The TRVE history of the Flood...

Hi ringo, You have asserted your opinion.You have not shown anything.The Hebrew word used in Genesis 10:25 is used only 3 other times in the Bible.
1. It is repeated word for word in 1 Ch 1:19
2. Job 38:25 says who hath divided a watercourse. (the only way to do that is use land masses)
3. Psa 55:9 a man was praying for God to split the peoples tongue's.Where in the context of those verses does it support you claim?They all support mine.God Bless,

Really? That is the first I've heard of that. In fact, everything I've ever read suggests it has stayed roughly constant for millions of years. In at least some locations like the movement of the Hawaiian Islands and the opening of the Atlantic.Where is the factual information behind your statement, please?

Easily answered. Consider the third cited usage: So why would this be a literal splitting of the tongue and not a request to separate folks as was done in the Tower of Babel incident? This is not my argument, but the one given by AIG. Did the Continents Split Apart in the Days of Peleg? | Answers in Genesis

quote:

---

Palag

​

This Hebrew word palag is used only three times in Scripture outside of Genesis 10. In 1 Chronicles 1:19 it repeats Genesis 10:25. In one case it refers to a splitting of a water channel when it overflows in poetic Job 38:25. The other usage is in Psalm 55:9 where it refers to splitting of people. David was speaking of his enemies and was asking the Lord to judge them with the splitting of their tongues. Obviously, David was conjuring thoughts of the Tower of Babel and tongue-shifting there.

​

Peleg’s name was a direct derivation of palag, and considering the context of Genesis 10, it makes sense this Hebrew name was indeed referring to the linguistic division. So there would be no reason to distance from this plain interpretation.

---

Given the paucity of usages in the text, with at least two of the four having context suggesting the same interpretation, your argument cannot be considered conclusive.And of course there is also the issue that we know that the Bible does tell us that the folks of earth were scattering according to language, so saying that David asking that the same thing be done to his detractors is at least reasonable.I would further add that the usage to mean splitting of a water course really does not serve your purpose very well. You don't need to split a land mass to divide a water course. I don't see any reason why a word that means to divide a people could not also be used to talking about dividing up a water course, and you have not made a case that it does not.

Indeed. If ICANT had bothered to check his concordance he would see that the word translated as "tongue" can mean "language".

Rodinia? Pangea? Which one?

Artistic license.The worst thing to do is assume the literal meaning/usage of the word must be conveying some secret meaning that only you can decode.

You seem to be the only one who doesn't see it. You're shooting yourself in the foot. The people's tongues were also split at Babel - no land or water involved in either case.

Physical evidence. Then it wasn't land, was it? How was it 'gathered'? But we have evidence for plate tectonics. When it comes to YEC cognition, I consider it to be an accident. On a scale of billions of years, I'll go with that. For the last 300 million years it's been variable, but essentially of the same order of magnitude.

Hi ICANT,I agree that any creative deity worth his salt could move the land masses around in a nanosecond. The first question that could be asked is "From where?" since the evidence is that they came together and parted several times.But leaving that aside, if the land masses were moved in a nanosecond:- Why are there chains of sea-mounts that look like they were formed successively by passing over a hot spot?- Why do they look older as you move away from the hot spot.- Why are their radiometric ages consistent with current rates of plate movement, or near to it?- Why are the ages of seafloor older as you move away from mid-ocean ridges, up to a maximum of 200,000,000 years as seafloor is subducted, and consistent with rates of movement?- Why is there a chain of volcanic plugs with the cones eroded away in Eastern Australia, getting older from south to north, with ages consistent with the rate of movement of the Australian plate?- If I am wrong in inferring from this evidence (not to mention a mass of other evidence) that the world is old and Science has it right, what conclusion should I reach?

quote:

---

Geologists have claimed that these features have been found in ancient rock layers, proving that there had been previous ice ages over geologic time. Many lines of evidence now indicate that the observations have been misinterpreted:

​

The ‘tillites’ of lower rock layers are small in area, commonly thick, and probably all of marine origin, whereas those of modern glaciers are relatively large in area, thin, and continental.
There are limestones and dolomites frequently associated with these ‘tillites’carbonates which form today in warm water, not cold.
The largest boulders in the ancient ‘tillites’ are much smaller than the larger boulders being deposited by glacial action today.
Underwater mass flows can produce tillite-like deposits, as well as striated bedrock and striated stones in the ‘tillite’. Such mass flows would be expected during Noah’s Flood.
Turbidity currents can deposit varve-like laminated sediments very quickly. These sediments are more accurately called rhythmites. A varve is defined as a rhythmite deposited in one year. Lambert and Hsu have presented evidence from a Swiss lake that such varve-like rhythmites form rapidly by catastrophic turbid water underflows.
At one location, five couplets of these varve-like rhythmites formed during a single year. At Mount St Helens in the USA, a stratified deposit 8 m (25 ft) thick, consisting of many thin varve-like laminae, was formed in less than one day (12 June 1980). Flow tank experiments have shown how laminations can form rapidly when two different grain sizes are carried together in flowing water.10
The so-called ‘dropstones’ could not have been dropped into the ancient ‘varvites’11 because such a method of placement would result in tell-tale disturbance of the laminations, which is rarely observed. The evidence suggests they were placed with the enclosing sediments by turbidity currents or other mass flowsagain consistent with what would be expected during a global Flood. In other words the ‘varvites’ did not come from cyclical, annual, glacial lake deposition.

