The Flood = many coincidences

This appears to have been translated from Korean into English via Hungarian.Am I close?

Well, I guess if you're going to be wrong you may as well be bold about it. Does it ever occur to you to look anything up to see if your mental meanderings have any basis in fact? Do you somehow believe that if a thought pops into your head that it must be true?If the process of cooling magma is not geology, then which field of science is it? Did you know that volcanology and plate tectonics are fields of geology, both being processes that occur before "the cooling is over?"But it doesn't really matter if you prefer to think of cooling processes as outside the field of geology, because at heart geology is just a label. Taq referenced cooling of a pluton (a subterranean intrusion of magma into an existing rock layer) in Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column, and whether or not you believe such issues are encompassed within geology, magma still intrudes into rock and then cools, and one can study the cooled rock eons later looking at things like grain size to see how rapidly the magma cooled into rock.In other words, whether you want to call cooling plutons geology or not, whether you want to call radiometric dating geology or not, cooling and radioactive decay still happen, and they can be studied to give us information about the age of rock layers.So the bottom line is, have you a response to the scientific evidence, or are you going to continue to stonewall by arguing over labels.--Percy

Yes every group where floods are common those near coasts & those with large rivers. But there is no similarity in their flood myths.
Primitive peoples concocted stories in an attempt to explain the unknown, the flood myths are just that whether it is the biblical flood, Gilgamesh or the flood stories from anywhere else. The same goes for all other myths, lack of knowledge , lack of solid information leads to myths. Every civilization has its mythological history. Only when men started throwing out mystical and searched for the evidence did these myths start to fall apart.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Gday, Pardon?This appear to be a collection of ANY myth that includes water - regardless of whether it's a flood.Such as
"Some people came from north and danced the nyalaidj ceremony. While they danced, one girl climbed a pandanus palm and was calling out, and an orphan boy was crying. The people kept dancing. The crying and calling upset the place, and water came up from underneath. The people cried in fear, but they couldn't run away because the ground became soft, and the water covered them. Ngalyod the Rainbow Serpent ate them, first the people who were calling out and the orphan who was crying. The name of the place is Gaalbaraya; it is still a taboo place. [Berndt & Berndt, pp. 96-97][/quote]Water came up from underneath a palm tree and made the ground soft ?
THAT's a global flood myth?What a laugh - none of them are a global flood at all.Kapyong

Well, since "the water covered them", I guess that that's a flood. And it's definitely a myth. So it's a flood myth.To suggest that it doesn't corroborate the Book of Genesis would be churlishly accurate.

Well since we are by flood myths i got one from my people. Gotto tell the whole story though.In the beginning the earth was dry and baron, so god decided to send his rooster to fertilize the land the rooster brought his egg from witch 7 rivers started to flow that filled the earth with water. So nature began to bloom whiteout mans endeavors and everybody was happy, people worked just to spend time when they wanted to and they had the rooster to remind them when to sleep, eat ..... They got tired of the roosters constant reminders and asked god to take him away so god granted their request before the rooster went he reminded them to beware the lake, so after the rooster went shit hit the fan after a while they wanted him back but it was too late they remembered his warning but did not understand it so they posrted guards around the lake, so after a while some started to question why there is exactly so much watter why not more or less arguing that some dont have enough some have to many and a guy came along said you are both right we should brake the egg and route as much water as they need to everyone, so they broke the egg and a grate flood happened almost everyone drowned except for one guard who held on to a grapevine the plant protected by the rooster the guard climbed the grapevine up to the heavens where he waited the flood out for 9 years, as than x the Rooster demanded that his people have to worship the grapevine and drink its wine for ever. true legend

And since from the very beginning, human beings have tended, for what should be obvious reasons, to build cities and settlements around rivers and/or coasts, it should be equally obvious why there are so many stories and myths about floods.Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John LydonReality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven ColbertI never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

But this is the type of evidence flood believers bring forth to support their belief.They ignore the hard evidence--archaeology and genetics and the like--and cling to insubstantial myths.I have asked repeatedly for creationists to visit archaeological sites which cross-cut the approximate 4,350 year date attributed to the flood by biblical scholars. They seem to have no interest in doing so.I think they really know what they would find.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

From what you said I don't my error. Its fine to look at rocks in strata and understand their volcanic origin. Yet i still say the study of their cooling from hot to cold is not geology . Its atomic realignment of matter.
Geology is not atomic but merely processes on finished materials.
In science labels matter. Thats the whole point to specific species names.Creationism demands that careful investigation on concepts and points must be made before you have us agree to your ideas.
Nows the time top marks on tests matter.

