Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)

Thank you for that, Soracilla. That is polite of you.

---

Common sense isn't

You seem to have ignored most (to all) of what Bill posted.You have not chance of learning or convincing anyone of anything with that approach. You were blown out of the water and, somehow, didn't seem to notice.

And God spoke in the book He wrote. In the rocks of this earth. There He has made it clear that there has been no universal flood. If the interpretation of a book written and translated and interpreted by man is in disagreement with that then the interpretation (etc.) must be wrong. It seems that your source is a bit careless with you use of quotation marks and haven't closed them. Is the above words of your source or that of those who did the research you reference.There is, of course, a known source for the flood in that reference. It was the melting of the ice sheets. Since it is NOT shown to be everywhere or even at the same time for when there are releases of fresh water it is NOT evidence for a universal flood. Clearly you have a problem right here. Is this the amount that you would expect the salinity to be reduced by a global "flood" that raises all the oceans to cover all that land?All the rest I don't understand. What is the point?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-07-2004 09:35 PM{Fixed 1 quote box - AM}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-08-2004 12:46 PM

It is possible that such a thing occurred. It wouldn't be surprising to have RandyB refer back to attempts to figure out the age of the earth at the end of the 17th century. At that time all sorts of clues were used to try and arrive at an estimate.Th idea that this is relevant today is as good as other ideas he comes up with.

Does it really matter, edge?A number of ways were used back then to try to estimate the earth's age.Since we can now do an absolute age with processes that occur at a measureable rate (radiometric dating) the old ways of judgeing are long obsolete.The fact that someone considers this an issue to bring up shows some pretty strange thinking to me. We by passed all that long ago but RandyB's source says:

quote:

---

The theory of coal formation is central to the Age of the Earth debate

---

How could this rough estimate technique possibly be "central" to the debate more than half a century after it was completly obsoleted?

So what? This is just one of many things that lead early geologists(or doing science that would become geology) to suspect an old earth. It is interesting history.These examinations only lead to estimates which have, as noted, been superceded by much better data.As noted they are now historically interesting and no longer "central" to the debate.As for your source:
That is getting too far off topic here. Take it to the dates and dating forum as a new topic if you really want to defend a young earth.

Since you have already translated it could you just quote the relevant passages. Then you can explain why this reference is about a century after the debate got going.Perhaps though it is time to get this thread back just to the Joggins case.Let's try to stick to the topic and if you think you have something useful in this reference add a short note and I will start a thread on 'coal' or you may.

Is the coal question settled one way or the other?It doesn't appear to me that it is.