​

The Creation Answers Book Chapter 16 by Dr Don Batten (contributing editor), Dr David Catchpoole, Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Carl Wieland

---

quote:

---

One of these supposed ice age deposits that has been reinterpreted as a mass flow is a Late Precambrian (Neoproterozoic) ‘tillite’ in northern Namibia. ...
The Namibian deposit, the Chuos ‘tillite’, was considered a glacial deposit when first analyzed in 1931. It correlates with many other Neoproterozoic supposed glacial deposits in West Africa, as well as many other locations across the earth. Two out of three diagnostic properties for an ancient glaciation were claimed for the Chuos and several other ‘tillites’: these are striated rocks and dropstone varvites. ...
But, Schermerhorn questioned many Neoproterozoic claimed tillites, and especially the Namibian ‘ice age’ deposits. Upon considering Schermerhorn’s criticisms, Martin, who first believed that the Namibian deposits were glacial from his analysis in the 1960s, reanalyzed the deposits and reinterpreted the Chuos ‘tillite’ as the product of mass flow. ...
Recently Nick Eyles, a long-time expert on both Pleistocene and pre-Pleistocene ice age deposits, and Nicole Januszczak reanalyzed the Namibian deposits again and emphatically stated that the deposits are subaqueous mass flow deposits. (15)

​

An ancient ‘ice age’ deposit attributed to subaqueous mass flowagain! Michael J. Oard, JOURNAL OF CREATION 22(2) 2008 here

---

Of course, because it would have taken hundreds of years for the ice age to develop following the flood, and in any case the ice only covered northern Europe.

The Lost Squadron in Greenland shows how ice cores can be misinterpreted to greatly exaggerate ages. In 46 years, from 1942 to 1988, the 8 aircraft were covered by 75m of ice showing hundreds of "annual" layers.
The lost squadron - creation.comHugh Ross correctly points out that the southeast corner of the Greenland Ice Sheet [where the lost squadron landed] is a relatively warm area with very high snowfall. However, this situation shows that with a different climate regime during the Ice Age with no sea ice and a warm ocean, the rapid development of the Greenland Ice Sheet can occur. Snowfall was much heavier in the first several post—Flood centurieseven heavier than snowfall near the shores of Greenland today.
Cold comfort for long-agers - creation.com
Ice core clamour - creation.com

I've seen articles suggesting they are speeding up but Professor Sergei Pisarevskiy has come to the tentative conclusion that the average rate of tectonic plate movement does change."Right now for example it's slower than it was half a billion years agobut approximately the same as it was one and a half billion years ago," he says.
Read more at: https://phys.org/...8-world-tectonic-plate-movement.html#jCpGeophysicists have discovered something startling about tectonic plates: when under extreme stress, they hit the gas and can accelerate in speed by up to 20 times.When they're about to split, the plates can move about as fast as the human fingernail grows, and that's very fast indeed as far as continental drift is concerned.
Read more at: Scientists Just Figured Out Continental Plates Can Move Up to 20 Times Faster Than We Thought : ScienceAlertThey are still only talking about rates of ~20mm/year but it shows that plate movement does not have to be constant. Since they are trying to fit movements into a "millions of years" paradigm it's not surprising they get low numbers.

Ffs CRR - it's a PRATT

quote:

---

Claim CD410:

​

Ice cores are claimed to have as many as 135,000 annual layers. Yet airplanes of the Lost Squadron were buried under 263 feet of ice in forty-eight years, or about 5.5 feet per year. This contradicts the presumption that the wafer-thin layers in the ice cores could be annual layers.
Source:

​

Vardiman, Larry. 1992. Ice cores and the age of the earth. Impact 226 (Apr.). The Institute for Creation Research
Response:

​

Ice layers are counted by different methods (mainly, visible layers of hoar frost, visible dust layers, and layers of differing electrical conductivity) which have nothing to do with thickness. These methods corroborate each other and match with other independently determined dates (Seely 2003).

​

The airplanes landed near the shore of Greenland, where snow accumulation is rapid, at about 2 m per year. Allowing for some compaction due to the weight of the snow, that accounts for the depth of snow under which they are buried. The planes are also on an active glacier and have moved about 2 km since landing. Ice core dating takes place on stable ice fields, not active glaciers. The interior of Greenland, where ice cores were taken, receives much less snow. In Antarctica, where ice cores dating back more than 100,000 years have been collected, the rate of snow accumulation is much less still.

​

A report of "many hundreds" of layers in the ice above the Lost Squadron may also be explained by the airplanes' location on Greenland. That location is relatively warm because it is low and more southerly; its surface gets repeatedly melted during the summer, creating multiple melt layers per year. At the site of the GISP2 ice core, melting occurs only about once every couple centuries. Melt layers are easily distinguished in ice cores. The more than 100,000 layers in ice cores are definitely not melt layers (Seely 2003).
Links:

​

Kuechmann, F. C., 2000. Creationist comedy. cretin comedy
References:

​

Seely, Paul H. 2003. The GISP2 ice core: Ultimate proof that Noah's flood was not global. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 55(4): 252-260. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf
Further Reading:

​

Seely, Paul H. 2003. The GISP2 ice core: Ultimate proof that Noah's flood was not global. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 55(4): 252-260. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf

​

Brinkman, Matt, 1995. Ice core dating. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html

---

You obviously didn't read the second paragraph where I mentioned the much higher rate of snowfall in the area where the lost squadron was found.But yes I should have referred to a more recent article. Are the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets old?Edited by CRR, : added 2nd paragraph

Oh I certainly did. I've noticed you pull this trick several times now.You play back a pile of crap you've read on the creation web site that we've all seen a million times and add in a tiny part of the rebuttal to appear fair. In fact the full rebuttal tells you that you shouldn't be churning out this crap at all - it's all proven false.Is this all you've got? Crap from creationist web sites? Where's the real science?