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

Glad you clesred that up. Now be happy, sir.

http://www.gisdevelopment.net/...rs/1997/ts10/ts10008a.shtml Exactly what violent parts of the flood, would have to be the same on all sides of the globe. The violence may have been such that areas were differently affected. Could the water say, have sat in sort of seas or basins a good part of the flood, to be swished around by tides, earthquakes, hurricanes, overspilling the dams so to speak many times, sometimes even locally. Some areas with much different conditions, water temperature etc.? The amount of time it covered the mountains, may have been mimimal. It's really a rising, and receding that was a big part of the thing. So it's not 'all underwater' all the time. As I said, which layers seem a problem to you? Well why would such violence leave much to correlate? Walt even has his liqui hydra jiggle sorting effect affecting all layers doesn't he? It's a bit like a boxer's face after a terrible illegal fight, you can hardly tell where what is what. If the violence I believe occurred, the world is a little like the face.
And to close, here is a link for you you can add to 'article 171' as a very big factor. Can you believe as it turns out, God may have coordinated a super massive sun flare-activity at the very time of flood! Now apparently, effects of this are things like -"intensifies seismic excitation of the Earth" --"excitation of strains in the Earth crust " and--"cause resonance situation and can provoke an earthquake"
"The third factor is the magnetic field generated by currents flowing in the ionized layers of the earth's atmosphere induced by streams of particles (protons) originating from the sun. "
http://www.datacache.com/Articles/earth's.htm
http://www.gisdevelopment.net/...rs/1997/ts10/ts10008a.shtml
Please tell me Haymond's 'burrower', what was it exactly? You are the one brought it up.

Seriously Ned what you been administering up that big nose? No trace? You seem the type that would try to explain away Noah's ark if it were found. Why don't you open up one of your boring threads on "Ned say's theres no flood evidence at all" By the way, since Joe hasn't yet told us, what was that burrower anyhow?

{qscan't tell us which geologic strata represent the flood either{/qs Unless someone can prove otherwise I am going to assume all layers may have been affected, where we see life.

And which period do you imagine I was 'pinned down' to? It seems Ned was pinned down admitting he accepts no evidence at all in all the world of a flood! Which means he religiously attributes all evidence as opposing one. Sice such reasoning assumes 1) There was no flood 2)The worldwide evidence on creation side is all false, since he says no evidence exists 3)That a flood must need follow his set of ideas of what would be left, based on very limited criteria which rules out flood from getgo. So far you have imagined burrowers, apparently, assumed anti flood dates, and an attitude of self rightousness. I don't see a need for a particular planet wide layer that you do. There is layers, and I see them pretty well all as indications of worldwide sudden death. Even when you are presented with a simple bunch of sea fossils high on a mountain, you offer only an exercise in creative imagination, and story telling, and can't even seem to get to an easy point of why it was indeed necessary to have some uplifting and such, rather than just the mud, and sediment layers by themselves do it. Todays processes are not at all like most of the processes at work in a flood, yet you insist on trying to limit what did happen with preconceptions, and tring to put God in your box. Then you wonder why He just will not fit. It's much bigger than you understand. Talk about 'clouds without water'. You ain't deep, you just ain't very clear! How many areas in the world are there no sediment deposits at all? How many continents have had no fossils found?

I object

The sun site I looked at says there was a huge ammount of activity, some thousands of years ago! (Of course I can't fault them for the dates, as I know where they get them, but this means to me, when they say 10 12000 years, it was somewhere around just the right time). Who can say, if that, along with (perhaps ones much much bigger than you could dream of in Florida) hurricanes, sliding continents, etc. could affect magnetism. It seems it would really flip it out! So try not to sound too certain of your selves!

By the way, thanks folks, if they move this, I won't follow. Have fun.

By the way, thanks folks, if they move this, I won't follow. Have fun.

But if you post to the Main Topic Forums again I will suspend you.Post when-ever? for how long suspended?

