More Flood Stuff

[Asimov]

Amanda asked me to keep posting things I've found in regards to the flood or Creationism. I have this presupposition: Since Creationists a priori suggest a flood was true and then look for evidence, anything that follows from a Creationist is inherently wrong....however I am willing to change my mind in regards to the facts presented. Consider something I wrote a while ago on my blog:

 

Let me direct you to the Eocene Fossil Forests in Yellowstone National Park. In the National Park, we find in situ fossil forests in areas such as Specimen Ridge. In situ means that they were buried “as is”. They didn’t have time to decay, and die like most trees do. These trees were rooted in fine-grained tuffaceous sandstone and encased in conglomerated mudflows. You might think that this is a perfect example of a global flood. However, we find layers of these fossil forests one on top of another, each layer with roots intact, and rapidly buried in mudflows. For Specimen Ridge, there are estimates of nine to twelve layers of these fossil forests. Just think for one second. We have 9-12 forests of trees one on top of each other, separated by layers. Did the global flood wait for these forests to grow?

 

http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/forests.htm

[Mike D]

I thought Yellowstone was a caldera (supervolcano) that last erupted 600 thousand years ago, which is what all this evidence supports. But instead we should believe that this is evidence of a global flood and young earth creationism?

[Mr. Neil]

Ah, Specimen Ridge. I forgot how fun it was to use that formation. One of the finest ways to demonstrate the intentional evasiveness of creationism.

 

I try really hard to not let my laughter spit land in their faces when they start telling me about how flood waters can bury upright trees in such a way that it appears as though they existed as a forest. And yet, the simpler explanation that the forest was buried by gradual sedimentation is not allowed.