Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noah's Flood and the Geologic Layers (was Noah's shallow sea)
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 213 (83651)
02-05-2004 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Joe Meert
02-05-2004 6:10 PM


No, but we also wouldn't expect to find desert deposits, paleosols and evidence for grounded glaciers
why would desert plants or animals not be expected? And 'grounded glaciers'
You were not careful. Name ONE geologist who has claimed they were swimming around for millions of years? Creationists are the ones who claim long life spans.
Careful, I said "unless you tried to say" if you are not trying to relax, you're off the hook.
You have evidence that they are not glacial deposits
Many of them are, no doubt, especially in colder countries, you have any evidence ALL scratch marks are?
It's your model. When did the flood end in your model
It lasted about a year. It happeneded I think less than 4000 yrs ago.
In a global flood? How exactly do you preserve fine structures like these in a global flood?
What exactly is the problem? Looks like a rock! What was difficult specifically?
Your ye-creationists have had 200+ years to create a detailed model that would answer the questions I asked. Why have they not come close
probably more concerned with building churches!
Permian age sandstone (250 million years old) from the Elgin area, showing tracks and tail drag marks made by animals that inhabited an ancient desert environment
tracks and tail marks? wow. It seems to be you with the problem of trying to assign it that riddiculous age!
Neither does Walt or any other creationist! 200 years of work and nothing
Perhaps bible believers didn't have a big reason to doubt the obvious! And now that someone tried to put the house together upside down (without a Creator)a few are waking up!
What fish did you catch that is an index fossil
coelacanth which Walt says was on the Index fossil list till '38
It's not that they have not been found, it's that they don't exist and/or desert deposits, glacial deposits and paleosols are found in their stead
So why is it in some areas that finding certain things and not others disturbs you?
What phantom column
The one you respect quite a bit, but apparently is non existant in many places. That's not just Mr Brown who talks about that one.
So is every creationist glad to argue in handwaving non-specifics
I think I just figured out what 'hand waving' is, correct me if I'm wrong. It refers to Christians waving their hands together, like saying Halelujah or something, and believing in faith God would not lie in His account of it? (Not needing evidence)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Joe Meert, posted 02-05-2004 6:10 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Joe Meert, posted 02-05-2004 9:12 PM simple has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 213 (83655)
02-05-2004 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by JonF
02-05-2004 7:00 PM


Re: reply 2 (Hey if there's any creationists out there, if they kick me off, you're welco
there are no globally correlatable strata that were deposited under water
I guess things were really chewed up and tossed about. At least there are formations or deposits streching thousands of sq miles of the old mud, and filled with nice little fossils. Sometimes I wonder about you guys.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by JonF, posted 02-05-2004 7:00 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by edge, posted 02-05-2004 10:00 PM simple has replied
 Message 27 by JonF, posted 02-06-2004 11:28 AM simple has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 18 of 213 (83682)
02-05-2004 9:11 PM


Evolutionists Need to do a Better Job
The Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings! thread and the Fossil sorting for simple thread are both picking up posts at a furious rate, and I'm afraid that this one may begin to do the same. I just posted this over at the other threads, and I post it again here:
I'd like to put the onus on the evolutionists to keep the thread from fragmenting into many tiny posts and to keep the discussion focused on the topic of Noah's sea. It is important to first make sure Simple understands the points being made. Only those with the patience to repeatedly explain the same thing many times should participate in discussions with Simple. Participating in a game of "Let's pepper the message board" is strongly discouraged.

--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 19 of 213 (83684)
02-05-2004 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by simple
02-05-2004 8:40 PM


