The TRVE history of the Flood...

Nope. They weren't. Not by any simultaneous 'global flood', anyway. Nor by any other big flood.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

It is a conclusion from the evidence given in Message 477 and discussed later. You do believe in evidence don't you? That evidence shows that if what they are claiming about those six transgressions is true then all the other continents had to be flooded probably by the second or third transgression but certainly by the last.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not too sure what you're writing here. Something that happened in North America is not evidence for what happened in South Africa at the same time. We certainly don't have any evidence for the same transgressions happening here. Maybe because what is the Karoo was an inland lake while that happend in North America? No evidence for a global flood.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Leonardo da Vinci realized that the fossils on mountaintops could not have been placed by a catastrophic flood. Creationists are still centuries behind.http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.html

Faith, your argument assumes an ever-increasing height of land, with sea level rise the only cause of the transgression. Why should we not discard that assumption in the face of the evidence ?

Sure. No exploration or mining companies in the world use some great flood for their exploration or mining. They spend billions.Old earth methods work. Floodists are to scared to test their models. They are to scared to spend a cent on reality.That's evidence.

In Message 477 Faith describes how each marine transgression deposits layers ever higher, requiring the seas to reach a greater height for each successive transgression, and asks how this ever increasing sea height is possible. There's been no answer.AbE: I see that PaulK mentions subsidence in Message 493.AbE2: Explaining the difference of opinion, Faith believes sea transgressions can only result from rising sea levels, while PaulK and Pressie believe subsidence is another cause, thus explaining how a sea transgression can happen on one continent and not another. If isostasy is a factor then it deserves mention in the discussion.Edited by Admin, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : AbE2.

`My eyes can't handle that whole page. Let me guess: Leonardo was thinking only of the water covering the current mountain heights?If so that's a straw man, as creationists today accept that the strata were first laid down and then after the Flood tectonic force pushed the mountains up. Since they are continuing to rise very slowly this explanation is quite probable.

You kept saying you'd mentioned evidence and I saw no evidence. Now I see that Percy has mentioned that in one post you suggested subsidence. I hadn't seen it, and for some reason you never saw fit to repeat it.A couple of thoughts:First, shouldn't there be some evidence of subsidence?Subsidence would be a pretty violent physical event wouldn't it? On the order of tectonic violence at least? And if it occurred with each transgression then there ought to be evidence of the most recent, which reaches into the present. Is there any?If the cause was subsidence then presumably the land would have subsided because of each deposition of strata or something like that? The weight being the cause? So each time the water transgresses it lays down new strata AND the land subsides again? So that the next transgression doesn't have to rise any higher than the first? Well, it works on paper, but you do have to assume an unlikely perfection of balance between weight and subsidence, and also such large-scale physical movement should show more effects than there seem to be, IMO: Such as for instance the fact that the Grand Canyon walls remain relatively intact. Or some clear disturbance in the Geological Column with every transgressive event. I dunno, those strata in the GC look pretty intact for most of its length.AND, in the end wouldn't we have three miles of strata all sunk below sea level? But that obviously is not the case.Also don't other continents demonstrate the same original depth of strata, Europe at least, and Asia too? So they too should have experienced something like the same sequence of transgressions and the same degree of subsidence. But where is the evidence of either?

quote:

---

You kept saying you'd mentioned evidence and I saw no evidence.

---

The fact that the sequence isn't found on other continents. I know you insisted that it wasn't evidence because it contradicted your ideas of what "must" have happened but that is just begging the question.

quote:

---

First, shouldn't there be some evidence of subsidence?

---

How do you know that there isn't such evidence ?See this abstract

quote:

---

If the cause was subsidence then presumably the land would have subsided because of each deposition of strata or something like that? The weight being the cause?

---

That's a part of it. Glaciation can also have that effect (Britain is tilting as it recovers from the last Ice Age). And the fact that a continent can be tilted is quite possibly significant, as both the initial tilting and the recovery could produce transgressions - at different ends of the continent.

quote:

---

Such as for instance the fact that the Grand Canyon walls remain relatively intact. Or some clear disturbance in the Geological Column with every transgressive event. I dunno, those strata in the GC look pretty intact for most of its length.

---

I don't see why that should be the case. If the entire continent is slowly sinking into the mantle, for instance, I don't think it should be violent at all. (Let us remember that tectonic events are often slow)

quote:

---

Also don't other continents demonstrate the same original depth of strata, Europe at least, and Asia too? So they too should have experienced something like the same sequence of transgressions and the same degree of subsidence. But where is the evidence of either?

---

That's a big assumption. Even if the depth is the same (is it?), there could be less erosion, for instance on the other continents. However, the fact that we do not see the same transgressions on the other continents is good evidence that something different was going on around North America, so using it as the primary (or in fact only) evidence for a world-wide event requires you to show that the effect really was world wide, not assuming it.

No, he realized that the fossils on mountain heights could not have been deposited by a flood because they were obviously mostly intact in the places where they lived, and the mountains must have been raised after the fossils were deposited.

But in evolutionary theory, where there are no catastrophic events, the mountains must have risen inch by inch just as with the demented continental drift theory.No the shells are found logically on top of mountains around the world because the Worldwide Flood deposited them there, and then the flood receeded so fast causing the landscape to gouge out valleys and flood plains etc etc.... later 130 years thereafter in the days of Peleg, the Lord divided the continents.Mystery solved, no problem.Creation wins again.Evolution and its million and billions of years fails again, inch by inch, and with their theory that no catastrophic events ever occured.DaVinci is hardly an authority on the flood, he didn't circumnavigate the world and observe the floods results, like Darwin and Viekosky and others...Evolutionists come up with the wildest theories

The reason you can claim "creation wins again" is you are ignoring all the evidence and posts that show your claims and beliefs are wrong.Creation "science" as usual, eh?

Always add something to the debate rather than complaining about your losses...coyote.I only state an updated score, and conclusion AFTER I have added to the debate with more evidence, logic, and laws.Please add something to the debate rather than your continual complaining about your defeats.Explain your no flood theory, no castrophic event theory, your one inch at a time theory. Dont be afraid, say something, explain something.... study...and then write whatever you think is applicable that furthers the debate.You must learn how to answer questions, that is the name of the game, the proof of the pudding, the point of the exercise, the aim of the debate...Ready set, GO..PST... evolutionists complain about the race because they never hget out of the starting blocks, and just talk the talk about racing without ever racing or runningSEE Backwards evolution theory in MOLE RATS PROPOSED TOPIC

First, there is plenty of evidence that subsidence occurs. For instance, we know that the continental crust of Greenland is depressed below sea level. We also know that there are new islands forming in the Baltic Sea due to rebound after subsidence during the last ice age.We could also discuss loading and depression of the oceanic crust under the Mississippi Delta, and under the island of Hawaii. In other words, we know that we can sink both continental and oceanic crust into the mantle by loading with ice or sediment or volcanic rocks.As to why other continents do not show the same cratonic sequences as North America, there are a number of reasons. For one, the rest of the world need not have the same tectonic environment at the same time. An old, thick continental crust might show less effect. And, if you look closely, the diagram of sequences only shows the center (left side) and margins (right side) of the continents. It really has nothing to do with mountains or other highlands because sediments are being eroded from there and not deposited. I would also suggest that erosion is a factor in reducing the amount of available material for study.These are thoughtful questions, Faith. However, I am concerned that you ask them with a conclusion already in mind. These are very complex systems.