Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The TRVE history of the Flood...
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 811 of 1352 (808210)
05-09-2017 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 790 by edge
05-08-2017 2:25 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Forty days and nights of rain all over the earth would turn most of the land mass to mud,
...
The atmosphere cannot hold that much moisture, Faith. You need some ad hoc explanation for where that meteoric water came from.
Explanations based on the Bible aren't "ad hoc" and the explanation for the enormous amount of rain is the "waters above the firmament" that existed from the Creation:
Gen 1:7:
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
I know a geologist thinks only in terms of what is observable in the world now -- according to the uniformitarian principle that says things have always been the way they are now -- but Bible believers accept what the Bible says about how things were very different before the Flood. However strange it sounds and however hard it is to comprehend, the original Creation had "waters above the firmament" that were released from the "windows of heaven" at the start of the Flood. According to inferences from this, it had never rained on earth before that.
... creating mudslides everywhere. A mudslide created by a local flood can do a lot of damage all by itself.
So, you are saying that there were no rock formations before the fludde, yes? Where did the mudslides flow if there were no hills? Why didn't rivers form? If they did, where are they in the geological record?
I don't know if there were rock formations, but even if there were there would have been a lot of mud. I also never said there were no hills; the usual idea is that there were no mountains as high as those today, but how high some might have been is unknown. When I see those illustrations of the extent of the sedimentary depositions across the continent that I linked from HBD's post on that subject a while back, I wonder where there could have been any mountains at all.
I posted pictures of that a long time ago. Multiply that by millions. Much of the land would be scoured nearly flat.
Again, no hills, no mountains, no rock formations. Is that true?
Do you have evidence of such mudslide events in the geological record?
Surely any hills would have been turned to mud, and some parts of mountains as well. And if everything was covered over by sedimentary deposits where would we find evidence of previous mudslides?
The oceans would rise up onto the land, heavy with sediment from their own sources as well as the mudslides.
What do you mean 'their own sources'? Why would rising seawater carry huge sediment loads? What force is moving the water such that it can carry mud up onto the continent?
I just mean that if you look at Walther's Law it shows limestones that would have come from the ocean. Why WOULDN'T rising sea water carry all that sediment that had come off the land, AND that came from the ocean itself? The "fountains of the deep" would no doubt have stirred up the oceans as they became a major source of the water that flooded the land. abe; the water was rising onto the land, why would any special "force" be needed for it to carry all kinds of sedimentary particles with it? /abe
People and animals would be dying in each phase; others would try to get to higher ground.
And yet there are no human fossils in the early fossil record. Odd, yes? What about human artifacts, where are they in this mudslide.
The "early" layers are marine, right? People would have been buried higher up. or just drowned in the sea. Since the uppermost strata would have been washed away in the receding Flood water it probably took the people and their artifacts with it out to sea.
the oceans would deposit sand, mud, silt, and calcareous ooze in layers as it rose.
Please show us any known flood that deposited limestone.
I'm basing this on Walther's Law which shows that rising sea level does deposit limestone. How many local floods involve rising sea level?
At its height more sediments would precipitate out of the standing water.
What kind of sediments are you precipitating here?
Whatever was carried in the water. Should have been a lot of stuff after mudslides and fountains of the deep opening up.
There would be nothing anywhere but water.
Then what is the source of sediments?
I was describing how it would look from the surface at the height of the Flood: nothing but water everywhere. That says nothing about what was IN the water.
Why do we have shorelines throughout the record?
Why wouldn't rising sea level create shorelines? Or receding sea level for that matter?
And why do we not see deep sea sediments or fossils in the Cretaceous seaway, for instance? It would seem that they would be carried along with this load of sediment from the ocean.
Dunno. I can't know everything.
Everything would die that couldn't live in the water, and even marine life would die because of all the sediment in the water.
And limestone deposits would be impossible.
Not according to Walther's Law
Did Noah bring an aquarium on the Ark?