quote:
why would desert plants or animals not be expected? And 'grounded glaciers'
JM: Are you serious? In a global flood? Gimme a break.
quote:
Careful, I said "unless you tried to say" if you are not trying to relax, you're off the hook.
JM: Purely idiotic statement. I am glad you have backed off.
quote:
Many of them are, no doubt, especially in colder countries, you have any evidence ALL scratch marks are?
JM: I asked you to explain these features first.
quote:
It lasted about a year. It happeneded I think less than 4000 yrs ago.
JM: Don't be facetious. Where do I find the evidence for these flood deposits. Be specific and provide evidence to support your age claims.
quote:
What exactly is the problem? Looks like a rock! What was difficult specifically?
JM: What type of rock? What are the features in the rock? Be specific.
quote:
probably more concerned with building churches!
JM: That's no excuse if you are trying to overturn a paradigm. However, it's also a tacit admission that they are not doing science. I agree.
quote:
tracks and tail marks? wow. It seems to be you with the problem of trying to assign it that riddiculous age!
JM: The age is irrelevant. How do they fit into a global flood. You claim the ages are wrong, but provide nothing but ipse dixit arguments.
quote:
Perhaps bible believers didn't have a big reason to doubt the obvious! And now that someone tried to put the house together upside down (without a Creator)a few are waking up!
JM: I'm a bible believer. I believe the bible to be a book about salvation. You seem (without ever defending your position with facts) to think it is a scientific textbook.
quote:
coelacanth which Walt says was on the Index fossil list till '38
JM: you caught a coelacanth? I'm impressed. 1938. Wow, that was a recent reference. Can you document that the coelacanth is an index fossil claim with a scientific reference?
quote:
So why is it in some areas that finding certain things and not others disturbs you?
JM: Disturbs me? Is this your weak attempt at a rhetorical argument? LOL. The problem is not mine, it's ours. Why would we expect desert deposits, paleosols and glacial deposits in the Noachian flood? We are all noticing that you are not answering direct questions. You remind me of my two year old hiding under his blanket and thinking no one knows where he is. As adults, we humor him. Do you want us to pretend the same with you?
quote:
The one you respect quite a bit,
JM: You avodided the question. What is 'phantom' about the column?
quote:
I think I just figured out what 'hand waving' is, correct me if I'm wrong.
JM: Good, it only took you reflecting on a half a dozen of your own posts to figure that out. Now, if we can just get you to figure out how to think on your own and defend your idea with some facts, we'll have made some progress!
quote:
It refers to Christians waving their hands together, like saying Halelujah or something, and believing in faith God
JM: Not just that. It also refers to making up data in order to support your own lack of faith.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 8:40 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 10:08 PM Joe Meert has replied
 Message 29 by simple, posted 02-06-2004 4:24 PM Joe Meert has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 20 of 213 (83709)
02-05-2004 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by simple
02-05-2004 8:44 PM


Re: reply 2 (Hey if there's any creationists out there, if they kick me off, you're welco
quote:
I guess things were really chewed up and tossed about. At least there are formations or deposits streching thousands of sq miles of the old mud, and filled with nice little fossils.
So, thousands of square miles is now global?
quote:
Sometimes I wonder about you guys.
On the other hand, we don't have to wonder about you at all...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 8:44 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by simple, posted 02-06-2004 4:52 PM edge has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 213 (83712)
02-05-2004 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Joe Meert
02-05-2004 9:12 PM


