The TRVE history of the Flood...

Well, yes, I'd probably give them a low grade if they adhered to the "doctrine of luck and chance." That would show that they have no understanding of evolution or science. Nonsense. The problem is that they do not like the answers to their questions and begin to disrupt the classroom. Then exactly what are you doing here? Again, nonsense.We repeatedly to answer YEC questions. They just don't like the answers and start to get preachy and insulting. We get bored and dismissive, yes. And justifiably so.

A post that truly speaks for itself: And warrants no coherent response...Want to try again?

You obviously haven't been reading all of the posts on this and other threads. Every argument you (all) make has been refuted. Some of us have gone to great lengths to explain the facts and the reasoning that go behind mainstream science. You simply deny the facts.And yes, I do not study Genesis, because it is a story, not evidence. Of course he didn't study Genesis, at least not for his science. He studied the actual physical evidence. You should try it.

And yet, we are the ones who are 'speechless' about the topic.We are looking at a particularly hard case here. Even by CARM standards.

quote:

---

Darwin: "It is impossible to reflect upon the changed state of the American continent without the deepest astonishment. Formerly it must have swarmed with great monsters, now we find mere pygmies, compared with the antecedent, allied races."

​

David: (Exactly as the water layer above the Earth caused a green house effect below and moderated temperatures causing Garden of Eden conditions and an explosion of plant and animal life before the Flood. SEE Worldwide Flood and Noah's Ark)

---

So, David, tell us more about this "water layer". Where was it 'above the earth', and how thick was it? How did it remain suspended in the sky? How did it admit light to the surface of the earth? What was the level of greenhouse gases at the time and how much was due to water? What caused it to collapse and where did the water go afterward?Your solutions create more impossible situations.

Sure. Okay, please show us where the 'fountains of the deep' were and what is your evidence for them? Just saying that they existed is not evidence.How was the water stored in the earth? Why did it suddenly erupt to the surface? And exactly where is that?What is your evidence for such a location? Actually, we only know your nice story. You don't really have anything to back it up.

I would suggest that the complete lack of evidence for such fountains; and the lack of a mechanism for either the venting or the repacking of water back into the crust preclude such fountains. These are unsupported assertions. Where is your evidence? Are you sure about this? Not really. We can say that there is evidence for what we think is going on.You, on the other hand, have nothing but fables. There is nowhere for the waters to recede to. I'm not sure that you would want to do that. Then please do so. The products of natural, KNOWN processes are also 'searchable'. The denial is yours. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Only if you presuppose that there ever was that much water. Does the biblical record provide a mechanism by which to suspend that much water in the air or space or whatever? And you have some hard evidence to this effect? But I suppose it wouldn't shield the helpful rays of the sun, right? Not really since the shells are not on the mountain but within the very rocks that make up the mountain. Tell us more about these 'fountains of the deep'. Who observed them? Were were they? What did they look like and where can we see them today? If you say so.Could you provide the calculations to show this? How much water erupted from the fountains? How high did the waters rise? Sure, it made nice meandering rivers. Tell us more about this erosion. What kind of material did it erode and where did it come from? Why do we see different drainage patterns all over the world? That's s simplistic explanation. What depths are you talking about? Did it move into rocks? Please document this. I haven't heard of such. Who was Peleg and why did the continents suddenly decide to part their ways? How did they move and how fast. There is no record of tumultuous earth movements that I know of in any human record that would move entire continents thousands of miles. Did no one notice? Whatever your religion tells you not to do, I guess. I know of no such "Geological Record Book". Can you please provide the Amazon reference page? I'd love to read the reviews.Just as an aside, how did you gain all of this knowledge about geology?

I'm sorry if you do not have the capacity to contemplate on simple statements. I usually like to provide an idea and let people reflect in their own way. I like to have people to examine the data and come to their conclusions on their own; or at least ask a question for further understanding.I also don't like to make long, unreadable posts. When I see rambling posts, I tend to glaze over and miss important points if there are any.At the same time, I notice that your own posts are so vague and formulaic that they really don't tell me anything. All I can see is that you are a dogmatic YEC with little evidence to back up your statements, just platitudes. No amount of amplification is going to add to your argument.If you have a question, just ask. If all you are going to do is make assertions and ignore alternative ideas, I'm not going to put a lot of work into a response. As most people here will tell you, I do take time to make thoughtful and thorough posts when I am conversing with a reasonable person. Your automatic denials based on nothing are not conducive to discussion. For instance, Percy has asked me for clarification many times and I always try to respond in a meaningful way.Give us some indication that you actually think about these things.

If you think that the Bible is a geology text, your are missing everything about geology, and about the Bible. Well, what you are discerning from the Bible makes no sense and I certainly don't see an explanation for your speculation about the Bible. I have no idea what you are talking about here.

But actually, RAZD did read the article. In fact that quote was from the conclusion.Going on to the content, however, the paper has a few problems.It does not account for the tabular shape that is conformable with bedding in the enclosing sediments. This is almost universal, excluding salt domes and possibly other deformed deposits. These salt deposits form layers parallel with the sediments and occur in known basins which could be restricted for long periods of times allowing evaporation to occur.The author kind of deceives you when he discusses a kilometer thick salt layer. He says that it would take the evaporation of 60km of salt water to attain this amount of salt. I have just checked on the original thickness estimates for the Louann Salt in the Mississippi Embayment and it was probably about 500 feet.Moving on, he compares the salt layers to known sodium carbonate lavas. The problem with this is that the lavas are easily recognizable as igneous rocks by there textures and geometry.He talks about the salt being intruded at 850 degrees C. So, okay, where is evidence for the metamorphism of the enclosing rocks?Need I go on?Actually, Heerema gets even more ludicrous in his defense of the magmatic theory here:Clarifying the magmatic model for the origin of salt deposits - creation.comAs a parting shot, I see that Stef Heerema has a degree in 'airplane engineering'.
That should be comforting to you.

Actually, we tell you why you are wrong. The fact that you ignore contrary evidence is a failure on your part. For so many reasons stated on this thread, no. Your arguments, as you readily admit, ignore certain evidences and rely on faith alone.

Which is practically the definition of hand-waving.

Never, never, never will you give us the courtesy of reading our posts. If you did, you would see the discussion of your points. Instead, you deny and reject out of hand.

Yes, I do. And you know that they produce evidence that they exist.Now, if these fountains of the deep were as advertised, they should have left behind huge deposits of broken rock, metallic deposits and global blankets of geochemical evidence.Where are these things? Possibly. But how could they when the eruption was supposed to end all life on the planet? So, which is it? The black smokers or the freshwater springs?Can you show us where such fresh water springs are so explosive as to produce the effect of the global flood that Faith adheres to? In fact, they occur in limestones, do they not? How does that happen?