|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: REAL Flood Geology | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
roxrkool writes: Let's say you have a land mass that is relatively smooth. What's that? Maximum 2000' high rolling hills? Then the rains started. Since all the land masses were covered by water, that means sea levels were raised globally. That's a LOT of rain. I was thinking a max of something like 3000' and a much lower sea level, say a 1500' or so lower and relatively shallow oceans of say a max of 2000' or so below sea level. This would suggest a great deal of erosion and platonic seismic activity, would it not? I believe Ballard's Black Sea discovery of a lower pre-flood sea level confirms that pre-flood seas were much lower than what is observed today. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
What would we find today--in rocks, in the atmosphere, in flora and fauna? This thread needs a bump and suffers from the lack of YEC input. Following up on one of the ideas sparked by Jomans specific gravity hypothesis. How can Flood Geology explain the common occurrence of sea shell, coral, and sponge fossils at the upper end of many geological columns. Taking the Grand Canyon as an example, I have collected sea shell fossils at 8000 ft on the north rim of the Canyon. A geology based on the Global Flood would predict that immobile marine fossils should be found in the lower levels. Many other examples exist such as the Rocky Mountain range. For example, the famous Burgess Shale in Yoho national park sits at about 8000 ft elevation with 10's of thousands of feet of sendiments below.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
How can Flood Geology explain the common occurrence of sea shell, coral, and sponge fossils at the upper end of many geological columns. That part is easy. The tops were low until after the flood and got shoved up. What is hard to explain how the sea shells, coral and sponge fossils got INTO the rocks. What is hard to explain is how the examples found INSIDE the rocks is of older, more ancient specimens than are often found in lower levels elsewhere? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 988 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Buz writes:
I'm not sure I understand. The max elevation is somewhere around 3,000' (above sea level) and 2,000' deep oceans - that I understand. I was thinking a max of something like 3000' and a much lower sea level, say a 1500' or so lower and relatively shallow oceans of say a max of 2000' or so below sea level. What do you mean by a 1500' sea level?
This would suggest a great deal of erosion and platonic seismic activity, would it not?
Please elaborate. What suggests a lot of erosion or seismic activity? And what do you mean by "platonic?"
I believe Ballard's Black Sea discovery of a lower pre-flood sea level confirms that pre-flood seas were much lower than what is observed today.
There is plenty of evidence for much lower and higher sea levels, that's not a problem. The problem is accounting for the large amount of sediment in the geologic record. Is that what you believe? That most of the geologic record is composed of flood-deposited sediments? So if Ballard discovered what you think is the pre-flood world, all the rocks and sediment present below are pre-flood. Meaning that only the uppermost sediments of the geologic record are Noachian. Is that correct? Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Jar writes: That part is easy. The tops were low until after the flood and got shoved up. Most YEC that I know, or have read about, claim that the formations that make up the Grand Canyon were formed from sediments of the flood. The marine fossils at the top have to present a problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
roxrkool writes: I'm not sure I understand. The max elevation is somewhere around 3,000' (above sea level) and 2,000' deep oceans - that I understand.What do you mean by a 1500' sea level? I meant to say 1500' to 2000' max ocean depth.
roxrkool writes: Please elaborate. What suggests a lot of erosion or seismic activity? And what do you mean by "platonic?" Woops. Make that plate tectonics. I believe Ballard's Black Sea discovery of a lower pre-flood sea level confirms that pre-flood seas were much lower than what is observed today.