Well. Talking directly to me now, are we? Well well well. Ok, I'll just wait a tiny bit, though, in hopes of getting an answer to a question Joe posed about the burrowing creatures in a formation he brought up. What is the name of the mammal, exactly?

Well, seems it's no use waiting for for anyone to inform me of what some of you profesionals have claimed to be a creature burrowing around. I'll have to assume that you were only trying to lead me to believe that. As far as someone who asked me about the layers, my thoughts would be this. I see no reason at the moment that any layer anywhere could not be explained by a young earth, and a great flood. The short answer is I don't know. I think your answer should be the same. ---Unless you can prove any layer was not a part of these events, I'll assume they are.---- After all I'm interested somewhat in the best definition I've heard yet of "geology" http://www.geocities.com/lovecreates One question I would ask, is when defining a layer, is there any other criteria besides the fossils in it (and of course, 'dating')? In other words is the rock itself in say, Burgess, the same exactly as all other cambrian rock, if that's what you call it?
Remember, I am not trying to attack people caught in the ages theories, but the principle itself. Reviewing posts, I can see where I could improve in that area.

I very much suspect that today's growth rates by which you are likely basing your perceived old world growth rates, are much different. I think it's safe to say that the limestone and calcareous sponges grew much faster. When conditions sre right, strange things happen. I am told even here, now, red tide can multiply certain growths incredibly. As well as pollution, apparently in places, has provided conditions for fast growth of organisms. So how could one prove that no conceivable conditions could arise in a world you know almost nothing about, to speed growth?
So how long do I think it takes to grow? Well, if we knew for sure that the layer was not at least partially deposited by current, piling up while still alive, gathering together, I suppose my guess, as you already made your guess, would be made. why are there no ginko trees? Why are there no coelacanth left? And some other things? There are! At one time they just thought there were not! But, if say, we don't find some in say, another 75 years, let's assume they are gone. And if they are gone, could conditions have existed where they were very happy, and ridiculously prosperous, because of flood conditions, yet, afterwards things changed so much, they did disappear? (these guys have limited potential now!) Access denied

I suppose that may depend on how we view what we see as evidence. I have heard as well, unlike Walt's theory, (and I'm pretty sure you may like it even less) that the water was brought in. Now, for most this would only be an amusing idea, at best, but here goes. Some feel that there was water outside the created universe, (outside firmament) and it was somehow brought to earth. I suppose this one might be hard to prove, or disprove. It's true one would envision large and plentiful hurricanes with so much water, and unsettled conditions on earth. I don't know why you think anyone suggested this was supposed to be a hurricane in there somewhere covering mountains? Certainly not my idea! I could see more along the lines of hurricanes running around to different sort of seas, or even if the planet was totally submerged for a short time, and making a big splash. All during the year period, and I suppose, even after, as the world's weather system gained some balance. Same with whirlpools, or cyclones, I don't think they made the flood, but may have helped muck things up. It's buried all over the back yard, it seems to me. I think it would also be wise to ask ourselves why He did it, so we don't need to repeat such a thing. One thing the old world was "filled with violence".
P.S. Heres a link to a photo of the kind of effect I meant
http://dept.kent.edu/geography/Dymon/fran-4.htm

Thanks for giving me the credit for forming the theory. Did I write the bible as well? As long as you say you want to assume that it's fine. (Long as you don't claim you can prove it). Now, if you had some documentation, like a book written by God, I would certainly take a serious look at it. Yes, if we assume there was no flood, we would have to do that. As it happens the old world is completely gone, so we would have a difficult time really getting a good understanding of how it used to work. Global End Of Life One Great Year (geology)is a course we will have to have more in depth, in the millenium. you'll have to speak fo yourselves on that one. With cyclones, hurricanes, storms, and the mysterious "great wind" going on at flood time, it seems very easy to account for just that. So I'm suppose to know how to let you know how to 'falsify' Noah's flood? You guy's have been at it for years, you tell me. I don't see how it can be, unless you can get rid of God. I accept it as a known quantity.