Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,871 Year: 4,128/9,624 Month: 999/974 Week: 326/286 Day: 47/40 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for a recent flood
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 65 of 404 (638108)
10-19-2011 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Coragyps
10-17-2011 12:48 PM


Geologic impact of a 1 year flood
You well expressed the Bay of Fundy situation.
The water rising and falling once during your mythical Flud would have left a little silt behind. A little, that is, in the spots where it was 15 cubits deep. Quite a bit, though, in the places where it was deeper. Like all the silt off the high places......
Setting aside considerations of the massive impact on land based life...
My vision of the flood impact:
Heavy rains for 40 days and 40 nights would cause massive erosion. All the finer sediments would be stripped off and carried to the land/ocean margins of the time, to form massive deltas. The coarser sediments such as boulders might be left behind as lag deposits.
Beyond that, I don't envision much sediment deposition. As the waters rose, significant sediment WOULD NOT be brought back to be deposited at higher elevations. And what little that was deposited would tend to be eroded back off post-flood.
So, post flood, I'd expect to see a lot of barren bedrock with massive delta deposits at the margins.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Coragyps, posted 10-17-2011 12:48 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 10-19-2011 8:59 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 67 by Coyote, posted 10-19-2011 9:27 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 112 of 404 (639470)
11-01-2011 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Coyote
11-01-2011 12:40 AM


YEC is wrong, right from the Y
Why then are we getting age estimates back to the Cambrian (>500 million years ago)
Your getting estimates back to the Cambrian, from someone who thinks the Cambrian happened in the last 5 to 10 thousand years. When young Earth creationism is totally wrong in the big picture, what's the point in arguing the dating of a detail in that big picture?
To a YEC, 500 million years ago doesn't exist, but the events of the Cambrian still do.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Coyote, posted 11-01-2011 12:40 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Coyote, posted 11-01-2011 10:24 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 196 of 404 (642042)
11-25-2011 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Coyote
11-24-2011 11:43 PM


The basic failing of the YEC time frame
Really, discussing things with creationists is a case of moving goalposts. No sooner does one claim the flood was ca. 4,350 years ago but another interjects that the K-T boundary represents the flood, and then another chimes in with the Cambrian explosion.
I believe all those positions are coming from creationists working the YEC time frame. To a YEC, 4,350 years means nothing stratagraphic specific. To other YECs, the K-T boundary or the Cambrian explosion may well be at 4,350 years. Maybe even the K-T boundary AND the Cambrian explosion may well be at 4,350 years.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Coyote, posted 11-24-2011 11:43 PM Coyote has seen this message but 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