Why would he need to? Lots of marine life died, as evidenced in the fossil record, but far from all marine life.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 790 by edge, posted 05-08-2017 2:25 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 816 by edge, posted 05-09-2017 10:45 AM Faith has replied
 Message 817 by edge, posted 05-09-2017 10:47 AM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 812 of 1352 (808217)
05-09-2017 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 768 by Faith
05-08-2017 10:38 AM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Faith writes:
That's OK but I do think of the Flood as occurring in stages so that the tides would only be a factor as it was rising, possibly also as receding; then after it reached its highest level (and I'm still not clear how long each of these phases would have lasted) the water would have been fairly quiet and sediments would be precipitated out of it. And I've not decided about the subsidence factor, merely consider it as a possibility. The water could have risen three miles according to at least one commentary I read.
Again, let me try to restate your scenario: Tides occurred while flood waters rose. Animals would leave behind tracks and burrows and nests at low tide that would become buried by sediment brought in by the next high tide. You haven't yet worked out how tides interact with rising flood waters to create a series of layers containing tracks/burrows/nests.
I have to keep coming back to this basic fact that being buried in mud describes all the fossils...
Just a quick correction: being buried in mud only describes a subset of fossils.
The vast majority, all the fossils in the strata. But the others are formed how and where?
What about fossils in sandstone and limestone?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 768 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 10:38 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 813 by Faith, posted 05-09-2017 9:33 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 813 of 1352 (808223)
05-09-2017 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 812 by Admin
05-09-2017 9:09 AM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
You haven't yet worked out how tides interact with rising flood waters to create a series of layers containing tracks/burrows/nests.
Just that sufficient time (twelve hours) between tides would facilitate tracks and burrows. Nests I assume got buried in sediments as the tide/wave came over them.
Just a quick correction: being buried in mud only describes a subset of fossils.
The vast majority, all the fossils in the strata. But the others are formed how and where?
What about fossils in sandstone and limestone?
Just a semantic glitch as so often happens: I shouldn't have but I was using "mud" to describe ALL wet sediments that buried things and became rock. That includes sandstone and limestone. My mistake, I should know by now that I'm dealing with people who don't like generic terms. I doubt I'll remember it but oh well

This message is a reply to:
 Message 812 by Admin, posted 05-09-2017 9:09 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 814 of 1352 (808230)
05-09-2017 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 786 by Faith
05-08-2017 1:47 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Faith writes:
Nooooo, we assume the Flood and try to prove it from the observed facts.
Stating this another way, you're starting with a hypothesis that a global flood event around 4500 years ago is responsible for the geology of the Earth we observe today, and this thread is assessing how well this hypothesis measures up against facts and observations.
Several people have questioned the way you think a global flood would behave, and I think this deserves more attention.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 786 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 815 by Faith, posted 05-09-2017 10:41 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 815 of 1352 (808232)
05-09-2017 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 814 by Admin
05-09-2017 10:00 AM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Several people have questioned the way you think a global flood would behave, and I think this deserves more attention.
I haven't seen anything but the most half-hearted insufficient attempts based on utterly inadequate teeny tiny local floods.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 814 by Admin, posted 05-09-2017 10:00 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(4)
Message 816 of 1352 (808235)
05-09-2017 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 811 by Faith
05-09-2017 8:00 AM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Explanations based on the Bible aren't "ad hoc" and the explanation for the enormous amount of rain is the "waters above the firmament" that existed from the Creation:
But this is a perfect ad hoc explanation.
So you want 'waters above the firmamanet' ...
Okay, what is a firmament? How did the water get there? How did sunlight reach the earth with all of that moisture in the air (or wherever)?
I know a geologist thinks only in terms of what is observable in the world now -- according to the uniformitarian principle that says things have always been the way they are now -- but Bible believers accept what the Bible says about how things were very different before the Flood. However strange it sounds and however hard it is to comprehend, the original Creation had "waters above the firmament" that were released from the "windows of heaven" at the start of the Flood. According to inferences from this, it had never rained on earth before that.
Okay, so what is a 'window of heaven', where are they and why did the open?
If it never rained before, how deep was the water table?
So, yes, this is all ad hoc, just barely biblical and fanciful, all at the same time.
I just mean that if you look at Walther's Law it shows limestones that would have come from the ocean. Why WOULDN'T rising sea water carry all that sediment that had come off the land, AND that came from the ocean itself?