Perhaps we should let geologists decide what geology is. Many of them would find it quite difficult to study rocks without knowing what rocks are made of. It's quite a basic consideration.How, for example, would you go about studying the chemical weathering of granite without knowing its chemical composition? --- if you had to do so while being neutral on the question of whether it was composed of (a) felsic minerals (b) cotton candy (c) green cheese?I must say that it speaks very poorly of creationists when you demand (as you have done repeatedly) that scientists should be obliged to ignore relevant facts. And what can be more relevant to the study of rocks than the question of what rocks are made of.

quote:

---

Petrology (from Greek: πέτρα, petra, rock; and λόγος, logos, knowledge) is the branch of geology that studies rocks, and the conditions in which rocks form.

---

Robert, if it has anything to do with the formation of rock, it is part of geologic study.Igneous petrology - The study of igneous rocks and their origins. The solidification of a magma is the precipitation of crystals out of a solution (albeit a very hot solution). You may wish to call the study "geochemistry", or call it "igneous petrology", or even call it something else, but it is part of the geological sciences.Moose - the proud owner of a very rusty geology bachelors of science (BS) degree

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

​

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

In science accuracy matters. And the scientific method matters.You creationists are dead set against both because your myths and the voices in your heads tell you otherwise.But when challenged you can't come up with solid science to support your beliefs. You constantly distort the scientific method because it leads to conclusions you can't abide, and you misrepresent or ignore any scientific facts that contradict your beliefs. That may be good religious apologetics but it certainly isn't science.And then you have the nerve to tell us you are doing science? Get a grip! Ancient tribal mythology and voices in your head do not add up to scientific investigation no matter how fervently you believe! Creationism demands adherence to the scripture and bible, and your specific accepted revelations. Those have nothing to do with science or the scientific method. In fact, they are the exact opposite.But you can't see that because you are so immersed in dogma that you can't see anything else. And then you have the nerve to claim you are doing science. What a joke!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi Robert,Even other creationists don't agree with how you're defining geology, for example, Steven Austin, professor of geology and chair of the Department of Geology of the Institute for Creation Research. You're just making things up so you can focus attention away from the many things you're wrong about, though in the course of doing this you just introduce more wrong things, like denying even the simple dictionary definition of geology.But as far as this discussion goes we can leave the definition of geology aside and treat it as just a label. The issue we were discussing was the cooling of magma into rock underground. Magma intrudes into rock and then cools, and by looking at things like grain size one can see how rapidly the magma cooled into rock. Radiometric techniques can establish the age. Taq provided you a link that describes such evidence (Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column), and here is just a little of that evidence:

1. Radiometric dating gives consistent answers across a variety of different methods, and is also consistent with non-radiometric methods where their range of application overlaps.
   ​
2. Calculations show that the cooling of rock underground from a molten state takes a considerable amount of time, longer than 6000 years for plutons of sufficient size (which is common), and analysis of the rock structure reveals they formed through very slow cooling.

For more details please visit the link. What is your response to this evidence?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Spelling.

geology is about processes explaining the earth under our feet. the material, rocks etc, is just itself a aid to understand these processes. Getting into the atomic components of rocks is another subject with very minor overlapping with geology.You could break down everything to its atoms but miss the processes that are the origin of change.Geology is forces acting upon materials. material makeup must be essential to understand the process for it to be geology.Theres overlap but not too much.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines.

Geology is about forces acting on material with results pertaining to the earth.
Rocks themselves are just a part of this. Geology is not about just rocks. Processes dealing with material are more important in fact.
They put all studies of the material in the great genus of geology but names matter.
The particular areas are rightly segregated as different subjects.
Breaking down the material to atomic components has little to do with geology as a explanation for great results of the earth.
To be geology there must be a result affecting the earth.
Chemical breakdown of rocks is chemical processes.. Not geology.
If after broken then are affected by processes then okay.
They just have to merge all related matters into some big group.
theres overlap but origin issues deal with processes affecting material.
no need for chemistry.