: Are you serious
Are you suggesting that it is silly becuse there was water in the flood, and the plants or animals in question are now desert ones? Or what?
Don't be facetious. Where do I find the evidence for these flood deposits. Be specific and provide evidence to support your age claims
Everywhere just about I look I see evidence! How about the Canadian Rockies, sky high mountains of mostly sedimentary material choc ful of fossils, (sea life etc) Including the famous Burgess shale with all that quickly buried sea life. (support age claims? that's a big topic)
What type of rock? What are the features in the rock? Be specific.
why don't you come on out of the closet and spit it out, why could this have not been a flood item? You brought it up, not me
That's no excuse if you are trying to overturn a paradigm. However, it's also a tacit admission that they are not doing science. I agree
I think saving the world wasn't biggest on the list, like you'd think it oughtta be!
I'm a bible believer. I believe the bible to be a book about salvation. You seem (without ever defending your position with facts) to think it is a scientific textbook
gotta admit I'm impressed, I thought most of the bigwigs were enemies of the faith, not just weak in it! Sorry but Genesis was talked about by Jesus, as was the flood.
The age is irrelevant. How do they fit into a global flood
How don't they? Seems like scurring animals and prints in rock are not that scary
you caught a coelacanth? I'm impressed. 1938. Wow, that was a recent reference
you aren't perfect at paying attention either, don't bother going back to what I said, I'll clue you in I said "IF" I were to fish. Walt says it was in the index. Are you saying he was misinformed?
Disturbs me? Is this your weak attempt at a rhetorical argument? LOL. The problem is not mine, it's ours. Why would we expect desert deposits, paleosols and glacial deposits in the Noachian flood
Because they were a part of almost all life that got wiped out, they must've ended up somewhere! What else could they have done-got beamed up? Is your problem visualizing what are now desert critters in a water filled world? Or what?
You avodided the question. What is 'phantom' about the column
Creationists have said the column is mostly imaginary, and the world is full of places where it is not as expected -layers in wrong order, or missing etc. You must have heard about it.
Good, it only took you reflecting on a half a dozen of your own posts to figure that out. Now, if we can just get you to figure out how to think on your own and defend your idea with some facts, we'll have made some progress!
I would point out here evolution wasn't your idea, and although you have become well versed in it's tenets, basically you are echoing the party line. How is it you would be familiar with free thought?
Not just that. It also refers to making up data in order to support your own lack of faith.
Making up data is no good your folks are specialists in that Piltdown, pig's teeth etc!! When I think of people waving up hands, in a Christian setting, it isn't really a cheating, lack of faith that comes to mind. I guess it is then a poor parable!
I asked you to explain these features first
I'll go back and look at your scratch photo and see if I can. It looked like from right near a retreating glacier, which of course would make it too easy.
[Fix quoting. --Admin]
[This message has been edited by Admin, 02-06-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Joe Meert, posted 02-05-2004 9:12 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 10:12 PM simple has not replied
 Message 25 by Joe Meert, posted 02-05-2004 11:06 PM simple has not replied
 Message 28 by JonF, posted 02-06-2004 11:31 AM simple has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 213 (83713)
02-05-2004 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by simple
02-05-2004 10:08 PM


back in form
You have evidence that they are not glacial deposits? How do you explain these features in your 'model'
Unless it's a trick photo, looks a lot like glacier marks. Explain them..Ice age? Warm waters, climate change, & like that

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 10:08 PM simple has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 213 (83718)
02-05-2004 10:21 PM


I think the troll is now well fed and is now looking to be suspended so that it is a convenient excuse for not engaging in substantial discussion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 10:27 PM wj has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 213 (83723)
02-05-2004 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by wj
02-05-2004 10:21 PM


hop along
I think the troll is now well fed and is now looking to be suspended so that it is a convenient excuse for not engaging in substantial discussion.
don't trolls get paid for allowing admission somewhere? Your idea of substancial discussion is your own but don't insult me saying just because I don't value old earth assumptions and theories, it's not substancial. Perhaps If I went around making snide comments on threads, and offering literally nothing, you'd feel better. Hop along sir snipey

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by wj, posted 02-05-2004 10:21 PM wj has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 25 of 213 (83740)
02-05-2004 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by simple
02-05-2004 10:08 PM