roxrkool writes: There is plenty of evidence for much lower and higher sea levels, that's not a problem. The problem is accounting for the large amount of sediment in the geologic record. Is that what you believe? That most of the geologic record is composed of flood-deposited sediments? So if Ballard discovered what you think is the pre-flood world, all the rocks and sediment present below are pre-flood. Meaning that only the uppermost sediments of the geologic record are Noachian. Is that correct? This is the controversial stuff which more scientific apprised creos debate about. I go with the Noaic floodist side of the debate, but whereas our scientists are able to debate the science and geology, I am not. I have the Grand Canyon video of ICR on flood geology relative to the canyon. It made sense to me as a layman as I viewed the video and listened to their views on it. I also have their Mt. St Helens video in which they applied it to a flood model, et al and as a layman some arguments in it made logical sense to me. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I believe Ballard's Black Sea discovery of a lower pre-flood sea level confirms that pre-flood seas were much lower than what is observed today. Except, of course, that was not what Ballard discovered. It has been known for some time that in the past both the Black Sea and the Mediterranean were closed lakes. During those period the water level in them was considerably lower than it is today. That has NOTHING to do with any imaginary pre-flood period beyond the fact that the water level in those two bodies of water rose when they were opened to other sources. It tells us NOTHING about what sea level was or that there was ever any world-wide flood. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Buz writes: This is the controversial stuff which more scientific apprised creos debate about. I go with the Noaic floodist side of the debate, but whereas our scientists are able to debate the science and geology, I am not. Fair enough. In my experience I have yet to find any flood geology that provides satisfying explanations for the real problematic issues such as:
buz writes: I have the Grand Canyon video of ICR on flood geology relative to the canyon. It made sense to me as a layman as I viewed the video and listened to their views on it. I also have their Mt. St Helens video in which they applied it to a flood model, et al and as a layman some arguments in it made logical sense to me. I have seen these to. They are convincing because they actively filter the evidence and lead you down the garden path - so to speak. You have probably heard the old saw about "when things get confusing follow the money". Look at industries such as mineral, gemstone and oil exploration. They don't give a rats ass about the YEC/OE argument. They go with what works. If YEC had any shred of credibility they would be using YEC geology and YEC geologist would be in demand. They are not. I always thought that there was a gold mine (excuse the pun) in starting a "Christian" mineral or oil exploration company that promoted using YEC methods to discovery, and which consequently actively sought out investment from the "Christian community". Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
roxrkool: I have no idea, but I get the distinct impression most YECs think the geologic column is composed of sand, silt, and clay, with a few conglomerates thrown in for good measure. (The silence we observe in response to this post is due to YECs trying to register the idea that there could be more.) __ Edited by Archer Opterix, : erosion of excess verbiage. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
platonic seismic activity That's what happens when two lovers never touch each other, but the earth moves under their feet anyway. __ Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 988 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
I can see why you don't debate the science, Buz, however, it's obvious you hold a very strong position about the occurrence of a global flood because you argue in favor of it constantly. I don't see anything wrong with holding controversial positions, but in the face of overwhelming evidence against it, it seems a bit pig-headed.
The fact is, if the present geologic record was deposited from a global flood, you still don't have enough source material on the continents - even with 3,000' high hills. The geologic column is many kilometers thick and that requires an immense amount of material. In addition, I've yet to see an explanation for how flood waters can precipitate hundreds of feet of limestone or calcite/dolomite. The Grand Canyon ICR stuff makes sense to you because, despite a lack of evidence, you believe the GC was carved from unconsolidated sediment. Because not even a child will concede rock is as easy to erode as sand and gravel. Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Roxrkool writes: The geologic column is many kilometers thick and that requires an immense amount of material. One problem that the YEC overlook is that these deposited materials are prior erosional products. No proposed action of the fairy tale flood breaks down solid mineral rock into loess, sand or gravel. The few thousands years between the supposed flood and the creation week is woefully inadequate to create the vast quantities of the eroded material we see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
The few thousands years between the supposed flood and the creation week is woefully inadequate to create the vast quantities of the eroded material we see. Yah, especially when there were no mountains prior to the flood...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6246 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
Yah, especially when there were no mountains prior to the flood... The really amusing thing to me is that YECs use these mountains that they say didn't exist before the flood to sort fossils while thousands of feet of sediment are being deposited. They claim that some the fossils of some organisms ended up higher than others because they escaped up the mountains faster or lived in "biomes" at higher elevation. This doesn't really work even with mountains but I really wonder how anyone could think it would work at all without mountains.Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
roxrkool writes: I can see why you don't debate the science, Buz, however, it's obvious you hold a very strong position about the occurrence of a global flood because you argue in favor of it constantly. I don't see anything wrong with holding controversial positions, but in the face of overwhelming evidence against it, it seems a bit pig-headed.The fact is, if the present geologic record was deposited from a global flood, you still don't have enough source material on the continents - even with 3,000' high hills. The geologic column is many kilometers thick and that requires an immense amount of material. I understand your concern here as to my ideological integrity. What you are not understanding is my problem with the corroborating evidence which I observe regarding the accuracy of the Biblical record. What do I do with all those fulfilled prophecies which conform to the historical record. What do I do with all the other evidences of Biblical accuracy such as social, political and cultural aspects. I see the prophecies either having been fulfilled or on track for fulfillment. I see the cultural, physical, moral and social benefits of Biblical principles in history and in observing the nations and cultures of the world with the Biblical fundamentals bringing the benefits to those cultures and nations which follow them. I see the problems with evolution such as the absense of so many transitional fossils missing, et al and I say to self, 'self, go with the Biblical flood, et al, since the observables are there to see, whereas much of the debatable stuff on flood, et al are open to interpretation of what is observed and the margin of error in interpretation caused by unknown pre-flood atmosphere, et al.' BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024