Noah's Flood and the Geologic Layers (was Noah's shallow sea)

Actually, one of the more compelling arguments for shallow seas is the widespread occurrence of limestones in the interior seaway. These will not occur in very deep water. Also, one should look at the fossil assemblages that suggests relatively shallow water.

quote:

---

I'm also glad you said that! I suspected as much. So then, would it not be true that IF there was a flood, that all sorts of marine deposits would be found just about anywhwere?

---

Are you saying that because there are marine deposits such as the Great Barrier Reef occurring today that there is a global flood going on right now? Do you undestand that evidence of a rise in sea level does not mean that all the land was innundated?

quote:

---

Also, Ben Gadd's book (I think it was handbook of the Rockies) tells us of how the mysterious huge block of chert is seen (I seen it) by the side of a road, and is normally thiught of as being formed in DEEP water. In this case, of course they try to tell us it was a shallow sea. Ever heard of that one?

---

Clearly, there are different types of chert. Deep sea cherts are usually thin and interbedded with pelagic sediments. The type you see probably occur under specific shallow water conditions. I also believe that there are fresh water cherts in some places. I'm not sure about all this, but will check into it if you wish.

quote:

---

e: Actually, one of the more compelling arguments for shallow seas is the widespread occurrence of limestones in the interior seaway

​

s: I heard there was more limestone than uniformism can account for, as it is now produced.

---

Please try to stay focussed on the topic.

quote:

---

I guess if we want to ASSUME the limestone had something to do with shallow seas-we could.

---

Well, you wanted an explanation. This is not an assumption.

quote:

---

e: Are you saying that because there are marine deposits such as the Great Barrier Reef occurring today that there is a global flood going on right now

​

s: No. I would think a flood would have a greater and more widespread effect.

---

But your example was local. Why are you extrapolating to the rest of the world?

quote:

---

e: The type you see probably occur under specific shallow water conditions

​

s: Well, It was a 'regular' geologist I think who wrote the book, ...

---

What does that have to do with it? Please try to stay focussed.

quote:

---

...and there are high cliffs full of the stuff. He calls it the "most mysterious rock" in the mountains.

---

So what? Someone has given you an opinion. Ask someone else and they will give you a different one. These rocks are not so rare nor mysterious. I've seen them, too. They may appear odd, but not 'mysterious.'What is the point of this thread?

quote:

---

JM: so they can avoid uncomfortable evidence like paleosols, glacial deposits, aeolian deposits, fossil termite mounds and bee hives all of which should not be found in the midst of a global flood

​

s: So called glacial deposits, I think include a lot more than some morraines in high mountains, (they had to change their veiw of some lakes they tried to say were formed by morraines up there, as they ween't after all)

---

Who is 'they'? Please be specific.

quote:

---

OK bug houses were found. So how would that be a problem?

---

Good grief! Simple, is your family name 'Minded'?

quote:

---

As far as coming up with a creationist strata list, I don't know. Reminds me a little of the so called fossil index, of which, were I a fisherman, I could go out and catch at least one fish that was on the index!

---

What utter gibberish! I think you are a troll.

quote:

---

I guess things were really chewed up and tossed about. At least there are formations or deposits streching thousands of sq miles of the old mud, and filled with nice little fossils.

---

So, thousands of square miles is now global?

quote:

---

Sometimes I wonder about you guys.

---

On the other hand, we don't have to wonder about you at all...

quote:

---

In the Creation science material I've read, ...

---

Hmmm, I don't suppose it ever occurred to you to try reading any mainstream literature on the subject has it?

quote:

---

...it's pretty clear there's more limestone on earth than uniformism accounts for, (from the way it is currently produced) by quite a lot! Must I cut and paste for you?

---

Yes. Vague assertions don't cut it around here. What is this big mystery that I've never heard of?

quote:

---

Morraine Lake in the Rockies has a sign out front explaining how it was named that because they thought it was formed by one. Now, I believe they basically don't know, but think it was a combination of things. There are these big neat piles of boulders and rocks there, looks like someone was in there with a buldozer, putting them in neat piles. They are full of sea ripple rocks, fish fossils etc. Nearby huge mountains like the "Tower of Babel" (Reminds me they figure all tounges started not too far from where the real deal was built-coincidence?)Where they think apparently the stones fell from. Funny, I look to to the sky there and try to imagine huge rocks falling taht far! Then landing in a neat pile! I climbed up there, found a sort of angel fish looking fossil myself, and noticed the rocks sitting on each other so nicely. I've thrown down rocks before and watched them shatter! Yet these ones supposedly fall from sky high with almost no apparent damage, and form a nice pile! Almost looks to me like maybe they fell in water, (And ice?) and were swirled into a pile! But what do I know? After all the sign there admits they don't either. In the Handbook of the Rockies book I just read the other day, of a few that were not formed by morraines after all, I think Medicine Lk was one of them. Anyhow whats the big deal? There are lakes they had to adjust opinion on.

---

This is your evidence against the existence of glacial deposits? That's it?

quote:

---

well, it would seem a good start to stop assuming what layered the thing.

---

I assume that you have an alternative? Please give us something to 'chew on,' as you might say.

quote:

---

What else could do it? Are you saying only age absolutely could possibly have done it?

---

Once again, why do you ask us to do your job? If there is an alternative in your favor, it would seem that you would have it.

quote:

---

When you look at the layer after layer in the Rockies (north)you can see how they were layed down quickly, full of fossils. (Granted you can't) There also your people claim a long age.

---

If you have some mechanism for all of the processes we see in the geological record, we'd be glad to hear about it.

quote:

---

that was in reply to someone asking which lakes were first thought of as being formed by morraines, and later changed. Whats this about glacial deposits? Do you think some people don't think there are such obvious things as that? Sounds absurd to me.