Walther's Law does not apply to floods or mudflows.
First of all, it takes time to create limestone formations. One year won't cut it. And then you have to deal with the fact that your tides carry so much sediment that it would overwhelm any carbonate minerals. Then once you go over a couple of kilometers depth, calcium carbonate goes back into solution.
The "fountains of the deep" would no doubt have stirred up the oceans as they became a major source of the water that flooded the land.
See? Now, you are 'stirring up the oceans'. How does that facilitate limestone formation?
And what are 'fountains of the deep'? Where were they? Show us evidence that they existed.
abe; the water was rising onto the land, why would any special "force" be needed for it to carry all kinds of sedimentary particles with it? /abe
Well, I can only assume that the rising waters are carrying sediment to deposit on the continent. How do you move all of that sediment? What massive currents are your contriving?
The "early" layers are marine, right?
The first layer of a transgression is essentially a beach sand. If there was no rain and no sea and no waves prior to that, where did you get the sand?
And 40 days of rain? That means flooding, and even today people die in relatively minor local floods; so don't tell us that people only lived on high ground or ran to higher ground. We see their homes and artifacts all carried away. So, where are their tools, their livestock, their dwellings in the early stages of the flood?
You are simply not making any sense.
People would have been buried higher up. or just drowned in the sea.
Yes, and deposited in marine sediments, mudflows or whatever you are making up for the early flood stages.
Since the uppermost strata would have been washed away in the receding Flood water it probably took the people and their artifacts with it out to sea.
So, why do we see so many places with the uppermost strata in place? Where are the transported human fossils and artifacts in the ocean sediments?
I'm basing this on Walther's Law which shows that rising sea level does deposit limestone. How many local floods involve rising sea level?
Actually, you aren't. Walther's Law does not address mudflows flowing up a continental slope and then across continents.
Whatever was carried in the water. Should have been a lot of stuff after mudslides and fountains of the deep opening up.
And you claim to see that?
Why wouldn't rising sea level create shorelines? Or receding sea level for that matter?
A shoreline implies a land mass, and they are everywhere in the geological record.
Dunno. I can't know everything.
I had no idea.
Not according to Walther's Law
Then please find us a modern flood deposit that forms limestone.
So, all I'm seeing here are ad hoc explanations, mostly made up by your or other YECs. They open up a host of questions that are never answered. I'd say that YEC is a failure and is, in fact, mostly extra-biblical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 811 by Faith, posted 05-09-2017 8:00 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 823 by Faith, posted 05-09-2017 9:41 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 817 of 1352 (808236)
05-09-2017 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 811 by Faith
05-09-2017 8:00 AM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
(double post)
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 811 by Faith, posted 05-09-2017 8:00 AM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 818 of 1352 (808251)
05-09-2017 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 786 by Faith
05-08-2017 1:47 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Faith writes:
Nooooo, we assume the Flood and try to prove it from the observed facts.
That's the opposite of science. You have a hypothesis and you should be trying to see if the observed facts fit your hypothesis, not twisting the facts to fit your hypothesis.
Faith writes:
We are not here to argue for the Bible's veracity.
I'm not arguing against the Bible's veracity. I'm arguing against yours.
I've pointed out many times where your scenario doesn't fit the Bible any better than it fits the observe4d facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 786 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 1:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 819 of 1352 (808252)
05-09-2017 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 810 by Minnemooseus
05-08-2017 11:26 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Mosse writes:
Actually, I would think that there would be very substantial areas of the ocean that would be isolated enough from this sediment problem.
Since Faith claims that practically all sediments, worldwide, were laid down by the flood, I don't see how that is possible. If there were stretches of ocean with water clear enough for whales, etc. to survive, how would there be layers of sediment below them? Wouldn't you have vast areas of the earth's surface with virtually no geological column?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 810 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-08-2017 11:26 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 820 by edge, posted 05-09-2017 12:23 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 821 by Faith, posted 05-09-2017 8:41 PM ringo has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 820 of 1352 (808256)
05-09-2017 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 819 by ringo
05-09-2017 12:07 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Since Faith claims that practically all sediments, worldwide, were laid down by the flood, I don't see how that is possible. If there were stretches of ocean with water clear enough for whales, etc. to survive, how would there be layers of sediment below them? Wouldn't you have vast areas of the earth's surface with virtually no geological column?
