|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Maybe not. But what I ask floodists is: How do you distinguish one big flood from lots of little floods? The evidence that we have is all we have to go on, so how does that evidence point to one big flood? Those erosional and depositional features will not exist long. We need to think about something larger and more permanent. The oceanic water and oceanic basins ARE the evidences. Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Juvenissun writes:
Why not?
Those erosional and depositional features will not exist long. Juvenissun writes:
How are they evidence? The oceanic water and oceanic basins ARE the evidences. You need to do more than just post random opinions. You need to back up what you say."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Flood deposits are loose sediments, they will be quickly washed away.
Flood entrench channels will last longer. But they will also be eroded away within one million years or so. I am repeating what I said. There is no qualified question to push me say anything more than that. It is not what I don't say. It is what you don't ask. I am NOT going to give any more information which you do not understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Juvenissun writes:
And they'll be deposited somewhere else.
Flood deposits are loose sediments, they will be quickly washed away. Juvenissun writes:
Who's talking about a million years? The flood only lasted one year. And it couldn't have been more than a quarter-million years ago because there were no people.
Flood entrench channels will last longer. But they will also be eroded away within one million years or so. Juvenissun writes:
If I ask and you don't answer, that's a reflection on you, not on me. If you don't answer, it looks like you don't know.
I am repeating what I said. There is no qualified question to push me say anything more than that. It is not what I don't say. It is what you don't ask. Juvenissun writes:
Then you're wasting your time here. I am NOT going to give any more information which you do not understand."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
And they'll be deposited somewhere else. Then you will not recognize it as flood sediments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Juvenissun writes:
Why not? They're still deposited during the Flood. ringo writes:
Then you will not recognize it as flood sediments. And they'll be deposited somewhere else."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Why not? They're still deposited during the Flood. Sediments deposited during the global flood are no different from any sediments we can see in our normal environment. Gravel, sand, mud, etc. The only way to tell that they are flood sediments is to look at their depositional structure. So, once the original deposit is moved (eroded and redeposited), the original structure is destroyed. They can not be recognized as flood sediments any more (they become river sediments or lake sediments or marine sediments etc. ) I always try to answer genuine questions. Otherwise, may be not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Juvenissun writes:
They should be. They should be much more widespread than river sediments or lake sediments. Even if there is no single contiguous layer that covers the whole earth, there should be vast areas that are easily distinguishable from lake sediments and river sediments. Sediments deposited during the global flood are no different from any sediments we can see in our normal environment."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
They should be. They should be much more widespread than river sediments or lake sediments. Even if there is no single contiguous layer that covers the whole earth, there should be vast areas that are easily distinguishable from lake sediments and river sediments. No. They are normal material. Once relocated, they don't have any tag to show the origin. However, your idea is good. There might be something in the sediments which can be used as a tag of the global flood. We do not know what it is. But this thread may deserve some study. However, it is not likely to find any support for the project.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Juvenissun writes:
Sure they do. The chemical composition will give clues to where they came from. A flood is not a magic eraser that removes all evidence. Once relocated, they don't have any tag to show the origin."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Sure they do. The chemical composition will give clues to where they came from. A flood is not a magic eraser that removes all evidence. Think: where did those sediments come from? They were sediments on the ground BEFORE the Flood. Why would they be different from other sediments on the ground?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Juvenissun writes:
Some of them were eroded BY the flood.
Think: where did those sediments come from? They were sediments on the ground BEFORE the Flood. Juvenissun writes:
Because different sediments come from different formations. Some of them come from sandstone, some come from limestone, etc. Why would they be different from other sediments on the ground?"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
They are normal sediments just like sediments laid down everywhere and every day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Juvenissun writes:
That doesn't seem likely. The amount of sediment depends on how much material was in the water, how much water there was and for how long, etc. The Bible Flood would have had vast amounts of material in vast amounts of water settling out for a long time. We would expect a very deep set of layers to form before the water receded. The receding water would erode the fesh sediment to some extent but not enough to remove all traces. They are normal sediments just like sediments laid down everywhere and every day. It seems like you're just making excuses for the fact that there IS no evidence of the Flood."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
That doesn't seem likely. The amount of sediment depends on how much material was in the water, how much water there was and for how long, etc. The Bible Flood would have had vast amounts of material in vast amounts of water settling out for a long time. We would expect a very deep set of layers to form before the water receded. The receding water would erode the fesh sediment to some extent but not enough to remove all traces. It is quite amusing to see a layman's argument on geological process. How much sediments is available for deposition? They are in the same amount as the current soil on the surface. More precisely, they are the part of pebble, sand in the soil. The mud in the soil will suspend in water and be carried to the ocean and deposited in the ocean. So if you average out the amount of soil material and re-pave it on the surface, it would be much. May be a foot? How do I explain to you that loose sediments DO NOT stay on land for long (say, 100 years)? How about rain. Rain will easily wash them around and eroded them away, or redistribute them to river channel.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024