Noah's Flood and the Geologic Layers (was Noah's shallow sea)

Which is why I have tried to seperate the so called evidence old agers have mentioned, from the assumptions that were made about the actual evidence. There is a world that is rich with fossils of life and somehow preserved, that is a record! Clear evidence. A violent event explains it very well. There is population, distance from sun (At rate it's burning 600 yrs is fine but life billions of tears ago becomes impossible. Creation scientists have cited salt levels in the sea also, gases in atmosphere-that could not have taken that long to form, languages that apparently lead us to Babel geographically, and chronologically, I mentioned flood accounts passed on worldwide all pointing to some common flood, I mentioned a large warm blooded crocidile way up in the artic circle, showing a very different climate, (and likely an axis shift as well, considering the type of trees also found that need not just temperature, but more light to grow)-I also, over in Ned's thread article 171-listed many big real factors that would have to be taken into account and their possible effects. No doubt, as some of you might realize the creation material lists way too much for me to list even all as evidence. What I have found is an inability to step out of the confinements, on your side, and allow for explanations other than your often convoluted attempts at piecing together a story, as at Burgess, that is actually based on anything much, except, it would now appear, bending any and everythibg to try to fit in to your theories. Can you tell me why those cute little creatures could not have been buried in worldwide violence? You want me to prove the mountain really exists? It's there, why not the flood? -Careful about harping on presumed dates too much, as I'm not allowed now to take on you bunch with two hands, ( maybe queenie thinks that'll even the odds. ha
"As biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that its chances of originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out."-- Sir Fred Hoyle (1915- ), English astronomer and mathematician

Sorry. I will refrain.

Simple,Maybe we all need to step back and look at the bigger picture. When forming hypotheses, and testing hypotheses, scientists ask themselves what they would expect to see if their theory is right. So maybe we could restart a little. Without ever looking at the geologic layers, what would you expect them to look like if they were laid down in a catastrophic world wide flood? What would you NOT expect to find (hence the falsibility of the theory)?[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 02-10-2004]

randy feagley, Its believed its been 4,350 years since the biblical flood occurred, the theologians believe were nearing the 6,000 year since Adams birth, this makes the flood 1,650 years from Adams birth, you can easily confirm this, as all the ages are given up to Noah, in the book of Genesis, the only other question is did God create the earth in 24 hour days or is Gods day 1000 of our years, etc...If Adam was created on the 6th day, you could add 5,000 + years since kjv genesis 1:3 (2 peter 3:8), when God moved upon the Face of the Waters, and said let there be light, before Adams birthdate, I take the bible a bit too literally, like if Adam was created on the 6th day, then Adam died before the 7th day had expired, for it says that Adam was not to eat the forbidden fruit or he would die within that day (kjv genesis 2:17), and he died within one God day, if one God day is as a thousand years (2 peter 3:8), etc...It doesn't really matter too much, for the fossils would be young, probably could give corals a bit more time to grow, leaning that at the end of Gods day of rest (7,000 of our years), could of been 1,650 years since Adams birth, and 4,350 years since the biblical flood, or 5,350 years prior to Adams birth God moved upon the face of the waters, making from this point in time 11,350 years have expired, but I'm not a theologian, think this is one of those questions where it really doesn't matter, the fossils are young, were only talking about a few thousand years, difference, If Adam was created 350 years into the 6th day, then the coral, algae, plants would of been multiplying for up to 3,350 years even before Adams birth, adding 1,650 year until the flood, gives you 5,000 years for the corals to be growing excessively fast due to the tropical conditions, before the biblical flood, etc...P.S. No one knows exactly where into the 6th day Adam was created, I'm using an hypothetical reasoning if the creation week encompassed 7,000 years, and the flood happened on the start of the first God day after the 7th God day, that the earth is 11,350 years since (kjv Genesis 1:3), it only probably matters when trying to explain how corals could of been growing 5,000 years, otherwise its only a few thousand years, fish, birds, man, cattle, etc...were created on the 5th and 6th day, so that only adds 1,350 years, but added with 1,650 years, gives plenty of time for them to multiply upon the face of the earth, up to 3,000 years before the biblical flood, animals lived longer, reproduced, a lots of potential fossils, etc...The 24 hour creation days makes sense too, doesn't really matter as its only thousands of years differences, which is why Snelling has brought serious questions as to the age of his wood fossil, and that you can not age any fossils by the rocks that buried them, so the controversy will rage on, whatever, you can not assume the fossils are old, because the rocks would of dated old even before they erupted out of the earth, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 02-11-2004]

[/qs]what would you expect them to look like if they were laid down in a catastrophic world wide flood? What would you NOT expect to find[/qs]As an example, I would expect the little thingies from the sea that were very quickly buried in mud to be up there on a mountain. (Unless there was some reason that contradicted the known quantity, the time frame of the flood)-and I would expect someone who does not think so to tell me why the layer, in this case I think is (mid-cambrian?) could not possibly have been deposited in a flood scenario.

