volcano eruptions but me thinks this would be even more difficult to explain away. Is anyone aware of where I might find a discussion like this? Or is this something one of you brainiacs would want to do a blog topic on perhaps?

There would be expected to be a global layer of massive amounts of dead vegetation around the world, probably mixed with a myriad of dead animals from all periods of time beginning and a substantial amount of large sediments caused by such a catastrophic event beginning at a specific geological layer.

This does not exist.

 

[Visaki]

There would be expected to be a global layer of massive amounts of dead vegetation around the world, probably mixed with a myriad of dead animals from all periods of time beginning and a substantial amount of large sediments caused by such a catastrophic event beginning at a specific geological layer.

This does not exist.

Oil and coal. Yes, seriously. That's how Noahian literalists explain the existence of oil and coal; they are the remnants of all the plants and animals that died in the flood.

Also; Magic. Lots and lots of magic.

P.S. As a somewhat of a horticulture buff, specially Capsicums, I can say that most seeds wouldn't survive being in water for a year.

 

[Collecemall]

Even if we assumed it was possible that seeds lived a full year under water (and that all plants were producing seeds at the time) wouldn't there still be a problem for the flood to explain? Isn't vegetation much like animal species mostly segregated? I don't know a specific example but I'm relatively sure Asia and North America while having similar climates in various regions have vastly different plant species. If a flood happened wouldn't we have seen much less difference? Meaning seeds from both continents would have made their way back and forth? At least to some degree? I've never seen this argument used before but it seems like it would be valid and even more difficult to explain than even the issues we all recognize with animals.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Even if we assumed it was possible that seeds lived a full year under water (and that all plants were producing seeds at the time) wouldn't there still be a problem for the flood to explain? Isn't vegetation much like animal species mostly segregated? I don't know a specific example but I'm relatively sure Asia and North America while having similar climates in various regions have vastly different plant species. If a flood happened wouldn't we have seen much less difference? Meaning seeds from both continents would have made their way back and forth? At least to some degree? I've never seen this argument used before but it seems like it would be valid and even more difficult to explain than even the issues we all recognize with animals.

Definitely, although a creationist could try and make the silly argument that the seeds stayed in their local regions and weren't carried about by the waters mixing species all over the place where they weren't before blah blah blah.

There's also the problem with no vegetation after the flood for herbivores to eat...

 

[thenexttodie]

I've seen all sorts of discussions about the flood and different ways that it is disproved but I've not seen a good treatment discussing land vegetation and how it would factor in the discussion. Other than it would be near impossible for plants to live underwater for a year. I would be interested in seeing how flood proponents explain why we don't see more of a random distribution of plant species. There would after all be seeds floating vast distances and mingling of various fauna back and forth between continents etc. Since this isn't what we see I'm curious how they deal with this if at all. I've seen crazy shit about animals flying through the atmosphere via volcano eruptions but me thinks this would be even more difficult to explain away. Is anyone aware of where I might find a discussion like this? Or is this something one of you brainiacs would want to do a blog topic on perhaps?

Certain plants thrive in different types of soil and climate. I don't think the different continents existed before the flood.

 

[thenexttodie]

There would be expected to be a global layer of massive amounts of dead vegetation around the world, probably mixed with a myriad of dead animals from all periods of time beginning and a substantial amount of large sediments caused by such a catastrophic event beginning at a specific geological layer.

This does not exist.

There is a massive global layer of dead vegetation which exists in the form of coal.

 

[thenexttodie]

I don't know a specific example but I'm relatively sure Asia and North America while having similar climates in various regions have vastly different plant species.

I would say they do not.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

There would be expected to be a global layer of massive amounts of dead vegetation around the world, probably mixed with a myriad of dead animals from all periods of time beginning and a substantial amount of large sediments caused by such a catastrophic event beginning at a specific geological layer.

This does not exist.

There is a massive global layer of dead vegetation which exists in the form of coal.

The problem with that assertion is that above the coal laid down in the Carboniferous era is that above that you have layers of limestones and shales.

I'll leave it to you at this point to figure out why that's a problem...

 

[ldmitruk]

There would be expected to be a global layer of massive amounts of dead vegetation around the world, probably mixed with a myriad of dead animals from all periods of time beginning and a substantial amount of large sediments caused by such a catastrophic event beginning at a specific geological layer.

This does not exist.

There is a massive global layer of dead vegetation which exists in the form of coal.

The problem with that assertion is that above the coal laid down in the Carboniferous era is that above that you have layers of limestones and shales.

I'll leave it to you at this point to figure out why that's a problem...[/quote]

Not to mention the deposits are scattered across the world as opposed to forming a single continuous layer.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The problem with that assertion is that above the coal laid down in the Carboniferous era is that above that you have layers of limestones and shales.

I'll leave it to you at this point to figure out why that's a problem...

Not to mention the deposits are scattered across the world as opposed to forming a single continuous layer.

Also not to mention that there are two different geological periods that are famous for large coal deposits.

 

[ldmitruk]

Also not to mention that there are two different geological periods that are famous for large coal deposits.

