Hi again, solja247, getting a lot of traffic?
Thanks. I was reading some of your posts (Uranium halos) and you know a lot more science than I do.
Then you know that there is a lot of scientific evidence for an old earth as well, from a multitude of sources.
While it is possible to have evidence of younger testing samples of rock, etc in an old earth (recent volcanic rock for instance), it is not possible to have older rock in a young earth.
I said before, untill we know what kind stress the flood caused we dont know what it created. The Grand canyon could of been created by God and then after thousands of years change slightly to what we know of today as the Grand Canyon.
In other words, the evidence was changed to fool us, rather than lead us to truth? Once you have started down this path, then every bit of evidence that contradicts your beliefs is due to such
lokian behavior of your god/s to hide the real evidence. Ultimately all evidence becomes faked to make the world appear different from what you need it to be. That's called delusion, not rational logical thinking.
We have to ask another question what sought of geological and hydrological events were happening?
Was there any massive underwater currents?
Was there a lot of erosion?
Was not much happening, just a large amount of rain?
Was there Earthquakes, tusanamis, hurricanes or relatively quiet?
You see, untill we know the exact conditions of the flood we really cant say what the evidence looks like or is.
If one were going on a strict biblical interpretation, then the only thing you could posit would be what is in the bible. This would tend to rule out mountain forming as part of the flood process, if my recollections are correct (I am no biblical scholar, so I leave that to others).
If you need to invent additional catastrophic events to explain the geological formations, then the issue of a flood becomes rather inconsequential doesn't it?
I said before, untill we know what kind stress the flood caused we dont know what it created.
Yet we can compare floods to floods, to see what kinds of forces are involved, and we can look at the ocean floor to see the stresses imposed by very deep water on the sediments and rocks and organisms that live at those depths. We do not see hill formation as a result in either process, to say nothing of mountains.
We can compare flood outflows to annual rain erosion patterns and we see that flood outflows consistently match the erosion patterns seen in the Channeled Scablands, and that the annual rain erosion patterns consistently match the Grand Canyon erosion patterns.
So you dont think things cahnge? Do you think the water level has been rising for millions of years, or due to global warming the water level is rising?
It is not change but the rate of change that is the problem for you. Consider an analogy: I fill a quart pot with water and let it sit at normal room temperature and document the evaporation of water from the pot. From the observed rate of evaporation I can calculate how long it would take for the pot to be dry. Then I can add energy to the system to make the water evaporate at a faster rate, and I can observe the amount of energy it takes to double the evaporation rate. Then I can figure how much is needed to make the water evaporate in 1/1millionth of the time, and see that this much energy not only vaporizes the water, but it melts the pot.
Any variable could change how much Mt Everst grew a year. Perhaps even 1000 years ago the tectonics under Everst had much more stress and were thus causing, the mountain to grow much more taller.
The Himalyas took millions of years to form according to the geological evidence, and compressing that into a few days means you have a lot of frictional waste energy to dissipate, yet somehow keep from affecting any of the evidence. We are back to a lokian god faking evidence to fool you.
Is evidence for a global flood finding marine life in places like Mount Everest.
Except that the evidence in different parts of the world is from different ages, does not correlate in any way with other areas, and is evidence of underwater life for thousands of years. This is not evidence of a biblical flood that lasted barely a year, iirc, in total span of time. Most of the marine life in such deposits would not have sufficient time to have developed even the beginning of rudimentary evidence of life, to say nothing of the contiguous generations upon generations of life forms that take multiple years to develop, so it cannot explain the evidence that exists. Or we are back to a lokian god faking evidence to fool you.
Yet, it is more logical to believe that massive frozen moons came crashing into Earth, causing what we know of today, as the ocean?
Which is not what science claims happened. See a more up-to-date article at:
Origin of water on Earth - Wikipedia
It appears that water was already a part of the composition of earth, during its formation.
How tall would Everst have to be for that to happen?
Not very tall. The problem is one of energy and heat as a waste product, especially as rock is not a good conductor of heat.
™ Version 4.2
(1)