This is off topic here but Putting the flood at about 2350 BC during the 6th Egyptian dynasty several hundred years after Menes united upper and lower Egypt to form the first dynasty. It was also about this time that Sargon of Akkad began his conquests in Mesopotamia. Strange that these people didn't notice the worldwide flood. I think Joe Meert may have something to say about Snelling's misuse of dating techniques here. You can clearly show that the fossil record could not have been created by a worldwide flood as the thread on that subject shows.Randy

I think that Adam would have needed the sun to live, as would the plants, so I don't think they could have lived without the sun for any big time, and it does mention the 'morning and the evening'. Also, when God stopped the sun for someone in a battle, I don;t think He stopped for half a thousand years?

Simple, I kind of hear you, think the sun stood still for 24 hours too (kjv Jos 10:13), but believe God rested for 1000 of our years, so its like the morning and evening of each creation day was a 1000 of our years, doesn't say the sun rose and set, though the sun had to of been shining for the plants to grow, probably from day one when he said let there be light,etc...but agree 24 hour is suggested by the morning and the evening, still leaning based on Adam dying within the day he sinned, a watch in the night is like a thousand years to the Lord, not to be ignorant that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, that a thousand years is but a day to the Lord, that the Creation Week was based on the morning and evening of each creation day event, I don't feel its heresy to believe this, 2 peter 3:8, nor for you believing 24 hour days from kjv genesis 1:5, whatever, the fossils are young either way, etc...Randy, Here a free bible version you can download and calculate from Adam to the Flood, this is all off topic, so take whatever I said with a grain of salt, I'm not a theologian, though would think there is wiggle room for both 24 hour days, and 1000 year days for the creation days, etc....e-Sword: Free Bible Study for the PC | Downloadskjv 2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.[This message has been edited by whatever, 02-10-2004]

The word "day" is used many times throughout the Bible. There is no indication in Genesis or anywhere else in the Bible that "day" means anything other than a 24 hour period of night and day. If you apply the context and consistency analysis (of words/phrases used among many books of the Bible), which is used by Christian Bible scholars to explain-away many "apparent contradictions", a "day" in Genesis means 24 hours, not long periods. If you twist that word to mean something else, how can you trust other words in the Bible to mean what they apparently mean? This is known as "Cafeteria Religion" (picking what you want).

quote:

---

As an example, I would expect the little thingies from the sea that were very quickly buried in mud to be up there on a mountain. (Unless there was some reason that contradicted the known quantity, the time frame of the flood)-and I would expect someone who does not think so to tell me why the layer, in this case I think is (mid-cambrian?) could not possibly have been deposited in a flood scenario.

---

Ahhh, this is much more civil, wouldn't you agree? If you could please, could you be more specific on the type of animal/plant and possibly cite an actual deposit? Specifics, I think, are going to be important. BTW, I am not a geologist so others may feel free to jump in where my knowledge fails me. Hopefully we can all go over this one point at a time.

quote:

---

Which is why I have tried to seperate the so called evidence old agers have mentioned, from the assumptions that were made about the actual evidence. There is a world that is rich with fossils of life and somehow preserved, that is a record! Clear evidence. A violent event explains it very well.

---

What is the evidence in the Burgess Shale of a violent event? Why are there such delicate fossils preserved there?

quote:

---

There is population, ...

---

And making no assumptions, too! Suuuuure.

quote:

---

distance from sun (At rate it's burning 600 yrs is fine but life billions of tears ago becomes impossible.

---

What are you some kind of super-uniformitarianist?

quote:

---

Creation scientists have cited salt levels in the sea also, gases in atmosphere-that could not have taken that long to form, languages that apparently lead us to Babel geographically, and chronologically, I mentioned flood accounts passed on worldwide all pointing to some common flood, I mentioned a large warm blooded crocidile way up in the artic circle, showing a very different climate, (and likely an axis shift as well, considering the type of trees also found that need not just temperature, but more light to grow)-...

---

Wandering a bit here, simple. Focus, man, focus!

quote:

---

I also, over in Ned's thread article 171-listed many big real factors that would have to be taken into account and their possible effects. No doubt, as some of you might realize the creation material lists way too much for me to list even all as evidence. What I have found is an inability to step out of the confinements, on your side, and allow for explanations other than your often convoluted attempts at piecing together a story, as at Burgess, that is actually based on anything much, except, it would now appear, bending any and everythibg to try to fit in to your theories. Can you tell me why those cute little creatures could not have been buried in worldwide violence?

---

Sure. Could you try saying the same thing with half the words? A little punctuation might help as well.

quote:

---

You want me to prove the mountain really exists?

---

What mountain? You are wandering again...

quote:

---

It's there, why not the flood? -Careful about harping on presumed dates too much, as I'm not allowed now to take on you bunch with two hands, ( maybe queenie thinks that'll even the odds.