Or that the burning mountain in Australia is coal fire that has been burning for 6000 years. That would have required coal forming instantaneously during the mythical flood. Oh I forgot, God did it :lol:

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Also not to mention that there are two different geological periods that are famous for large coal deposits.

Or that the burning mountain in Australia is coal fire that has been burning for 6000 years. That would have required coal forming instantaneously during the mythical flood. Oh I forgot, God did it :lol:

Burning Mountain! That is awesome! How have I never heard of this before?

 

[thenexttodie]

The problem with that assertion is that above the coal laid down in the Carboniferous era is that above that you have layers of limestones and shales.

I'll leave it to you at this point to figure out why that's a problem...

I know this has been presented as a problem to creationists before and I have seen it debated on other web forums. I am not educated enough to really understand hardly any of it.

Not to mention the deposits are scattered across the world as opposed to forming a single continuous layer.

Is this true? How do we know this?

 

[ldmitruk]

The problem with that assertion is that above the coal laid down in the Carboniferous era is that above that you have layers of limestones and shales.

I'll leave it to you at this point to figure out why that's a problem...

I know this has been presented as a problem to creationists before and I have seen it debated on other web forums. I am not educated enough to really understand hardly any of it.

Not to mention the deposits are scattered across the world as opposed to forming a single continuous layer.

Is this true? How do we know this?

 

[Mr_Wilford]

I think a bigger issue regarding vegetation isn't so much it's distribution, but it's history. A good example would be the fossil record of fire. A great paper on it is here: https://climate08.wikispaces.com/file/view/Scott2008.pdf

Fossil charcoal deposits are evidently a frequent occurrence, and when placed under a microscope, is indistinguishable from modern charcoal formed by forest fires. Sometimes it's called Fusain, other sources call it Pyrofusinite. But either way, there it is.

Are we really supposed to believe that in the middle of a global flood, which had torrential rain, tsunamis, hyper-hurricanes, etc., all of which would squelch flame, massive forest fires were happening at the same time? Really?

 

[Nesslig20]

I think a bigger issue regarding vegetation isn't so much it's distribution, but it's history. A good example would be the fossil record of fire. A great paper on it is here: https://climate08.wikispaces.com/file/view/Scott2008.pdf

Fossil charcoal deposits are evidently a frequent occurrence, and when placed under a microscope, is indistinguishable from modern charcoal formed by forest fires. Sometimes it's called Fusain, other sources call it Pyrofusinite. But either way, there it is.

Are we really supposed to believe that in the middle of a global flood, which had torrential rain, tsunamis, hyper-hurricanes, etc., all of which would squelch flame, massive forest fires were happening at the same time? Really?

Well, storms release an amount of energy with every gallon of rain water, thus if there was a storm that poured such a huge amount of water to cover the world, it would have increased the temperature to well above the boiling point of water.



Of course, that would mean that Noah and his family and his zoo on a boat and the boat itself (made of wood) would have to survive such temperatures too.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

I think a bigger issue regarding vegetation isn't so much it's distribution, but it's history. A good example would be the fossil record of fire. A great paper on it is here: https://climate08.wikispaces.com/file/view/Scott2008.pdf

Fossil charcoal deposits are evidently a frequent occurrence, and when placed under a microscope, is indistinguishable from modern charcoal formed by forest fires. Sometimes it's called Fusain, other sources call it Pyrofusinite. But either way, there it is.

Are we really supposed to believe that in the middle of a global flood, which had torrential rain, tsunamis, hyper-hurricanes, etc., all of which would squelch flame, massive forest fires were happening at the same time? Really?

Well, storms release an amount of energy with every gallon of rain water, thus if there was a storm that poured such a huge amount of water to cover the world, it would have increased the temperature to well above the boiling point of water.



Of course, that would mean that Noah and his family and his zoo on a boat and the boat itself (made of wood) would have to survive such temperatures too.

I'm pretty sure that, even then, the rain itself would squelch any flames. And of course, creationists could just claim some sort of miraculous cooling took place to save Noah et al. But then again, they could do the same with fire. Maybe God lit floating logs on fire for...reasons.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Well, storms release an amount of energy with every gallon of rain water, thus if there was a storm that poured such a huge amount of water to cover the world, it would have increased the temperature to well above the boiling point of water.



Of course, that would mean that Noah and his family and his zoo on a boat and the boat itself (made of wood) would have to survive such temperatures too.

I'm pretty sure that, even then, the rain itself would squelch any flames. And of course, creationists could just claim some sort of miraculous cooling took place to save Noah et al. But then again, they could do the same with fire. Maybe God lit floating logs on fire for...reasons.

 

[Visaki]

I've always thought that the first time these apologists that try to use sciency fluff to back up their fairy tale are cornered and use magic of any sort as an excuse they forfeit their right to be taken seriously, because magic is a non answer and a dishonest escape clause for all their claims.

So I'd be careful and think hard before uttering the words "well God can do anything" or the like if you want to be taken seriously in this crowd.