|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: The rise is all you need to cause the tilt, and you haven’t explained how that happened at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: There is nothing special about the sea floor that exempts it from the same forces that raise the land. Indeed, there are quite large areas of sea floor that once were land (the Black Sea, much of the Mediterranean, at least parts of the North Sea, just to name those I’m familiar with)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: And they didn’t. What you call the mounding happened much later.
quote: That isn’t defensible at all, especially as the strata on top of the SuperGroup wasn’t affected by the tilt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Which has nothing to do with what I said. Indeed the areas I referred to were covered by rising sea levels or the breach of natural dams. The point is that there is no distinction between land and sea bed that prevents sea bed from being uplifted.
quote: It is, because the main distinction is the sea level. Doggerland was covered because melting ice caused the sea to rise. Being covered by the sea doesn’t make it that different.
quote: And the sea bed is subject to exactly the same forces.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: As evidence for the point that there is no real distinction between land and sea bed that would exempt sea bed from the forces that make land rise. It is quite clear if you read it. You just went off about land sinking for no reason, without even addressing the real point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: What is going to stop it ? There’s nothing special about sea level - which changes anyway. So why can’t sea bed be raised higher than the current sea level ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: And we can see and understand that the same can happen to the sea bed, because there is no relevant difference.
quote: Sure it is. You need a reason why it can’t happen - it’s all the Earth’s crust after all, underwater or not there’s no big difference.
quote: Sure I do and I’ve been saying so all along. It’s exactly the same mechanism that acts in the land. Because there is no relevant difference. You claim that the seabed must be exempt from these forces but you have offered no explanation, nor any reason to think so other than that you decree it.
quote: The same forces that push up the land, of course.
quote: The region around the Grand Canyon is not a mountain either, none the less it has risen. What stops the same happening to a different portion of the Earth’s crust that happens to be underwater ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I don’t believe we are talking about oceanic crust. Faith is disputing that marine sediments in mountains could have been uplifted.
Not that I think that the higher density is sufficient in itself (as the existence of oceanic ridges would suggest)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That was never the case. Some tilting occurred before all the strata were deposited and not all the strata completely covered the island. These things can be seen in the diagram - and they have been mentioned before.
quote: Much of the distortion below the surface happened before all the strata were deposited.
quote: The parts that Percy is pointing out are close enough. The fact that earlier events complicate the diagram of Britain isn’t relevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: One tectonic event happening to all the strata after they were all laid down, doesn’t mean that all the tectonic events happened to all the strata after they were laid down. That is simply an assumption you make in spite of the evidence. Moreover, given the time scales we get from the evidence you can’t even justify the assumption that it is a single global event.
quote: And there is another rationalisation. You don’t know how long the rocks were exposed to erosion, or the strength of the erosional forces involved. We certainly can see that erosion happened but your idea that much more should have happened is just a baseless assumption
quote: Wrong.
quote: In the same sense that the year 2019 exists all over the world. Time periods are periods of time.
quote: In the standard time frame - which we are discussing - the Kaibab Limestone at the Grand Canyon was not deposited at the same time as the chalk underlying the English Downs.
quote: That thinking is why you pretend to have evidence that all the tectonic events happened at the same time. When the reality is that you have to deny or explain away evidence to the contrary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The Kaibab Limestone is Permian. The chalk is visible on the cross-section of Britain - labelled Cretaceous (which shouldn’t be a surprise).
The Permian would roughly correspond to the New Red label on the cross section.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
It is incontrovertible science that the geological record was not produced by a flood. And the Bible doesn’t say otherwise. That’s just you and other YECs - and you’re extreme even among that crew.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: To which I point out, that it is you who says that the Flood story is intended literally not the Bible And that the Bible does have errors as shown by the known contradictions. And that you have no problem misrepresenting the Bi le when it is convenient for you. And that you have no remotely sensible alternative to the science anyway. Deception, falsehood and smears yes. Sensible arguments. No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Explain to me how the post-Resurrection appearances to the Disciples can be in Galilee (without a hint of any anywhere else) and only in and around Jerusalem. And that’s just one example.
quote: Not in this case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Plenty of honest examination has been done. That’s why YECs resort to dishonest examination. And the dating methods are not all we have. We have the order of the fossil record. We have sequences diagnostic of slow transgression and regression. We have evidence of large scale deformation of rock - after lithification. We have evidence of a long history of tectonic disturbances. We have strata that could not be deposited by a flood. To list just some of it.
quote: The consistence is a form of verification. So are tests against items of known date, which have been done.
quote: You keep telling massive falsehoods. No, you have nothing of significance.
quote: No, they Clare evidence against the Flood. As you know.
quote: When you realise that they don’t have to be deposited over all that area at the same time (Walther’s law), that there are large areas of deposition today, like the Sahara, that ancient conditions do not have to be exactly the same as today, like the epeiruc seas of the Cretaceous - it becomes a lot easier. The Flood explanation still has massive problems, as you know.
quote: The strata are not all huge - many are not - and they certainly are not all flat - remember the buried monadnocks in the Grand Canyon ?
quote: No it isn’t. You prefer physical impossibilities, like the Flood sorting the fossils. And you admit that fossil footprints were not sorted, yet they are consistent with the observed order. How can that be - unless you are wrong. Don’t you think the fact that you have to resort to a catalogue of falsehood - falsehoods that have already been shown as false - very much proves our point ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024