---

Seems to me like you've only got one hand available.

quote:

---

"As biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that its chances of originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out."

---

Another opinion. How about buying a fact?

OK In Canada, in the Rocky mountains, there is a town called field. Some (UNESCO) world heritage sites are nearby where there is a large amount of fossils incredibly well preserved, having been buried quickly in mud. Creatures I believe are things like sea plants, worms, trilobites and many of them found no where else on earth. It seems, looking up the mountain, that the flood buried them there-sea life high in the mountains, as is found elsewhere on earth. I included in a post (I think it was Ned's post he 'set up' for me.) I included some exerpts from a local geology book trying to explain how it came about. ) very salty water-warm water- recurring currents-strong currents-evaporation and etc. Then some ways limestone forms today (very dinky slow process) and deduced it took a long time. Creationists have other ideas where the flood would have formed them very quickly. Anyhow, what I asked in this example, was why would in not be possible for the flood to do it? You know, like that would be impossible because it's cambrian-therefore....or something so I can see if there is some reason not to look simplisticly at this case. Why are the mountains I see there not more logically looked at as simply different mud mix deposits, some layers with a predominent type of fossil, others with mainly different fossils, and so on? (I think the geology book also expressed concerns with trying to carbon date or radio date sedimenary rocks.)

[population since flood] So now we don't like assumptions? Don't worry it's pretty straightforward. here's a link http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html [qs]Another opinion. How about buying a fact{/qs well facts are something interesting to buy. Let's see you don't need assumptions, they're cheap and your religion (call it what you like) is based on them. So what's left? Try getting a clue if you can afford it.

There is one thing that we have in common: We laymen look for simple explanations. So, let me try this one ...There are many layers of sediment, consisting of different material. Where did the mud come from? It had to be a higher elevation, right? But, if there are many sediment layers all at higher elevations (to pile-up the sediment), and there is a universal drenching of water, then all the higher elevations would be washing the material down at the same time, thus mixing the material, instead of layering it in separate materials. If upwelling was occurring, then you would expect to see disturbed material due to strong underwater current. Now consider how animal/plant types could be sorted and distributed nicely in each layer while all that is going on. Then consider that coincidence occurring all over the planet wherever sediments are found. Finally, consider that the mountain must be formed by raising it. Well, the sediment layers (or at least the topmost sediment layers) when the mountain tilts the layers would show signs of slumping, since they would just have emerged from the water. Oh yeah, one more thing. The original mountains that provided the mud for the sediments you are looking at... where are they? They couldn't have been eroded completely flat with the surrounding landscape.During some driving vacations across the country, I collected some of the "Roadside Geology" series. They all seem so scientific, but if you collect the lot of them, they all seem to tell a consistent country-wide story. Whereas, with Noah's Flood geology books (not found at the souveneir stores), there are spot stories about specific formations and very general stories, but no comprehensive detailed story that ties all the geological stories together in any level of detail comparable to what science describes in the Roadside series. I want to know if the dirt that I am looking at beside the road came from the West or the East, and whether that is consistent with the book two hundred miles away that describes the other formations.I know none of the above is convincing you, but it was fun.

I don't know, but they were water deposited, or squeezed up or something, so the basic answer would maybe largely be-the sea. Why could, for example, not these deposits be from the ground up. In other words, as the mighty current (seems like it may have been in a particularly strong current area?) passes over, laden with whatever it happened to pick up this hour, in the worldwide flood, - then lays it down as a deposit. Looking down from the sky, if this happened, we might look down and see what looked like a new layer of mud in a creek. Some large deposits, or layers may cover huge areas, laid down, and, sure enough, along comes more water, sweeping in perhaps sediment, or sand, that may make a layer of sandstone. Sounds like this may not be the case, I'm just trying to see if I can rule it out) In this case there are no higher elevations of mountain yet to wash anything anywhere, because they wern't laid down yet. The only thing would be the water, and what it may have contained. (I think Walt thinks this was not the case, and I believe refers to a giant sqeezing up of the Rockies in short order, thereby trapping the creatures everywhere very quickly) well as the layers in this scenario built up, whatever happened to drown, or be in the water current would be laid down. Many fish were found in the same elevations as this batch of creatures, for example. So why would the trilobites be older than the other creatures in the area? Rundle formation includes trillions of chopped up star fish and sponge type things, (I believe) which were kinda lime glued with the mud, to harden into rock. All were laid down in sea water. It had maybe never even rained before this, and now the world was washing around continental soil systems, sand, heaven knows what from fountains of deep, so theres a lot of material and mud to work with. Also, as the mountains were left in this scenario, and waters receded, they would be largely unsolidified, and there would likely be huge 'hardmud slides'. Could Burgess have slid this way either? Anyhow I get a feeling I'm may be missing something and need to move much more solidly behind something like Walt's sqeeze. Any more insight?