An attempt to let Flood supporters explain how things were created

Topic Mike.I see you have a hard time as always understanding even the simplest basics but there is a topic to this thread.How did some flood create the specific examples shown in this topic?If you want to start a thread on your imagined anomalies then you are free to give it a try; assuming you would actually debate and respond and not just run away as is your norm.BUT this thread is on the subject of how any flood might create the examples listed.It really is that simple Mike.

I would love to see that, even one would be interesting.

If you can't explain Jar's specific examples from Message 1 in terms of the Flood, if you don't have even a general idea of the kinds of effects the Flood would have on geology, then how do you know the Flood was responsible?If you don't know how the Flood created these geological structures: Then by what chain of evidence and reasoning do you conclude the Flood was responsible? More generally, though off-topic, how does the Flood explain anything geologically?--Percy

Actually, I would.There are plenty of examples of rapid erosion from waves, rivers and ice. Here is an article about it from the people who know - engineering geologists.https://www.aegweb.org/page/Erosion?Of some interest is this observation:

quote:

---

"The result of such abrasion varies based the material being eroded. For example, a stream in soft sediments will erode more quickly than a stream through solid rock; the same is true for the erosion of a sandy beach versus that of a rocky coastline."

---

And soft, unconsolidated sediments (or volcanic ash, etc.) can erode with almost no resistance. You need to stop right here. Your problem is that with long ages and uniformity there is no problem. What you are really telling us is that YEC actually doesn't know anything about its favorite geological event. Plenty of people.Your position is a strawman argument. Well, considering that no one ever said that ... Now you admit that you are arguing from ignorance because nobody knows what such an event would do. You don't know, do you? The only people saying this seem to be on your side. And there are a lot of things that human beings DO know. Why should we ignore those things? Ummm, sure. Avoid anything that might refute your position. Let's just declare all engineering geology off limits for this discussion. That way you can make up whatever you want.

That is correct, you do not have to answer. Then you are in luck. This thread gives you, or anyone else, the opportunity to explore possibilities. This is, of course, very convenient for you. This way you can make up whatever you want. Don't complain.But no, we can do thought experiments using what we DO ACTUALLY know. The problem is that we keep coming up with normal geological processes to give us what we see in the real world. No one is saying that you can't use your 'creation science', just that you need to defend it.The real problem is that no one has ever done so.All these years of YEC science and nothing to show for it. Unfortunately, YEC cognition trails YEC seriousness by light-years.

Hey Mike, I'm on your side, I don't know how many other "neutral" people you'll ever find at EvC, jar hardly ever gets caught out on his devious tactics, but there's always me to share the frustration, and I know we don't even agree on everything (I could never take your "tentative" stance about whether the Flood actually occurred, it's so obvious from the Bible that it did). But I'm enjoying your posts on this thread.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Changed my mind. I don't want to participate on this thread. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The problem is that you have left out the science part of your scientific event. Have you ever studied erosion, volcanism or sedimentation?How familiar are you with MSH? Have you been there? Have you read anything but creationist sources?I'm not trying to be mean here. But your statements do not really connect with reality. For instance, no geologist has ever said that all deposits occur slowly. Nor has any ever said that all erosion occurs slowly.Don't get me wrong, YECs say it all the time. They know you will believe them.This is geology 101 stuff. And yet, you say it as a fact. It simply isn't so, but it you have a direct quote (in context) of any mainstream geologist saying so, please provide it and we can have a discussion. You've really got to get away from YEC sources. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Given what Mike's said in this thread, you two don't agree on much. From Mike's Message 54: So Mike looks at Jar's images: And says he has no answers, that to him they are anomalies the Flood can't explain. He goes on: Yet you claim the Flood explains everything geological and fossilogical and burrowlogical and reeflogical and nestological and canyonlogical and on and on. When pressed to explain how a flood could ever do such a thing you invent fantasies, make evidence-free declarations, ignore posts, pick a fight or pull a disappearing act. EvC is strewn with discussions you've abandoned. And what do you know - reading your next message I see you've set a new record and abandoned this thread after a mere two posts: This thread is about education. Mike's position forces him to argue for replacing the teaching of theories underpinned with mountains of evidence with ideas that have no evidence and explain nothing.--Percy

(Mike) says he has no answers, that to him they are anomalies the Flood can't explain.Steps in acquiring knowledge:
1) Admit ignorance (which Mike appears to be doing)
2) Gather observations,
3) Apply relevant scientific principles,
4) Draw and share conclusions.
5) If they’re challenged, either provide more evidence to support them or amend them to take new factors into account, or be prepared to abandon them.I wonder, Mike, are you interested in acquiring knowledge, or is it your position that the Bible tells us everything we need to know about everything we need to know - that if the Bible doesn’t cover it, then we don’t need to know about it?