Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 72 (9010 total)
47 online now:
frako, kjsimons, ringo (3 members, 44 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Post Volume: Total: 881,669 Year: 13,417/23,288 Month: 347/795 Week: 48/95 Day: 2/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence of the flood
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3832
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


(1)
Message 219 of 899 (819291)
09-09-2017 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Faith
09-08-2017 11:00 PM


The seas came in and the seas went out (repeatedly)
The evidence doesn't show repeated local floods at all, the strata are way too consistent for that, as are the fossils.

A short argument, without getting into the countless other details outside of your one, one year flood model -

The evidence DOES show repeated major sea transgressions and regressions, none which covered all the land surface, at least (maybe) way back in the pre-Cambrian.

If this is the evidence of the Noahtic flood (again, not mentioning all the details that happen between the transgressions), the God had a lot of false starts (oops, don't have enough water yet ) and never did pull off the complete job (oops, there just isn't enough water to be had).

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Faith, posted 09-08-2017 11:00 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by dwise1, posted 09-09-2017 1:27 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 09-09-2017 4:33 AM Minnemooseus has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3832
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 255 of 899 (819354)
09-09-2017 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Faith
09-09-2017 4:33 AM


Re: The seas came in and the seas went out (repeatedly)
Repeating part of my previous message:

Minnemooseus, in message 219 writes:

Faith, in message 216 writes:

The evidence doesn't show repeated local floods at all, the strata are way too consistent for that, as are the fossils.

A short argument, without getting into the countless other details outside of your one, one year flood model -

The evidence DOES show repeated major sea transgressions and regressions, none which covered all the land surface, at least (maybe) way back in the pre-Cambrian.

Faith, replying to message 219 in message 224 writes:

The evidence is no doubt some completely circumstantial facts that are imaginatively but falsely interpreted into seas.

The evidence of major sea transgressions and regressions are the vast areas of (pretty) consistent strata that is your primary evidence for your own "great flood". Let's call these major sea transgressions and regressions the "pretty big floods (but not the great flood)". And you can find multiple incidences of strata resulting from individual "pretty big floods", one above the other, quite possibly with other non-marine sediments etc. in between the "pretty big flood" events.

AT THIS POINT I WAS GOING TO PUT IN THAT WONDERFUL WALTHER'S LAW GRAPHIC, BUT IT HAS BEEN LOST TO THE DEMISE OF FREE PHOTOBUCKET.

If you can remember that Walther's Law graphic's stratigraphy, imagine having multiples of that diagram's stratigraphy stacked on top of each other. That is a diagrammatic representation of what is actually found in the geologic strata.

Critiques by other real geologists also most welcome.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Tiny tweak.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Another tiny tweak.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 09-09-2017 4:33 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2017 7:16 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply
 Message 263 by JonF, posted 09-10-2017 8:51 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020