It certainly raises a lot of issues, doesn't it?
You know, 'fountains of the deep', mudflows in profusion, and all that; not to mention the tectonic effects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 819 by ringo, posted 05-09-2017 12:07 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 821 of 1352 (808297)
05-09-2017 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 819 by ringo
05-09-2017 12:07 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Moose writes:
Actually, I would think that there would be very substantial areas of the ocean that would be isolated enough from this sediment problem.
Me too.
ringo writes:
Since Faith claims that practically all sediments, worldwide, were laid down by the flood, I don't see how that is possible. If there were stretches of ocean with water clear enough for whales, etc. to survive, how would there be layers of sediment below them?
There wouldn't be. Where are you getting that idea? Moose just said there should have been plenty of clear water in the oceans. The only place there would be layers of sediment is on the land and why would whales be swimming there?
Wouldn't you have vast areas of the earth's surface with virtually no geological column?
Well there are places with no geological column, but you do seem to be forgetting the oceans, where there is also no geological column.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 819 by ringo, posted 05-09-2017 12:07 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 822 by jar, posted 05-09-2017 9:23 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 828 by Admin, posted 05-10-2017 10:32 AM Faith has replied
 Message 847 by ringo, posted 05-10-2017 8:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 822 of 1352 (808298)
05-09-2017 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 821 by Faith
05-09-2017 8:41 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Faith writes:
The only place there would be layers of sediment is on the land and why would whales be swimming there?
If whales survived or sea turtles survived or dolphin survived or sea otters survived or manatees survived or wlarus survived or sea lions survived or seals survived or polar bears survived it is simply more proof that either the God once again couldn't do what he said he would do or that the stories are simply fiction. After all in both of the flood stories in the Bible the God character says he will kill everything that has the breath of life in it.
Marine animals breathe, even the sea turtles.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 821 by Faith, posted 05-09-2017 8:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 823 of 1352 (808299)
05-09-2017 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 816 by edge
05-09-2017 10:45 AM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Explanations based on the Bible aren't "ad hoc" and the explanation for the enormous amount of rain is the "waters above the firmament" that existed from the Creation:
But this is a perfect ad hoc explanation.
If it's in the Bible it's the explanation it's not made up.
So you want 'waters above the firmamanet' ...
Want?
Okay, what is a firmament? How did the water get there? How did sunlight reach the earth with all of that moisture in the air (or wherever)?
I don't know, but these aren't issues we're debating. What I claim mostly is that the strata are THE evidence for a worldwide Flood and absolutely NOT evidence for the Geological Time Scale. This has been my claim in post after post from different angles for years. But again, I think it's indisputable just on the face of it.
I know a geologist thinks only in terms of what is observable in the world now -- according to the uniformitarian principle that says things have always been the way they are now -- but Bible believers accept what the Bible says about how things were very different before the Flood. However strange it sounds and however hard it is to comprehend, the original Creation had "waters above the firmament" that were released from the "windows of heaven" at the start of the Flood. According to inferences from this, it had never rained on earth before that.
Okay, so what is a 'window of heaven', where are they and why did the open?
Sin was the cause of the Flood. Beyond that, again you are raising questions that are not part of the debate. I try to stick to the evidence that it happened, not how it happened.
If it never rained before, how deep was the water table?
So, yes, this is all ad hoc, just barely biblical and fanciful, all at the same time.
All a way to avoid the indisputable fact that sediments full of dead things stacked miles deep suggest an enormous water catastrophe and not hundreds of millions of years of time periods.
that if you look at Walther's Law it shows limestones that would have come from the ocean. Why WOULDN'T rising sea water carry all that sediment that had come off the land, AND that came from the ocean itself?
Walther's Law does not apply to floods or mudflows.
What it applies to is rising sea level and that's what we have here.
ll, it takes time to create limestone formations. One year won't cut it.
The calcium carbonate they are made up of was already created, it was merely transported and deposited as layers that became limestone.
