Part of the same event but I did not say the flood CAUSED it.
Good good. The only thing that you claim the flood caused is the strata itself. The sediments, volcanoes, tectonic activity, and fossils may all be associated with the flood but are not caused
only by the flood. Correct me if I am wrong, you have said this several times now.
The weight of the layers themselves would have created the compression necessary for fossilization.
So would the same amount of layers providing the same amount of compression but laid down over a longer (or shorter) period of time. There is nothing special about a one year flood doing the exact same job of a one week flood, correct?
The Flood would have been such a prodigious amount of water it carried tons of separated sediments and dead creatures and deposited them in enormous layers all over the earth.
True. Much like the Mississippi carries much more than the creek in my town. The creek in my town does deposit tons of separated sediments and dead creatures, it just takes many more years.
If the total picture is the best explanation then the single example that seems not to fit just awaits the understanding of how it fits.
Incorrect. Some events require a change in the laws of physics for them to happen in a shorter or longer period of time. Unless laws change on a whim then some things simply cannot happen. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean everyone doesn't.
I see no problem with the Cliffs of Dover anyway. Just a deposit of limestone by the enormous Flood, one of many.
I realize you see no problem, but folks who understand how fast stuff settles and forms realize that such things cannot happen in a year. I would prefer to just link to Percy's thread
Limestone Layers and the Flood My knowledge of the subject is limited and I would be doing little but trying to reword his OP.
You added words where I had written none, you jumped to conclusions not based on what I had written. If you read it straight you wouldn't get the silly stuff out of it you are getting.
It may sound silly to you, but now its pretty damn clear you agree that fossils, tectonic activity, volcanoes, and sedimentary layers do not require a worldwide flood to happen. No worries about misquotes or taking things out of context now is there? I am quite happy with where we sit, I am not jumping to any conclusions - you have provided them all in clear writing. Unless you care to retract anything at this point?
just that it all seems to have occurred as part of the same event
Great, now that we are past all the silly stuff we can move on to the evidence? One at a time though please, I cannot gallop.
Oh brother. Millions of years of nothing but limestone, then SUDDENLY allakazam! Millions of years of nothing but sandstone.
As crazy as this may sound, yes, you need to read the news. Rivers change direction, no magic or special effects required.
I'm sorry I mentioned Mars.
Why feel sorry? I think it was great that you mentioned it. I think further discussion about the planet compared to Earth would further clear up what you actually consider evidence for a worldwide flood. There is other images that I would like to provide, and further refine what you consider evidence for a worldwide flood.
I have NO idea what you think the relevance is of such a comment. It's utterly unrelated to anything I said.
I am sorry you don't get it. I thought it was pretty clear. You find it incomprehensible that for billions of years sediments got laid down and then suddenly... it gets eroded to create the grand canyon.
Now I suggest that for billions of years an area in South America is at one spot and then suddenly... it gets moved ten feet over. Or for millions of years a mountain is a mountain and then suddenly it becomes
unwanted topsoil for a small town of Frank. So for millions of years there was a mountain, millions of years there wasn't a lake, and no flood was required to have a major effect on a region. Things change even if they have not changed for millions or billions of years.
You can call it utter nonsense all you want but the fact is that regardless of your incredulity things do change, some things that have remained the same for millions of years have changed recently, like in yesterdays newspaper. I can keep going with examples but unless you are purposely avoiding my point it should be pretty clear. Yes an area of flat ground can, in time, become a deep canyon if a major rivers water flow speeds up, thus increasing its ability to erode rock. (like uplift of the Colorado Plateau)
The evidence is the neat parallel of the layers that built up quietly for all those billions of years without even a river to disturb them.
This is new to me. Old Earth means nothing changed, no rivers, no continental drift, no mountain building, no uplift, rising and falling of oceans, nothing... just a slow building of sediments. Thats what you think Old Earth means? No wonder you disagree, so does everyone else!
The idea is that the Earth wasn't separated into those separate sediments until the FLood did it.
Those seperate sediments are made from seperate materials, of which Mars doesn't have. So obviously it is not going to have them as seperate sedimentary layers, much like Saturn or Pluto. Why is this so tough to get? Are you holding out on a wealth of evidence of Mars having the same types of rock and sediment as Earth? I would be interested to read or see it. If not then why are you so unable to admit that a flood there would not look like a flood here, due to different materials (to the best of my knowledge)
It looks like something that originally ran like lava.
So you disagree with the experts? When I magnify the image I sure don't see any similarity to lava, but hey... what do the experts say? Why does it also look remarkably similar to Yardangs? Why is there no volcano? or lava flows? Why is the area covered with sediments, dunes, and drifts?
ABE: Here is another image of the same region of Mars.
Gale Crater :
http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/...40_1750_RED.abrowse.jpg ***This is a very large image! Notice the canyon in the middle of the image, the dunes on the bottom of the canyon? From looking at the images or reading about the crater there seems to be no lava nor any mention of it. /ABE
A very quiet planet for biillions of years THEN all that activity? Give me a break.
Evidence please. This claim is so absurd, it also goes against everything in geology. Of course things changed!! If nothing changed then why different sediments, the different sediments are change. You define change in your description!! The strata is composed of different sediments, change is required for those sediments to be available for deposition. Something changed, its right there.
You are actually unaware of geologists talking about ancient mountain ranges, ancient volcanos, continental drift, old sea beds or fossils on mountain tops? You are aware that these type of words exist outside of a dictionary because geologists
don't say nothing changed for billions of years? I seriously doubt that you are that clueless about geology and geologists claims, you may not believe it but you cannot be that uniformed. Right?
I don't think geologists think such a thing, they just managed to not notice this is the implication of their system.
Oh good. I thought you had lost your mind. You just think they are idiots who talk about eroding mountains but don't realize that means change? This seems unlikely.
Edited by Vacate, : Added link / image
™ Version 4.2
(1)