If that pre-flood environment was highly conducive to widespread water-borne sedimentation, then we could be vastly overestimating the influence of the flood when we attribute even the so-called carboniferous fossilisation to the flood.
You seem to be arguing that if, a 'flood' (widespread water-borne sedimentation) was the preflood environment, then, the flood's effect would be commonplace. Does that proposition seem correct? It doesn't too me because, (a) the narrative describes the flood as so novel as to be commonly thought so unbelievable in those days that no one but, Noah's family prepared in expectation, (
the building of the ark was a surprisingly great and notable achievement suitable as a great sign in those times, which implies there was no commonplace rationale for such large oceanic vessels , © four great headwaters irrigated (watered) the earth in those days, as per God's particular design, rather a non-destructive, agricultural, gardening approach to global water usage, seems to me, (d) the global sediments we are appraising are so incredibly vast in depth, volume and area,that the factual existence of them is unbelievable to mankind today as the consequences of a appropriately sized flood.
The simple error being made in supposing that many small local floods can add up to large flood evidences, is that, there is no such mechanism in existence. For, no environment can be rationalized as alowing steady accretion of small amounts of carefully sorted materials of so many varieties, depths, anomalies and massiveness. I think it can always be shown to be a absurd fiction according to any commonsense thinking . That is why any hope of presenting any alternative geologic history must be based on endless numbers of seperate local fictitious explainations for geologic formations, because, if men stare at each local anomaly as seperate from the global picture they can then actually, and absurdly swallow the camel they are purposely trying to ignore.
Even if you study the current flood model , you have the surprising observation of a vastly higher proportion of wetlands type fauna and flora than exists today.
Which is exactly what the narrative in Genesis describes. An designed for life, irrigated, garden world, without great mountainous heights, nonviolent tame creatures, no waste of land, long lived men, giant placid creatures, without vast expanses of oceans, with few cities.
These fossils are numerous and lie generally at the bottom of the "flood layers".
I would suppose that some areas were quickly buried and not lifted up into the greater flood, as examination of higher entrapment sediments would prove feasible.
Lets look at a wll known example that is commonly explained in a ridiculous fashion by rather intelligent men, and believed without hardly a moments critical thought. (a strange thing)
Oil produced in great sumps in the earth.
Is it not obvious that great masses of vegetation was poured and drawn violently into deep holes in the earth and were then suddenly sealed shut with caps of inorganic sediments, pressed down, and cooked until great petroleum resources were created? And why? So, that at the time of the end on this side of the flood, mankind, when men will run to and fro and knowledge be increased, that all that former life energies would allow man to once again build a one world entity as though presuming to return to such a world and the Genesis narrative described, so that God can bring all the world to a profound and blatant conclusion just as is predicted. But, the former world before the flood required no such energies because it was then the far more naturally utopian environment in a world with one language, close relationship with beasts of the earth, few great cities since, the world was not then broken up into arid zones, and forzen expanses, and forbidding terrains, such as to cause global poverties by many diverse geo-economic stress factors etc etc.
But, there are many things inexplicably the result of such a global event as a flood that killed every thing into what we call extinction.
Man is merely trying on purpose to tell a alternate story.
Do you really think there was a land of dino's perfectly aligned to the imagination of children? What if the truth is that man created violence, bred huge monsters in rebellion, produced the wildness of the beasts by mistreatment, starvation, godless dna manipulation, inhanced and fomented by the knowledge of angelic creatures. Suppose I tell a different story to explain the facts in a far more simple direct way? Without the zillion flood events that make no sense since water seeks its own level. Men are to think that many global floods is more believable the one great flood of Noah's day. Why would many varities of fanciful stories make more sense to any rational philosopher of the earth but, the Genesis narrative doesn't? I can think of one reason, that mankind doesn't naturally like the idea of a God who will judge all men collectively when appropriate to his ends, and individual as is right.
The extinction of the wetlands fauna and flora, and yet survival of the drylands types, indicates that the world was a lot wetter before the flood. Following this logic, we would therefore expect sedimentation and fossilisation during this wetter 1700 year period, which the widely accepted model does not consider.
Hardly good reasoning, sorry to say. Wetlands don't produce fossils of themselves, aren't buried under immense sediments. If wetands became fossilized it can only be due to a dramatically rapid sedimentary advances over the earth.
Notice that if naturalism adherents really could prove the flood of Noah didn't occur then simple specific gravity relations would have been used to do so. And, I have seen the chart of the way the Grand Canyon sediments trend as if all were in the same flood water situation. But, we must no be so niave as to think men who invent such ridiculous stories as we now hear told, aren't doing everything they can to hide the truths.
Consider Lake Vostok in Antartica that will evidence having been rapidly buried in the flood of Noah. Do any of you think that the data will be forthcoming in an exciting ongoing manner. Does anyone think that a lake ended up frozen over and slowly buried over twenty million years by continual yearly snows. Someone isn't thinking carefully. Well, watch what they find, an entombed natural lake in which many creatures from large to microbe are suspended in a anaerobic, suffocated, non lit environment until this year. Will there be creatures there just like the same ones we have now? If so, do you think the materialistic communistic Russian science machine is going to tell the truth? Not hardly.
My point is simple, the proof of the flood of Noah has already been submitted for all to see, and it doesn't matter if it's to big to get our simple minds around, the facts don't lie, there is no other magical way of producing giant global flood sediments other than a giant global flood. Its a no brainer isn't it
...the flood is restricted to what is known as the Permian layer, and the Permian-Triassic boundary.
These boundaries are not time boundaries. They are merely well defined bands of flood sediment being interpreted as some magically produced fossil making environment that no example of can be given anywhere on earth. We can always point to the materials, the particular fossils trapped in this or that layer, and claim that there was a whole world that was...what? slowly buried over a long time, while all the fauna, creatures and what not sat there waiting to be entombed? Not hardly a rational story is it?
Studies of the pre-boundary era by scientists indicate a world of large flat floodplains and wetlands, surrounded by large coastal wetlands.
Gather some facts and then start telling a story about how it all fits the story one is telling? That bears no relationship to science because all men can tell a different story and ward off opposing notions with assumptions of authority etc etc.. Pre-boundary? in time or terrain? What if the flat plains area is simply a flood sediment described as a flat plane etc etc.?
Its all very wet, and very widespread and very low-lying. ie very susceptible to huge amounts of acid rain and rising sea levels caused by Siberian volcanic activity.
Its a fossilized layer of rock someone invented a fictitious just so storyline about,.
What kind of material matrix is the layer bound in, exactly? That would be a rather important evidence to present right? There should be no particular kind of matrix right? Since on earth all kinds, as in every kind of material falls upon the earth hither and yon without any disctinction.
Science, and the current flood model, and the bible, and also an adjusted flood model that includes 1700 years of wetlands ALL indicate a moist protected environment before a destructive worldwide event, and a dry difficult environmnet after this event.
Where is there any evidence of any such thing to be found? What's the specific gravity of the layer in question? What materials are not found anywhere in that layer? Why would soft plants get buried slowly and fossilize before rotting etc?