And then you have to deal with the fact that your tides carry so much sediment that it would overwhelm any carbonate minerals. Then once you go over a couple of kilometers depth, calcium carbonate goes back into solution.
What do you mean "overwhelm?" I would assume they deposit as layers the same way they always do with rising sea level. And there's no reason to suppose that the water was ever that deep as it was rising. Just deep enough to deposit whatever depth of sediments that got deposited.
The "fountains of the deep" would no doubt have stirred up the oceans as they became a major source of the water that flooded the land.
See? Now, you are 'stirring up the oceans'. How does that facilitate limestone formation?
I thought I was answering the question how ocean sediments would have been carried on to the land. Some stirring of the water would seem to help with that.
And what are 'fountains of the deep'? Where were they? Show us evidence that they existed.
A few passages in the Bible refer to them. Since it concerns you that my arguments are "unbiblical" perhaps such passages would change your mind?
abe; the water was rising onto the land, why would any special "force" be needed for it to carry all kinds of sedimentary particles with it? /abe
Well, I can only assume that the rising waters are carrying sediment to deposit on the continent. How do you move all of that sediment? What massive currents are your contriving?
You weren't there, I wasn't there, I see the evidence of the Flood in the deposited sediments, all I know is that the only way they could get there is if the ocean did it. It's easy to dream up objections to anything I come up with but it's all just your imagination same as all I can do is imagine what happened. So again I'll point to the evidence: strata, strata, strata, lousy evidence for anything but a worldwide flood.
The "early" layers are marine, right?
The first layer of a transgression is essentially a beach sand. If there was no rain and no sea and no waves prior to that, where did you get the sand?
Who said there was no sea and no waves?
And 40 days of rain? That means flooding, and even today people die in relatively minor local floods; so don't tell us that people only lived on high ground or ran to higher ground. We see their homes and artifacts all carried away. So, where are their tools, their livestock, their dwellings in the early stages of the flood?
You are simply not making any sense.
I guess the insistence on comparing this to little floods is irresistible because you can demand that a worldwide Flood should have had the same effects, but of course that is ridiculous. I would guess that some things dug up by archaeologists may be pre-Flood myself, but if not it was all drowned in the depths of the sea.
People would have been buried higher up. or just drowned in the sea.
Yes, and deposited in marine sediments, mudflows or whatever you are making up for the early flood stages.
If mammals weren't why would people have been?: And what would YOU make up for the early stages of a Flood that started with forty days and nights of rain?
Really, you are just slinging wildly hoping something will stick aren't you?
Since the uppermost strata would have been washed away in the receding Flood water it probably took the people and their artifacts with it out to sea.
So, why do we see so many places with the uppermost strata in place?
=
I don't think you do.
Where are the transported human fossils and artifacts in the ocean sediments?
They may be there. Most of them probably decayed away.
I'm basing this on Walther's Law which shows that rising sea level does deposit limestone. How many local floods involve rising sea level?
Actually, you aren't. Walther's Law does not address mudflows flowing up a continental slope and then across continents.
I guess it soothes you to think it was all "mudflows" for some reason, but I don't see where you are getting any warrant for that idea. What Walther's Law addresses is sediments deposited by rising sea level.
Whatever was carried in the water. Should have been a lot of stuff after mudslides and fountains of the deep opening up.
And you claim to see that?
I'm not "claiming' anything, I'm doing my best to imagine what might have happened during a worldwide Flood. I can't claim my guesses are what DID happen, we can't know that, it's all an exercise in coming up with as reasonable a scenario as I can. I don't find much in your objections to take seriously, they seem mostly "shot from the hip" as it were, or a shotgun, not really thought out. I WOULD like to see you try imagining the Flood using the same information I'm using.
Why wouldn't rising sea level create shorelines? Or receding sea level for that matter?
A shoreline implies a land mass, and they are everywhere in the geological record.
Surely the Flood implies a land mass, you know, where all the strata are deposited. Rising and falling levels of water do tend to leave shorelines.
Not according to Walther's Law.
Then please find us a modern flood deposit that forms limestone.
Sure. Point me to a flood involving rising sea level.