---

YOu made some comment about 'alleged glacial deposits.'

quote:

---

learn something new every day! look into it it's no mystery to creation folks.

---

Then you can tell us all about it. Please do so, rather than make unsupported assertions.

quote:

---

So, thousands of square miles is now global

​

part of the globe! What order would you expect when talking about a world ending catastrophe? Some well ordered layers globally as you would expect in an evolution model?

---

So then, it was NOT a global flood! Why didn't you tell us this in the first place?[This message has been edited by edge, 02-07-2004]

quote:

---

yes it was, what exactly am I missing here?

---

You gave widespread, uniform sedimentary deposits over 'thousands of square miles' as the type of deposit laid down by your flood.I implied in my response that 'thousands of square miles' is hardly a global deposit. You then said 'part of the globe'. My only conclusion could be that you you only have evidence for a local flood. If that is not the case, please clarify your statements and tell us what your evidence is rather than asking us what it is.

quote:

---

Is it an imagined layer of some kind you would expect? spit it out man

---

I guess it IS an imagined layer, but I am not the one imagining it, nor do I expect it. No such layer exists. You are the one who should spit it out. After all, it's your imagination.

quote:

---

The limestone 'mystery' first site in my search for you popped up this explanation from a dr. you guys seem to know.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Limestone

---

This is your evidence? What utter nonsense. This is obviously written by a non-geologist. I'll get to it later unless someone else does. Why not try a mainstream reference for once?

Thank, you Jon. This geochemistry is a bit out of my expertise, but you have done an excellent job at it. Perhaps more comments later. It would take me just too long to get all of the resources together. My time is limited to bits and scraps since I'm wrapped up in personal business most of the time these days.

quote:

---

This is the first thing that popped up on a search, yes, as I said before starting your homework for you, it's a common creation point out there.

---

There are a lot of common creationist points out there. You'll have to do better than this.

quote:

---

Non geologist? so what!

---

Well, if we are talking about geology, normally I would ask a geologist. I suppose it would be okay for you to have a plumber do brain surgery?

quote:

---

Where else can you get out of the box material that isn't senile with 'old age'

---

Out of the box? You are out of the galaxy on this one! What is your evidence for senility of the geological sciences? What was the last geological symposium you attended?

quote:

---

my 'theory' is that the limestone issue is a common theme in creation science books, and sites. You just did a little comment on one of them. Thank you for confirming my theory! Keep up the research, but do your own homework from now on if you don't mind!

---

Oh well, now it all makes sense. But I think you waver off topic again. Try to stay focussed.

quote:

---

So then, we have mainstream ideas here admitting how much they do NOT know!

---

Yes. You'd never hear that from Walt Brown, would you?

quote:

---

And clearly illustrating how weak and absurd opinions can be when burdened by assumptions of old age!

---

Umm, in case you didn't notice it, your reference clearly stated that the primary source of limestone IS biogenic. NOt 'maybe biogenic'. Not 'theoretically biogenic'. Not even 'we aren't sure...'

quote:

---

Science? Yes, study how things deposit at present, -good!--try to add in your godless hypothesis fine. (but seperate what we call science please from that religious rot)

---

Exactly what we've been doing all along. Thank you.{Fixed first quote box - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-08-2004]

quote:

---

Which is why I have tried to seperate the so called evidence old agers have mentioned, from the assumptions that were made about the actual evidence. There is a world that is rich with fossils of life and somehow preserved, that is a record! Clear evidence. A violent event explains it very well.

---

What is the evidence in the Burgess Shale of a violent event? Why are there such delicate fossils preserved there?

quote:

---

There is population, ...

---

And making no assumptions, too! Suuuuure.

quote:

---

distance from sun (At rate it's burning 600 yrs is fine but life billions of tears ago becomes impossible.

---

What are you some kind of super-uniformitarianist?

quote:

---

Creation scientists have cited salt levels in the sea also, gases in atmosphere-that could not have taken that long to form, languages that apparently lead us to Babel geographically, and chronologically, I mentioned flood accounts passed on worldwide all pointing to some common flood, I mentioned a large warm blooded crocidile way up in the artic circle, showing a very different climate, (and likely an axis shift as well, considering the type of trees also found that need not just temperature, but more light to grow)-...

---

Wandering a bit here, simple. Focus, man, focus!

quote:

---

I also, over in Ned's thread article 171-listed many big real factors that would have to be taken into account and their possible effects. No doubt, as some of you might realize the creation material lists way too much for me to list even all as evidence. What I have found is an inability to step out of the confinements, on your side, and allow for explanations other than your often convoluted attempts at piecing together a story, as at Burgess, that is actually based on anything much, except, it would now appear, bending any and everythibg to try to fit in to your theories. Can you tell me why those cute little creatures could not have been buried in worldwide violence?

---

Sure. Could you try saying the same thing with half the words? A little punctuation might help as well.

quote:

---

You want me to prove the mountain really exists?

---

What mountain? You are wandering again...

quote:

---

It's there, why not the flood? -Careful about harping on presumed dates too much, as I'm not allowed now to take on you bunch with two hands, ( maybe queenie thinks that'll even the odds.

---

Seems to me like you've only got one hand available.

quote:

---

"As biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that its chances of originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out."

---

Another opinion. How about buying a fact?

quote:

---

why should geologists assume that the sedimentary processes we see today are radically different to those in the past

Because they don't explain what happened well. I was going to close the thread, but go ahead and give us a few sentences on your conclusions.

---

Vague assertions won't cut it here, simple. We cannot respond to them in any meaningful way. How do they not 'explain what happened', and what would be an example.