quote:
Are you suggesting that it is silly becuse there was water in the flood, and the plants or animals in question are now desert ones? Or what?
JM: Don't play stupid. You won't define when the flood happened. I show you desert deposits and ask you if they are flood. You give no answer and seemingly assume that deserts in the flood are no problem. If this is your logic, who am I to even try and discuss this further??
quote:
Everywhere just about I look I see evidence!
JM: I asked you to be specific. I asked you a series of pointed questions meant to elicit a scientific framework for the flood. All I get is vague assertions including (amazingly) that deserts are to be expected during a global flood. Do you have data, or is your entire argument based on vagaries?
quote:
why don't you come on out of the closet and spit it out,
JM: Why should I spit out the answer? You've asserted there was a flood. You've asserted (sans evidence) that the global flood is supported by the geologic record and yet, when shown a figure easily identified by a freshman geology student, you plead ignorance?
quote:
not just weak in it! Sorry but Genesis was talked about by Jesus, as was the flood.
JM: Would Jesus speak in a language understood by the Jews? Did Jesus speak in parables? Did Jesus say "The earth is 6000 years old and the global flood is dated to 4000 years ago"? Please cite scriptural support for this assertion and follow that up with a evidence supporting your ipse dixit assertion that all scripture is true.
quote:
Walt says it was in the index. Are you saying he was misinformed?
JM: yes. I am saying that Walt is misinformed and I am saying that you are lying at the worst and being coy at the best.
quote:
Creationists have said the column is mostly imaginary, and the world is full of places where it is not as expected -layers in wrong order, or missing etc. You must have heard about it.
JM: I've heard this claim made by mindless puppets of young earth creationists. I've never heard them support this with evidence. You willing to be the first? Try to do so without copying lies from Walt Browns sites. Explain it in your own words.
quote:
How is it you would be familiar with free thought
JM: I am a scientist. I get paid for thinking outside the box. As far as parroting the party line that's all you've done. You've uncritically repeated stuff you've read on walt brown's website. You've provided absolutely no evidence that you are able to think for yourself. Do you have such a capability?
quote:
Making up data is no good your folks
JM:How would you know? Walts book is nearly all false, but you don't even comprehend the basics of what he is talking about. Anytime you are asked to provide specifics and a scientific argument, you dodge the questions. Can you think for yourself or not? Show us by defending ONE of your assertions with scientific data.
quote:
I'll go back and look at your scratch photo and see if I can. It looked like from right near a retreating glacier, which of course would make it too easy.
JM: How about starting by learning the correct terminology? How would you tell if it was from a retreating or advancing glacier? How does this fit into the global flood model? What is the global flood model (r.e. my original 3 questions about correlation and definition of the flood)?
Cheers
Joe meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 10:08 PM simple has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 26 of 213 (83848)
02-06-2004 8:26 AM


Maintaining Order
Hi, All!
I just posted this same message over at the Fossil sorting for simple thread. I repeat it here.
Now that it's morning, I want to reiterate my comments from last night, plus I want to add a little more.
To the evolutionists: Moose has mentioned many times the downside of piling on. This thread is a nearly perfect illustration of the problems inherent when that happens. Discussion became fragmented because many people made the same point, but each in their own way, and the original points often became lost as posts became shorter and shorter. I just traced Mark's post back to see what the original point was and had to go back at least six messages before discovering it concerned cladistic correlations. This is no way to conduct a debate.
Some of the best points were made early on but were never comprehended, and now they've become lost. I think a return to the early simple points is a good idea. Evolutionists should procede gently but persistently with these points until they are understood.
To the Creationists, mostly Simple: I appreciate that you acknowledged and understood my points about the way discussion takes place here at EvC Forum. This thread resides in one of the science forums, and so discussion here should seriously address the topic. It helps a lot if you understand a post before replying to it. Understanding a point is not the same as agreeing with it. In fact, it is essential to understand a point if you're to successfully rebut it. As you read above, I'm encouraging evolutionists to persist with a particular point until you give an indication of understanding it, and only then move on to the next point.
It may seem to you that I'm singling you out for special criticism, since I'm criticizing you for not understanding the posts you're replying to while I'm not doing that to the evolutionists, and you may therefore perhaps conclude that I am biased. I *am* an evolutionist, and I *do* believe in God. Please trust that I am simply going by what I see, and that's that the evolutionists are piling on, and that you haven't comprehended most of what you've read, plus you don't have the necessary background in which to assess the information anyway. It's like you need hooks on which to hang all the hats, but since you haven't built the house yet you have no walls to which to nail the hooks, and so you're left with a mass of unorganized hats sitting useless on the ground. It takes time to build the house and hang the hooks and organize the hats. It takes time to learn, and I'm urging you to slow down.
Please understand that just because you don't understand the positions of the evolutionists doesn't mean that they are right and you are wrong. It just means that the replies you're currently offering don't offer too many signs of you having understood what you're replying to, and so most of the discussion to this point has been of you and the evolutionists talking past each other. It's this situation that I'd like to bring to an end.

