Summations Only

I'm sure there is only I'm not up on it. Again I'm sure there is. There were no polar caps before the Flood; they formed as a result of the Flood. The glaciers also didn't exist before the Flood but formed afterward. Noah was of the early men who lived nearly a thousand years, still with extraordinary health and vitality even after the Fall. All kinds of diseases we are vulnerable to were unheard of for them, but began to proliferate after the Flood. What concerns me is how someone like you could be brought to see reality.

No, I don't follow those arguments.

Well im sure there isnt should i fed ex you some ice core samples? Just the fact that there are coral reefs shows there was no global flood. most cant survive deep water, some can go to extremes of 2000 meeter's 6600 feet those would die off to, a 2000 meeter flood is not high enough to flood everything. And even if they somehow magically survived evidence of a flood would still be seen. Oh and you can date corals by counting their rings similarly to a tree though some form a ring every day making them more precise. Oh how did they grow so quickly then? um you do know that valleys carved by glaciers show that there was not just one glacier that passed trough the valley some glacial valleys are already carved out but still have a glacier slowly going down the pre carved valley millimetres at a time. How can that bee if the glacier was supposed to be made by the flood? So god made those parasites sometime after the flood? or did they evolve from some non parasitic thingies? Show me ice core samples from all over the world containing sediments that date to the same time period and i might be inclined to believe there was some global flood. Find me a bunny rabbit dating 3,5 billion years and i will deny the theory of evolution. Make god have a speech during the super bowl commercials and have him preform a miracle like every family in the world having food on their table and il believe in him.What would i have to find or not find to make you believe there was no flood?

If the ice caps formed after the Flood, how long after?
Study of the marks left by glaciers and the distribution of fossils in South Africa, South America, and Australia made no sense to Du Toit who was studying them till he heard of Weggener's plate tectonic idea. He realised that they showed that the glaciers existed before the continents parted.
So Flood "geology" has to have the continents separating at the end of the Flood to carve the GC etc., but staying together for years while the glaciers form and leave their record. And you still have to fit in the vulcanism and seamounts, with all those quakes as the continents move. Oh, and lay down those neat layers in Suigetsu.
So much to do, so little time!

Only if you can send the entire core down to the bottom. Another puzzle to solve. Very very cold. Wouldn't the Ice Age have been very very cold? Glaciers all the way down into the temperate zones etc. Wouldn't you just suppose the glaciers retreated leaving their signs behind them? I mean it was very very cold then, but it stopped being that cold and the glaciers retreated. God didn't create any new thing after the Creation Week. They may have been present in the human beings in some small number but without causing disease because the people were immune to them, or they may have been benign and microevolved later. In other words, I might as well forget it.Well, if God wants to save you He'll save you and you'll know it. Maybe we all will. It can't happen. I KNOW there was a worldwide Flood. I may come to see particulars about the Flood differently than I do now, but I'll never come to believe there was no Flood. That's because I know God's word is God's word.But also there IS evidence for the Flood:

• The strata the strata the strata. Nothing else could have made the strata.
• The incredible abundance of fossils around the planet.
• The wrecked condition of the planet.
• The lack of tectonic effects for some hundreds of millions of years as seen in the unruffled strata for that period on OE diagrams. Proves those hundreds of millions of years didn't exist.
• Flat slabness of the sedimentary rocks in the strata: proves they were laid down in water, all of them despite claims they couldn't have been, and that none of them was ever at the surface for any great length of time. We'll just have to explain the angle of repose somehow.
• The absurdity of the OE scenarios of time periods attached to sedimentary rocks.
• Junk DNA (Massive genetic death as a result of the bottleneck) Also the percentage of heterozygosity in the human genome is no doubt much lower than it was before the Flood, but unfortunately there's no way to prove this. (It's probably evidence more for the Fall and against the ToE than the Flood anyway)
• These things may not be evident yet but I'd predict: Increasing genetic diseases, increasing mutations, increasing species extinctions.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Except for anyone with an open mind that looks at the evidence.You have two possibilities where you can consider this a valid argument:

1. God-did-it (and you don't need scientific validation) or
2. the evidence God left lies (God is a joker)

And disappeared and formed again and disappeared ... how many times Faith? Do you have a clue how many ice ages have existed?And then there is the glacial erosion of the mountains ... Yosemite here we come.And those glaciers must have moved around like tectonic plates on warp drive.

More to the point they all would have had to be living when the flood started ... the earth would have been neck-deep in organisms crawling over each other ...

So it turns out you didn't believe the buried canyon was filled in with material collapsed from above layers, and you didn't believe it was filled with sediment from the layer above (which since you apparently think that is different from "material collapsed from the layers above" you must think was deposited by sediments somehow flowing in). So what is it that you did believe? Don't tell me you thought the it was open space way down there.Anyway, the sediment didn't flow in. This canyon area was carved when at a higher elevation and then either through subsidence or sea encroachment or a combination became submerged and became an area of net deposition, just like almost all areas under the sea.Water moving about underground does not carve canyons. Underground bodies of water or underground rivers are extremely rare. Most underground water exists in acquifers that are layers of rock saturated with water in the interstices and pores. River systems like this that carve canyons are a surface feature. Underground structures that come closest to what you're imagining are caves carved out of limestone layers, but caves and caverns like Luray in Virginia and Carlsbad in New Mexico are millions of years old.--Percy