So, all I'm seeing here are ad hoc explanations, mostly made up by your or other YECs.
By which you mean the attempts to imagine what happened. But you know, that's all you have for your scenarios too, just your imagination. And it's pretty florid imagination too, all those time periods with weird looking animals romping around amid weird looking plants, that all end up as a stack of slabs of rock which is even weirder.
They open up a host of questions that are never answered. I'd say that YEC is a failure and is, in fact, mostly extra-biblical.
Seems to me I've answered an awful lot of questions that get thrown at me, some of them rather wacko. YEC is only a failure in your mind and according to standard geology because you refuse to acknowledge all the hits it's made. It's so easy to deny theories in the historical sciences where nothing can be actually proved and where you hold all the establishment certifications. You don't have to take any of it seriously; all you have to do is say it's wrong and therefore it is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 816 by edge, posted 05-09-2017 10:45 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 824 by edge, posted 05-09-2017 11:06 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 824 of 1352 (808304)
05-09-2017 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 823 by Faith
05-09-2017 9:41 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
If it's in the Bible it's the explanation it's not made up.
But most of what you give us is not in the Bible. The Bible says nothing about mudslides or flood-deposited limestone or galloping continents, etc.
I don't know, but these aren't issues we're debating.
I understand that you wouldn't want to talk about contrary evidence.
What I claim mostly is that the strata are THE evidence for a worldwide Flood and absolutely NOT evidence for the Geological Time Scale. This has been my claim in post after post from different angles for years. But again, I think it's indisputable just on the face of it.
Why?
What you are really saying here is that you are not required to provide evidence.
Sin was the cause of the Flood. Beyond that, again you are raising questions that are not part of the debate. I try to stick to the evidence that it happened, not how it happened.
Sure. It's always good for YECs to avoid details.
I'm sorry, but sin is not a mechanism.
All a way to avoid the indisputable fact that sediments full of dead things stacked miles deep suggest an enormous water catastrophe and not hundreds of millions of years of time periods.
Why is that? You keep saying these things but never really support them.
Why couldn't normal mortality over millions of years not create the same situation?
Oh right! Because you don't want it to. Sorry.
What it applies to is rising sea level and that's what we have here.
But with a flood or mudflow, there is no time to create an environment and that is what the law depends upon. Walther's Law relates to the vertical sequence of sedimentary rock types produced by a succession of depositional environments. A flood or mudflow produces an interruption of the environments, just as a lava flow would, therefor producing an interruption of the vertical sequence of rocks.
But I'm sure that you know better.
The calcium carbonate they are made up of was already created, it was merely transported and deposited as layers that became limestone.
No, the carbonate would be mixed with other sediments if they were transported.
What do you mean "overwhelm?" I would assume they deposit as layers the same way they always do with rising sea level. And there's no reason to suppose that the water was ever that deep as it was rising. Just deep enough to deposit whatever depth of sediments that got deposited.
The sand, silt and clay would be too abundant for the rock to be called limestone.
I thought I was answering the question how ocean sediments would have been carried on to the land. Some stirring of the water would seem to help with that.
Yes, and the limestone would be all mixed up with clastic rocks and would be deposited that way. There would be no true limestone beds. Again, sorry, but the evidence suggests that quiet waters with little or no clastic debris produces limestone.
If mammals weren't why would people have been?:
Because of evolution, mammals and people were not present at the time.
I'm cutting the rest of this off for the sake of brevity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 823 by Faith, posted 05-09-2017 9:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 825 by Faith, posted 05-09-2017 11:54 PM edge has not replied
 Message 831 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 11:06 AM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 825 of 1352 (808307)
05-09-2017 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 824 by edge
05-09-2017 11:06 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
But most of what you give us is not in the Bible. The Bible says nothing about mudslides or flood-deposited limestone or galloping continents, etc.
What we were talking about was the "waters above the firmament." Please don't change the subject.
And about mudslides, if you can figure out how it could rain for forty days and nights without producing prodigious mudslides, please enlighten.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 824 by edge, posted 05-09-2017 11:06 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 826 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-10-2017 12:08 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 827 by jar, posted 05-10-2017 7:02 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024