Which is based on the theory that layers require millions of years to form or that each layer represents a long period of time.
What theory's that? The one that you made up?
Geologists know perfectly well that some layers form rapidly. They are extremely adept at telling these layers from those that formed over much longer periods. Not all strata form at the same rate - obviously.
I also notice that not only is your response not relevant to the thread's topic, it actually has nothing to do with what you were replying to. So far, this thread has consisted of you being wrong about something, being told that you're wrong, only for you to respond by being wrong about some other, unrelated, topic.
Just for a change of pace, do you think you could try being wrong about marsupials and Australia? Y'know, the topic that you wanted to talk about...
If you didnt know what had happened you would assume that it took millions of years.
Only if you were an ignoramus with no knowledge of geology and a desperate want for common sense.
Mount St. Helens and the Indian Ocean Tsunami was an infinitesimal event in magnitude, compared to a global flood.
Indeed. So one would imagine that the flood would leave a very clear deposit that no-one could miss. But when we look at the rocks, it's not there. I wonder why.
I dont know how long fossils take to form.
Okay, I'll add that to the list. The long, long list of things you don't know.
For the record, almost every word of that last paragraph is wrong. You might try and learn the most basic rudiments of geology before commenting on it.
Or - hey! - here's an idea; do you know how marsupials got to Australia? That would be a fun topic! I'm still dying to hear how a land bridge could form across the deepest ocean trench in the world.
Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo. By my request, it is set up to be wide-ranging and broadly-focused, and to be about all concepts in "flood geology". Also, for my fellow science fans, I would like you to abide by my request and let Portillo set out his ideas first.
From here forwards, anything about anything except Australian fauna really is off-topic, because we now have a general thread where we can discuss Portillo's ideas about "flood geology".
Is it possible that before, Australia was at a distance where the marsupials could swim to it or that Noah could have took the time to put all of those marsupials to Australia? You cant say it would be unbiblical because that would be arguing a little detail to refute the flood. He could have also put all those marsupials there because thats where he found them or where they cam from. He could have navigated because he was able to get to mount arat
Well you can, 'cos it is. Genesis 8 makes the sequence of events perfectly clear. First the Ark grounds on Mount Ararat, then the waters recede, then Noah lets the animals out. If he went to Australia first, the waters wouldn't have receded, and the only way he could have got them to Australia as such would be by tying weights to their feet and dropping them on it. Besides which Genesis 8 says that when he disembarked from the Ark "everything that moves on land came out of the ark".
Is it possible that before, Australia was at a distance where the marsupials could swim to it or that Noah could have took the time to put all of those marsupials to Australia?
The flood story, and the feats performed by the arc, have so many holes in them I wouldn't put much faith in anything anyone claimed for either.
For example, the date for marsupials in Australia is placed about 50 million years ago, while the date biblical scholars agree upon for the flood is about 4,350 years ago.
That's an error factor of about 11,000 x. Conflating those two disparate events is such a stretch that it does not engender much confidence in anyone making such a claim.
In most science an error factor of 5-10% is considered totally unacceptable. It would be nice if religious apologetics was as rigorous a discipline, but given the "evidence" it has to work with I can understand why it is not.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
How odd that he would write that in response to Granny Magda's Message 211 which was in response to Portillo. Coolbeans appears to be claiming what Granny was responding to as being Coolbeans' "possibility".
Does this mean that Coolbeans is a new name for Portillo to hide behind?