--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 27 of 213 (83911)
02-06-2004 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by simple
02-05-2004 8:44 PM


Re: reply 2 (Hey if there's any creationists out there, if they kick me off, you're welco
At least there are formations or deposits streching thousands of sq miles of the old mud, and filled with nice little fossils
And covered by and intruded into and separated by igneous deposits that did not deposit under water, and sandstone that formed under dry conditions, and paleosols (fossil soils) that did not form under water and took many many years to form. There are no globally correlatable strata that were deposited under water. Do you think that your alleged flood failed to deposit sediment on most of the Earth? What sediment was deposited by your alleged flood, and what msediment was not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 8:44 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by simple, posted 02-06-2004 4:36 PM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 28 of 213 (83912)
02-06-2004 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by simple
02-05-2004 10:08 PM


Seems like scurring animals and prints in rock are not that scary
They are one of the many death knells for the flood hypothesis. Unless you think dry-land animals were scurrying around and digging burrows under the waters of the flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 10:08 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by simple, posted 02-06-2004 4:46 PM JonF has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 213 (83961)
02-06-2004 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Joe Meert
02-05-2004 9:12 PM


Don't play stupid. You won't define when the flood happened. I show you desert deposits and ask you if they are flood. You give no answer and seemingly assume that deserts in the flood are no problem
Apparently you are missing something. If the world was wiped out and every living thing why is it strange I asked you to explain why finding 'desert' deposits is a problem? Under for example the hydroplate theory whole continents slid apart (did you forget you seemed to think the fit wasn't better at the ridge) mountain ranges rose, and were full of squeezed up fossils in some cases. How would it be unusual first of all, that some iguanas or cacti got killed? Like I say tell me where it hurts, and I'll tell you who to call, but be specific! If you have real good solid reasons, why the dedert life was definitly pre flood, fine I'll try and deal with that, when it becomes a 'known quantity' in the equation.
Why should I spit out the answer? You've asserted there was a flood. You've asserted (sans evidence) that the global flood is supported by the geologic record and yet, when shown a figure easily identified by a freshman geology student, you plead ignorance
OK I guess you think I should know your photo, this is the kind of thing I meant by spit it out. I don't see why I should quake at the sight of some scratches. What is your point about them, that they prove something?!
Would Jesus speak in a language understood by the Jews? Did Jesus speak in parables? Did Jesus say "The earth is 6000 years old and the global flood is dated to 4000 years ago"
He talked about Adam, the dates are all in the Bible, and the ages, (even the morning and night, which couldn't have been too long, cause things need the ol sun you know) allowing for slight different interpratation pretty well known. (No parable or coded mystery here) Jesus said how the earth would be just before He returned, as in the days of Noe, when he entered into the ark (Mt 24:37-39)..till the FLOOD came and took them ALL away! Wiped em all out! And do you think it's good science that God Himself closed the ark doo? Is it good science that Jesus rose from the dead-you know, someone could've been there telling us His body's absolute decay rate! Is it good science that Enoch walked with God, and was no more (body and all, bing, up to heaven)? Are historical records of peoples lifetimes, children, how old they were bad science (they used to live almost 1000 yrs) - Looks like people could use that kind of bad science now! Is it a predictable evolution for John, to not be affected by boiling oil, when they dipped him in, or the 3 lads thrown in the extra hot fire without picking up even the smell of smoke as the scientific (verifiable) result of that experiment? And was Elijah operating as one would scientifically expect when he called down fire from heaven? Lastly did hubble pick up the sun standing still while God held it till someone could finish, and win a battle?! Or do you and perhaps your 'church' think only evolution type speculation is valid, and Jesus never rose from the dead? And if He did, if He's such an incompetent fairy story telling liar, why didn't He just crawl back in and stay dead? (Instead of going down where science has never been and really only assumes it knows everything that goes on there-and preached to spirits living there)
yes. I am saying that Walt is misinformed and I am saying that you are lying at the worst and being coy at the best
wow. lying about creationists questioning the 'holy' column? Or what? I should be flattered you think I know quite a bit or something.
