Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was there a worldwide flood?
The Matt
Member (Idle past 5532 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 103 of 372 (411734)
07-22-2007 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Repzion
07-21-2007 9:11 PM


Re: Here's more Stuff.
I've read your first link, and the writer is either ignorant or lying.
quote:
Most of the earth's crust consists of sedimentary rocks.
Not true in the slightest. Sedimentary rocks, though most common at the surface form a thin veneer on top of mainly igneous rock. 70% of earth's crust was NOT laid down by water.
quote:
Sedimentary rock was originally formed in almost all cases under water
There is some truth in this. Much sedimentary rock is formed by water, but this ignores 2 things. The first is the rocks that aren't water deposited. Windblown deposits and glacial deposits also exist, and couldn't be deposited in a flood. The second is just how the water derived deposits are formed. Water does not nessecarily mean flood. To give a couple of examples: there are rocks that seem to have been deposited by river deltas, and a number of times their upper surfaces have been exposed long enough to be colonised by vegetation and resubmerged. This doesn't exactly seem consistent with a flood. Another example is evapourites. These form when water evapourates and the minerals & salts precipitate out, just like if you left a cup of salty water out in the sun. The order in different minerals precipitate is well understood- those that are less soluable first, followed by those that are more soluable. In evapourite sequences we can see repeating sequences of mineral deposition formed as pools of saline water slowly dry up and are then subsequently refilled, then drying again,etc... This doesn't seem to suggest a flood either.
If you have a serious interest in furthering your knowledge of this subject, I suggest you start following this thread, which I will progressively build on: http://EvC Forum: Geology- working up from basic principles. -->EvC Forum: Geology- working up from basic principles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Repzion, posted 07-21-2007 9:11 PM Repzion has not replied

The Matt
Member (Idle past 5532 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 150 of 372 (418543)
08-28-2007 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Refpunk
08-28-2007 1:39 PM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
I think you've misunderstood here. I mean really misunderstood. Geology in its entirety, and I'd bet this discovery documentary too (Note that being on the discovery channel does not make it true, even if that is what was said). I can tell you this is the first time I've heard a claim of any global layer of tsunami deposits or ice melt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Refpunk, posted 08-28-2007 1:39 PM Refpunk has not replied

The Matt
Member (Idle past 5532 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 184 of 372 (418999)
08-31-2007 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Refpunk
08-31-2007 10:31 AM


Re: Definition of "sediment"
no scientist has yet maintained that there was once a global windstorm that carried all the sediment all over the world to the rocks all over the world, then water is how that sediment landed on the rocks all over the world.
You seem to be making two erroneous assumptions here:
Firstly, you assume ALL sediment must be deposited by either wind OR water with no compromise. Why do you think that there can be no windblown sediment at all, especially when the evidence is to the contrary? Look at the earth today: You can see vast areas accumulating windblown sediment e.g. dunefields, and vast areas accumulating river and marine sediment e.g. floodplains, deltas and shallow seas. Why not in the past?
Secondly, you assume that one event has to have deposited all of the sedimentary rocks in the world. Why?
So it takes MUCH EFFORT to deny a global flood
Actually, when you study geology in any serious way it becomes incredibly easy based of the fact that none of the evidence we see points to such a flood. Your support of a global flood seems to stem from complete and total ignorance of any geology. Why don't you try picking up a textbook and figure out what geology actually teaches. Until you do, as far as I'm concerned this discussion can get absolutely nowhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Refpunk, posted 08-31-2007 10:31 AM Refpunk has not replied

The Matt
Member (Idle past 5532 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 221 of 372 (421675)
09-13-2007 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by RAZD
09-13-2007 12:39 PM


Re: Where the water came from and went.
Doesn't this kind of negate the need for 40 days and nights of rain? And you'd think the noticeably hummocky water would draw comment too...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2007 12:39 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2007 7:23 PM The Matt has not replied

The Matt
Member (Idle past 5532 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 230 of 372 (433571)
11-12-2007 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 3:02 PM


If you could provide any evidence for this that would be nice. 'If one imagined' doesn't really cut it in scientific circles.
Let's see some evidence to the contrary:
Rain splash marks in Ordovician rocks (subscription required) predating the break-up of Pangaea by a fair bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 3:02 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024