Henry Morris wrote The Genesis Flood over 50 years ago. In that time mass-produced semiconductors were developed and the microelectronics and computer industries grew from scratch, we reached the moon, and we decoded human DNA. How many years do you need to do a bit of geology? Surely that can't be true if the Bible is your guide. God said he would "send rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights," so since God caused the flood it must have been a miracle. Later God "made a wind blow over the earth and the waters subsided," so that must have been a miracle, too. If you leave miracles out of your scenario then you're not following the Bible. It seems more like you're just making up explanations that happen to appeal to you in opposition to both God and science. You're probably the only person in this thread who appears irrational to people from both sides of the debate.--Percy

Because if you are going to carve rivers there needs to be a path for them to flow while carrying sediment. Because v-shaped channels are made by slow erosion with side failures. Kind of difficult when the channel is filled. You'd have to ask Glenn Morton.* I didn't say you were lying I said you were making up fantasies so you can pretend you have an explanation. Lying would be when you know it is a false statement and you make it with the intention to deceive.You have the same problem with sediment transport with the buried rivers in the Grand Canyon -- for the flood to magically do this while buried you need to be able to carry the eroded material away, so there should be tunnels to accomplish this ... and then have some mechanism to follow behind and fill these channels with the same material that overlies the sides of the channels. Without forming a boundary with those materials over the channel.Edited by RAZD, : * spl name

You can't "KNOW" in any scientific sense that there was a worldwide Flood because you have no evidence of such an event. As I noted in my previous message, you're not following scripture anyway. Actually it's about 0% certain, because we know without doubt that sediments fall out of suspension in water according to their size and density. Since the layers of the geologic column are not organized with the largest and densest material on the bottom and the lightest and least dense material on top, a single world-wide flood could not have created them. The stratification into layers of different types speaks to different depositional environments that persisted for tens of thousands of years. You have a proven ability to use words like "nuts" and "ridiculous" but have demonstrated no talent at all for explaining the evidence and reasoning behind such assessments. You repeatedly say that everywhere you look says "flood" to you but can never explain how the evidence supports that. You cite Berthault as if his name were a magic word, thereby telling us that you have no idea that he only demonstrated already known principles (apparently his knowledge of geology was no more recent than Steno, who died more than 300 years ago) that have no application to the flood anyway. And like all your other conclusions, this one about how good your points are was arrived at in the complete absence of positive evidence and amidst a flood of evidence to the contrary. The measure of the strength of ideas is their ability to convince, and so far all you've accomplished for your own ideas is convincing people of their naivet and infeasibility. What evidence did you use to reach this conclusion?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Minor wordsmithing in 4th para.Edited by Percy, : Fix typo in 5th para.

God's Word is written in the rocks. You persistently deny God's Word.The Bible is only a book.

You have asserted at various points that only the Flood could bury so many animals. But I have linked you to modern examples of mass drownings. Approximately 10 000 caribou drowned in a single event. I also linked you to examples of wildebeest drowning en mass. Clearly mass deaths occur today without any global Flood. These events have been occurring for millions of years. I know you don't accept such ages, but if you are going to use the young age of the earth as an argument then you should be prepared to support it. And as I mentioned, it is not only flood settings that produce large numbers of fossils, Ukhaa Tolgod being a good example (don't know why the link doesn't work, but just Google it; it's the first hit). Ukhaa Tolgod is where the brooding dinosaur comes from. That means we have already established that it is a terrestrial environment. Ukhaa Tolgod is a terrestrially-deposited locality and yet it is one of the richest single fossil sites to be found anywhereYou forgot to answer my question, by the way. If you reserve a 5% possibility that the rock record is not the product of the Flood, what evidence would convince you that this is the case?And given that you didn't object, I'm assuming I was correct in saying that you don't subscribe to the belief that fossils can only be preserved as the result of rapid burial. Is this assumption correct?

But Faith, you're just saying this because it's your standard knee-jerk reaction to what you perceive as an insult. Your reasoning for saying this seems to be, "They insulted me, so I'm going to insult them."But we didn't insult you. We assessed your arguments and gave evidence and explanations for the assessments.You *are* ignorant, as you've demonstrated numerous times about things like upstream cutting of waterfalls and slope retreat and how suspended material in water falls out of suspension.You *do* have an inability to reason, as demonstrated with the discussion about stream flows.You *do* lack visualization skills, as illustrated by your inability to grasp the significance of the bathtub example.You *do* lack math skills, as you showed with your inability to comprehend the simple equation "velocity = volume / area", and as you conceded anyway.You *do* lack interest in counter-evidence, as witness your attitude about radiometric dating.You *do* lack introspection, as you've demonstrated numerous times, for instance by calling our reasoning faulty because our intellects are fallen when this must, by definition, be just as true of yourself.You *do* put Biblical interpretations above all else, you've told us as much many times.You *do* employ primitive rhetorical techniques like name calling, declaring victory, ignoring arguments (and entire messages, the more details they contain the more likely it being that you'll ignore them).But if you wouldn't, in completely clueless fashion, make ridiculous statements like, "I've pretty much proved the Flood," people wouldn't feel compelled to point out the many reasons why that statement is so ludicrous.--PercyEdited by Percy, : You're => your.