here again if you've heard it before, spit it out, what is it you want, just the right set up so you can tell us how great it is? You say they're all wrong, go ahead spend a sentence or two and clear it up! By the way, the impression is coming across you like to try and keep people in the dark, by not being clear. (this ipsy dipso thing, what is it)?
I am a scientist. I get paid for thinking outside the box. As far as parroting the party line that's all you've done. You've uncritically repeated stuff you've read on walt brown's website. You've provided absolutely no evidence that you are able to think for yourself. Do you have such a capability
So, you get paid to be outside the (evolutions) box, and are thinking you are of independant thought. Since I don't know you I guess I'll have to try and believe it. (Reminds me of the story of the little boy in trouble for hitting and spitting at a classmate. "Don't you know the devil made you do those things Johnny?" "Oh no, hitting him may have been the devil's idea, but spitting in his eye was mine!" So, I don't know where your ideas start and the "devil's" end!!)
How would you know? Walts book is nearly all false, but you don't even comprehend the basics of what he is talking about. Anytime you are asked to provide specifics and a scientific argument, you dodge the questions
funny I was thinking the same about you! But you oughta (being a scientist and all) come out with some stuff! And, as I said I'm looking at his (Walt's) theory, and trying to hold it up to see if it could stand. My opinion of it has been it may not be perfect, but its better than that forgery pile of evolution. Someone posted the errant daters must be given another chance, and not thrown out of court for saying what was not true. How about the known hoaxes, and frauds often done (that were caught) by evo liars? Should we give the frauds another chance as well? (don't pretend you don't know about most of them, it's common knowledge). The whole mess should be thrown out. And God guarantees us it will. Thinking outside the box? William Dawson till his dying day swore a fossil he found was genuine. His evo good buddies got together and found a similar looking rock I think it was in Italy, and pronounced it must be the same.(it wasn't a fossil but looked the same) Accepting Dawson's would have put them all out of a job, as it would have disproved the theory out of hand! His out of the box thinking (he was a bigwig too) I admire. You step out of the box and watch what your buddies will do to you!
How about starting by learning the correct terminology? How would you tell if it was from a retreating or advancing glacier? How does this fit into the global flood model? What is the global flood model
I've seen glaciers like the Columbia ice field, and seen lots of their effects there. But what my concern was is for someone to look at stirations way out far from any such thing and then say that the flood never scratched it, it must've been those glaciers. All glory to the glaciers. Then the till spread all around, and say it must have been that ol ice sheet. Is it possible the extent of the ice was exagerated,(in their minds, not so much on purpose) to make it account for more than was actually the case? Now if what one thought was that a known advancing glacier left usually certain marks, therefore those other marks way over yonder look a lot like that, then hey they're no flood scratches after all!
Walt is smart guy not wanting to be 'edited' or moderated by the type of moderators you seem to like being surrounded with here. Perhaps you could do some of these things these churches have failed on for so long? You sound like you just might be someone who could give'm a run for their money! You could possibly put together one of those models that are lacking. You may get a better one than Walt's! Since you know about at least the important part of the bible, salvation, do you want to arrive in heaven, and feel sad about all the things you could have done to help folks believe more in Jesus? Move now, while you still can!
[Fix quoting. --Admin]
[This message has been edited by Admin, 02-06-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Joe Meert, posted 02-05-2004 9:12 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by NosyNed, posted 02-06-2004 4:45 PM simple has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 213 (83964)
02-06-2004 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by JonF
02-06-2004 11:28 AM


easy pickins
And covered by and intruded into and separated by igneous deposits that did not deposit under water, and sandstone that formed under dry conditions..
igneous rock apparently according to Walt's theory was coming up at the flood time, and mountains being formed quickly, squeezed up. so which combination of these things is hard to understand? There was a rising of the flood waters, there was a receding of the waters. There was great wind, currents, volcanic activity, etc. Not all magma was deposited underwater. Which sandstone do you mean and why is it absolute that it was formed under dry conditions. Why would a dry period in the recession stage of the flood not handle it? Why do you believe it seems so many things by faith?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by JonF, posted 02-06-2004 11:28 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by NosyNed, posted 02-06-2004 4:50 PM simple has not replied
 Message 36 by JonF, posted 02-06-2004 4:52 PM simple has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024